Control of intimate relationships among Jehovah's Witnesses. Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses Food for Thought

When I was a “Jehovah's Witness”, one of my desires, which probably all “proclaimers of the Kingdom” dream of, was fulfilled - to communicate live with members of the Governing Body (GB) of Jehovah's organization. I was lucky enough to communicate three times, and with different members of the highest spiritual body of the Organization. Let me remind you that the Governing Body for Jehovah's Witnesses is more than an authoritative guide. Members of the GC are "God's anointed", "the faithful and discreet slave", who receives instruction from Jehovah God and, as a channel, transmits it to the worldwide brotherhood of Jehovah's Witnesses around the world through publications and congresses. To go against MS is to go against God. RS is essentially God's Organization.

I was able to communicate with them informally because I was a member of the SI Management Center in Russia. My meetings with GB members took place in 2006 and 2007. The first meeting took place with Teodor Jarac and his wife Melita on the territory of the Administrative Center in the village. Sunny. It seems that at that time he came to Russia to announce the translation of the New World in Russian. He stayed at the branch and my friends and I had the opportunity to invite him to tea in our room. I don't remember the details of the conversation. I only remember that we young Bethelians were interested in the growing number of anointed ones, who, according to the Organization, should be exactly 144,000, starting with the apostles. To our question, he answered that not all who consider themselves anointed are in fact such, and that there are much fewer real anointed ones. The late Ted Jaracz was the most authoritative and rigorous member of the RS. I remember him as strict old man with a voice of steel and unshakable faith in the truth of the matter in which he was engaged. In a word, he was by no means a good grandfather.

The second meeting was with Jeffrey Jackson, a relatively young member of the RS. It took place in Bishkek - in the Kyrgyz branch also in 2007. Jackson came there to announce the translation of the New World in the Kyrgyz language. I remember how after dinner he stayed at the table and we had the opportunity at the same table to ask him a few questions. His late wife, Janette, was still alive then, and he spoke of her being a Jehovah's Witness with an "earthly garment." This meant that in the new world they would be separated: he would be in heaven with Christ, and she would be in paradise on earth. For some reason, his story evoked sympathy. I remember how we asked him about how he realized that he had become the anointed one. Jeffrey said that he clearly felt this in the 80s, when he began to realize himself as a “citizen of heaven”, everything earthly began to seem temporary to him, and he began to relate the biblical verses relating to the co-rulers of Christ to himself personally. I remember Jeffrey Jackson as a leisurely, overweight American with a kind expression on his face.

About the third meeting, I can say the least because it happened by chance in Moscow before the district convention. It was in the morning at the apartment of the organization, where lawyers and representatives of the organization stay. I went to breakfast with Steven Lett and his wife Daiyan. I remember nothing from that conversation, except for a stream of jokes and laughter from Stephen. At the same time, his more than calm wife seemed to be the complete opposite. I remember Lett as an energetic person with extremely expressive facial expressions.

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that God works in a special way with members of the Governing Body. However, I personally did not notice this. These people did not stand out for anything special: neither the depth of thought, nor heartfelt love, nor bright charisma. Ordinary senior managers. Now this is obvious to me - especially after the experience of meeting with the present God's man, a monk-prayer, living in seclusion in a skete. This feeling of sparkling holiness and boundless love can neither be forgotten nor confused. As they say, everything is known in comparison ...

Why did I decide to write about meetings with the members of the GC? The point is that in recent times I am often asked about who the Jehovah's Witnesses really are, or rather, the people who lead this worldwide organization? Do they themselves believe in what they preach? It is generally accepted that the phenomenon of sectarianism among Jehovah's Witnesses is due to financial gain. However, I cannot agree with this. The opponent cannot be overcome without understanding his true nature. My experience of communication was clearly not enough to look into the soul of the members of the RS with whom I had communication. The most reliable and objective opinion can only come from someone who was in the place of the RS members. And so the only person was Raymond Franz - a man who was a member of the RS for 9 years. (Two years before his death, I managed to write him several letters and get a response from him, although Ray received hundreds of letters!).

I know all the inner workings of the RS, he never wrote that financial interests are at the heart of the activities of the RS. Although the Jehovah's Witnesses themselves unsubstantiatedly accused him of some kind of financial scam (this point of view was common in the Russian bethel among high-ranking overseers). Here is what Franz wrote in his second book, In Search of Christian Freedom: I personally know among Jehovah's Witnesses many thoughtful, sometimes insightful people - both men and women. I know that many of them, including some members of the Governing Body, see some serious errors in the teachings of the organization and in their application. However, these people continue to recognize the organization as God's chosen instrument on earth. I am sure that their mind - at least in part - inevitably suffers from this: it is dulled, drowned out, constantly used to find some excuse for what is wrong. Some of them are good at writing. But they are always aware that what they write must satisfy the teachings of the organization and the particular spirit that prevails at the particular time they write. They can write articles that are very sensible in their content. However, as part of the whole, they, being generated by the organization itself, serve the ultimate goal of elevating the dignity of the organization in the minds of readers, inducing them to submit to the authority to which it so seeks, and thus come to the dissolution of individuals in the system.”.

It seems to me that the members of the RS have become hostages of the situation that their predecessors have created. And they will not dare to change this state of affairs. To do this, you must have colossal fortitude and be a nonconformist. They are not just hostages of the situation, they are her children - the members of the RS are who they are, thanks to the organization. Personally, I am sure that the members of the GB believe in the truth of their cause. Of course, they are well aware that much of what they officially proclaim is not true. However, they consciously sacrifice honesty for the good of a common cause, which, of course, in their opinion, is pleasing to God.

I think that everyone is more or less familiar with the feeling of their own specialness, especially when there is something behind this conviction. But imagine how it feels when you realize your personal involvement in God's channel on earth! I still think that Jehovah's Witnesses should still be assessed as a religious phenomenon. All these speculations about financial pyramid lead away from a true understanding of who we are dealing with.

America has legalized sodomy. And she said that the whole world should also follow her example. Those who do not listen will suffer greatly. Sodomy has been elevated to the rank of the official geopolitics of the largest power in the world, and its numerous, also very powerful allies. The American White House was covered with a rainbow.

Did Sodom creep up unnoticed?

“... I will give you all this if you bow down to me,” Satan said to Jesus. The fallen one offered to fall. Jesus did not fall. "Get Away From Me, Satan"- answered Jesus. By the meaning, in our simple language, the answer of Jesus meant: "Get out!". This is the only answer due to the father of lies.

However, not all Christians respond to Satan in this way. Many, at his proposal to fall, wonder: “What will you give me in return, and what will I get? ..” And they fall, worship Satan. And their fall is very great.

The spiritual fall of Christians and the worship of Satan is expressed in many ways, but, above all, in cooperation with politics. They betrayed Christ and were nice to politics as much as they could. They agreed with her in everything, like the most disgusting whore.

And so, politics, fed up with owning them, decided to “have more fun in various ways.” Namedniona demanded that Christians now become literal sodomites…

Time to begin judgment for Christians...

Western so-called Christians were alarmed. They saw that the time had come when, if they did not join the general world sin and depravity, persecution would fall. But this they would like least of all. They are accustomed to reign. They have mellowed out in a "democratic" state. And suddenly - on you! You must either be a sodomite, or, in extreme cases, "do not condemn" bestial depraved. If not, then - "economic sanctions", for a start. And then you will get hit on the head ...

Such is the sad fate of all those who tried to combine loyalty to Christ and "cooperation" with politics. The devil's mockery of those who, instead of God, worshiped him, really knows no bounds.

In America itself, society is now divided. Many churches, religious associations, have said "yes" to institutionalized debauchery. They gave in, caved in to the Sodomite policy, agreed, approved it.

But there are also churches that do not want to support Sodom. For this, they risk being accused of all grave sins against “freedom and democracy.” They face a real threat of liquidation, closure.

It has been reported that some American Protestant pastors who do not agree to submit to New Sodom have already announced that they are preparing to "go underground." They say that they can continue to act openly, officially, they can now be banned, and their licenses, then the church buildings, will be taken away. And they are ready for this turn of events. You can rejoice for them, and applaud their determination to remain faithful to God.

The Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses is not going underground.

As the facts show, the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses does not belong to the number of such faithful Christians.

"Prudent slave" - ​​agreed with the state policy of sodomy.

His motivation is understandable. Indeed, if he opposes the ideology of Sodom, then his activities can also be covered up, up to the confiscation of all property and real estate. And he has just built himself a new excellent “garden city” in Wallkill! world religious empire, and undertook such a grandiose construction and economic project in order to lose everything for the sake of some “little thing”.

And now, on the official website of the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses, "spiritual food on time" appears:

“While the Bible condemns homosexual acts, it does not encourage homosexual hatred or homophobia. On the contrary, Christians are encouraged to treat everyone with “respect” (1 Peter 2:17, Modern Version).

… Should Christians respect all people regardless of their sexual orientation?

Undoubtedly. The Bible says, “Honor people of every kind” (1 Peter 2:17). Therefore, Christians are not homophobic. They are kind to all people, including homosexuals (Matthew 7:12).”

This is what the leaders of the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses write. They write in a serpentine sly and cunning way. Their ornate answer is quite capable of confusing many who are superficially familiar with the Holy Scriptures.

For comparison, let's take a look at the words of the Pope on the same topic: "If a person is a homosexual, but seeks the Lord and has good will - then who am I to judge him?"

As you can see, the Vatican is much more restrained in its responses than the Governing Council. If the Pope limited himself to “I don’t condemn”, specifying that “if” a homosexual “seeks the Lord and has good will”, then the Governing Council simply orders its children to respect all homosexuals, not mentioning their attitude towards the Lord at all. Holy Scripture! Even the Roman high priest did not demonstrate such impudence.

Well, the time has come when you need to be direct about who you are and who you serve. And the “prudent slave” said that he served politics. He pretended to be a disciple of Christ for a long time. But now it has come out of the underground. The material wealth of the weasel from power is more important for him than the Divine principles.

Yes, the disciples of Christ are commanded not to condemn anyone. But do not condemn and RESPECT, there are fundamentally different things! Following the logic of the Governing Body, the disciples of Christ must respect, for example, blasphemers. Really?

And, secondly, the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses itself does not in any way fulfill the words from the Epistle of Peter about treat with “respect for all” (1 Peter 2:17, Modern VT).

How, for example, does he relate to representatives of other religions, to the same Pope? Sincerely? Is it out of great respect that the leaders of Jehovah's Witnesses call the Pope and the entire church clergy "a man of sin, a son of perdition"?

And how do Jehovah's Witnesses feel about those who oppose their false teachings and who break with their organization? Is it with respect? “They are the dregs of society,” said one Witness organization official of those who left the organization for spiritual reasons. The whole world knows how cruel and inhuman the organization of the Witnesses deals with those who are expelled for the truth, with those who pointed out to her her false teachings. And the words of Peter "Honor People of All Kinds" Jehovah's Witnesses don't remember at all in this case. And even more so, they forgot the words from Matthew 7:12: “So in everything you want people to do to you, do the same to them; for in this is the law and the prophets.” But, in connection with homosexuals, the leaders of Jehovah's Witnesses cited these words of Jesus. A purely American, political approach: Interpret the laws, and the Bible, in any way that suits you.

The "prudent servant" respects homosexuals, not because the Apostle Peter teaches so. Peter does not call for respect for the Sodomites, since he himself called them wicked. It was the White House that ordered homosexuals to do good. And the leaders of Jehovah's Witnesses obediently carry out the orders of their master. And there will always be a suitable text of Scripture. With their ability to get out!

"The Bible does not encourage homophobia"- said Rook Council. Homophobia - in direct translation means fear, disgust for homosexuality, not only for homosexual people, but also for this phenomenon itself. And so, the "prudent servant" broadcasts that there is no need to be afraid of the sin of Sodom, the Bible, they say, "does not encourage." A monstrous lie! The Bible just does directly calls to hate sins. “However, it’s good in you that you hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.”(Rev. 2:6).

Listening to false teachers, one can go far away from Christ. And millions left, victims of those who sold themselves to the authorities and worshiped the devil religious leaders.

The Lord teaches to separate a person from his religion. But homosexuality is not a religion. This is the man himself, the inner essence of man. The malicious violator of God's laws must be told who he is. “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, in the presence of adulterers, nor malakia, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor predators - will not inherit the Kingdom of God.(1 Corinthians 6:9,10).

When a person is in religion, then he still believes God, somehow strives for holiness, respects God's laws. Differences in the views of people of different religions, but who fear God, come down to questions of understanding individual Biblical texts that are not of fundamental importance for salvation .When believers do not focus on the letter, but strive to understand the Spirit of Scripture, then they are brothers in Christ, even being in different churches-denominations.

It is useful to ask: How does the Holy Scripture actually treat homosexuals? Does it really respect them? No matter how! The Apostle Paul, for example, calls homosexuals and lesbians “with company” crazy, who have fallen into a shameful error. “... They know the righteous judgment of God, that those who do such things are worthy of death; yet they are not only made, but those who do are approved.”(Rom 1 ch).

“... The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, having condemned them to extermination, he turned into ashes, setting an example for the future wicked,”- says the Apostle Peter. (2 Peter 2:6).

That is, a long time ago, the White House, and the US Supreme Court, and the Roman archpriests, and the Hands of the Council of Jehovah's Witnesses, on Sodom and Gomorrah were shown as an example what will happen to those who teach to support and respect the wicked.

Nicholas Var

Control intimate relationships from Jehovah's Witnesses.

A lot is said and said in various sources that the religious organization of Jehovah's Witnesses controls the daily life of ordinary believers. Everything is under control: free time, entertainment, watching television, reading literature, using the Internet, dating, dating, education and thinking.

However, very little attention was paid to control in the sphere of intimate relations between husband and wife. But it is precisely on this issue that Jehovah's Witnesses can be said to have "outperformed" everyone. Perhaps for the first time in history human history this religious group took on the role of "prosecutor in the bedroom", controlling not moral issues, but questions of how a husband and wife have sexual intercourse, what to allow each other during lovemaking and games, how to excite each other, how and by what methods achieve orgasm, etc. etc.

The problem, however, is that in God's Word there is no gradation of "moral" and "immoral" sexual intercourse between husband and wife.

The Bible, Proverbs 5:18, 19, gives the following, so to speak, "instructions" on this subject:

18 Your source be blessed; and take comfort in the wife of your youth,

19 With a sweet deer and a beautiful chamois: let her breasts make you drunk at all times, delight in her love all the time.

This seemed not enough to the leadership of the OSB, and they decided to establish a "new order" in the intimate relationships of the spouses, trying to organize a sexual revolution in reverse.

For this purpose, the text from the letter of the apostle Paul, Romans 1:26,27, was brought to light, in which he condemned homosexual relationships. But these verses were explained in such a way that it turned out that oral sex (i.e., caressing the genitals with the mouth) and anal sex (i.e., using the anus during intercourse) were not allowed between husband and wife, because. only homosexuals have such relations among themselves.

Let's look at this Bible text:

26 Therefore God gave them up to shameful lusts, for their women exchanged their natural use for that which was unnatural;

27 In the same way, men also abandoned the natural use of women and became inflamed with passion for each other, men for men, doing indecent things and receiving in themselves the full retribution for their error.

It is clear that, as noted above, these words refer only to homosexual relationships, but not as sexual intercourse between husband and wife, there is not even a hint of such a relationship here.

This issue was first dealt with in detail in The Watchtower article of December 15, 1969 (pp. 765, 766). In this article, such sexual relations between husband and wife have been thoroughly discussed. As Raymond Fretz, a former member of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, writes in Crisis of Conscience, Chapter 3: behavior of people in their own bedroom.

R. Franz in this quote means that the Governing Body began to receive letters from the elders of local congregations, who began to report completely intimate things about the marital relationships of others.

Franz reports that in 1972 the Governing Body had to deal with a case, he writes:

The question...which caused a long discussion, concerned a married couple of Witnesses from California. Someone saw certain books and photographs of unusual sexual acts in their bedroom (I don't remember if we found out exactly how the person who saw and told about it gained access to the matrimonial bedroom). Investigation and questioning of local elders revealed that in sexual relations this couple did not only practice ordinary sexual intercourse. The elders' letters reached Brooklyn, and the Governing Body had to discuss and decide what action to take with regard to these couples.

Until that morning, when these letters were read to us, none of us, except the President, had any opportunity to even think about this situation. However, a few hours later, the decision was made, and the couple were deprived of communication. This decision later evolved into an official policy that applies to anyone involved in such sexual activities. (See: Watch tower, English - 1972, December 1 - S. 734-736 text at the end of the article).

Please note that in just a few hours, a decision was made that later turned into a tragedy for thousands of families of Jehovah's Witnesses. In the future, events developed very dramatically. There are no spheres left in the life of Jehovah's Witnesses in which the SB Society, as the "all-seeing eye" of Jehovah God, could not intervene. Franz explains it this way:

The published material was understood and applied in this way: spouses usually believed that if such phenomena arose or existed in their marriage, regardless of whether they occurred by mutual consent of the spouses or at the initiative of only one of them, they were obliged to report this to the elders (in In the second case, the spouse, from whom the initiative for such actions did not come, had to notify the elders about everything, even if the spouse, on whose initiative this happened, did not want to tell this). If someone did not report what was happening, this was seen as an unwillingness to repent and led to the decision to disfellowship. The belief that exclusion cut him off from the only organization where salvation was possible, as well as from friends and relatives, weighed heavily on the person to submit, despite the fact that it was very difficult for him to confess or report such things to the elder.

Following this 1972 decision, the RSD was swept by a wave of legal committees where elders debriefed reports or confessions of sexual acts. It was a shameful practice of intervening in the most intimate sphere of anyone's life. Franz recalls in his book:

At these hearings, the women experienced excruciating shame as they were interrogated by the elders and asked about the intimate details of their sex life in marriage. Many marriages in which one of the spouses was not a Witness went through severe hardship as the non-Witness spouse protested what he considered an intrusion of privacy. Some marriages broke up

Here is the tragedy that I spoke about above: "some marriages broke up."

How many such divorces were there due to unacceptable sexual intercourse between husband and wife? Probably hundreds or even thousands of marriages. This conclusion can be reached on the basis of a memorandum to the Governing Body dated August 9, 1976, from a staff member of the General Office who dealt with correspondence:

“A lot of problems have arisen as a result of the adoption of this policy, often in families with a non-believer [i.e. e. non-Witness] husband. Wives refused to allow their husbands to arouse them in this way, or to stimulate their husbands in this way. As a result, marriages broke up.

It is interesting how Franz describes this situation:

Over the course of five years, a huge number of letters came in, most of which asked where in Scripture the basis was given for members of the Governing Body to interfere in the privacy of people in this way, and said that the published arguments put forward in defense adopted policy, do not seem strong enough to them (the main scripture on which this policy was based was taken from Romans 1:24-27, which refers to homosexuality; the letter writers indicated that they could not understand how this passage could be applied to heterosexual relationship between husband and wife). Other letters, mostly from wives, simply spoke of their embarrassment and uncertainty about how acceptable their love game with her husband was, preceding sexual intercourse.

Then he told absolutely amazing things that help to understand in what kind of slavish dependence Jehovah's Witnesses are and how defenseless they are from a brazen intrusion even into their bedroom:

A memo from a member of the Society's service department, dated June 1976, recounts a telephone conversation with a seminar instructor (for elders). It states that the instructor called to inquire about one of the elders attending the seminars who confessed to engaging in illicit sexual activity with his wife: Brother [instructor's name is given] discussed the matter at length with him to determine whether he was in fact the act in which he participated was oral sex. [The instructor] advised that, under the circumstances, he should speak to the other members of the committee. It happened that two members of the committee were present at the class and [the instructor] came up and talked to them. Now [the instructor] would like to know what else needs to be done... [He] was advised to write a full account of what happened so that in the future, when he encounters similar things, he will know how to proceed and he will not have to call again.

This shows the extent to which investigations into intimate details went and the extent to which headquarters was in control of the whole situation. Letter after letter reveals that the people felt obligated to God to keep the elders informed of any deviation from the norm adopted by the Governing Body. A man from a state in the midwest who confessed to deviating from the decision of the Governing Body regarding his marriage relationship with his wife was told by the elders that a letter would be written to the Society; he also wrote the cover letter. Eight weeks passed, and eventually he wrote back to Brooklyn, saying that "the suspense, anxiety, and excitement are becoming almost unbearable." He said he was removed from all congregation duties, including meeting prayer, that "almost weekly I lose something I've worked or prayed for for thirty years." He begged for a speedy reply, saying:

I need to somehow ease my mind and find out what my position is in Jehovah's organization.

The whole horror of this situation lay in the fact that the person himself did not understand that his devotion to Jehovah God could not be connected with devotion to an organization that itself violated all conceivable and inconceivable moral and ethical standards.

Here is a copy of the letter from the Service Department of the Society, taken from R. Franz's book "The Crisis to Reconcile". The author of the letter, according to Franz, was Merton Campbell of that department.

Congregation Council of Elders

… Jehovah's Witnesses through … for …

Dear brothers!

We have a copy of the July 21st letter from the congregation committee... in California, in which they write about matters concerning J...

Please let us know if any of the elders gave wrong advice about oral sex. If one of the elders in the congregation told married people that it was okay for them to have oral sex, on what basis was such advice given? If incorrect advice has been given, report whether appropriate steps have been taken to correct the misunderstanding of the issue by those to whom the advice was given, and whether the elders agree on what the Society's publications say about oral sex.

If any of you brethren, as an elder, advised anyone that oral sex is acceptable as a love game before actual intercourse, that advice was wrong.

Thank you for your attention to the matter. May Jehovah's abundant blessings be with you as you strive to exemplify your duties as elders.

your brothers,

Copies: to the legal committee

Gatherings…

Jehovah's Witnesses, California

These were the instructions given to the congregation elders. But even this was not enough, in their "jealousy" for the insane "purity" in the congregation, some elders went so far as to believe, as Franz writes, that "the Governing Body should have gone further in condemning unnatural actions between spouses, including among them certain positions during sexual intercourse."

However, not all elders reached such a degree of slavish subservience to the Governing Body, there were those who thought and tried to change the situation. An elder wrote to the Governing Body (from Franz's book):

Since Jehovah has explained everything about sexual behavior in detail in Leviticus 18, as well as in other chapters, why does he not give any guidance to married couples regarding acceptable and unacceptable forms of intercourse? Isn't it natural to assume that Jehovah would do this if he wanted to open this very personal and intimate area to the views and opinions of the "judges" or "elders" of Israel, so that appropriate measures would be taken against the criminals?

Probably their point of view eventually took effect and after 5 years the Governing Body again returned to this issue and decided to change the policy on disfellowshiping due to the notorious "inappropriate" relationships in marriage. According to Franz, it went like this:

The bulk of the incoming letters never reached the Governing Body, but were dealt with by the employees of the letter desks or service department. However, I am sure that the various members of the Governing Body must have known, quite possibly through personal contacts and conversations, that many of their authors felt they had invaded the privacy of others uninvited. When finally (after about five years) the matter was back on the agenda, the disfellowshipping policy was changed, and as a result the Governing Body withdrew from dealing with people's intimate lives. Once again I was assigned to prepare material for publication, this time about a desired change. It gave me no little personal satisfaction that I could admit, albeit very loosely, that the organization had been wrong all this time.

The Watchtower, February 15, 1978, published an article by Franz on the subject, stating in part:

However, further careful consideration of the matter convinces us that, in the absence of clear guidance in Scripture, in these matters the spouses are responsible to God for themselves and that these intimate details of marriage are not within the control of the elders of the congregations, and the elders cannot exclude anyone. or from the organization on that basis alone.* Of course, if a person wants to ask the elders for advice, the elder will review Bible principles with that person, acting as a shepherd, but not seeking to control the marriage life of the person who asked for advice.

Of course, we are not talking about justifying any sexual activities that people engage in. It's just that we are keenly aware of the responsibility for ensuring that it is Scripture that governs our lives and do not want to take a dogmatic position when there is not enough reason for this. We also express confidence in the desire of Jehovah's people as a whole to do everything for them and to reflect all of his fine qualities in all their activities. We are willing to leave judgment in such intimate marital areas in the hands of Jehovah God and his Son, who have all the wisdom and knowledge necessary to make the right decision.

However, 5 years after that, in March 1983, the RSD, in fact, returned to some of the previous provisions on "unnatural sexual intercourse."

In The Watchtower of March 15, 1983, although it was said that elders should not "control" personal marital relations members of the congregation, however, it was made clear that persons engaging in or condoning what was termed "unnatural sexual intercourse" could not hold the position of elder or have other Society-appointed "advantages." It was also said that this "may even lead to expulsion from the congregation." In the Russian edition of this "Watchtower" for December 1, 1984, the article "Honor marriage as a God-given device!". It said:

What can be said about sexual activities between spouses in a marital relationship? It is not proper for elders to sniff out the intimate lives of married Christians. Spouses, however, must consider the Bible in their lives. Those who want to “walk in the Spirit” should not ignore the biblical indications of God’s opinions. It is also good to develop hatred for everything that is unclean in the eyes of Jehovah, including obviously perverted sexual practices. Spouses should act in a way that they can keep clear conscience while they give exclusive attention to the development of the "fruit of the Spirit" (Galatians 5:16, 22, 23; Ephesians 5:3-5).

How, however, is the case if one of the marriage partners desires or even requires his spouse or his wife to participate in an obviously perverse sexual act? The above facts show that pornkya refers to illicit sexual behavior outside the marriage arrangement. If a marital companion coerces a depraved act, such as oral or anal sex, in a marital relationship, then this would therefore not provide a biblical basis for divorce, which would give both the right to remarry. Although such a situation would grieve the believing marriage partner, Jehovah will bless his efforts to adhere to Bible principles. In such cases, it may be helpful for the spouses to discuss the issue frankly, remembering in particular that sexual intercourse should be something noble, pure, and an expression of tender love. This should definitely exclude anything that might upset or harm the marriage partner (Ephesians 5:28-30; 1 Peter 3:1, 7).

As already stated, it is not the elders' job to "control" the intimate marital affairs of spouses in the congregation. However, when it becomes known that any member of the congregation engages in perverted sexual acts within a marriage or openly speaks out in favor of them, such a person would certainly not be blameless and therefore would not be qualified for special privileges such as serving as an elder, ministerial servant, or pioneer. This course of action and the defense of such actions could even lead to expulsion from the congregation. Why?

Galatians 5:19-21 mentions many vices that are not included in pornkya but would make a person unfit to live in God's Kingdom. These include "impurity" (Greek: akatarsca, which means filth, depravity, depravity) and "lewdness [unrestrained behavior, NM]" (Greek: aselgeya, which means debauchery, revelry, shamelessness). Both pornya and such vices, when they become gross, can be a reason for disfellowshipping a Christian congregation, but not for a Scriptural divorce. A person shamelessly advocating shocking and disgusting sexual acts would be guilty of rampant conduct or lasciviousness. A person with such inclinations could, of course, even descend to the point of committing pornya. There would then be a reason for a Scriptural divorce. How should all Christians strive to avoid and fight against all such "works of the flesh" (Galatians 5:24, 25).

However, these further changes in the policy of the SB Society did not lead to "the significant increase in legal hearings that accompanied the initial adoption of such a position. Perhaps this did not happen because the ardent efforts of the elders to investigate these issues earlier and already brought enough bad consequences", comments Franz.

Furthermore, the book Pay Attention to Yourself and to All the Flock (a textbook for the elders of Jehovah's Witnesses) on page 142 states the following:

While the congregation of Christians cannot give guidance on all sexual matters in connection with the marital bed, individuals may be advised that they, in their intimate relationships, as in all other aspects of the Christian life, should be kind, loving, and considerate. to each other (Eph. 5:28-30; 1 Peter 3:1, 7).

Everyone should have a hatred for all perverted sexual practices (Lev. 18:22, 23; Ps. 96:10; Amos 5:15; Rom. 12:9; Eph. 5:3, 10-12; Col. 3 :5, 6).

Individuals should be urged to do so in order to maintain a clear conscience, and the marital bed should be undefiled (Heb. 13:4; w1-XII-84, pp. 20-23).

Although perverted activities are wrong, this does not mean that a person who engages or has participated in such activities in his or her marriage necessarily loses the privilege of office.

If the elders learn of such behavior, then they have to take into account the following: is the habit a recent or ongoing one, or is it a thing of the past and definitely defeated? Does the person support this behavior as an appropriate way of life? Does his mindset have a pang of conscience? If he sincerely repents and the situation, in general, is not known, then it is not necessary to deprive him of official privileges.

What does this mean in practice? This means that Jehovah's Witnesses who engage in oral or anal sex in their intimate relationships will probably not be subject to any legal action, but "advice" about what they should do in their intimate relationships they will not escape. , as well as proceedings on such issues: how, how much, when, what do you feel, what do you think about it ?!

From the book Attention, it follows that ministerial servants, pioneers, and elders can lose their privileges just because someone enjoys oral sex on his wife and she doesn't mind.

Moreover, if the aforementioned appointed ministers still do not repent that they like it, and, God forbid, tell someone else about it that it is pleasant, then they cannot avoid expulsion from the congregation, unless on a legal basis. committee, they do not repent of their sinful behavior, which consists in love for some "impurity" or in Greek: akatars (dirt, depravity, depravity) and "lewdness" or in Greek: aselgeia (dissoluteness, revelry, shamelessness), as this follows from the RSD interpretation of Galatians 5:19-21:

19But the deeds of the flesh are manifest, they are fornication, impurity, dissolute behavior, 20idolatry, spiritualism, enmity, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, quarrels, divisions, sectarianism,

21 envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you of such things, just as I warned you that those who do so will not inherit the kingdom of God.

It follows that RSD does not currently widely practice disfellowshipping due to some kind of "unacceptable" intimate relationship in marriage, but nevertheless this mechanism itself is still in operation, and no doubt it is sometimes used on practice to control the private sphere of ordinary members of the organization and suppress their self-esteem.

The rule still remains for the elders of the congregation: an elder who practices these methods of sex is not fit for office advantage and must be removed. However, in practice, this is almost impossible to apply, because. many elders do not think about this order at all, many ignore it, and many do not even know.

I recall one time when I asked a brother at the District Convention in his speech to emphasize that oral sex outside of marriage is fornication, the circuit overseer who heard this asked in surprise, "How is oral sex in marriage a bad thing too?"

So here it is! It turns out that even the appointed traveling overseers do not understand what is said in the textbook for the elders, that if "he sincerely repents and the situation is, in general, not known, then he does not necessarily need to be deprived of official privileges," i.e. translated: "If he does not repent and continues to engage in 'perverted sexual acts' with his wife, then he must be removed as an elder or circuit overseer"!

Many do not understand at all that by "perverted sexual acts" (from the "Pay attention" textbook) it is meant oral and anal sex, and not such perversions as bestiality, homosexuality, or something else, even more vile. All this is called by its proper name both in the textbook and in the publications of the Society, but when, in the same sources, it speaks of "perverted sexual activities", then this is exactly what is described in Romans 1:26,27 as homosexual, and therefore, as it says - "that you do this with your wife, for this God gave you the appropriate organs, so use them, but not in the same way as these homosexuals ... This is such a" moralistics "sounds behind the" stage ".

I often ask myself the question: "Why does the Watch Tower Society need to control even intimate relationships in marriage? Unfortunately, I come to a disappointing conclusion: the goal of the leadership of the Society is to instill in its members such devotion that control becomes possible, not only at the level of thinking, but also emotions, feelings, hormonal secretions.The Society needs such a type of "faithful servant" who would be controlled not only in the field of "field service", but also in the field of his reproductive abilities, turning them on and off at the command in some publication of the Society , for example, in the magazine "Awake!", one name that would serve as a signal to deactivate. All this will allow you to create a mobile army of "zealous servants" not burdened with excessive search for truth, but ready to accept it already ready-made and in any area of ​​their lives Accept meekly and limply, like sterilized "sheep", suitable only for shearing and "serving" for the benefit of their owners.

The members of the Governing Body probably had certain moral preferences when they made all these decisions about controlling sex life in a marriage, but having similar ideas about what is acceptable in my marriage, I cannot impose any behavior on someone else in this personal area.

But most importantly, I find no biblical reason to consider such actions in marriage as sinful. This is a matter of personal preference, of course, with the obligatory consideration of the opinion of the partner. Therefore, it is much more important to adhere to the biblical principle from Eph. 5:28-29:

28So also husbands should love their wives as they love their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself,

29For no one has ever hated his own flesh, but, on the contrary, nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ did the congregation.

Therefore, the control of intimate relationships in marriage by Jehovah's Witnesses is an unbiblical control, and harmful, not only to a person's freedom, but also to his ability to love his marriage companion as his own body.

_____________________________

Questions From Readers

● Recently in the news was a court decision ruling that oral copulation by adults is no longer punishable by law in a certain state. Would such practice therefore be solely a matter for individual conscience if engaged in by a Christian couple within the marriage arrangement?—U.S.A.
It is not the purpose of this magazine to discuss all the intimate aspects of marital relations. Nonetheless, practices like those involved in this court case have become quite common and have received considerable publicity. Even young children in certain schools are being informed of these things in sex education courses. We would therefore be remiss as regards our responsibility if we held back Scriptural counsel that could aid sincere Christians in their efforts to follow a course of purity calling forth the Creator’s blessing. Unusual sexual practices were being carried on in the apostle Paul’s day and he did not remain silent about them, as can be seen in reading Romans 1:18-27. We are therefore only following his good example in considering this question here.
In discussing sexual practices, the apostle provides us with a principle that helps us to reach a right conclusion. He refers to “the natural use of the female,” which some were abandoning in favor of what is “contrary to nature,” thus satisfying “disgraceful sexual appetites” and “working what is obscene.” The apostle specifically deals with homosexual practices, condemning such. But the principle stated—that the satisfying of sexual desires can be “natural” or can be “contrary to nature”—applies just as well to the question under consideration.—See also Leviticus 18:22, 23.
The natural way for a married couple to have sexual relations is quite apparent from the very design given their respective organs by the Creator, and it should not be necessary to describe here how these organs complement each other in normal sexual copulation. We believe that, aside from those who have been indoctrinated with the view that ‘in marriage anything goes,’ the vast majority of persons would normally reject as repugnant the practice of oral copulation, as also anal copulation. If these forms of intercourse are not “contrary to nature,” then what is? That those practicing such acts do so by mutual consent as married persons would not thereby make these acts natural or not “obscene.” Are we being 'narrow' or 'extreme' in taking such a position?
No, as seen by the fact that several states of the United States have for long had laws against precisely such practices, classifying them as forms of “sodomy”—even though those engaging in them are married. Because of this legal usage, Webster’s Third New International Dictionary includes in its definition of “sodomy” this: “carnal copulation with a member of the same sex or with an animal or unnatural carnal copulation with a member of the opposite sex; specif: the penetration of the male organ into the mouth or anus of another.” Of course, dictionaries and state laws differ but our position is based primarily upon God's Word the Bible. Yet such worldly evidence serves a certain purpose, one corresponding in principle to what the apostle said at 1 Corinthians 5:1. There he showed that the sexual relations of one member in the Corinthian congregation were of a kind condemned even by people of the pagan nations. So, the application of the term “sodomy” in modern times to the mentioned forms of copulation shows that we are not unreasonable in saying they are not only “unnatural” but grossly so.
However, since marriage is of divine origin, our conscientious stand on marital relations is not founded on or ruled by worldly views. Therefore the overruling of some state law and the declaring of oral copulation (or similar unnatural copulation) as ‘legal’ does not alter our Bible-based position. In a world of decaying morals we can expect that some law courts may succumb in varying degrees to the growing trend towards sexual perversion, just as some of the clergy and doctors have done.
It is not our purpose to attempt to draw a precise line as to where what is “natural” ends and what is “unnatural” begins. But we believe that, by meditating on Bible principles, a Christian should at least be able to discern what is grossly unnatural. In other areas, the Christian’s individual conscience will have to guide, and this includes questions regarding caresses and ‘love play’ prior to intercourse. (Compare Proverbs 5:18, 19.) But even here the Christian who wants to produce the fruits of God’s holy spirit will wisely avoid practices that approach, or could easily lead one to fall into, unnatural forms of copulation.
What if certain married couples in the congregation in the past or even in recent times have engaged in practices such as those just described, not appreciating till now the gravity of the wrong? Then they can seek God's forgiveness in prayer and prove their sincere repentance by desisting from such gross unnatural acts.
It is certainly not the responsibility of elders or any others in a Christian congregation to search into the private lives of married couples. Nevertheless, if future cases of gross unnatural conduct, such as the practice of oral or anal copulation, are brought to their attention, the elders should act to try to correct the situation before further harm results, as they would do with any other serious wrong . Their concern is, of course, to try to help those who go astray and are 'caught in the snare of the Devil.' (2 Tim. 2:26) But if persons willfully show disrespect for Jehovah God's marital arrangements, then it becomes necessary to remove them from the congregation as dangerous “leaven” that could contaminate others.—1 Cor. 5:6, 11-13.
What of Christian women married to unbelievers and whose mates insist on their sharing in such grossly unnatural acts? Does the apostle’s statement that “the wife does not exercise authority over her own body, but her husband does” give a wife the basis for submitting to these demands? (1 Cor. 7:4) No, for such husbandly authority is only relative. God's authority remains always supreme. (1 Cor. 11:3; Acts 5:29) The apostle, furthermore, was speaking of normal sexual relations, as the context indicates. True, refusal to engage in unholy acts may bring hardship or even persecution on a wife, but the situation is the same as if her husband demanded that she engage in some form of idolatry, in misuse of blood, dishonesty or other such wrong.
Millions of married couples throughout the earth, both in the past and in the present, have found that unselfish love brings joy and full satisfaction, for both partners, in marital relations, without resorting to perverted methods. Realizing that a corrupt world is soon to be wiped away, we can think on the words of the apostle Peter, who wrote: “Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of persons ought you to be in holy acts of conduct and deeds of godly devotion, awaiting and keeping close in mind the presence of the day of Jehovah.” Yes, this is not the time to be slipping into, or letting others beguile or pressure us into, unholy practices just to satisfy selfish passion. Not if we truly cherish our hope of living in the fresh, clean new order now so near. (2 Pet. 3:11, 12; Jude 7) So, Christian married couples can keep ‘the marriage bed without defilement,’ not only by refraining from fornication and adultery, but also by avoiding defiling, unnatural practices.—Heb. 13:4.