Teachings and rules that changed over the years

Anyone who has been a Jehovah’s Getuige for a long time, or has been one, has probably experienced changes. Things that for years were not customary or not allowed can later be accepted. Views are adjusted. Rules and applications change. Sometimes it involves something relatively small, such as appearance or clothing. Sometimes it involves medical decisions or human relationships. And sometimes something changes that, for an ordinary Jehovah’s Getuige, for years felt as if it were directly tied to his relationship with Jehovah. That raises an interesting question: If something was spiritually unwise or inappropriate yesterday and can be done today, what has changed? The Bible? Jehovah? Or the human interpretation of what Jehovah wants? The light gets brighter and brighter Within Jehovah’s Getuigen, changes in understanding are linked to Proverbs 4:18: ‘The path of the righteous is like the bright morning light that grows brighter and brighter until the day is fully bright.’ Jehovah’s Getuigen explain that the Bible does not change, but that their beliefs can be adjusted as their understanding of the Bible grows. In their publications, this increasing light is linked to doctrinal, organizational, and moral changes. For a believing Jehovah’s Getuige, that can seem very logical. People are imperfect. The governing body does not know everything. Jehovah can gradually give his people more insight. And on its own, changing one’s understanding is of course not strange. People, organizations, churches, science, and society are constantly changing their views when new information or a different interpretation comes along. But within a religious organization, a special situation arises when someone is convinced that Jehovah is guiding that organization . Then an explanation from the organization can mean much more to an individual Getuige than: This is how our organization currently thinks about it. It can be experienced as: This is what Jehovah expects of me. And that gives a later change an extra dimension. What happens when an individual Getuige sees something differently from the governing body? Take the beard For years, wearing a beard was sensitive within many congregations of Jehovah’s Getuigen. A brother with a beard could experience that his appearance affected how others looked at him and what responsibilities or privileges he received in the congregation. There are individual experiences in which that became very concrete. For example, a former Jehovah’s Getuige tells of a brother who was not allowed to give a talk at a circuit assembly because he wore a beard. What makes this example especially striking is why he kept his beard. The brother had very sensitive skin. When he shaved closely, his skin became so irritated that it kept bleeding. So he did not wear a beard to oppose the organization. There was a physical reason. Nevertheless, his appearance had consequences for what he was allowed to do within the organization. Later, the explanation about beards changed and it was made clear that a beard by itself does not have to be a reason to consider a brother not exemplary. For many brothers, such a change can be a relief. But you can also ask a different question: What does new light mean for someone who has already experienced consequences under the earlier application? The Bible did not change. The skin of that brother did not change. His reason for wearing a beard did not change. The application changed. That suddenly makes the question of old and new light very human. This example describes a personal experience and is not presented here as proof that every congregation or every brother with a beard received the same treatment. And sisters’ clothing? Many female Jehovah’s Getuigen remember the time when a dress or skirt for meetings, conventions, field service, and other theocratic activities was the obvious norm. There could be a lot of attention to clothing. Not too short. Not too tight. Modest. Appropriate for a Christian sister. There are also experiences of sisters for whom trousers were seen as inappropriate or disrespectful. Later there was more room for sisters to wear trousers in certain theocratic situations. The trousers did not change. The Bible-based principles about modesty did not change. The application of them changed. That is why you can ask: Why could a sister not much earlier determine for herself, based on her Bible-trained conscience, that a neat pair of trousers was modest and respectful? And if she did think that at the time, how much room did she have to act according to her own conscience? And raising a glass? Smaller customs are interesting too. Many Jehovah’s Getuigen were taught not to toast or raise a glass. There are former Getuigen who remember someone being corrected simply for saying ‘proost’ . On its own, that may seem unimportant. But precisely such a small example can make something bigger visible. When someone is confronted about behavior within their religious environment, something that is not directly stated as a prohibition in the Bible can, in everyday life as a believer, still start to feel like something that Jehovah does not want . That is why it is interesting to keep making a distinction between: What is actually in the Bible? and: What application or custom has arisen from that within a religious organization? When does a human application become, in the mind of a believer, a rule from God? New light can be freeing It is important to also see the other side. A change can be pleasant. A brother who likes to wear a beard may no longer have to feel uneasy about it. A sister gets more freedom in her clothing choices. An application that used to be sensitive may disappear. For a believer, that can truly feel like: How wonderful that Jehovah is helping his organization move forward. And perhaps that is exactly how someone experiences it. But there is also another question: What does new light mean for someone who has lived for years according to the old light? With a beard, the consequence is usually still reversible. You can let a beard grow tomorrow. Likewise with clothing. You can put on different clothes. But not every religious explanation affects only outward appearance or habits. Some affect life choices. Some affect human relationships. And some even affect medical decisions. Then the question about old and new light becomes much more serious. When an explanation affects medical decisions An example of a much more serious matter is the use of blood. Jehovah’s Getuigen do not accept transfusions of whole blood or of the four main components: red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets and plasma. At the same time, the current explanation distinguishes between these main components and smaller fractions derived from them. For certain blood fractions, each Getuige must, according to the organization’s own publications, make a personal decision of conscience . The publications explicitly say that the Bible does not specifically address these blood fractions. That creates a special situation: Whole blood: not acceptable. Red blood cells: not acceptable. White blood cells: not acceptable. Platelets: not acceptable. Plasma: not acceptable. Certain fractions derived from these main components: personal decision of conscience. That distinction is also used in the current medical information of Jehovah’s Getuigen. That raises a substantive question: If the Bible does not name blood fractions separately, how is the line determined between what is forbidden and what is left to personal conscience? That question does not have to mean that someone rejects the Biblical command to abstain from blood. You can also believe that blood is sacred and at the same time want to examine how a Biblical principle is translated into modern medical products that did not exist in Biblical times. A conversation that can be had more often When people talk about this, attention is sometimes drawn to the enormous development of medicine. A former Jehovah’s Getuigen, for example, says that she once discussed this with her mother. She wondered what a later broadening or refinement of medical possibilities and religious applications would mean for Getuigen who in the past, because of their conviction, did not accept certain treatments. Her mother replied that hospitals today have options for bloodless treatments and surgeries that were either not available or much less available in the past. According to her, you therefore could not say that the organization was responsible when someone died in the past. That answer contains an important point: medicine has indeed changed. Blood-conserving surgery and other techniques have developed, and Jehovah’s Getuigen themselves pay a lot of attention to treatment methods in which donor transfusions can be avoided. But that creates a second question. Because there are really two developments that must be distinguished from one another: What could doctors medically do? and: What was a Jehovah’s Getuige allowed to accept according to his religious conviction? Those two are not automatically the same. Be careful with conclusions about death Especially on this subject, care is important. It would go too far to state that every Jehovah’s Getuige who died after refusing blood would have survived with a transfusion. That is usually impossible to determine afterward for individual patients. Medical techniques have also developed over time. Therefore, the most important question here is not about assigning blame. The more interesting question is: How certain must a religious organization be about an interpretation when that interpretation can affect an irreversible medical decision? And when certain parts are later left to personal conscience: What does that mean for people who previously made decisions under a different application? With a beard, you can still choose to wear a beard later. With clothing, you can put on something different tomorrow. With a medical decision, there may have been a moment that never comes back. Who is allowed to think independently before the light changes? Jehovah’s Getuigen are encouraged to read and study the Bible. At the same time, the governing body occupies a special place within the organization and provides worldwide leadership in Bible teaching and organization. As a result, two ideas can exist side by side: Study the Bible. and: Trust the direction of Jehovah’s organization. As long as someone reaches the same conclusion as the organization, there does not have to be any tension between those ideas. But suppose that after personal Bible study someone says: ‘In my opinion, this interpretation is not correct.’ And years later the official explanation shifts in roughly the same direction. Then an intriguing question arises: Was that person doing something wrong at the time, or had they seen something earlier? And perhaps even more important: How much room does an individual Jehovah’s Getuigen have to reach a different conclusion before the governing body does? Waiting on Jehovah A Jehovah’s Getuigen who does not understand something may decide to wait patiently. Maybe it will become clear later. Maybe new light will come. That does not have to do with intelligence or a lack of independent thinking ability. It may instead come from deep trust . When someone truly believes that Jehovah uses this organization, it is logical to think: They may know something I do not know. Jehovah will make it clear in his own time. I do not need to get ahead of things. As a result, someone may consciously decide not to follow their own conclusion, not because they cannot think, but because they trust that Jehovah will correct any inaccuracies in time. Precisely for that reason, these two questions are interesting: What do I believe because I have examined it myself? and: What do I believe because I trust that the organization has examined it properly for me? Those two may lead to the same answer. But they do not always have to. Not every change has the same consequences Here lies an important distinction. Suppose that tomorrow an application regarding clothing changes. Then you can wear different clothes. Suppose an opinion about facial hair changes. Then you can wear a beard. But suppose a religious application has had years of influence on: Whether children want children, where they live and what kind of house they live in; what kind of work; what kind of education; family contact; parent-child relationships; friendships; marriages; grandparents and grandchildren; medical decisions; or contact with someone who has been removed from the congregation. Then a change cannot restore everything. Because time cannot be given back. A thought experiment: suppose the light on disfellowship changes again Let us imagine something hypothetical. This is not a prediction and this is not the current position of Jehovah’s Getuigen. It is only a thought experiment. Suppose that in the future the governing body were to conclude that every Jehovah’s Getuigen may largely decide for themselves how much contact they have with someone who no longer belongs to the congregation. Suppose the explanation were, for example: You may have contact with your son, daughter, brother, sister, or friend. If that person speaks negatively about your faith and you do not like that, you may set your own boundary and indicate that you do not want to talk about that. In other words: you do not have to reject the person in order to set a boundary in the conversation. Again: this is hypothetical. But suppose such a change were ever to come. Then a painful question arises: What does that mean for all the people who lived for years according to the earlier rules? Lost years cannot be given back Think of a mother who barely saw her adult daughter for years. A father who misses his son. Brothers and sisters who are no longer part of each other’s daily lives. A grandparent who watches a grandchild grow up through others. A child who experiences important moments without their parents. A family member who becomes seriously ill. A marriage. A birth. A diploma. A regular Sunday afternoon. A final conversation that never took place. When a rule about a beard changes, someone can grow a beard tomorrow. But a missed youth cannot be lived again tomorrow. You cannot bring back a deceased parent. Ten years without your brother cannot simply be filled in again. A grandchild does not become four years old again because a religious explanation later changes. That is why a change that affects human relationships or irreversible life decisions is of a different order than a change about appearance. The greater the consequences, the greater the responsibility This leads to a difficult question: The greater the consequences of a religious rule for people’s lives, the more certain should you be that God truly requires that rule? And if such an explanation later changes: Is it enough to only say what applies from today onward? Or should it also include: acknowledging what the earlier explanation did to people? That is not a question that can only be asked of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Any organization that has a major influence on people’s lives can face it. But in a religious organization, the question carries extra weight when believers are convinced that the direction ultimately comes from God. God sees the heart Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jehovah can see people’s hearts. He knows motives. He knows what someone thinks. In the end, he can judge better than humans. That makes another question interesting: How much room could an individual Jehovah’s Witness then be given to use their own conscience in dealing with someone they love? After all, you can tell someone: ‘I love you and would like to keep seeing you, but I don’t want every conversation to be about my faith.’ That is a boundary. You can say: ‘I respect that you no longer believe. Will you respect that I do believe?’ That is also a boundary. That is something different from: ‘Because you no longer believe the same thing, our relationship can no longer exist in the same way.’ This shifts the question from: May I have contact? to: How do I want to protect my own boundaries within this contact? But what if the policy never changes like that? That is possible too, of course. No one knows what ‘new light’ may or may not come in the future. That is precisely why the thought experiment is interesting. A Jehovah’s Witness who today hardly sees a family member because they are convinced that this is the religiously right choice might ask themselves: If the Governing Body were to explain this differently in ten years, would I then wish I had treated my family member differently today? That is not an answer. It is a matter of conscience. And perhaps there is a second one as well: If Jehovah sees my heart, what responsibility do I myself have for the way I treat someone I love? Change is not the problem An organization that never changes anything is not necessarily more trustworthy. Being able to acknowledge a mistake can actually be valuable. New information can lead to a different conclusion. A Bible text can be examined again. An application may turn out to have been unnecessary. The problem therefore does not have to be: ‘Why do Jehovah’s Witnesses change?’ Perhaps more interesting questions are: How is a change explained? Is it clearly stated what was taught differently before? Is it acknowledged when an earlier interpretation was not correct? What happens to people who had already arrived at the new understanding earlier? And above all: What happens to people who made major life choices based on the old understanding? Old light can have real consequences That may be the most important thought. ‘New light’ is not only about new knowledge. Behind the old light there can be real lives. People have made choices. People have done things or not done things. People have shaped their conscience. People have arranged their relationships differently. And sometimes decisions have been made that can no longer be reversed. That is why, in the case of a major change, perhaps the question should not only be: What do we understand now? But also: What has our earlier conviction cost people? Thinking for yourself Ultimately, this article is therefore not only about beards, trousers, toasting, blood, or possible future changes. It is about something more fundamental: personal conscience. When you believe that God has given every person a conscience and free will, how much responsibility may you then place in an organization? And how much always remains your own? Perhaps these questions can help with that: Does this really appear in the Bible, or is this an interpretation? Have I personally investigated why I believe this? What does my own conscience say? What effect will my choice have on other people? Would I make the same choice if the organization changed its position tomorrow? And perhaps the hardest: If I later hear that the light has changed, can I still live with what I did under the old light? Join the conversation What changes have you experienced within Jehovah’s Getuigen? Was there something you didn’t do for years because you thought Jehovah didn’t want it, and which later turned out to be possible? How did that change feel? And are there decisions where you think: If this position had been different back then, would my life have turned out differently? Experiences from current Jehovah’s Getuigen are also welcome. The goal is not to say that a religious organization can never change its understanding. The question is what happens when changing religious understanding affects real people, real choices, and relationships or decisions that sometimes can no longer be repaired or reversed. New light can change the future. But what happens to the life that was lived under the old light? Sources to check: publications of Jehovah’s Getuigen on Proverbs 4:18 and increasing light; Do You View Life and Blood the Same Way God Does? ; Blood Fractions and Surgical Procedures ; and the current medical information from Jehovah’s Getuigen on blood and blood fractions. The current own publications confirm both the refusal of whole blood and the four main components, as well as room for personal conscience regarding certain fractions.