Our problem with the humility

[ComfortMyPeople]

4 hours ago, Anna said:

I have heard of situations like this. Very sad.

With the kind of ambiguous information regarding what's "natural" and what's "un-natural" it can get confusing.

Just out of interest, how did you counsel the couple on the shepherding visit?

Anna, I have pending some commentaries regarding other quotes, but let’s start for this one.

The tp book declaration about the proper sexual conduct in matrimony is, simply, dogmatic. Reflects the point of view of the writer: “I dislike eating snails so the Bible verses talking about uncleanness, natural or not natural, etc. apply to my view. And this view the brotherhood will do well to follow”.

As I’ve mention, the verses (Rom 1:24-27) were CHARGED with an inexistent meaning.  Later, the w78 2/15 pp. 30-32 quoted above, discharged the verses regarding this meaning. But this was in a footnote. Who read footnotes? The damage was already done. Even Melinda quoted the tp book, not the posterior Watchtower correction. This, Anna, is the concern in this topic. Lack of humility. You know the media treatment about JW: “some JW dead for blood issue” TITULAR in bold type. Weeks later “JW died for another reason.” Page xx with small type.

The damage I’ve seen with my own eyes has to do with couples that would be very happy enjoying their intimacy, because BOTH of them agree in sex conduct. But due to our (GB) teaching, as you have mention, arise doubts that disturb them.

Steve Jobs style: “one more thing.”

• ·        (Proverbs 5:19) “Let her breasts satisfy you at all times. May you be captivated by her love constantly”.

I prefer our older translation, more literal.

• ·        (Proverbs 5:19) “Let her own breasts intoxicate you at all times. With her love may you be in an ecstasy constantly”.

Note the words “intoxicate” or “ecstasy”. Do these words reflect… how can I say, “a quiet behavior”? (here I’m quite lost with my English. In Spanish I could pick up some exact but prudent words that convey the meaning I wish to transmit, so I apologize if I say outrages). What if the couple wants a more “expressive” behavior?

The meaning of these words is well expressed in this quote in Pulpit Commentary http://biblehub.com/commentaries/proverbs/5-19.htm

• ·        And be thou ravished always with her love; i.e. let it intoxicate thee. The teacher, by a bold figure, describes the entire fascination which the husband is to allow the wife to exercise over him. The verb shagah is "to reel under the influence of wine," and is so used in the succeeding vers. 20 and 23, and Proverbs 20:1 and Isaiah 28:7. The primary meaning, "to err from the way," scarcely applies here, and does not express the idea of the teacher, which is to describe "an intensity of love connected with the feeling of superabundant happiness" (Delitzsch).

So, according the Bible, it is perfectly correct, clean, normal, appropriate: to get intoxicate, to get “drunk”, to lose the mind… in the bedroom.

The counsel given to this couple was:

• ·        The Bible talks about behavior clean and unclean, but Jehovah has not registered exactly what does it cover inside a matrimony, so it is up to both of you. Then, there is no reason for a bad conscience any decision that both of you agree.

• ·        No one of you should force to the other to practice something disgusting or that made the other feel with bad conscience.

• ·        If both of you like something, even more, if only one of you want something and the other have no inconvenient, it’ll be an example of love to “pay the debt” so no one of you remains “hungry” and exposed to temptation (1Cor 7)

• ·        Any decision should remain indoors. If this matter spreads to the congregation it could have consequences (for example, privileges)

They thanked us the help, and obviously, I’ve not ask them about any decision. But I see them happy.

[JW Insider]

3 hours ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

•   The Bible talks about behavior clean and unclean, but Jehovah has not registered exactly what does it cover inside a matrimony, so it is up to both of you. Then, there is no reason for a bad conscience any decision that both of you agree.
• ·        No one of you should force to the other to practice something disgusting or that made the other feel with bad conscience.
• ·        If both of you like something, even more, if only one of you want something and the other have no inconvenient, it’ll be an example of love to “pay the debt” so no one of you remains “hungry” and exposed to temptation (1Cor 7)
• ·        Any decision should remain indoors. If this matter spreads to the congregation it could have consequences (for example, privileges)

I can understand this completely. I believe that giving such counsel has been much easier for the past couple of decades. However, during those years when our counsel was supposed to be more dogmatic and pharisaic, I also had to give similar counsel to a sister with an unbelieving husband, and a couple where one of them was partially disabled.

However, I still think that it is proper to counsel a couple based on the principle in Romans 1, because it speaks of the "natural use of the body." It's true that we might have charged it with meaning that wasn't intended, but that also means that we might not have. Therefore, if conscience should play a role, then these verses ought to be included in potentially relevant counsel when helping one whose conscience is unclear. This also means that I would make an adjustment to your first and third bullet point. Just because both agree, does not necessarily mean that their conscience should be clear. I'm uncomfortable with using 1 Cor 7 in exactly the way you used it here as if should apply to an entire range of activities that might even push the envelope of what one spouse finds comfortable. It's possible that the verse is being "charged" with meaning that wasn't intended. 

Even if the principle is correct most of the time, I believe that any reasonable Christian couple should keep in mind that the real principle should not be that they simply agree, because agreement can be manipulated by emotion. Therefore, what someone might consent to at one time, might be something they would not have consented to at another time. Just the acknowledgment that this possibility might exist might make a couple think twice before engaging in experimentation that might prove dangerous either literally, or spiritually.

I don't believe we should ever use the Bible as a kind of legalistic book of rules, but every part of it can and should be used for guidance, discipline, encouragement, and training/adjusting our conscience.

I like your exposition of the verse in Proverbs 5:19. So true.

[Witness]

44 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

Now, I don't mean the kind of "HATRED" "witness" displays, that's why I hold contempt for this person to suggest being a witness.

If I had HATRED for any JW here, would I pray for them?  Even for you, Allen, the one who shows the least bit of humility on here?  1 Cor 13:1-7

The humility blessed by God is “commitment, dedication and submission” to Him, and the one He sent forth, Jesus Christ. John 17:3  This is scriptural truth, based on God’s word. 

And the title "witness"? - Acts 1:6-8; Matt 10:21-23 (spiritual "Israel"/New Jerusalem are the anointed ones); Rev 11:1-4 ("two meaning "truth"); Zech 4:11-14

[ComfortMyPeople]

Summarizing this topic.

What are the reasons, in my opinion, provoking this situation, that make the GB appear as not humble?

TO CONVEY CONFIDANCE

Anna quote is, in my opinion, unsurpassable:

• ·        “I feel the same way. I have explained it somewhere on this forum, why I think this is. I feel it has something to do with their responsibility, which could perhaps be viewed in a similar way to parental responsibility. My experience with my own mother was that she tried to appear as perfect as possible. This worked fine when I was a toddler and little child. And then I got older, and I began to see her imperfections and flaws. It was quite a shock for me really to realize my mother had the same, or similar weaknesses as me, that she was an imperfect human being just like anyone else. I asked her about this. I wanted to know why she never admitted to any mistakes and why she tried to appear perfect. Her answer I think is the key to how the GB might be thinking. She said that she needed to appear as perfect as possible in order for me, as a child, to look to her for guidance, to trust her, and lean on her with confidence”.

TO PROVE THIS ORGANIZATION IS GUIDED BY GOD’S SPIRIT

I’ve mention in this post that God’s people, and therefore the GB, are guided by God’s spirit. But in this epoch not miraculously. The lack of miraculous wisdom or knowledge (1Co 13:8) would make necessary display of characteristics such as “power of reason” (Ro 12:1)); “accurate knowledge and full discernment” (Ph 1:9); “sound in mind” (1 Pe 4:7); “insight” (Da 11:32) and so on. And these qualities don’t would come through “flashes” of God’s spirit, but by means of study, pray, effort, mistakes and rectifications (Da 11:35).

But, our GB, I think, is afraid at some degree of showing themselves error prone because this could show we aren’t under Jehovah’s hand in the eyes of others. I remember when I was serving as special pioneer in 1981 I was assigned to a small congregation with only one elder and me as his helper. All the brothers were newly baptized. I had to direct one Watchtower study regarding some change regarding the meaning of “sacred service”. The elder gave me the advice: “don’t focus excessively in the idea that a change was necessary, this could disturb the congregation.” The idea these new brothers shared, to a greater or lesser extent, is that we’re the organization God is directing by His spirit, and consequently the necessity of changes only should be seen as improvements, not corrections.

In spite of this, many brothers opine the “slave class” is humble because they recognize their errors. But in this forum has been shown evidence, for example, that the “error” of 1975 was distributed, spread between all brotherhood. Even worse, the decrease in the number of publishers was attributed to the influence of “some apostates” rather than the disillusion caused for the excessive emphasis on dates (w86 12/15 p. 20 pars. 20-21). Even Allen Smith (thanks for this) quoted this:

• ·        *** yb12 pp. 142-143 Norway *** There was a steady increase in publishers from the mid-1960’s till the mid-1970’s. But expectations regarding the year 1975 proved to be a test of faith for some brothers. When the great tribulation did not come in 1975, a few left the organization; and between 1976 and 1980, there was a slight decrease in publishers. Others who felt disappointed slowed down in their Christian activity for a while.

What statement about the main reason of decrease is more accurate? “apostate influence”, “self-generated expectations” or some statements in our literature.

• ·        (1 Sa 15:20,21) “However, Saul said to Samuel: […] But the people took sheep and cattle from the spoil, the best of what was devoted to destruction, to sacrifice to Jehovah your God at Gilgal”

Saul, in other words, said “the mistake wasn’t mine, but people’s”. In modern times, “we have not guilty to promote false expectations, some individuals here and there have misunderstood us.” Was Saul humble?

Also, recently we have read in the W that in 1918 the ZWT followed the petition for “pray for peace”. but the original sources show, instead, that ZWT asked the congregations to pray for United States victory (w67 2/15 pp. 111-112 pars. 27-28), “for the promised glorious outcome of the war.” In this way presenting a more favorable view of the error.

TO PROTECT THE BROTHERHOOD

• ·        (2 Co 11:2) “For I am jealous over you with a godly jealousy, for I personally promised you in marriage to one husband that I might present you as a chaste virgin to the Christ.”
• ·        (2 Co 11:18) “Since many are boasting according to the flesh, I too will boast.”
• ·        (2 Co 12:11) “I have become unreasonable. You compelled me to, for I ought to have been recommended by you”

As Paul with the Corinthians, the GB ‘is jealous over us’ because they want that the entire brotherhood be acceptable at God’s eyes. I think this is one of the reasons they are acting in a way with apparently lack of humility. Paul himself had to boast, be unreasonable, with lack of humility to reaffirm his authority. He made a display of credentials hoping the Corinthians would respect more and, consequently will follow his advice more confidently, for their own protection and spiritual well-being.

GOD CAN WRITE STRAIGH EVEN WITH CROOKED LINES

I’ve been personal witness of this situation: A body of elders had an obvious lack of judgment decision about a brother. This, humbly, didn’t protest. But his wife couldn’t endure the situation and talked with the elders. They recognized the error but replied to her: “in this way he’s receiving training from God” and the mistake was not corrected.

The attitude of the elders was: “well, God can act so that our errors turn out not to be such mistakes”.

Every one of us have read such things as “the brothers [some apparent mistake] but finally Jehovah [solved the situation].” And I believe this has been the case a lot of times, but this idea has led to us to think that the Organization, the GB, is in someway infallible. “What mistakes, if finally Jehovah turn out them in successes.”

ADULATION

I’ve attended three pioneer schools. The first one perhaps in 1979. In the first two of them the text book was given to the students at Sunday, the day before the beginning of the course. In such schools the normal situation for a lot of us is to remain awaken until well late at night to prepare all the information. During the classes many were sleepy, some of them anxious. This situation prevented us to fully enjoy.

Nevertheless, in my last school the book was provided a couple of months before! We all could prepare with sufficient time, only reviewing the lessons the day before each class. What a difference!

The intriguing is, how could happen that something so easy to perceive was not corrected until decades later? Did the instructors inform about what was evident? Did the branches inform to GB about the instructors complaints, if any? This real conversation perhaps gives some light.

A sister asking to the instructor: “why we couldn’t have the books with sufficient time”? Instructor answer: “because an equalizing. If you, for your circumstances, have much more time to prepare than other brother this would not be fair. In this way everyone will start at the same time, Sunday.” Crazy answer, isn’t it? But this kind of view was transmitted to the persons on charge. No mistake, for decades. Finally, sanity has been imposed.

And what was the reason for this kind of favorable report? Adulation. And I have more evidences. In my branch and in our headquarters. Many brothers are afraid to escalate the complains they have because in this way perhaps might seem negative. Only escalate favorable reactions. Yes, I’m sure not always is the situation. But I have evidence of too many.

Certainly all of us have seen good changes in the brothers leading the worldwide congregation. Let God bless the GB that this brothers with such enormous responsibility each day. Keep it that way!

On 2/15/2017 at 5:59 PM, JW Insider said:

Even if the principle is correct most of the time, I believe that any reasonable Christian couple should keep in mind that the real principle should not be that they simply agree, because agreement can be manipulated by emotion. Therefore, what someone might consent to at one time, might be something they would not have consented to at another time. Just the acknowledgment that this possibility might exist might make a couple think twice before engaging in experimentation that might prove dangerous either literally, or spiritually.

You're right.

To avoid this post woud be marked as R-Rated, perhaps we should move to another more "spiritual" matter!

[Anna]

On 2/16/2017 at 11:40 AM, ComfortMyPeople said:

Many brothers are afraid to escalate the complains they have because in this way perhaps might seem negative.

 

Yes, many friends have the view that if they raise an issue, they may seem ungrateful. But really, the GB relies on feedback from the friends. How else are they to know where to make an reasonable adjustment if everyone is quiet, as if everything is fine? There is a difference between being overly critical and voicing genuine concern. The key is, once the concern is voiced, leaving it. It's been brought out into the open, and what happens next should be left with Jehovah.

On 2/16/2017 at 11:40 AM, ComfortMyPeople said:

A sister asking to the instructor: “why we couldn’t have the books with sufficient time”? Instructor answer: “because an equalizing. If you, for your circumstances, have much more time to prepare than other brother this would not be fair. In this way everyone will start at the same time, Sunday.” Crazy answer, isn’t it? But this kind of view was transmitted to the persons on charge. No mistake, for decades. Finally, sanity has been imposed.

Interesting. There must have been many more "sisters" with the same question. There is strength in numbers! Although it took decades of perhaps just a few sisters each year bringing up the same question until it finally reached the right ears....

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

.

.....sigh .....

... how much simpler life would be, and how many tens of millions of honest hearted, righteously inclined people would have NOT been chased away, if the JW leadership had NOT made stuff up with no basis whatsoever ... except a million irrelevant words repeated over and over, and over and over ... and simply said ,,,,

"The Bible does not say, and I DO NOT KNOW!"

IT IS NOT REPREHENSIBLE TO NOT KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT EVERYTHING ...

It is to PRETEND you do, to gullible people looking for Truth.

.