Over the summer, I attended a course as a part of my master’s degree program called “Administration of Non-Profit Organizations”. The course included an analysis of the role of the executive director as well as the board of directors of the non-profit. I was amazed that several terms were used, seemingly interchangeably, to refer to the board of directors, such as “governing board” or “governing body”. Governing body? Yes, I was surprised to see the term, after having been ingrained all my life that the Governing Body referred to the leadership of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It seems that it is actually a common term, a quasi-legal expression, to refer to the group of directors of any nonprofit.

A quick look at Wikipedia confirms that the term governing body has a variety of uses outside of the JW organization. While Wikipedia does mention the Watch Tower Society as one of the potential uses of the term “governing body”, it also indicates more mainstream definitions, such as the board of directors of a company or school. Thus, just as the Watch Tower Society, as a non-profit, has a legally constituted board of directors that serves as its governing body, so do all other non-profit organizations, including religious ones. Thus, there must be a governing body of Episcopalians, Catholics and Baptists, as well as a governing body of the Red Cross, American Cancer Society, Ford Motor Corporation and so on. In fact, just below the mention of the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses, the next Wikipedia entry is “Governing Body Commission of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness”. So Jehovah’s Witnesses certainly do not have a monopoly on the term.

The Watch Tower Society originally used the term “governing body” in this strict legal sense, and in fact, used the term quite sparingly. As stated in the Watchtower, it was not until “the year 1944 the Watchtower magazine began to speak about the governing body of the Christian congregation (italics theirs).” (Watchtower, Dec. 15, 1971, p. 755) Since the 1950s, the term would frequently be used to refer to the first century, making assertions such as, “The apostle Paul belonged to the governing body in the first century” (Watchtower, April 15, 1951, p. 235 par. 7) without citing any scriptural backup. On the other hand, the magazine described the modern day “Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, [as] the governing body of Jehovah’s Witnesses.” (Watchtower, Jan. 1, 1950, p. 10 par. 2)

The Watch Tower Society admits that the original use of the term “governing body” merely referred to the directors of the Watchtower Society, a legal corporation: “This governing body has through the years been associated with the publishers of the Watchtower magazine and the board of directors of the legal religious corporation now known as Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania.” (Watchtower, Dec. 15,1971, p. 755) The term “legal” was frequently seen in connection with the phrase “governing body” as in this example: “These ‘goods’ (new world interests) have been placed under the jurisdiction of the anointed remnant with its legal governing body operating through the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society (italics mine).” (Watchtower, April 1, 1953, p. 216 par. 3)

As time has progressed, the Watch Tower Society has made increased use of the term “governing body” in the Watchtower magazine. Note the following chart:

In the 1950s and 1960s, the term was used quite infrequently in the Watchtower, rarely occurring more than 20 times, and frequently meriting only single-digit mentions. However, it can be noted that the use of the term has increased significantly since 1971, when an article appeared in the Watchtower explaining that the “Governing Body” was different from a legal corporation. (Watchtower, Dec. 15, 1971, p. 755) This change caused a power struggle among members of the Governing Body, as the president and vice-president of the Watch Tower Society wanted to maintain their control of the organization, and did not wish to share their power with the other members of the newly expanded Governing Body. After the fiasco of 1975, however, the Governing Body, which had been expanded since 1971 and included Ray Franz, began to assert its power, and increased mention was made in articles in the late 1970s.

Interestingly, a decline can be seen in the early 1980s. This could be due to the fact that Ray Franz was disfellowshipped in 1981, and the Watch Tower Society did not want to remind its followers that a defection had taken place on the Governing Body. Thus, in 1980 and 1981 the term was rarely used. The memory of the sheep being short-lived, the Watch Tower Society once again in 1982 began to make at least 20 references to the Governing Body each year, with another set of articles in 1990 reasserting the Governing Body’s authority and attempting to provide a biblical base for the use of the term. Similar articles have once again appeared in 2008, as the Governing Body fears the growing number of people who question its authority and attempt to squelch the ever-growing amount of information unmasking the Watch Tower Society on the Internet.

Overall, as can be seen by the above chart, the Watch Tower Society has increased its use of the term “governing body” each decade since the 1960s. Given that a series of three articles praising the Governing Body has appeared in the 2008 Watchtower, insisting that Jehovah God and Jesus trust the Governing Body (how they know what Jehovah and Jesus think now is not so clear), the number of occurrences for the decade 2000-2009 will likely be more that the previous decade, and will continue the upward trend.

Returning to the subject of the origin of the term “governing body”, it is clear that the phrase has a legal origin, even considering the introduction of the term into the Watch Tower’s publications. The term “governing body” cannot be found in the Bible at all. The Watch Tower Society use of the term “first-century governing body” is an anachronism, using a modern quasi-legal term to refer to an ancient religious synod. The Bible does not make specific mention of an organized group that directed the actions of all Christians, as can be seen by the Apostle Paul’s considerable independence from the apostles and elders in Jerusalem. (Acts 16:6-9, 19:21, 22; Galatians 1:17-19)

Thus, the Watch Tower Society’s use of the term “governing body” is an adoption of a common modern quasi-legal term. The Watch Tower Society frequently accuses the Catholic church of having made the mistake of incorporating worldly terms into its body of teachings: “Such practices and teachings (such as the trinity or immortality of the soul), Cardinal Newman (a cleric that the Watch Tower Society frequently quotes) claimed, were ‘sanctified by their adoption into the Church.’” (Awake, Dec. 22, 1994, p. 20) While the Watch Tower Society criticizes the Catholic church for adopting worldly or pagan customs, the Watch Tower Society has committed the same error by insisting that the term “governing body” is a biblical term, when it is nothing of the sort. Perhaps the Watch Tower Society feels that the use of the term is “sanctified by its adoption” into the Watch Tower.

While the Watch Tower wanted to claim that this change was theocratic, in order to make the organization better follow the biblical pattern, the fact that they chose the name Governing Body, a legal rather than a biblical term, is typical doublespeak that convinces the average Jehovah’s Witness. However, thinking about the use of the term “governing body” helps people to see that it is just another example of abuse of power, as those in control “lord it over the flock”, governing the bodies of the willing masses.

—
Lance Goller is a former Gilead-trained missionary who left Jehovah’s Witnesses in 2008.

Such was the case with me. Everything, every fiber of my being was immersed in dedication to a cause I felt was the only sense that could be made of life as we know it in the world we live in. As all humans are given a gift to find or when discovered to use to feel fulfillment in life, so was I given a unique gift I discovered at a young age, and that was to teach. I found great satisfaction in being able to impart in creative ways knowledge that would in turn motivate many to expend themselves in what I thought would be the best way of life. So many lives I have touched with a smug satisfaction that over time has evaporated into despair at realizing I was used as a tool to waste the lives of so many.

Somewhere along the way this creative mind I was given began to turn against my heart, my motivation, everything I placed as important in life. How could it do this to me? I fought for years to forget, suppress and simply not think of troubling issues, but my mind could not be lobotomized into motivated activity without reason.

It was a battle, a war with all the pain and anguish that destroys the innocence of young boys who go in with a noble cause, then come out forever changed after enduring the results that war produces. Very similar was my battle, not with guns or bullets, but instead with heart and mind, an internal conflict complete with charging victories and withering surrenders that exhaust the body and torment your soul. Would it ever end? Would I destroy myself before a victory could be found? The only solution I could find was to make a decision, as indecision is what wastes a person’s sanity. I must set a time, a limit as to when victory would be declared one way or the other. Whatever the consequences, I would accept and move on with my life. I gave it a year, and as that year progressed my mind began to bombard my heart with the heavy artillery of reason.

The harder I tried to work, the heavier the blast of trying to find the reason why. I could feel my heart beginning to concede; my joy was no more. The very thing from which I drew the most pleasure, teaching others creatively, became a heavy load that came to the point of feeling physically ill when I approached the platform. I did away with all notes, research and study — it was too painful, and I just spoke from my heart, a heart that was losing the battle, yet would fight courageously like a loyal knight defending the honor of a corrupt king in a cause he knew he could not win.

Finally the battle ended, and like the eerie silence that drifts over a war zone at the end of the day, there was no celebration, no party and no jubilation, and instead a sad realization it was finally over.

My mind had won a hard fought victory with excellent strategy and complete superiority had destroyed the enemy. But this was not the enemy, it was an old friend, something I had dispatched so handily in the heat of battle, that now lay before me slowly dying with nothing but pleading in his eyes for me to save him somehow. An old friend who had came through for me so many times, who always had my back when trouble threatened, who picked me up when I was down and kept me going. Even though he was misguided, how could I have hurt him so?

I feel I must gently pick him up, take him to a safe place and carefully nurse him back to health. He must be saved for he is my heart, my motivation for finding a cause to fight for. You see even though my mind won the battle, without my heart I lose the war.

It is a long process, and much like a wounded soldier, the rehabilitation is a slow and arduous progression. The trust is no longer there; the will to fight, while still a twinkle, quickly gives out when too much is asked. I recall the saying, “Sometimes it just takes time to heal.” I know I must not give up on it, but feel my heart will never be the same and hope that change will be realized someday as for the better.

Perhaps this story can be a reminder to remember to not lose your heart when you use your mind.
—
Anonymous, 2009