Posted by AP [AP] on November 25, 1999 at 07:56:54 {yaNwUlwC5c0hi4VK0MIQMAe0EfOyQM}:
Dear Discussion Board:
While I realize that many here (but certainly not all) are only interested in condemning the Society and its teachings, in an attempt to initiate some sort of constructive and objective dialogue, I would like to offer a few thoughts on what I believe lies at the heart of our enforcement of certain beliefs that are not readily grounded in clear biblical commands or principles, namely, the lack of individual accountability for what we accept as truth. Let me explain:
Suppose Friend's suggested revision of our current blood policy, particularly the view that "accepting donated blood products for saving life in medical emergencies does not manifest disregard for God's word, including the symbol of life (Luke 10:16)," is adopted and printed in the literature. What is it that would then make a person who previously chose to avoid the use of whole blood or its components, now decide that it is acceptable? Is it the very fact that the Society now says it is okay, or would it be the scriptural argumentation used to support the new position? Probably many would say the latter, but it is no doubt the latter only BECAUSE of the former.
The greater issue, as I see it, was perfectly illustrated the other night during the Service Meeting, as we considered part two of the KM insert. The idea expressed by the KM, at one point, was that we should avoid making use of someone else's research for meeting parts, because we should do our own research, and not have someone else do it for us. Now, not only does the use of another person's research have the potential of enhancing a meeting part or giving new ideas to someone else, but what seemed to go unnoticed by all those in attendance was that we are in fact making use of someone else's research every time we study the WT or other publications of the Society. Yet, to most if not all those in attendance, it was a "good point." They could not see the contradiction.
Please, before we go further, understand that what I am saying is not applicable to every member of the organization, not by a long shot. But there seems to be a growing number of persons who are simply unwilling to critically evaluate the material, and truly make their decision after a careful and prayerful consideration of the facts. True, this same problem exists in Protestant and Catholic religions, which is confirmed for me every time I go out in field service, and it unquestionable is true for many on this and other discussion boards, as is evidenced by certain people's blind acceptance of bad arguments and lame excuses for out-right lies. But here we are focussing in on what the group who bear God's name can do to become more effective in presenting the good news of God's kingdom to mankind, without a lot of the baggage we tend to load upon ourselves.
Now, the KM was certainly right in suggesting that we should not uncritically make use of another's arguments or information, but that is precisely the point! Are the friends truly examining those teachings they accept from the Society, which are not specifically articulated in God's Word? If not, are they not, then, letting others do the research for them?
I think the Society could do more to place the onus on the individual's shoulders, by not taking such a hardened position on issues that are not clear Bible teachings, or that cannot be said to clearly come under some biblical principle. Only by lessening the consequences of an individual's exercising his or her freedom concerning certain issues that are not spelled out in God's Word, can they remain consistent with the view that we should not let others 'do research for us.'
The greater issue, then, as I see it, is not that we have certain policies that are not readily defensible per the Scriptures, but that we have so many among us who cannot or will not take the responsibility to decide what is truly scriptural. So, rather than try to get the Society to change its view on one particular item, as important as it may be (and it is important), I think it is far better to encourage them to recognize the responsibility of each person to decide for his- or herself on matters that are not unambiguously articulated in the Bible. This can be done, not by leaving the organization and condemning it on the way out and everywhere else, but by putting our trust in God and Christ and working with the Society in creating a more Christ-like environment. In the end it would save them the trouble of having to deal with charges of "control" or "micro-management," and allow them to focus on the more important tasks of preaching the good news, making God's name known, and giving to those in need, both spiritually and physically.
If the Society would simply take note of those teachings that are unquestionably taught in the Bible, such as the truth about God and Christ, the good news about Jesus' resurrection and kingdom, the need to manifest the fruits of the spirit and to continually strip off the old personality, the need to keep free from immoral practices, and other clear Bible teachings, then when it comes to those matters where there is no clear-cut answer, they can give their view, note that there is uncertainty in the interpretation, and allow others to make their own decision. The way we would preserve out 'unity of thought' (1Co 1:9-11) is in our recognition that these things are uncertain, and in not promoting sects and divisions by taking or teaching a dogmatic view on any of them (which is often done in Christendom); rather, we should let each one decide based on his or her study of the biblical material available.
Jehovah will judge each person based on his or her initiative and desire to truly know and apply those things taught in His Word. He is the One who, through Christ, will say whether or not certain teachings should have been applied, or readily discerned.
I think this path could not only resolve the blood issue, but all other, similar issues, both now and in the future. What do you think?
NOTE: Only serious-minded replies will be considered. I realize that several persons here have an uncontrollable desire to belittle just about anything that is presented in the light constructive criticism, but that should not keep those of us who are truly concerned about the most effective means of representing and proclaiming Christ's name and kingdom to others, from considering the issues. Just ignore the others.
AP