John 12.24to28

What will happen to the sheep who follow those who are part of the world?

Who was Jesus really talking to when he said to be "no part of the world"? He was talking to the apostles. They had been arguing with one another over who was the greatest. Jesus warned them not to lord it over one another, like the Benefactors of the nations do. He wasn't warning them not to get involved in politics. What has happened in the organization today? Is Jesus really pleased with the prominent ones? With the exaltation of a certain group? Are they really "no part of the world"?

When the Devil showed Jesus all the kingdoms of the world and their glory, was it just about politics? The world is based on "showy display" "the desire of the eyes and the desire of the flesh" and desire for prominence and self-glory. If a person refrains from getting involved in politics and yet embraces showy display, the desires of the flesh, prominence and self-glorification while remaining in the organization, are they really "no part of the world"?

Thank you for being willing to share that, @JW Insider🙂 Regardless of when the king begins his reign, the context of John's words regarding "the world" help us to see that "being no part of the world" is not just about refraining from political issues. The entire first letter of John is contrasting two things: Light and Dark Jehovah and Satan Love and the World Politics or refraining from politics isn't even mentioned in there. Certainly we do not want to get involved in political stuff, it's never a good idea. But the point is that by misapplying that phrase "no part of the world" and encasing it in the word "neutrality", the whole point is missed of what Jesus was saying.

Realistically or you're in your head? There's a BIG difference! Was the safety of the congregation the concern of the branch back with the political party cards decision? If the direction is in harmony with scripture, great - follow it. But if it is based on flawed reasoning and misapplication, then we must obey God as ruler rather than man. Jesus said we must worship Jehovah with our Whole Mind which means We Each Have the Responsibility and Obligation to Think and Reason on the scriptural principles involved. We are not relieved of that scriptural responsibility just because some other people want to tell us what to do. We are accountable to God for our choices and if we follow men, even the men on the GB or branch, and those men are giving unscriptural direction, well, "you reap what you sow" regardless of who gave you the direction. There's no way out of that. The context of that verse "your strength will be in keeping calm and showing trust" implies "showing trust in Jehovah." The application in the film is "showing trust in the branch is the same as showing trust in Jehovah" but that's not right. That's not what the Bible says. "Each one must carry his own load." In the days ahead, we will need, more than ever, to trust Jehovah's Direction. His Direction is in His Word. When anyone in any position of authority, whether it be in the organization or outside the organization, gives us direction, we Have To Obey God as Ruler Rather Than Men if that direction is in opposition to God's Word. It means our life, and the lives of those we love. Jehovah has to come first. Even before the branch or the GB. Jehovah comes First. He's the only One who can save us.

@boyle That's not what I said and you know it, stop being so naughty!😝 Jehovah didn't need animal sacrifices in ancient Israel. But He accepted them. They were precious to Him, because that's what the people had to give, and that's what they knew. That's what the nations around them did, so Jehovah regulated it and incorporated it into the Mosaic Law. Certainly Jehovah values something about all right-hearted sacrifices made in His name, even if they were not necessary.

Doing an act of worship to the emperor is not the same thing, just like getting a drivers license is not the same thing as saying "Heil Hitler".

"you must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind and with your whole strength" If the branch wants the people to not use their mind, then aren't they asking people to not be complete for Jehovah? There is talk about being "whole-hearted" in worship, but what about being "whole-minded" in worship? If half of the mind is devoted to the branch or the GB or the organization and half to God's Word, how would Jehovah be pleased with that kind of divided worship? If you cannot serve for two masters, then why is the branch asking the sheep to serve two masters?

When troubles come, the counsel in the movie is to obey the branch direction even if you don't understand. They say that Jehovah will save you if you obey the branch no matter what, and there is fear instilled by certain scenes in the movie, to motivate by means of fear rather than love, that if you don't obey the branch direction, you will probably die. The truth is that we need to obey Jehovah. Jehovah's direction is what will save us. When people obey the branch without thinking and meditating on God's Word and comparing the direction of men with Jehovah's direction, well, it doesn't always work out well. Like what happened in Malawi. It's easy to look back and say, "oh, it's not the Watchtower's fault the Malawi government was so mean." But what if it's your kids next week when the branch sends direction that is in opposition to God's Word. Or when the branch sends direction that is based on a flawed understanding of scripture. Or a misapplication of scripture. Now what? Jehovah has allowed kings in the past to make mistakes. He has allowed the people to follow those kings. Sometimes there were individuals who clung to Jehovah even when the leaders were not obeying Jehovah. Jehovah is looking for those who will worship Him in spirit and truth.

Why is it important? Well, if you've watched the new movie that just came out for this year's convention, you will understand.

Oh, I would agree with you that it's not the Watchtower's fault that the Malawi government was so mean. It's just the misapplication of scripture I am highlighting, and that it led to some people getting hurt on their watch.

Maybe you could explain what you mean about the word "neutral" a little more.

😆I'm not a debater, @boyle, you know that!

How far back do you want to go? However, I have no idea what 1914 has to do with voter rights. Yes! You keep telling yourself this without showing a shred of proof to the contrary. Since the Kingdom didn't start ruling in 1914, there was no need for those brothers to feel they were not keeping integrity if they were to get a political party card in nations that required it. Did you see Jesus come down from heaven in 1914, @boyle? Did anybody? Nope. Getting a political party card was not an act of worship, it was not rejecting Jesus' kingdom rule, because Jesus still hadn't taken the throne yet. People have free will, and they can choose to get a card or not, there are other principles involved to weigh out, but to misapply the phrase "be no part of the world" the way the GB does is unscriptural and goes beyond what is written.

In some cases, that's exactly what it means. Are you up for the challenge of disproving the Bible? @boyle, I'm not saying that anyone should go be part of the government or that anyone should get involved in social issues, I'm just saying that the specific phrase "no part of the world" is misapplied to neutrality issues when that's not what Jesus meant at all with that specific phrase.

Well, it looks like he's around, maybe @JW Insider would be willing to give a summary of the political party card issue that happened in Malawi? 😃

Daniel was not neutral according to the present definition in the organization. He petitioned the king to save the lives of the wise men. That was a social issue. Mordecai and Esther were definitely not neutral. They petitioned the king on social issues and desired to get someone else out of office. Joseph was involved in issues dealing with hunger, you could say it was his campaign against hunger. Being "no part of the world" doesn't mean "being neutral to social issues."

What happened to Daniel when he refused to eat the king's food? What are we to take from your illustrations? That people worked for the government, or the faith those people carried, thus receiving God's spirit and blessing? Why do you want to continue to confuse the issues with no proof? The point is that being "no part of the world" doesn't mean "no part of the governments".

The world does not understand this love of Jehovah, this love from Jehovah. "No part of the world" means "Make sure you do things with love" or "Make sure your motives are love". That's what the scriptures show.

“Do not go beyond the things that are written,” ...Have you begun ruling as kings without us?" (1 Corinthians 4:6-8)

Like what happened in Malawi.

Wait, Wait! Paul had political aspirations, which followers of Christ weren't tied to political offices like the TAX COLLECTOR office. Daniel worked in a government office. He remained no part of the world. In what way? Daniel did not corrupt his heart or his body with the false religious practices of the day, and he remained in God's love. Esther and Mordecai worked in government office. They remained no part of the world. In what way? In obedience to Jehovah's Word, they did not bow down to Haman the Agagite. They loved Jehovah and they used their authority to help people. Nehemiah worked in government office. He was no part of the world. He loved Jehovah and did not become spoiled by a desire for prominence over others. He loved Jehovah and helped people out of love. Joseph worked in government office. He was no part of the world. Love motivated him to help all those people, including his brothers who initially were going to murder him and lied to their father all those years about Joseph's whereabouts. Joseph was no part of the world because his Love conquered the world.

In what way?

Yes, the GB is being deceitful. "We love you very much!" They know they're not being loving.

I'm at a loss. Are they wrong or right? What kind of political empowerment do you want to have? Were you part of the women's liberation movement? What makes your activism so important to you? Do you think it's right for them to make rules about stuff beyond what the Bible says, especially if following those rules leads to torture and death? I have never been part of a women's liberation movement, that is distasteful to me. When I was at UMass Boston, for a short time I was the president of the campus PIRG, and went to trainings and workshops on activism. We did multi-campus rallies on topics like hunger and homelessness and environmental issues, also contacted politicians and the media. During one campaign, we were trying to increase voter awareness and I experienced firsthand the backstabbing that goes on in politics. After that, rather than take any classes in political science, I opted for anthropology and archaeology. Dead people were less trouble to work with than politicians. I am not an "activist" in the sense that I used to be. I am not interested in that kind of "activism". I am, however, interested in Jehovah and His Will. I am interested in being "active" in doing whatever His Will is for us. It is His Will that we bear witness. A witness is one who speaks. "Now because we have the same spirit of faith as that of which it is written: “I exercised faith, therefore I spoke”; we too exercise faith and therefore we speak."