“But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.” (Gal 4:26)
So why would we invent a role for the earthly organization that does not appear in Scripture?
I did some research to see if I could answer that question from our publications and was surprised to find nothing in writing to support the concept. Yet I have heard the term used repeatedly from the assembly and convention platforms, and even had a circuit overseer use it once when encouraging us to follow some unpalatable direction we were getting from the branch office Service Desk. It appears to have crept into our oral tradition, while skirting our official written doctrine.
It is remarkable how easily and unquestioningly we can slip into a mindset. The Bible tells us not to ‘forsake the law of our mother’. (Pro. 1:8) If the convention speaker wants the audience to obey the Governing Body, it adds much to the weight of the argument if we see that the direction comes not from a humble slave, but rather the honored matriarch of the household. In the home, mother is second only to father, and we all know who father is.
Perhaps the problem lies with us. We want to return to the protection of mommy and daddy. We want to have someone care for us and rule over us. When God is that someone, all is well. However, God is invisible and we need faith to see him and feel his care. The truth sets us free, but for some that freedom is a kind of burden. True freedom makes us personally responsible for our own salvation. We have to think for ourselves. We have to stand before Jehovah and answer to Him directly. It is so much more comforting to believe that all we must do is submit to a visible man or group of men and do what they tell us to be saved.
Are we acting like the Israelites of Samuel’s day who had only one King, Jehovah, and enjoyed a freedom from care that was unique in history; and yet threw it all away with the words, “No, but a [human] king is what will come to be over us.” (1 Sam. 8:19) It may be comforting to have a visible ruler take responsibility for your soul and your eternal salvation, but it is only an illusion. He will not stand beside you on judgment day. It’s time we started acting like men and face up that fact. It’s time we took responsibility for our own salvation.
In any case, the next time someone uses the “spiritual mother” argument on me, I’m going to quote the words of Jesus at John 2:4:
“What have I to do with you, woman?”
Archived Comments
We have moved to the Disqus commenting system. To post a new comment, go to the bottom of this page.
Comment by Alec Holmes on 2012-12-26 23:54:40
Very good post Meleti.
I've been reading your posts for a couple of weeks now and I have to say I couldn't agree more with your thoughts as expressed in this blog.
About this 'spiritual mother' thing, what happened to "solid food belongs to mature people, to those who through use have their perceptive powers trained to distinguish both right and wrong"? (Heb 5:14) Are we going to go back to being spiritual babes? Because that is basically what you've aptly described in your post, this comfort zone of letting others do the thinking for us, tells us what we should or should not do and think so as to be saved.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2012-12-27 00:04:43
You make an excellent point, Alec. Thanks for contributing.
Reply by Alec Holmes on 2012-12-27 10:46:13
Thank you Meleti, thank you for making this forum available where we can respectfully discuss spiritual things even if sometimes we reach a different understanding than that taught in our publications. After having read the posts and comments here I was relieved to find that I'm not alone in some of the questions I have sometimes.
Ironically or not, I found your blog after reading the renewed understanding about the
faithful slave on JW.org. I remember once talking to a pastor about Jehovah's Witnesses in a return visit and my companion asked, "Do you have a faithful and discreet slave in your church?" As I recall he didn't remember that passage. We went on to explain who the FDS were based on how we understood it back then. I have to confess I would find it hard today to do same since I wouldn't have a scripture to show and would have to tell him that "evidently" the slave was appointed in 1919. So I'm really happy to have found your blog.
Apollos's comment below reminded me of Isaiah 9:6 where Jesus is called Eternal Father. I found this in a quick research:
*** w07 5/15 p. 6 Finding Hope in a World Full of Distress ***
Consider the endearing expression “Eternal Father.” As such, Jesus has the power and authority—as well as the desire—to give obedient humans the prospect of eternal life on earth by the merit of his ransom sacrifice. This means that they will finally be released from sin and imperfection inherited from the sinful first man, Adam. (Matthew 20:28; Romans 5:12; 6:23) Christ will also apply his God-given authority to bring back to life many who have died.—John 11:25, 26.
So given Jesus importance for us today and in the future, I agree with Apollos, they could have mentioned him somehow.
Comment by apollos0falexandria on 2012-12-27 07:32:22
There seems to be another point being missed here. Jehovah is our spiritual Father, the org is our spiritual mother, and Jesus Christ is ...?
During the whole of those two parts Jesus was not once mentioned.
When I raised this point with one person, he said yes, they could have referred to Jesus as the model to follow somehow.
Yes, Jesus is the model to follow, but his role is not limited to that. He is our King (Rev 19:16), our Lord (Phil 2:11), and the head of the congregation (Eph 5:23). We must honor the Son in order to honor our spiritual Father (John 8:23). We follow his commands (John 13:35; John 15:10). We are witnesses for him (Acts 1:8). We his slaves (Eph 6:6). We are ambassadors for him (2 Cor 5:20).
How on earth can we have two parts on where we should be directing people as Christians and not mention him?
ApollosReply by Dorcas on 2012-12-27 12:29:59
Very good point, Apollos. I've begun to notice how seldom Jesus is mentioned in any publication or talk. It disturbs me greatly. He does not hold a position behind our organization or second to the Apostle Paul. Look how seldom Jesus is mentioned in our song books as well.
Reply by Alec Holmes on 2012-12-28 11:38:11
Just out of curiosity I checked how many times Jehovah and Jesus are mentioned in our songbook. Jehovah is mentioned 250 times, whereas Jesus, 29.
Reply by Jude on 2012-12-28 18:04:48
On the matter of mentioning Jesus, have you noticed that whenever mention is made of those from whom our modern-day spiritual provisions come mention is always made of Jehovah and the faithful slave but never Jesus? How often have you heard or read a statement referring to our modern-day spiritual provisions as coming from Jesus? Isn't Jesus the head of the congregation? Doesn't he have the stars in his right hand according to Revelation? So why don't we ever at times speak of our modern-day provisions as coming from him? It is true that Jesus is not to be worshiped but I think he deserves more mention in the context of crediting him for our provisions. Half or more of the mentions of the faithful slave could be replaced with mentioning Jesus without minimizing our mention of Jehovah.
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2012-12-28 23:51:57
I couldn't agree more.
Comment by on 2012-12-27 16:48:15
With the greatest respect Brother Meliti...
Ref: John 2:4
I trust your last aside was tongue in cheek...?!... :)
I'm sure The Lord always addressed and treated His mother with utmost respect... and I've long suspected the English interpretaion of this verse was based on the Western male bias...?
Taken in context...?
Yes, He was telling Mary to mind her own business... and that the time for publicly declaring His Father's Purpose was in the future...
But... she obviously felt no rebuke, as v5 shows... and He went ahead and performed the miracle... in deference to her...??!
Maybe!
As far as the points re misuse of scripture and lack of deference to The Lord...
A scripture comes to mind... 2 Timothy 1-5...
Blessings and the undeserved kindness of God be with us all...Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2012-12-27 17:39:11
It was tongue-in-cheek...well, in part. Jesus was putting his mother in her place. I think every son (and daughter) has had to do that at some point in time, since it is difficult for a mother (in particular--though fathers can suffer from this as well) to let go of the image of a baby in diapers. Nevertheless, one's natural mother comes by this urge honestly. Our self-proclaimed spiritual mother does not, as she has no legitimacy. So if the advice or counsel originates from God's Word, I'll take it, even though the channel is via a man or group of men. However, if the group of men want to be my mother, well, I have to draw the line somewhere, otherwise, I'd just be enabling them in a bad course of conduct.
By the way, did you mean the first five chapters of 2 Timothy?
Comment by on 2012-12-28 08:14:01
Oops...:)
It is 2 Timothy 4:1-5 ... :)
And, when you read it, you will see that I wholeheartedly concur...
In fact, whilst we are asked, "...to show consideration for those taking the lead...",
(I Thess 5:11-15) Paul would be the first to admonish any diversions by these brothers from the, "Good News in our Lord Jesus Christ..." and surely it should be our Christian duty to bring their attention to their, unscriptural directions...??
There is a well documented, historical court case, brought against Judge Rutherford, by his Secretary (male), referencing his dogmatic and brutal verbal treatment of the bethel family - apart from a whole list of transgressions - When reading through the Court Transcripts, I couldn't help but be struck by the wholly unwholesomeness of the whole affair...!!??
This was the environment from which our current, "Arrangement...", grew... :(
May our Lord and God keep us all in His Love and undeserved kindness... cos I cant help feeling we're gonna need it...
Comment by Pauline Spearing on 2012-12-28 08:15:33
By the way, I came up as Anonymous..? but my name is Pauline Spearing...?
Comment by Pauline Spearing on 2012-12-28 08:18:01
With the greatest respect Brother Meliti…
Ref: John 2:4
I trust your last aside was tongue in cheek…?!…
I’m sure The Lord always addressed and treated His mother with utmost respect… and I’ve long suspected the English interpretaion of this verse was based on the Western male bias…?
Taken in context…?
Yes, He was telling Mary to mind her own business… and that the time for publicly declaring His Father’s Purpose was in the future…
But… she obviously felt no rebuke, as v5 shows… and He went ahead and performed the miracle… in deference to her…??!
Maybe!
As far as the points re misuse of scripture and lack of deference to The Lord…
A scripture comes to mind… 2 Timothy 1-5…
Blessings and the undeserved kindness of God be with us all…
Comment by Urbanus on 2012-12-28 17:54:28
The letter of accusation against Rutherford by the Society's Legal Counsel, Olin Moyle, expelled as a result of its publication, is on-line at
http://www.docbob.org/wordpress/olin-moyle-letter
Perhaps it gave rise to the inside Bethel phrase, "Can you feel the love...?"
Comment by jomaix on 2012-12-30 17:15:22
I'd like to know if in this talk of your own convention was used following sentence: "Bible does not explain Jehovah's will by itself". I was shocked when I heard it, but I don't know if in English convention was said that, or only in Spanish convention. You know, sometimes translators of outlines, books and magazines sometimes change some words when translating from English original source.
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2012-12-30 17:38:24
I have a recording of the part in question. In English, what was said was, "And yet, the Bible doesn't shine forth life-giving truth all on its own. That's why Jehovah has provided an organization."
I'm sure brother Russell and the tiny group of Bible students who revealed so many long hidden truths from the Scriptures without the aid of any organization would take great exception to this teaching.
Reply by junachin on 2012-12-31 13:01:16
I was shocked also when I heard that sentence, and went to some trouble to verify if I had heard it correctly. It may seem justified in the light of the Ethiopian's words "how could I ever [understand what I'm reading], unless someone guided me?", as long as we forget that those words were spoken at a time when most of the Greek Scriptures weren't yet written or available to the public. That is no longer the case. If there were, indeed, faithful, true Christians down through the centuries since the apostles died, they gained divine approval with the Bible alone to guide them. I'm not saying that the organization doesn't make it easier - that is, after all, it's main raison d'etre - but I was shocked at the implication that the Word of God was deficient in some way and that it needed the organization to complete it. This denigrates the Bible while exalting the organization. Nothing good can come of such a concept.
Reply by jomaix on 2013-01-01 15:53:35
My brother and I was shocked too. We also felt that such sentence implies that the Bible is uncomplete. That idea is inconcebible for us.
Comment by Urbanus on 2012-12-30 20:04:29
This line of reasoning about something needed besides the Bible overlooks the means of delivery of the Word. When Jehovah first wrote his "ten words," he provided not only the stone he wrote the words on, but a mediator and administrative organization. After the death of the mediator he provided the "books" of Moses.
Likewise, after the kings and prophets, he provided a continuing priestly class, with both oral and written traditions, with "teachers."
The mediator of the New Covenant, the Christ, said he would send the "helper." And after the apostles, that spirit helper continued to guide the 2000-year old "faithful slave," as well as to collect, preserve and defend the written word.
However for at least two decades, the "traditions" of the organization and the so-called governing body (a teaching promoted by Raymond Franz in the 1970s) have grown in importance, to the point where many brothers, congregations and perhaps whole branches put loyalty to organization directives in first place. This error ignores factors of "the something else needed," such as the Word acting by spirit to produce a "revelation" of the will of God to us as dedicated servants, or a relationship to Jesus as "eternal father" who advocates for us with Jehovah.
All the world has the Bible, but Jehovah's people have the spirit helper to use it properly under the terms of the New Covenant. The organization continues to be a vital part of what Jehovah has provided - when understood correctly.
Comment by Buster on 2015-06-05 23:16:44
When I go.back and remember this.and the scripture in Proverbs 6 : 20 Observe, my son, the commandment of your father, And do not forsake the instruction* of your mother. .... What in all the. Holy bible does this have to do with the so called Organization... nothing.. It seems the organization loves to take out of context Poor Proverbs from the infamous Proverbs 4:18 to now this scripture..
And how Jehovah is our Father and Our Mother is the Organization... So where is Jesus our Cousin... It makes no sense and it is getting out of Control..