At the annual meeting of the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society of Pennsylvania (WTS) October 7th 2000, some judicial reorganizations were announced regarding the administration of this corporation. The seven directors, all members of the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses (JWs ¹), resigned their office and were replaced by seven new directors, none of which are member of the Governing Body.

One newspaper called this the "largest reorganization ever" amongst JWs. While most JWs are completely ignorant of any change at all, in circles of ex-JWs theories of possible meanings of this change are formulated. The spokesman for the WTS, James Pellachia, simply says: "The reason for the changes was both theological and practical".

Close examination reveals, perhaps surprisingly, that no theological change whatsoever has taken place; just the filling of a few offices has changed: for the first time since the installation of the Governing Body the Board of Directors consists of members other than members of the Governing Body.

It’s not surprising to find even an official spokesman having difficulty explaining what exactly has happened. In some publications by the WTS in the past, the terms Society, Governing Body and "faithful and discreet slave" were complete synonyms, in other editions there was made a formal distinction. What does this all mean, how did this evolve, what has been changed, and when?

In 1884 Charles Taze Russell applied for incorporation for his association "Zion’s Watch Tower Society". He wanted to make the transition necessary after his death a smooth one. He stressed the limitations of the corporation in the following manner: "Zion’s Watch Tower Society is not a ‘religious society’ in the ordinary meaning of the term; for it has no creed or confession of Faith. It is purely a business association, whose mission is to serve in a business manner the wishes of its beneficiaries, who are represented in its officers"²

While Russell in 1881 read Matthew 24:45-47 as a general encouragement to be faithful and wise³, Maria F. Russell, Russell’s wife, in 1894, a period of various charges against Russell, found in it a prophetic description of the position of her husband⁴: "the faithful and discreet slave".

Although Russell reluctantly seemed to accept the interpretation⁵, he was a great lover of congregational government without a centralized body of power. He could have easily set himself up as an undisputed ruler of each congregation without their realizing what was going on, but he was able to resist this temptation because of his strong belief that the church should have no visible ruler. While Russell was convinced some prophetic symbols had foretold his own work, he never needed the interpretation of the "discreet slave" to legitimize his position as president of the WTS of which he was founder and by far most important shareholder.

His successor, Joseph Franklin Rutherford, was in a completely different position. In the beginning his leadership was vexed, and he was desperately holding on to his position of President of the WTS, left vacant after Russell’s death in 1916. In his will Russell had provided for a "editorial committee of five", responsible for approving articles to be published in The Watch Tower and a "Board of Directors" of the WTS, consisting of seven men.

In 1917 in The Finished Mystery (presented as posthumous by Russell), the view was expressed that Russell was still ruling the headquarters in his resurrected body. How was Russell supervising the work? Woodworth (the actual author of the book) found the answer in passages of Revelation mentioning the eight angels. Generally seven angels predominate in the book’s symbolism, which seven angels Woodworth understood to be St. Paul, St. John, Arius, Peter Waldo, Wycliffe, Luther and Russell. But twice "another angel" appears, which could reasonably be Russell’s successor. Both these times (Revelation 8:3; 14:18) Woodworth interprets the eighth angel to be the corporation.

"The corporate body – the WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY, which Pastor Russell formed to finish his work. This verse shows that, though Pastor Russell has passed beyond the veil, he is still managing every feature of the harvest work."⁶

This was the first time the business corporation was put at the head of the work of the church and was of course a gross misunderstanding of the purpose of Russell in organizing the corporation. The author of the book, C.J. Woodworth, also saw other prophetic foreshadowings of the WTS (like Elijah’s chariot). With this the strictly legal function of the WTS was definitely abolished: the WTS became personalized and fullfilled prophetic symbolism. The WTS was viewed as successor of Russell or, more correctly, as the instrument through which the ressurrected Russell was working. And from January 6th 1917, when Rutherford was elected president of the WTS, the corporation became the lengthened shadow of Rutherford. After the annual meeting of Januari 4th 1919 Rutherford was never in any doubt regarding his position as president of the WTS. On July 7th 1917, by dismissing four corporation boardmembers, an act to which he had no legal authority as president of the WTS, he had shown he did not have scrupules concerning his strive for absolute power over the Society⁷ and he had reduced this ‘Board of Directors’ effectively to a powerless group of ‘advisors’.

In 1919 and 1920 Rutherford’s adverseries distributed amongst JWs an article titled "The Church Organized in Relation to the Society", written by Paul S. L. Johnson, a former director of the WTS and intimate of Russell. In it Johnson ably defended Russell’s ideas on the business function of the WTS. Not being able to extricate himself from this position by argument or retreat, Rutherford tried a subtle move: he gave a "broader sense" to the term "Society" and consequently equated it with the "discreet slave" (until the release of the New World Translation the expression ‘wise servant’ was used):

"While the Society is a body corporate with required officers and servants, yet these alone do not constitute the Society. In the broader sense the Society is composed of the body of Christians organized in orderly manner under the Lord’s direction for the carrying on of his work…

Often when asked by others, Who is that faithful and wise servant? – Brother Russell would reply: ‘Some say I am; while others say the Society is.’ Both statements were true, for Brother Russell was in fact the Society in a most absolute sense, in this, that he directed the policy and course of the Society without regard to any other person on earth."⁸

The slight change of meaning of the term ‘the Society’ eliminated the charge that the corporation was being used improperly. It equated the term "the Society" with the term "the church". Of course this is very confusing: on the one hand Russell is ‘the Society’, on the other hand ‘the Society is composed of the body of Christians’. Consequently Russell as well as all Christians as well as ‘the Society’ are the "discreet slave". In the following paragraph Rutherford introduced also the term ‘organization’, a term that after 1925 would have just the same mythical sound as ‘the Society’ or ‘the slave-class’. Since 1928 ‘the Society’ is spoken of as ‘the visible part of Jehovah’s universal organization’:

"Somebody in that visible organization must formulate plans of operation. It seems to have pleased the Lord to have done this at Society’s headquarters and that from there regulations are sent out to the various ecclesias.⁹"

Formally all articles to be published in The Watchtower had to be approved by the ‘editorial committee’. In 1925 Rutherford wrote an extremely controversial article entitled "The Birth of The Nation". The ‘editorial committee’ did not approve it and this "really marked the beginning of the end of the editorial committee"¹⁰. The names of this powerless Committee continued to appear in The Watchtower until 1931, when they were removed and replaced with the Scripture citation: "All thy children shall be taught of the Lord."

There remained but one obstacle to absolute power and that was the (lack of) influence of the Society on local ecclesias. Until then local elders and deacons were elected by voting; also there were no lists of membership that were registered somewhere centralized. At first Rutherford did not change this, but invited all congregations from 1919 onwards to "to ask the Society to register it as a "service organization." Then a director, or service director as he came to be known, not subject to yearly election, was appointed by the Society. As the local representative of the Society, he was to organize the work, assign territory, and encourage participation by the congregation in the field service. Thus, alongside the ‘elective elders and deacons’, another type of organizational arrangement began to function, one that recognized appointive authority outside the local congregation and that gave greater emphasis to the preaching of the good news of God’s Kingdom."¹¹ With each increase in work the power of the service director increased correspondingly. Rutherford discouraged public discourses – an elder’s work – and replaced them with weekly studies of The Watchtower – a congregational participation study. Finally, in 1932, the system of ‘elective elders’ was completely replaced by a ‘service-committee’, officers appointed by the WTS and were Rutherford’s powers secured at all levels. Although Rutherford was always very careful to avoid saying that he was the head of the church, Consolation said (4 september 1940, p. 25):

"The Theocracy is at present administered by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, of which Judge Rutherford is the president and general manager."

These were the powers Nathan Homer Knorr inherited in 1942 after Rutherford’s death. One letter in The Watchtower said on him:

"You are the visible director of the earthly interest of The Theocracy … You are the chief servant of the Lord here on earth.¹²"

The motion of the Pennsylvania corporation also expressed the actual, if not claimed, power of the President when it said:

"Instructions come to the Lord’s people on earth from the office of the President of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.¹³"

On the 1944 annual meeting Knorr for the first time altered something in the administration of the corporation of the WTS: there was to be an alteration in the method of voting to eliminate the $ 10 contribution. It was to be replaced with a system of membership of about 500 JWs, each of which were given one vote each. The $10 vote, said Knorr, was not theocratic. Further changes "broadened the powers of the Society" (corporation)¹⁴. The gist of these broadened powers was to make legal the powers the corporation had already been exercising since Rutherford took over; it included such powers as the sending forth of "missionaries, teachers, and instructors in the Bible".

In 1944 the term ‘Governing Body’ was introduced in The Watchtower¹⁵. Milton, G. Henschel, a director of the Pennsylvania corporation, explains who governs JWs as follows: "The Governing Body consists of seven ministers serving as a board of directors."¹⁶ From the fourties onwards the term Governing Body was used frequently, but as we have seen this was synonymous to the Board of Directors of the WTS. This can also be inferred from the fact that Hayden C. Covington in September 1945 "declined to serve further as vice president of the WTS, explaining that he wished to comply with what was then understood to be Jehovah’s will for all members of the directorate and officers-that they be spirit-anointed Christians, whereas he professed to be one of the "other sheep.""¹⁷. As we have already seen the Board of Directors was practically stripped of all power during the reign of Rutherford and during Knorr’s first years as President this was not changed.

The Watchtower of December 15th 1971, pp. 755-62, for the first time explained that the Governing Body was not identical with the Board of Directors. The Governing Body could consist of more members than the seven ‘directors’. At the same time four new members of the Governing Body were appointed. Also on local level some changes were made, like appointing more elders than just one service-director. With this change the chain was unbroken again on local level; the situation was exactly the same as before abolishing the ‘elective elders and deacons’ with one difference: now the WTS appointed these officers, so there could be truly said: "elders … are the Governing Body’s representatives"¹⁸.

In April 1975 Knorr appointed a Comittee of Five to study the relation between the corporations and the Governing Body. Until then the power of the Governing Body was very limited; in fact it only had an advisory function (only the President of the WTS had decisive powers). But then, in a meeting of the Governing Body on April 30th 1975, Knorr made a motion that thenceforth all matters be decided by a two-thirds vote of the active membership (which by then numbered 17). During the same session the Committee discussed a preliminary report and stated: "The committee feels that today the Governing Body should be directing the corporations and not the other way around"¹⁹.

On August 15th 1975 the Committee of Five presented its definitive report and it was discussed by the Governing Body in the period between September 10th and December 4th 1975. The report advised an organizational structure that finally was accepted and implemented, and published in The Watchtower of January 1st 1977, pp. 15-17²⁰.

Thís was the largest reorganization ever amongst JWs. It stripped the President of the WTS from all real power, although still only members of the Governing Body could become members of the Board of Directors. From 1976 all power is in the hands of the Governing Body. A few years later the explanation came (apparently with power post facto):

"To keep matters in proper perspective, however, it was pointed out that when The Watchtower referred to "The Society," this meant, not a mere legal instrumentality, but the body of anointed Christians that had formed that legal entity and used it. Thus the expression stood for the faithful and discreet slave with its Governing Body."²¹

What took place during the annual meeting on October 7th 2000, was therefore nothing more than some alterations in filling a few offices of the Board of Directors of the WTS. The theological basis was already there from the’70s.

Of course the question remains why this change takes place only now, 20 years after providing the doctrinal justification. Possibly there is a connection with the age of the members of the Governing Body. Although this year, 2000, some younger members were added, the average age remains high. Since there already have been appointed not-‘anointed’ ones in sub-comittees of the Governing Body and there is no increase in ‘anointed’ Witnesses, let alone in ‘anointed’ ones who meet the requirements for membership of the Governing Body, it seems only a matter of time until not-‘anointed’ ones will be admitted to the Governing Body.

Raymond V. Franz, former member of the Governing Body and only insider ever to publish on the inner workings, suggests that the seperation of theological and judicial responsibility could be inspired by lawsuits the WTS could face over its ban on bloodtransfusion and its practice of expelling members. In the recent past Watchtower-publication already encouraged ‘proper’ use of the term Society with a hint of legal implications (say: ‘the Bible taught me…’ instead of ‘the Society tells…’ as in The Watchtower, March 15 1998, p. 19).

A more speculative, but not less interesting, option an expert on JWs presented to mecould be that this is just the surface of a deep-rooted upheaval: a power-struggle in the ranks of the WTS. Is it possible that younger, intelligent and capable administrators want to take over command? Recent figures indicate numerical decline in developed countries (Northern America, Western Europe) and also a decline in zeal (measured by reported field-service). Do the younger leaders no longer accept the dictatorial gerontocracy and will they fall back on pre-1975 structure to set things straight? Will prophetic symbols like Elijah smiting the waters with his mantle and handing it over to Elisah be applied in a new way to find a doctrinal justification for the change of power? Since Don Adams, the new President of the WTS, said he considers it a privilege to cooperate with the Governing Body, this is not at all likely, but the tempestuous history of JWs has shown more than once before that even the most unlikely option has to be taken into serious consideration.

¹ Although historically incorrect, the term JWs for Jehovah’s Witnesses is used throughout this article.

² w 10/15/1894, pp. 330, 331. reprints p. 1320

³ w 10/1881 p. 5, reprints p. 291

⁴ w 7/15/1906 pp. 215, 216, reprints p. 3811

⁵ w 12/1/1916 pp. 356, 357, reprints p. 5998

⁶ The Finished Mystery, pp. 12, 144, 227, 256

⁷ Rutherford justified this dismissal by arguing that the directors were never legally elected. Johnson refuted this, supported by Rutherford’s lawyer and the attorney of the Board. However, Rutherford did not yield and pressed through using manipulation, misuse of power and even physical violence.

⁸ w 3/1/23, p. 68

⁹ w 11/1/28, p. 332

¹⁰ w 6/15/38, p. 185

¹¹ Proclaimers, p. 212

¹² w 2/15/42, p. 63

¹³ Yearbook, 1943, pp. 226, 227

¹⁴ w 11/1/44, p. 334

¹⁵ w 12/15/71, p. 755-62

¹⁶ A Guide To the Religions of America, edited by Leo Rosten (Simon and Schuster). (Article by Henschel). See also Qualified to Be Ministers (1955), p. 381: "During the days since the Lord came to his temple his visible governing body has been closely identified with the board of directors of this corporation."

¹⁷ Proclaimers, p. 91

¹⁸ w 7/1/76, p. 401

¹⁹ Crisis of Conscience by R.V. Franz, 1983, 1992, p. 71

²⁰ The arrangement went into effect on January 1, 1976

²¹ Proclaimers, p. 219

© Maurice van Elburg. May not be reprinted without permission.