Who Cares what the Public Think?

In a recent blog I referred to a piece on the JW.ORg site entitled: Is Homosexuality Wrong?
The writer of the piece made the following claim about JW's; 

Attitudes about homosexuality may vary from one culture to the next or from one time period to another. But Christians aren’t governed by popular opinion or “carried here and there by every wind of teaching.” (Ephesians 4:14) Instead, they base their view of homosexual conduct (and any other kind of conduct, for that matter) on the standards set forth in the Bible.

This is a bold statement because basically what they are saying is that they stick to their stated beliefs regardless of public opinion and changing attitudes.  However, this pious statement has no basis in fact, because when you investigate the history of Jehovahs Witnesses you will see regular changes to their stances on a variety of subjects.

Take racism as an example.  In the 15th April 1900 Watchtower the writer stated; "Reading matter distributed to a coloured congregation would more than half of it be utterly wasted."

In the 15th July 1902 Watchtower African tribes and nations are described as 'degraded' and the white race is purported to be 'superior'. 

During screenings of the 'Photodrama of Creation' in New York the Watchtower of 1st April 1914 states; We have been compelled to assign the coloured friends to the gallery."

There are many other examples of racist rhetoric in the Societies early literature yet happily, in this instance, they WERE governed by 'popular opinion' and carried 'here and there' by every wind of teaching because the worlds attitude to racial intolerance has changed significantly in the last one hundred years and the JW standpoint has followed those changes.

Another attitude that has changed with worldly thinking is that towards the corporal punishment of children.

"A spanking may be a lifesaver to a child, for God’s Word says: “Do not hold back discipline from the mere boy. In case you beat him with the rod, he will not die. With the rod you yourself should beat him, that you may deliver his very soul from Sheol [the grave] itself.” Again, “Foolishness is tied up with the heart of a boy; the rod of discipline is what will remove it far from him.” (Proverbs 23:13, 14; 22:15) If parents hold their children’s life interests dear to them, they will not weakly or carelessly let disciplinary action slip from their hands. Love will motivate them to take action, wisely and fairly, when it is needed." Family Life (1978) p.132 

However in recent years the Society has changed their approach to 'hitting' children at the same time that worldly society has realised that the practice is nothing more than abuse;

"Discipline primarily relates to instruction, education, and correction. It is never connected with abuse or cruelty." Watchtower 2014 Jul 01

The following is a transcript of Jeffry Jackson, a Governing Body member, as he is questioned by the Australian Royal Commission on the subject of corporal punishment within the Witness congregations;


Q. What is the "discipline of Jehovah"? 

A.  Your Honour, the original language, discipline,  indicates a process of teaching, educating, making  a disciple. 
Q.   Well, from that reference in Ephesians, your Bible  takes us back to Proverbs chapter 13, verse 34? 
A.   Yes. 
Q.   And the exact quote is:  Whoever holds back his rod hates his son. What does that mean? 
A.   So, your Honour, you will notice there is an asterisk there on the term "rod", and you see the footnote. 
Q.   Yes. 
A.   "Discipline or punishment".  So in the application of  this, the term "rod" is used as a symbol or a metaphor to  indicate the authority to give some punishment.  For example, in a modern‐day setting, my father could say to me I don't go to the movies because I had broken some of the rules of the home. 
Q.   So it's not about inflicting corporal punishment, then? 
A.   It absolutely is not about inflicting corporal punishment. 

An interesting answer from Mr Jackson and one that flies in the face of Witness teachings on the subject for decades.  Recently the Organisation has changed it's viewpoint on the 'two witness rule' largely because of the terrible publicity and the stack of court cases against them by witnesses who were abused by elders and ministerial servants in their congregations over the past twenty or thirty years.

Jehovahs Witnesses may snub their collective noses at public opinion but history reveals that they are governed by it just as much as the rest of us.