ComfortMyPeople

(Exodus 18:17-23) 17 Moses’ father-in-law said to him: “What you are doing is not good. 18 You will surely wear out, both you and this people who are with you, because this is too big a load for you and you cannot carry it by yourself. 19 Now listen to me. I will give you advice, and God will be with you. You serve as representative for the people before the true God, and you must bring the cases to the true God. 20 You should warn them about what the regulations and the laws are and make known to them the way in which they should walk and the work that they should do. 21 But you should select from the people capable men fearing God, trustworthy men hating dishonest profit, and appoint these over them as chiefs over thousands, chiefs over hundreds, chiefs over fifties, and chiefs over tens. 22 They should judge the people when cases arise, and they will bring every difficult case to you, but every minor case they will decide. Make it easier for yourself by letting them share the load along with you. 23 If you do this, and God so commands you, you will be able to stand the strain, and everyone will go home satisfied.”
A "hierarchy" not unlike governments and businesses too.
Also, you might have referred to this case:
*** w03 4/1 pp. 18-19 par. 14 Mildness—An Essential Christian Quality ***
After Jehovah appointed him leader of the nation of Israel, Moses’ quality of mildness was still in evidence. A young man reported to Moses that Eldad and Medad were acting as prophets in the camp—even though they were not present when Jehovah poured out his spirit upon the 70 older men who were to serve as Moses’ helpers. Joshua declared: “My lord Moses, restrain them!” Moses mildly replied: “Are you feeling jealous for me? No, I wish that all of Jehovah’s people were prophets, because Jehovah would put his spirit upon them!” (Numbers 11:26-29) Mildness helped defuse that tense situation.
This full situation always reminds me of this:
(Mark 9:38-40) 38 John said to him: “Teacher, we saw someone expelling demons by using your name, and we tried to prevent him, because he was not following us.” 39 But Jesus said: “Do not try to prevent him, for there is no one who will do a powerful work on the basis of my name who will quickly be able to say anything bad about me. 40 For whoever is not against us is for us.

I hate to say it, but you are quite right on this one. I knew that these time periods were always subject to change any time something better comes along. And I was actually very surprised we held onto this 1944 date when the 1999 Daniel's Prophecy book came out. But I was more surprised that it took me this long to notice the significance of the 1971 date for this change. The footnotes of the 1971 Watchtower spell out very clearly that this is the first adjustment since 1959 (which was about the same as the 1933 WT before that).

The understanding of the Elder arrangement had already been spelled out in the November 1, 1944 Watchtower (evidently written by Fred Franz). But the idea was not brought up again seriously until around 1969 when the Aid Book article on "Elder" needed to be approved. The understanding of problems with 1914 were known since well before COJ. And yes, by members of the Bethel family, including several persons on the GB, and several in Writing. Also at least one in the Service Dept, who was later transferred to Writing after 1982. I can guess that there were (and are) many more that I didn't know about at the time
You might be right here. It's also another point where Furuli and R.Franz intersect in their thinking. Both of them have written that they recognize that the Watchtower never had a real Governing Body in any spiritual sense like the supposed Jerusalem Council. Or even like a Sanhedrin. Not back in 1919 or before, and not really until 1975. There never was a body of "governing" elders involved in real decision-making until after the GB vote in December 1975. And it was Ray Franz' proposal that spear-headed a GB that acted like a council. Like a kind of Sanhedrin. In his book he tries to minimize his involvement in pushing for that decision, but at the time I think he knew his 64-page proposal, if approved, would likely result in a real GB like the one today. And it did, even with the same committee structure he had proposed.
I think these are all good points. I think it's almost inevitable that a Governing Body of some sort will develop. And if it is scriptural to have a presbytery, or body of elders, in the congregations, then why not some similar kind of leadership over multiple congregations. (Timothy and Titus were previous examples)
And as the work becomes more international, the most efficient version of the body of elders, is a body of elders who can make decisions appropriate to the logistics and efforts and distribution requirements of a worldwide congregation.
I think what made both R.Franz and R.Furuli uncomfortable is when they realized it didn't work out to their own expectations.

Perhaps a possible explanation for the Franz / Furuli similarities is that both situations, the time of Franz and the present, share the same problems.
I see a tension, an opposite force, between wanting to have a united, harmonious organization and allowing greater freedom of conscience and thought. Both extremes I think are bad.
Can you imagine going to a congregation that believes in the trinity, or in hell fire?
At the other extreme, it is a shame it is troublesome to wear a beard, not to wear a tie and that sort of thing.

Perhaps a possible explanation for the Franz / Furuli similarities is that both situations, the time of Franz and the present, share the same problems.
I see a tension, an opposite force, between wanting to have a united, harmonious organization and allowing greater freedom of conscience and thought. Both extremes I think are bad.
Can you imagine going to a congregation that believes in the trinity, or in hell fire?
At the other extreme, it is a shame it is troublesome to wear a beard, not to wear a tie and that sort of thing.

The first thread started on this topic, and the topic has already garnered hundreds of responses. But it hasn't dealt much with Rolf Furuli's own theme. His real topic is about how the JW religion is "right," but the current Governing Body is "wrong." That's an unsolvable contradiction to many.
Furuli tries to solve this conundrum by claiming that the GB shouldn't even exist, and that they should not try to find justification for their existence in the parable of the faithful and unfaithful slave/steward of Matthew 24 and Luke 12. There is also the idea in the book that it's only a previous version of the JW religion that is "right." The current version has lost doctrines that should have been kept and this is the fault of a GB that should not exist in the first place. 
There will also be inevitable comparisons between Rolf Furuli and Ray Franz. And there will be associations made between Furuli and Fred Franz, too.
I'll leave this topic up here for a while to see if anyone is interested in discussing any of these points. I'll hold off any additional discussion from my end for a while.

I think you are being dishonest again. So, if you are, consider this to be a case of "reproving before all onlookers." (1 Tim 5:20)  I could be wrong, of course, so just think of it as merely trying to follow the qualities Paul spoke of:
(Titus 1:8, 9) . . .a lover of goodness, sound in mind, righteous, loyal, self-controlled, 9 holding firmly to the faithful word as respects his art of teaching, so that he may be able both to encourage by the teaching that is wholesome and to reprove those who contradict.
So to answer you: yes, I want to make a point here. Yes, the facts have discredited your assessment about Zondervan. As usual, you were "hoisted by your own petard," again. As usual, you love to project your mistakes onto other people. When proven wrong, you have never admitted it directly, but nearly always create a new diversion, or try to make yourself look better, often by twisting words.
When you say, "As usual, this continues to be a mistaken stance you have shown for many years," technically, I agree. I have now exposed this same type of mistaken stance for many years.
Then you bring up the book "All But Invisible," just as I thought you might, but I think you did this dishonestly.
Then you said: "I believe my inference was about churches that are now allowing gays into their churches in the name of unity."
I believe this is also dishonest, as your statements indicate that this was NOT what your inference was about, and I'll indicate why I think this below.
----------------
I suppose some readers here might be wondering what this is all about. So I'll provide a quick review, if anyone is interested or concerned.
First, Cesar Chavez (CC) said the following about Furuli's book.
The implication is that Furuli should not have quoted from any books from Zondervan publishing, just because they also published the Satanic Bible. The problem with that claim is that the Satanic Bible was never published by Zondervan. It came out in the 1960s from another publisher (Dell), and HarperCollins sold books from that other publisher.
Zondervan claims, I believe, to have published two-thirds of the best-selling Bibles. Zondervan was bought by HarperCollins in 1988, and associated since the early 1980s. Zondervan has become the Christian Publishing division of HarperCollins. In fact, if you were to write about this controversy, you would probably get a response like the following, as found on their site:

But this controversy has been all over the web, and there might be tens of thousands of references to this idea about the "Satanic Bible," and probably THOUSANDS of them also make a point about Zondervan also publishing a book called "The Joy of Gay Sex."  As crazy as that first point was, I wondered why CC didn't bring that up, too. In a sense he already had, because CC provided the link http://www.holywordcafe.com/bible/resources/Zondervan.htm as shown above, which also says the following:
Now Zondervan, the largest Christian house, is under fire again, for publishing a Bible translation with more gender-neutral language, and some Evangelical competitors think they see the influence of its secular parent, HarperCollins. "There is  of the Southern Baptist Convention. HarperCollins, he noted, also publishes books offensive to Evangelicals like "The New Joy of Gay Sex."   But Jane Friedman, chief executive of HarperCollins, which acquired Zondervan in 1987, said it operates with complete autonomy out of a separate headquarters in Grand Rapids , Mich.
Since CC had put this controversy in the context of doing "thorough research" I assumed he might know that BOTH of these two books are paired thousands of times by evangelicals and fundamentalists, often as a way of dismissing the NIV and other translations from encroaching upon their revered KJV translation. (As an aside, in 2013, the Watchtower Society also published a revised "Bible translation with more gender-neutral language.") 
So after showing CC that Zondervan hadn't actually published the Satanic Bible as CC claimed, he then responded with the associated claim about homosexuals, just as one might have expected:
The primary point I had tried to clarify was not "nothing" but that the original claim was wrong, false, and also pointless, as the Watchtower has also quoted from Zondervan publishers several times.
But, I was also concerned that CC might have purposely left off the title of the book about homosexuality, not just because it's an uncomfortable title, but because I figured CC might later try to say he was referring to a different book if I pointed out that he was also wrong about the one mentioned in his web link. (You'd have to know more about CC's history to understand why I thought I needed to prepare for such deviousness.) So I responded carefully:
To which CC responded:
So now this is actually an admission that HC published the Satanic Bible, but CC insists that Zondervan published "gay sex." Of course, they didn't. So now knowing about the book "All But Invisible" and knowing that he might say this is what he was talking about all along, I figured it was OK to let him know I was talking about the original book CC had already sent a link about. I knew by the term "gay sex" that CC was not referring to Zondervan's books on homosexual acceptance in churches and their struggle against sin. So I was more clear:
But CC, who can never fully admit a mistake, went for it anyway, claiming that he never knew what I was talking about and that this book "All But Invisible" was the one he meant all along. You can see him saying that in the opening quote from his last post on the topic.
The problem with that is that "All But Invisible" is not a book about gay sex at all. Quite the opposite, it is about the experience of a person who although homosexual does not believe in gay sex, because he believes sex should only be part of a monogamous marriage. His form of Christianity is the source of his belief. He speaks of the loneliness, but also the understanding he has of other homosexuals going through the same experience.
As this author repeats in several ways:

------------------
So, back to you directly CC. That is why, in my opinion, you were not being honest. 

I see, in my opinion, that the parables of the slave/ steward could have three senses:
1
According to the Bible, in a sense I am a steward, or supervisor of my family. I have to take care of it, feed it and take care of it.
2
(1 Timothy 5:17) "Let the elders who preside in a fine way ..." shows that in each congregation there must be some who supervises and cares for the rest of the congregation: a steward group of elders.
3
In the final age it would be neccesary a global stewardship
The analysis of the next passage alone yields much information on this matter, the administration or stewardship of the "house of God":
(Revelation 7:9, 10) . . .After this I saw, and look! a great crowd, which no man was able to number, out of all nations and tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, dressed in white robes; and there were palm branches in their hands. 10 And they keep shouting with a loud voice, saying: “Salvation we owe to our God, who is seated on the throne, and to the Lamb.”
1) A large number of people would be saved from the final Great Tribulation
    Each one in her house, living only according to her criteria or conscience? Let's see
2) They ALL dress the SAME way, in white in the eyes of God
    So there should be a unified behavior and conduct, not based ONLY on individual consciousness
3) They speak in unison, they have a common message
    They "shouted" the same message. There is nothing worse than a detuned choir.
4) The basic doctrinal body would be the same
    They worship one God and see the value of the Lamb.
5) Something that would make this unit difficult is that they come from very different backgrounds
    "of all nations, tribes, peoples, and languages,"
How could Mt 24:14 be accomplished with the outcome of Rev 7:9-10 without direction, organization, supervision or stewardship?
Over there I am listening to one, there in the background, who says that Christ from heaven takes charge, with the holy spirit, that there is no need for greater supervision. Am I right?
if someone thinks like that, let's consider:
In another apocalyptic prophecy we read that
    (Daniel 11:33). . those having insight among the people will impart understanding to the many. . .
    (Daniel 12:10). . . And the wicked will act wickedly and no wicked will understand. Only those having insight will understand.
It seems that the prophecy indicates that there would be TWO groups of worshipers: the PEOPLE, the MANY on one side, and THOSE HAVING INSIGHT on the other. And this second group would help to obtain knowledge to the first one.
Yes, it would be necessary to teach others not the basic truths of the Gospel but what the angel said:
    "(Daniel 12: 9)" these words must be kept secret and sealed until the end time "
"These words", which should be understood with the help of "those having insight", refer to such profound thoughts of Daniel's prophecy that even the prophet himself was unable to understand (Daniel 12:8  "I heard, but I did not understand"
Thus, this last world stewardship seems very necessary, since unifying an international crowd with similar behavior, with similar beliefs, that have a united message, would be impossible without such leadership. And Daniel adds a smaller group that oversees that teaching.
 
So stewardship applies, in my opinion, to any Christian who has to be a steward: on my family, on my congregation, and on the entire world brotherhood.
------------------------------
(Matthew 24:48) . . .“But if ever that evil slave says in his heart. . ." this is for another day
 

Regarding to the illustration of the "faithful slave" (Mt 24) or "faithful steward" (Lu 12) we find a quote that I think is pertinent in the letter of Ignatius to the Ephesians VI: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-ephesians-roberts.html
CHAPTER VI. Now the more any one sees the bishop keeping silence, the more ought he to revere him. For we ought to receive every one whom the Master of the house sends to be over His household, as we would do Him that sent him. It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord Himself. And indeed Onesimus himself greatly commends your good order in God, that ye all live according to the truth, and that no sect has any dwelling-place among you. Nor, indeed, do ye hearken to any one rather than to Jesus Christ speaking in truth.
These commentaries of certain Ignatius from the end of the 1st or early 2nd century show us an UNSPECIALIZED, but generic, use of the "slave class", that is, it does not represent a group or class with a specific mission, but that any member of the congregation -mainly the "episkopos" (bishop) of the same has the commission to supervise it.
 
I think this idea it was first mentioned for @JW Insider, and something similar is said in Furuli's book: there wasn't any specialized class attending the household in those days. 
Neither did Ignatius wait for the last days to arrive for the declaration on the "faithful slave" to be fulfilled. Already in those days it was necessary that any Christian with supervisory responsibilities be that, prudent and faithful.
By the way, Ignacio already believed he was living in the last days:
11:1 These are the last times. Henceforth let us have reverence;
 

Yes. The scripture in Hebrews 13 said very clearly we can do this by watching how their conduct (acts, activities) turns out, and then imitating their faith. If you want to argue that some scriptures have no meaning outside of the first century, then go ahead and throw those parts of your Bible away. Personally I find nearly ALL scripture useful and beneficial for teaching, etc.

Who said they wouldn't be spiritual? See the qualifications for elders and overseers in Timothy and Titus. What type of teaching did you think the Bible was referring to where I highlighted "teachers" in 1 Cor 12? If you require a book attached to each post, to cover all the bases for you, and fill in all the imaginary gaps, then you might just assume that I am using Bible definitions unless otherwise noted.

I meant it exactly in the ways that the Bible uses the word "episkopos" which literally means overseer. It can be used of elders who oversee a congregation. Perhaps the needs of all the congregations in Achaia or Galatia, for example, would have needed an overseer of several congregations, much like a "circuit overseer." Titus, for example, had to qualify as an overseer of elders and overseers in city after city:
(Titus 1:5-9) 5 I left you in Crete so that you would correct the things that were defective and make appointments of elders in city after city, as I instructed you: 6 if there is any man free from accusation, a husband of one wife, having believing children who are not accused of debauchery or rebelliousness. 7 For as God’s steward, an overseer must be free from accusation, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not a drunkard, not violent, not greedy of dishonest gain, 8 but hospitable, a lover of goodness, sound in mind, righteous, loyal, self-controlled, 9 holding firmly to the faithful word as respects his art of teaching, so that he may be able both to encourage by the teaching that is wholesome and to reprove those who contradict.
An overseer is like a shepherd who looks after a flock, a congregation. Jesus looks after the whole world of congregations in a way that these local overseers and bodies of overseers cannot possibly do on their own. He is the great shepherd, and thus the great overseer.
(1 Peter 2:25) . . .For you were like sheep going astray, but now you have returned to the shepherd and overseer of your souls.
Yet, humans can be called overseers and shepherds, too:
(1 Timothy 3:1) . . .This statement is trustworthy: If a man is reaching out to be an overseer, he is desirous of a fine work.
BTW, Titus 1:7 shows that all overseers should also be faithful and discreet slaves, "as God's steward, an overseer must be free from accusation," etc.

@JW Insider calls it an “intangible spiritual sheen” that the GB is shedding. @Anna calls it “revealing the man behind the curtain” I won’t go so far as to say it is deliberate, but they surely see it happening and make no effort to stop it. One brother said of JW Broadcasting—it makes perfectly clear that we don’t rely upon paid actors. “Image?—What’s that?” they all but say.
As in keeping with this thread about scholarship, it’s well to point out that at least two of them freely reveal themselves to be among the least scholarly persons on earth. I say, “I have no problem at all with this”—after I got over the problem I had with it—after I got my head around it. It is for honest-hearted persons to get their heads around their course. It is not for they to get their heads around the facades and pretentious doings of those who like to think—they love ‘scholarship’—but as to deeds?-forget about it! 
“How can you believe, when you are accepting glory from one another...” Jesus says. That’s what scholars (as a class) do, and one of their first initial practical deeds is to say they will not declare the good news publicly as Jesus did because that will surely detract from their scholarly reputation. Not to diss scholarship—far from it that I should do this—but it needs to be knocked down a peg or two. It is not the be-all and end-all. Doing God’s will is what counts. 
Accordingly, the record of the GB members is life-long full-time service, door-to-door with the Kingdom good news, motivated by love of God and neighbor. It is humble work if there ever was one, and it is ‘doubling down’ on the humility in that a large portion of it has been in developing lands. They’re not blue-bloods born to privilege, as that obnoxious self-described Norwegian apostate (not Rolf—the guy from a neighboring congregation) seems to think they should be, as he sneers—just like Celsus did—about how they were once “window-cleaners” God! The pretentions of these people! Look at the world that your “scholarship” has collectively built before you ridicule those who have by-passed it—when it goes down in the giant flush, hold aloft your degrees for special consideration.
I was surprised to find that JWI had a different take on the “superfine” apostles of 2 Corinthians 11. Chalk it up to a gentleman’s disagreement—but I still think he is all wet. Paul did the work. They wanted the credit. They were comfortable men—perhaps they thought themselves ‘scholars’—comfortably ensconced in their home congregations. Paul was so outraged at this ‘power grab’ that he “declared like a mad man, I am more outstandingly [an apostle of Christ]” And what was their [probable] response? “See, he admits that he is mad. Not us, though. We are smart and ‘balanced.’”
If GB members reveal the “man behind the curtain” and shed their “intangible spiritual sheen” now, why didn’t they do it before? Here, @Arauna comes to the rescue with the common-sense point that the geniuses completely ignore—everything must be judged in the historical context of its time. Was FDR a liar for not ‘outing himself’ as crippled by polio? Were the press liars for not reporting it?—for they all knew. Obviously not—for the good of the country it was thought necessary to convey strength. 
It is the same with the sexual immorality of which numerous presidents have been guilty. Of one, it is written that he made a whorehouse out of the White House. The press knew. Why did they not out him? Again, it is the completely understandable urge to preserve demeanor for those providing the lead. Today, “grab them by the p***y” makes headlines. It has not historically been that way.
So the GB’s reluctance to acknowledge human imperfection is completely within the spirt of the times. They are the last ones to accede to the new model that ‘leaders should spill’ because they are ‘no part of the world’ and it takes a while for it to register with them what has long since been normalized outside. 
The response to CSA accusations may be the prime example of this. When it turns out that instances of CSA can be found in the ranks of congregation members, they do not run to the press and say, “Us, too! We have some of that!” They have concern with reputation—JWI puts it well when he muses that they do not want to derail or sabotage the beneficial work they oversee. Was that wrong? It is being slogged out in the courts today, along with the ‘sins’ of every other person on the planet, as tort lawyers oversee the most massive transfer of funds in our age—with themselves netting a third.
Surely it is worth a comparison with Peter in the first century. Was he wrong to chum with the Gentile Christians, then flagrantly avoid them when the “men from James” (Jewish Christians) came around? It is an incredible record of cowardice for one in position of leadership!  And he had a track record! Wasn’t he the one who fell all over himself to swear that he didn’t know the Lord from a bag of beans? Was he removed? This is why it is so hypocritical to call for the head of GB members when they so much as hiccup. Arauna is very kind when she refers to the ones doing so as suffering from OCD.
 

Notice that Jesus also gave a parable about the question . . . WHO is the real neighbor . . . .YOU as an individual need to recognize it to be able to give the answer. 🙂
In fact MOST of Jesus' illustrations and parables are effectively answers to such questions about WHO proves themselves to be the right kind of plowman, shepherd, builder, seeker, father, listener, sower, harvester, vine worker, neighbor, householder, servant, domestic, steward, investor, bridesmaid, friend, master, watchman, etc.
Of course, we all agree that we should be able to recognize who is the right kind of slave. To me, this is because we all need to be that right kind of slave who does not take advantage of the master being delayed, but stays always faithful and wise. The fact that some will have the ability to preside, and lead, and organizer better than others is a separate issue. I can't see why anyone would complain that a group of elders could be seen to be qualified for such a position of overseeing multiple congregations in the same way that some committees of elders qualify for a position to oversee a single congregation. The ones who excel at teaching, and speaking, and decision-making will naturally take the lead for such a useful position. And you are right, that taking the lead in spearheading a more efficient world-wide preaching, teaching, and disciple-making work can make use of skills that only a few would qualify for.
(1 Corinthians 12:28, 29) 28 And God has assigned the respective ones in the congregation: first, apostles; second, prophets; third, teachers; then powerful works; then gifts of healings; helpful services; abilities to direct; different tongues. 29 Not all are apostles, are they? Not all are prophets, are they? Not all are teachers, are they?. . .
So, the idea that a committee of elders can qualify for such work as the GB have taken on, shows that they are desirous of a fine work. But Jesus illustration about the unfaithful and indiscreet slaves in Luke 12 and Matthew 24 are probably not a source predicting a special set of men who would be appointed to a position mindful of those superfine apostles from 1919 on. To impute this meaning into it requires a very inconsistent method of dealing with Jesus' illustrations and parables.
That doesn't at all take away from the need for having some take the lead in a different way from others. We can find this in other scriptures.
(Hebrews 13:7) 7 Remember those who are taking the lead among you, who have spoken the word of God to you, and as you contemplate how their conduct turns out, imitate their faith.
There in Hebrews, too, we find that we should be able, as you said, to identify WHO really is a faithful person taking the lead, so that we can contemplate their conduct and imitate their faith.

The idea that it is found in Matt 24 which also involves the situation at the time of the END is clearly a much better reason to highlight a special meaning to these verses. (The verses about the differences between the persons who would prove themselves to be an unfaithful and indiscreet slave as opposed to the persons who would prove themselves to be a faithful and discreet slave.)
But, of course, it's not in Luke 21. It's in Luke 12. Luke tends to spread out a lot of the things that Matthew has Jesus saying in Matthew 24, and puts those words in slightly different contexts as found in Luke 12, Luke 13, Luke 17, Luke 19, Luke 21. The differences between Luke 12 and Matthew 24 are also of interest:
(Luke 12:35-48) 35 “Be dressed and ready and have your lamps burning, 36 and you should be like men waiting for their master to return from the marriage, so when he comes and knocks, they may at once open to him. 37 Happy are those slaves whom the master on coming finds watching! Truly I say to you, he will dress himself for service and have them recline at the table and will come alongside and minister to them. 38 And if he comes in the second watch, even if in the third, and finds them ready, happy are they! 39But know this, if the householder had known at what hour the thief would come, he would not have let his house be broken into. 40 You also, keep ready, because at an hour that you do not think likely, the Son of man is coming.” 41 Then Peter said: “Lord, are you telling this illustration just to us or also to everyone?” 42 And the Lord said: “Who really is the faithful steward, the discreet one, whom his master will appoint over his body of attendants to keep giving them their measure of food supplies at the proper time? 43 Happy is that slave if his master on coming finds him doing so! 44 I tell you truthfully, he will appoint him over all his belongings. 45 But if ever that slave should say in his heart, ‘My master delays coming,’ and starts to beat the male and female servants and to eat and drink and get drunk, 46 the master of that slave will come on a day that he is not expecting him and at an hour that he does not know, and he will punish him with the greatest severity and assign him a part with the unfaithful ones. 47 Then that slave who understood the will of his master but did not get ready or do what he asked will be beaten with many strokes. 48 But the one who did not understand and yet did things deserving of strokes will be beaten with few. Indeed, everyone to whom much was given, much will be demanded of him, and the one who was put in charge of much will have more than usual demanded of him.
(Matthew 24:41-25:1) . . .. 42 Keep on the watch, therefore, because you do not know on what day your Lord is coming. 43 “But know one thing: If the householder had known in what watch the thief was coming, he would have kept awake and not allowed his house to be broken into. 44 On this account, you too prove yourselves ready, because the Son of man is coming at an hour that you do not think to be it. 45“Who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over his domestics, to give them their food at the proper time? 46 Happy is that slave if his master on coming finds him doing so! 47 Truly I say to you, he will appoint him over all his belongings. 48 “But if ever that evil slave says in his heart, ‘My master is delaying,’ 49 and he starts to beat his fellow slaves and to eat and drink with the confirmed drunkards, 50 the master of that slave will come on a day that he does not expect and in an hour that he does not know, 51 and he will punish him with the greatest severity and will assign him his place with the hypocrites. There is where his weeping and the gnashing of his teeth will be. 25 “Then the Kingdom of the heavens may be likened to ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom. [etc, virgins, bridegroom, midnight call, lamp oil, marriage feast.]
Both versions of the illustration spend more time discussing what would constitute an UNFAITHFUL and INDISCREET slave. Luke takes it even further and presents Jesus' discussing varying levels of unfaithfulness and indiscretion. Perhaps this is one reason that Luke's version is rarely ever discussed in the publications compared to Matthew's?

I agree that in general modern Witnesses do not follow Watchtower history.
But this doesn't mean that the Watch Tower publications aren't promoting the idea that we should follow the history. There's a long history of history in the WTS:
CTRussell revisited his own history a couple times in the pages of the WT The Biography of Charles Taze Russell revisited his history from the late 1920's to mid 30's Rutherford revisited Watchtower history in the pages of the WT Knorr ran a serialized version of the WT history through several successive issues of the WT Those articles culminated in the history book: Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose (jp) Almost every "Book Study" book and book covering Prophetic explanations included at least 60 pages of Watchtower history, including the most recent ones Every Yearbook included at least 40 pages of Watchtower history for at least one country The 1975 Yearbook became an update of the jp book The Proclaimers book became an updated history book Three of the four major tour attractions at Warwick are all about the history of the Watchtower Society. (And the major displays at the Watchtower Farm are also about the Watchtower history.) Every year the Watchtower reviews milestone highlights in articles about the history of the Watchtower Society, including a related set of articles for several years now about things that happened "100 Years Ago" Like I said, though, there is nothing wrong with this, assuming the purpose, honesty and clarity are there.
I'm sure you aren't saying that the WTS is "triassic" or in a "bubble" for repeatedly promoting this history. It's part of our current beliefs about how most of the prophecies were fulfilled.

So right!
The conversation about Furuli is interesting in that it's about a man's struggle related to conscience, knowledge, and various realizations of imperfection in human organizations and bureaucracies. Shouldn't be a surprise to any of us. Perhaps with his experience at so many levels of responsibility within the organization, and in educational organizations, he more easily sees how things are allowed that shouldn't be, and things aren't allowed that should be. Perhaps he sees how a person who has given a lifetime of effort, might feel underappreciated now that he's at the age for feeling a sense of "what have you done for them lately." Perhaps he is in a position to feel "deserving" of more accolades than most, and as he gets older he finds that instead, "no good deed goes unpunished." Various things he worked hard for (freedom of higher education, for example; promotion of the NWT) are being turned against him.
I think it was expected by some that he would struggle, partly because he was too focused on defending even the minutest details of unprovable doctrines. Furuli was trying to do things for the WTS that the WTS itself was not that interested in doing:
Let's prove that our pronunciation of YHWH is exactly right. Let's prove that the NWT is the best translation out there. Let's do our best to prove that a certain year for Artaxerxes 20th year was 10 years different from the evidence just so that we can make a certain WT doctrine work out more exactly. Let's prove that a certain year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign was 20 years different from the evidence just so that we can make a certain WT doctrine work out more exactly.  So he fought some unwinnable battles and was not appreciated for them, at least not to the extent he probably thought was fair. And it didn't matter to that many Witnesses.
What does matter to the average Witness are things quite unrelated to scholarship and prophecy, like:
Is there a a religion that teaches straightforward doctrines that set us apart from the world in general? And sets us apart as dedicated to God? Does it teach basic spirituality and love of God, and condemn war and nationalistic politics, and unchristian holiday celebrations? Does it promote esoteric, unclear, or contradictory doctrines like the Trinity and Immortal Soul, and a God who would promote eternal torture? Does it focus on high moral standards so that I can generally expect the persons I associate with to have the same moral outlook as I do? Does it have characteristic features that we would expect of a religion that tries to imitate the first century congregation in a twenty-first century environment, including worldwide preaching? Does this religion attract and improve people so that I am happy to associate with fellow believers anywhere in the world, and feel good about sending charity to those in trouble after natural or man-made disasters? I am aware there might be persons who have a more correct view of chronology, or persons who see a specific doctrine differently, or even a different view of prophecy in general. Perhaps I see people from a church down the street from me who go in and come out all friendly and loving and happy to meet each other, just like with my friends at the KH. But I also can tell that I could never be as comfortable there as I would be among people related to me in a faith. People for whom the answers to the questions listed above fit what I've learned about the Bible. 
I see the Furuli book as a way for some to just tear down the organizational structure, probably not with a view to improving the organization, but for destroying it. If it has any value, though, it will acknowledge that there is room for improvement without anarchy. I thought that R.Franz' book (I only finished one of the two) was the same. It was being used as a "bomb" when it was best used as a tool to fix or reduce the chance of repeating problems associated with:
certain presumptuous and haughty attitudes, Mexico/Malawi, the 1914 generation, improper prying into marital relationships, fixing the alternative service issue. For the most part, the WTS used it to make good adjustments. Hopefully, Furuli's book has some of those same values. He certainly seems to have followed a lot of R.Franz style and even matches up on several specific points of agreement, points of argument, and several doctrinal points that match up exactly between them.  

There is a rumor that the WTS does not care too much about its past but keeps its focus on the future, and this is sometimes given as the reason why there are misquotes in the WT about our own past history. This is often true. Sometimes we even use the following reference in Luke:
(Luke 9:62) . . .Jesus said to him: “No man who has put his hand to a plow and looks at the things behind is well-suited for the Kingdom of God.”
The problem is that it isn't true. In fact, we might be the primary religious organization in the world that makes so many references to our own modern history. Especially the history leading up to 1914, and the events of 1919 though the early 1920's, along with major milestones like 1935, 1950, 1958, etc. Most major WTS publications, and even many of the magazines, have some reference to WT history.  (And I don't think there is anything wrong with this, especially if done honestly and clearly.) In fact, even most of the research I was asked to do at Bethel was about looking into doctrinal things from our past history. 
I say this because we are so quick to commend anyone who brings up our own history in a purely complimentary way, but we often quickly dismiss someone as stuck in the past, or too focused on the past if they do the same in a more honest and transparent way.
So that said, Russell introduced the pyramid schema to teach a lot more than just the end of the Gentile Times. In fact, it was not really so much about the end of the gentile times as some might think, anyway. Because it had very little to do with Jews going back to Palestine to re-ignite a Jewish government there in 1914. It was mostly about how 1874 was the beginning of Christ's presence. But it was also a supposed symbol of perfection to be used in teaching about Adam, Jesus, the ransom, atonement, etc.
Here's what Russell said and taught in his first book about a certain pyramid:
. . . the Great Pyramid of Egypt—an object of wonder and amazement to the most learned scientists of today. Its construction is in exact accord with the most advanced attainments of this "Brain Age" in the sciences of Mathematics and Astronomy. It teaches, positively, truths which can today be only approximated by the use of modern instruments. So striking and clear are its teachings that some of the foremost astronomers of the world have unhesitatingly pronounced it to be of divine origin. [p.165]
In these illustrations we use the pyramid figure to represent perfection, because of its fitness and because of evident reference to it in the Scriptures.  Adam was a perfect being, pyramid a. Notice its position—on plane N, which represents human perfection. On plane R, the plane of sin and imperfection or the depraved plane, the topless pyramid, b, an imperfect figure, represents fallen Adam and his posterity—depraved, sinful and condemned. [p.228]
The figure of a pyramid not only serves well the purpose of illustrating perfect beings, but it continues to answer the purpose of illustration in representing the oneness of the whole creation, as in the fulfilment of God's plan it will be one when the harmony and perfection of all things will be attained under the headship of Christ, the Head, not only of the Church which is his body, but also of all things in heaven and in earth. Eph. 1:10 [p.242]
And in his third book:
We have never attempted to place the Great Pyramid, sometimes called the Bible in Stone, on a parallel or equality with the Word of God as represented by the Old and New Testament Scriptures—the latter stand pre-eminent always as the authority. We do, however, still believe that the structure of this Pyramid, so different from that of all other pyramids, was designed of the Lord and intended to be a Pyramid and a witness in the midst and on the border of the land of Egypt. (Isaiah 19:19) It certainly tells a very different story from any other art or relic handed down from its remote times.
Its wonderful corroboration of the Divine Plan of the Ages is astounding to everybody who really grasps it. It should be read with just as fresh interest as in the first edition, because its lessons have not altered or changed. We trust that new readers will get the same rich blessings from this Volume that old readers have received, and that thus we may glorify God together and rejoice in His provision of light and comfort on the way to the full ushering in of the glorious Kingdom of God's dear Son.
And the entire chapter from that book, as summarized in the chapter heading below, showing that the Jewish Times were just one of the many topics supposedly indicated:
STUDY X
THE TESTIMONY OF GOD'S STONE WITNESS
AND PROPHET, THE GREAT PYRAMID IN EGYPT
General Description of the Great Pyramid—Why of Special Interest to Christians—The Great Pyramid a Storehouse of Truth—Scientific, Historic and Prophetic—Bible Allusions to It—Why, When and by Whom Built—Importance of Its Location—Its Scientific Lessons—Its Testimony Concerning the Plan of Redemption—The Plan of the Ages—The Death and the Resurrection of Christ Indicated—The Downward Course of the World, Ending in a Great Time of Trouble—The Nature of the Trouble—The Great Reformation Movement Marked—Length of the Jewish Age Indicated—The "High Calling" of the Gospel Church Shown—The Course of the Church's Consecration—The End of the High Calling Marked—Date of the Second Advent of Christ—How Restitution Blessings for the World are Indicated—The Course of the World During the Millennial Age—Its End—Contrast of the Two Conditions, Human and Spiritual, as Indicated in the Pyramid—The Pyramid Refutes Atheism, Infidelity and all Evolution Theories, and Verifies both the Plan of the Bible and Its Appointed Times and Seasons.
"In that day shall there be an altar to the Lord in the midst of the land of Egypt and a pillar at the border thereof to the Lord. And it shall be for a sign and for a witness unto the Lord of hosts in the land of Egypt." Isa. 19:19,20
And, of course the basic point, in that same chapter, in addition to the "times and seasons":
Then Jehovah will show himself a great Savior; and he has already prepared the Great Pyramid as a part of his instrumentality for convincing the world of his wisdom, foreknowledge and grace. "It shall be for a sign and for a witness unto the Lord of hosts [a witness to his foreknowledge and to his gracious plan of salvation, as we shall presently see] in the land of Egypt: [p.317]
 

These days a lot of people who do not have the time, money or wherewithal to become scholars, scientists, journalists, or specialists will still tend to find some vicarious thrill in presenting themselves as "scholars" because they love the actual scholarship of another person. Similarly, some consider themselves vicarious "journalists" (or at least "specialists") on many topics because they have found journalists, or more often "journalistic entertainers," who support their ideologies. (In the USA, this would include persons like Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, Sean Hannity, Anderson Cooper, Alex Jones, Chris Cuomo, etc.) The "vicarious thrill" happens especially when a well-known professional scholar, scientist, politician, journalist or entertainer agrees with our own personal ideology or beliefs.
The thrill is slightly higher when it's an unexpected source, as when a climate scientist admits a failure in the climate beliefs of the opposing ideology. Or when a respected academic source, or even "fundamentalist Christian" scholar admits that the Trinity was not a first century Christian belief.
Over the past few years @scholar JW and "Allen Smith"/"Billy The Kid" aka @César Chávez have praised Rolf Furuli to such an extent that I was not the only one who wondered if both "scholar" and "Cesar" were not also enjoying a kind of vicarious thrill of being able to call their own ideological position "scholarly" because an actual academic scholar like Furuli gave them that foundation. And it no doubt appealed to the Watch Tower Society to find a person like Furuli for the same reasons and present his unique take on one of the neo-Babylonian astronomical tablets.
And I would have to admit that for me personally I have sometimes been thrilled to discover that many archaeologists have uncovered items of interest to Bible believers that help indicate the historical accuracy of the Bible in the face of nay-sayers. And when it was first pointed out to me why the doctrine of the "1914 generation" was not supported Biblically, I was thrilled to discover that two members of the GB would admit right in front of me that they also didn't fully support it, and that at least 3 additional GB members had said similar things in writing or told to persons I trusted about that topic. And when it turns out that a Greg Stafford, or a Gerard Gertoux, also agrees in many ways about the 1914 doctrine, it could be seen as adding "authority" to my own beliefs. So, I am definitely not immune to the "argument from authority" which can often turn out to be a logical fallacy. But what happens when Gerard Gertoux is rejected as a scholar due to a position on 1914, or a person like Greg Stafford defends JWs very well for years, but then leaves or rejects the Witnesses altogether?
In the past few years, both "scholar JW" and "Cesar" have been asked what they would do if Furuli stopped believing as he did. Neither answered that question. But both of them, on this forum, seem to have been as supportive as possible of Furuli, up to a point. I don't think "scholar JW" will come back now that he has been asked this question directly, this time by Ann O'Maly. "Cesar" has been slowly weakening in his supportive position, as I'm sure he is discovering that some of the words he thought were being misrepresented were actually a very good representation of Furuli's actual words.
Fortunately, for "scholar" and "Cesar," Furuli has not yet changed his position on 1914, and "scholar JW" immediately found that fact to be advantageous - because Furuli is finally (suddenly) an independent scholar. "Cesar" also still uses vague language to protect and defend Furuli. I believe it's because Furuli's scholarship on 1914 must be protected from his new theological reputation.
As expected, this is not so different from what is done especially by ex-JWs and perhaps even some JWs for R.Franz and C.O.Jonsson for those who agree with their takes on theology or chronology, respectively. Some persons tend to want to overly protect the reputations of those men when it shouldn't matter in the long run. I think that some persons get overly involved in trying to make them out to be great Christians, when they never knew them, and only see through their own eyes "vicariously" through the books those men authored.
This becomes more interesting with Furuli because 1914 is so tied up with the belief in the FDS who were recently identified with the GB (such as it was) back during that same 1914 time period. I don't expect Furuli to weaken any time soon on the 1914 doctrine because he invested his entire reputation on 1914 and scholarship, and it is his own reputation he is apparently trying to salvage among his fellow brothers and sisters. He wants it to be clear that he has never left the religion and that if he is kicked out it was only because some imperfect but sincere men did not like an important anomaly in his theology. The "optics" of that perspective might even save him from being officially kicked out in any formal or public way.
But Furuli is rejecting what has seemed to become the most re-emphaisized "touchstone" of the modern theological themes in the Watch Tower publications: that of obedience to the FDS. It's an old theme but necessarily returning because it's now so much more tangible. Previously, the "obedience" to the FDS was a spiritual obedience through appreciation of an entire spiritual "process" that was intangible. The FDS was a world-wide living remnant of the 144,000 who were somehow (spiritually) supporting a small group of representatives of themselves through the largely unknown (and idealized) teaching and writing and decision-making processes at the Watch Tower's headquarters in NY. The "obedience" of the 144,000 to a core group of anointed, centered around NY Bethel, became a model that the rest of us appreciated, largely for the intangible spiritual factors. (It was even suggested that members of the 144,000 who had died, were still communicating with this small group of representatives of the FDS.)
But then it became more tangible when it was adjusted so that this appointed slave became "8 men" that you could watch and judge for yourselves on your "TV" or internet screens. You can watch them make mistakes right in front of you. You can watch them say questionable things and realize more easily than ever that they themselves are struggling with some issues (finances, legal challenges, "overlapping" generation, changing doctrines). This begins to take away the once intangible spiritual sheen, even though most of what they say is still very much appreciated and there is no need to question it.

I think that JWs are pretty much the end of the line for most people who leave JWs these days. Most won't go back to any other church in a serious way, even if they have a history with another church, or relatives in that church. A high number will probably become stay at home Christians, and a large number will probably become agnostic, or apathetic. 
If you are thinking about whether persons like Furuli will end up dragging a few hangers-on with him in case he is DFd, I would guess it would only be in Norway, and probably not pull even 100 persons away from the WTS. (Not directly at least.) But Furuli will likely want to take the R.Franz route and just quietly allow Bible study among friends. That won't create a splinter group. A few more will leave apathetically because he will have created nagging questions that some will not have the wherewithal to deal with.  Norway is already saturated with atheists and agnostics, and new churches don't grow very well. Old churches are mostly just for birth, marriage and funeral ceremonies.

I see, in my opinion, that the parables of the slave/ steward could have three senses:
1
According to the Bible, in a sense I am a steward, or supervisor of my family. I have to take care of it, feed it and take care of it.
2
(1 Timothy 5:17) "Let the elders who preside in a fine way ..." shows that in each congregation there must be some who supervises and cares for the rest of the congregation: a steward group of elders.
3
In the final age it would be neccesary a global stewardship
The analysis of the next passage alone yields much information on this matter, the administration or stewardship of the "house of God":
(Revelation 7:9, 10) . . .After this I saw, and look! a great crowd, which no man was able to number, out of all nations and tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, dressed in white robes; and there were palm branches in their hands. 10 And they keep shouting with a loud voice, saying: “Salvation we owe to our God, who is seated on the throne, and to the Lamb.”
1) A large number of people would be saved from the final Great Tribulation
    Each one in her house, living only according to her criteria or conscience? Let's see
2) They ALL dress the SAME way, in white in the eyes of God
    So there should be a unified behavior and conduct, not based ONLY on individual consciousness
3) They speak in unison, they have a common message
    They "shouted" the same message. There is nothing worse than a detuned choir.
4) The basic doctrinal body would be the same
    They worship one God and see the value of the Lamb.
5) Something that would make this unit difficult is that they come from very different backgrounds
    "of all nations, tribes, peoples, and languages,"
How could Mt 24:14 be accomplished with the outcome of Rev 7:9-10 without direction, organization, supervision or stewardship?
Over there I am listening to one, there in the background, who says that Christ from heaven takes charge, with the holy spirit, that there is no need for greater supervision. Am I right?
if someone thinks like that, let's consider:
In another apocalyptic prophecy we read that
    (Daniel 11:33). . those having insight among the people will impart understanding to the many. . .
    (Daniel 12:10). . . And the wicked will act wickedly and no wicked will understand. Only those having insight will understand.
It seems that the prophecy indicates that there would be TWO groups of worshipers: the PEOPLE, the MANY on one side, and THOSE HAVING INSIGHT on the other. And this second group would help to obtain knowledge to the first one.
Yes, it would be necessary to teach others not the basic truths of the Gospel but what the angel said:
    "(Daniel 12: 9)" these words must be kept secret and sealed until the end time "
"These words", which should be understood with the help of "those having insight", refer to such profound thoughts of Daniel's prophecy that even the prophet himself was unable to understand (Daniel 12:8  "I heard, but I did not understand"
Thus, this last world stewardship seems very necessary, since unifying an international crowd with similar behavior, with similar beliefs, that have a united message, would be impossible without such leadership. And Daniel adds a smaller group that oversees that teaching.
 
So stewardship applies, in my opinion, to any Christian who has to be a steward: on my family, on my congregation, and on the entire world brotherhood.
------------------------------
(Matthew 24:48) . . .“But if ever that evil slave says in his heart. . ." this is for another day
 

Regarding to the illustration of the "faithful slave" (Mt 24) or "faithful steward" (Lu 12) we find a quote that I think is pertinent in the letter of Ignatius to the Ephesians VI: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-ephesians-roberts.html
CHAPTER VI. Now the more any one sees the bishop keeping silence, the more ought he to revere him. For we ought to receive every one whom the Master of the house sends to be over His household, as we would do Him that sent him. It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord Himself. And indeed Onesimus himself greatly commends your good order in God, that ye all live according to the truth, and that no sect has any dwelling-place among you. Nor, indeed, do ye hearken to any one rather than to Jesus Christ speaking in truth.
These commentaries of certain Ignatius from the end of the 1st or early 2nd century show us an UNSPECIALIZED, but generic, use of the "slave class", that is, it does not represent a group or class with a specific mission, but that any member of the congregation -mainly the "episkopos" (bishop) of the same has the commission to supervise it.
 
I think this idea it was first mentioned for @JW Insider, and something similar is said in Furuli's book: there wasn't any specialized class attending the household in those days. 
Neither did Ignatius wait for the last days to arrive for the declaration on the "faithful slave" to be fulfilled. Already in those days it was necessary that any Christian with supervisory responsibilities be that, prudent and faithful.
By the way, Ignacio already believed he was living in the last days:
11:1 These are the last times. Henceforth let us have reverence;
 

I see, in my opinion, that the parables of the slave/ steward could have three senses:
1
According to the Bible, in a sense I am a steward, or supervisor of my family. I have to take care of it, feed it and take care of it.
2
(1 Timothy 5:17) "Let the elders who preside in a fine way ..." shows that in each congregation there must be some who supervises and cares for the rest of the congregation: a steward group of elders.
3
In the final age it would be neccesary a global stewardship
The analysis of the next passage alone yields much information on this matter, the administration or stewardship of the "house of God":
(Revelation 7:9, 10) . . .After this I saw, and look! a great crowd, which no man was able to number, out of all nations and tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, dressed in white robes; and there were palm branches in their hands. 10 And they keep shouting with a loud voice, saying: “Salvation we owe to our God, who is seated on the throne, and to the Lamb.”
1) A large number of people would be saved from the final Great Tribulation
    Each one in her house, living only according to her criteria or conscience? Let's see
2) They ALL dress the SAME way, in white in the eyes of God
    So there should be a unified behavior and conduct, not based ONLY on individual consciousness
3) They speak in unison, they have a common message
    They "shouted" the same message. There is nothing worse than a detuned choir.
4) The basic doctrinal body would be the same
    They worship one God and see the value of the Lamb.
5) Something that would make this unit difficult is that they come from very different backgrounds
    "of all nations, tribes, peoples, and languages,"
How could Mt 24:14 be accomplished with the outcome of Rev 7:9-10 without direction, organization, supervision or stewardship?
Over there I am listening to one, there in the background, who says that Christ from heaven takes charge, with the holy spirit, that there is no need for greater supervision. Am I right?
if someone thinks like that, let's consider:
In another apocalyptic prophecy we read that
    (Daniel 11:33). . those having insight among the people will impart understanding to the many. . .
    (Daniel 12:10). . . And the wicked will act wickedly and no wicked will understand. Only those having insight will understand.
It seems that the prophecy indicates that there would be TWO groups of worshipers: the PEOPLE, the MANY on one side, and THOSE HAVING INSIGHT on the other. And this second group would help to obtain knowledge to the first one.
Yes, it would be necessary to teach others not the basic truths of the Gospel but what the angel said:
    "(Daniel 12: 9)" these words must be kept secret and sealed until the end time "
"These words", which should be understood with the help of "those having insight", refer to such profound thoughts of Daniel's prophecy that even the prophet himself was unable to understand (Daniel 12:8  "I heard, but I did not understand"
Thus, this last world stewardship seems very necessary, since unifying an international crowd with similar behavior, with similar beliefs, that have a united message, would be impossible without such leadership. And Daniel adds a smaller group that oversees that teaching.
 
So stewardship applies, in my opinion, to any Christian who has to be a steward: on my family, on my congregation, and on the entire world brotherhood.
------------------------------
(Matthew 24:48) . . .“But if ever that evil slave says in his heart. . ." this is for another day
 

Regarding to the illustration of the "faithful slave" (Mt 24) or "faithful steward" (Lu 12) we find a quote that I think is pertinent in the letter of Ignatius to the Ephesians VI: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-ephesians-roberts.html
CHAPTER VI. Now the more any one sees the bishop keeping silence, the more ought he to revere him. For we ought to receive every one whom the Master of the house sends to be over His household, as we would do Him that sent him. It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord Himself. And indeed Onesimus himself greatly commends your good order in God, that ye all live according to the truth, and that no sect has any dwelling-place among you. Nor, indeed, do ye hearken to any one rather than to Jesus Christ speaking in truth.
These commentaries of certain Ignatius from the end of the 1st or early 2nd century show us an UNSPECIALIZED, but generic, use of the "slave class", that is, it does not represent a group or class with a specific mission, but that any member of the congregation -mainly the "episkopos" (bishop) of the same has the commission to supervise it.
 
I think this idea it was first mentioned for @JW Insider, and something similar is said in Furuli's book: there wasn't any specialized class attending the household in those days. 
Neither did Ignatius wait for the last days to arrive for the declaration on the "faithful slave" to be fulfilled. Already in those days it was necessary that any Christian with supervisory responsibilities be that, prudent and faithful.
By the way, Ignacio already believed he was living in the last days:
11:1 These are the last times. Henceforth let us have reverence;
 

At the beginning of Furuli's book there is a paragraph referring to a certain letter sent to {the congregations? the elders?} The paragraph in question says:
The letter of 15 June 2018 changed this situation:
We would like to inform you of an updated policy with regard to
whether a Christian may administer a blood transfusion if he is directed
to do so by a superior. The previous policy was that it would be a matter
for a personal, conscientious decision whether to obey such an order.
However, after carefully reviewing the matter, the Governing Body has
determined that administering such a transfusion is so closely linked
with an unscriptural practice that one unquestionably becomes an
accomplice in a wrong practice. Therefore, it would not be appropriate
for a Christian to administer a blood transfusion under any
circumstance.—Gen. 9:4; Acts 15:28, 29.4

I would like to mention that I cannot find this letter. I have looked again in the letters to the elders section of our branch in Spain, but I have not found it. I am not saying at all that Furuli is not truthful, only that I cannot find this letter. Maybe someone could help me out ...