Are Jehovah's Witnesses Required to Believe Everything the Organization Teaches? [Opposers Dismythed]

Being required to believe something in order to be a member of the organization and speaking in agreement so as not to cause contention are two different, but related things. ("Two sides of the same coin.")

The faithful and discreet slave (FDS) has laid out that anyone who wants to be a member of Jehovah's organization must believe in the salvation message we preach, which includes rejecting the Trinity, hellfire, the immortality of the soul and eternal security ("Once saved, always saved"), and they must live morally clean lives. (Any viewpoint that promotes a different understanding will be immediately flagged as apostate as there can be no doubt that we have the correct salvation message.) When a person is baptized, they are declaring their faith in the salvation we preach in line with the Scriptures. If, at some point, they change their view of salvation, then their view ceases to be compatible with membership in the organization, regardless of whether they talk about it or not.

On the other hand, any non-salvation-related interpretation is governed by 1 Corinthians 1:10, in which if you cannot agree with something, such as an interpretation of a prophecy, then you simply keep silent about it, not sharing your difference of opinion with anyone. 'Speaking in agreement' does not mean believing everything you are told in the organization without question, but means not disturbing the peace and unity of the congregation. (1Co 1:10) As long as you hold your peace where you cannot speak in agreement, you cannot dishonor yourself. (Pr 11:2; 17:27, 28) If someone asks you about something you cannot give an answer to in agreement with the organization, just direct them to one of the organization's publications and let it do the talking so that you don't have to.

Salvation is not dependent upon our understanding all things perfectly (except the correct salvation message), otherwise no one could be saved. Salvation is dependent upon love toward God, faith in Jesus' sacrifice, love toward our brothers, obedience and our personal ministry (1Jo 5:1-4; Ro 10:9; 1Pe 3:21).

There are good discussions of this subject in the article, "Is your Personal Opinion Paramount?" in the February 15, 1989 Watchtower, pp. 18-20 (Or go to: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1989124#h=6:161-24:171) and the article "The Bible's Viewpoint: Does Christian unity Require Uniformity?" in the May 8, 2003 Awake!, p. 18 (Or go to: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102003329#h=4:0-8:562).

Promoting Differences of Opinion Is Unloving

To speak about a difference of opinion is to promote one's own ideas before others. So let us consider what doing so means in the face of love.

Is it loving to let members be confused by contradictory ideas? Is it loving to let an idea grow until it starts conflicting with the established message by a circuitous route? Is it loving when your brother says one thing, thinking he is right, but you contradict him, thinking you are right, but neither of you have authority to declare anything about it? Is this not the source of all conflicts that ever existed? Can it truly be said that we are "speaking in agreement" at that point?

But now, who is to say one man's opinion is more valid than another's? Such a question applies to every single person who openly speaks about their own ideas about the Bible. It should be comforting that we are not governed by one man on earth, but by a body of men who prayerfully decide on suggestions from around the world and don't pretend to be infallible. Letting everyone have their say about a scripture is just the far extreme from one man deciding doctrine while claiming to be infallible, and far extremes, in my experience, are typically wrong. A proper balance must be struck, and I think the organization has struck that balance because they base that balance on God's word.

Should the FDS Decide About Non-salvation-Related Beliefs?

Enumerating the possible answers to this question will help us see what is the wisest course:

Restricting the FDS. If the FDS were not allowed to make a decision on a non-salvation-reated interpretation, but everyone could have their own ideas, what would qualify anyone with the right to decide on it in their speech? It would be chaos and divisiveness as people take sides for one view over another.—Php 2:14.

Restricting everyone. If it was made so that no one, not even the FDS, could decide on it, then both are stuck and no determination can ever be made about a scripture and we would hardly have anything to talk about, let alone anything in common beyond our silence. We could not even build each other up with God's word because of differences in interpretations, and no one would get ready for battle because the declaration would never come.—1Co 14:8, 16, 17.

No restriction at all. Inversely, if everyone is allowed to freely contradict the FDS's interpretation, then there would be no respect for the FDS's judgments and it would be chaos and divisiveness as people take sides.—1Ti 6:3-5.

Restricting everyone but the FDS. But if only the FDS is permitted to decide, then there is peace, everyone is on the same page, and you can always send a proposal for reviewing the scripture if you have a different interpretation. (Just make sure to prove your case thoroughly.)—2Th 2:15-17.

Several are greater than one, which is why Jesus said to the future governing body of the day, the apostles, "Truly I say to you, whatever things you may bind on earth will be things already bound in heaven, and whatever things you may loosen on earth will be things already loosened in heaven. Again I tell you truly, if two of you on earth agree concerning anything of importance that they should request, it will take place for them on account of my Father in heaven. For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there I am in their midst." (Mt 18-20; Note that they must agree.) This applied to the apostles only, and later the governing body they produced. Letting many groups study is chaos.

So what is the benefit of just one study group? They have a single cohesive understanding that they can build upon, deconstruct or replace bit-by-bit. The problem with many groups is that they are all pulling in different directions. Imagine 100 artists working on the same stone statue. How long would it be before that statue is in dust or completely mangled by different viewpoints? The same with a painting. How many paintings do you know are painted by multiple teams? The worst movies are the ones that get handed from team to team, resulting in a frankensteined mess, but a movie with a single team comes out with a cohesive story. Likewise, a single study group is able to work together to address issues as they move forward.

Paul's Counsel

In 1 Timothy, Paul gives direction to Timothy about being an elder. In 1 Timothy 1:3, 4, he gives clear counsel about curbing dissent. There are a few features here: 1) An elder is to "command certain ones not to teach different doctrine," 2) to "command certain ones not to … pay attention to false stories and to genealogies," and 3) speculations do not provide "anything from God in connection with faith."

Note that he does not say that Timothy should do this because the doctrine comes from inspired teachers or from the apostles. In verses 5-7 he explains why. His statement has multiple features: 1) One objective is "love out of a clean heart," 2) a second objective is "love ... out of a good conscience," 3) A third objective is "love … out of faith without hypocrisy," 4) and he gives the reason that "some have been turned aside to meaningless talk," 5) with the motivation that "they want to be teachers of law," 6) and failure resulting from the fact that "they do not understand ... the things they are saying," 7) and their pride in their own ability leads them to "insist on so strongly."

Note that all three objectives (1-3) are based on love. "A clean heart" is the seat of one's motivation, contrasted with the lifeless motivation "to be teachers of law." "A good conscience" means that we have the Christ, not the law, the breaking of which befouls our conscience. But law is not specifically what Paul is getting at. He means anyone claiming special knowledge or ability. "Faith without hypocrisy" contrasts with one's seeking to appear righteous by their appearing to be knowledgeable, when, in fact, they know nothing. Later Paul labels these men "puffed up with pride." Let us look at that as well.

At 1 Timothy 6:3-5, he refers to two types of information from two sources: 1) "doctrine … from our Lord Jesus Christ", and 2) "wholesome instruction … in harmony with godly devotion." So doctrine is from the things taught by Jesus and passed on through the apostles. "Wholesome instruction" is that which involves "godly devotion." This comes, not from the average member, but is the duty of the elders and the governing body, as they are the ones specifically commissioned for that very purpose. (Tit 1:5-9) One of those wholesome instructions is to speak in agreement and not to contradict, and the governing body of the day proved to be the last word on both congregational and doctrinal matters in Acts 6 and 15.

The reason certain ones defy these things is that they are 1) "puffed up with pride," 2) "does not understand anything," just as covered in chapter 1, 3) "obsessed with arguments and debates about words," 4) "corrupted in mind," 5) "deprived of the truth," and 6) "thinking that godly devotion is a means of gain." Such things result in 1) envy, 2) strife, 3) slander, 4) "wicked suspicions," and  5) "constant disputes about minor matters".

That is what happens when you let members speak about things that are not in agreement with what is being taught or with each other. The ones who are corrupted in mind end up corrupting others. (Gal 5:9; 2Ti 2:16-18) Thus, it should not be given room to breathe. What happens when you give a weed its optimal environment? It takes over. In order to prevent weeds, you need to make the environment directly hostile to weeds. Not permitting the expressions of contradictions prevents apostates from having any room to grow in the congregation.—1Co 5:7.

A contradiction made public is contention. Keeping a disagreement between you and the speaker alone promotes peace.