On Friday 14 August 2015, via video link, Geoffrey Jackson, a member of the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses gave evidence to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. During the hearing, which started at 10 am and finished at 3:13pm, Jackson used the word “custodian”, “guardian” or “guardians” six times in reference to himself and his governing body colleagues, with respect to their responsibility to the doctrine and beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Geoffrey Jackson stated the following in reference to the Governing Body being Guardians of Doctrine:
There can be any number of members on the Governing Body … the qualifications of a member for the Governing body – it involves someone who is considered an anointed Witness, who has … a scriptural background, either as a missionary or a full-time servant for many years, and is able to fulfil the role of the Governing Body, which is … a spiritual group of men who are the guardians of our doctrine, and as guardians of the doctrine, look at things that need to be decided based on our doctrines, which are based on the constitution of the Bible.
If the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses are truly Guardians of Doctrine as Geoffrey Jackson claimed, then all honest-hearted individuals should ask themselves this pertinent question:
Wouldn’t Geoffrey Jackson’s testimony to the Royal Commission in Australia show that he has carefully protected the doctrine and beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses, even if such teachings may seem bizarre, or maybe even detestable, to non-believers?
Let’s review the Transcript of Jackson’s testimony and determine if he truly is a Guardian of Doctrine, as he has claimed to be.
Jackson’s Expertise and the Decision Making Process
Geoffrey Jackson clearly explains that he serves primarily on the writing committee but also serves on the teaching and personnel committees, with his field of expertise being translations. His roles and field of expertise allow him to evaluate recommendations and determine if, “first of all, they are scripturally accurate and correct, and, secondly, whether they are translatable.” With regard to translation, he claimed that “these committees need my input with regard to how things will be translated into other languages.”
Take note of the fact that he is responsible:
- First of all to determine if recommendations are scripturally accurate and correct.
- Secondly, whether they are translatable, in other words, how things will be translated into other languages.
These are key statements that we need to bear in mind when Geoffrey Jackson makes the claim that he is a Guardian of Doctrine. For Guardians of Doctrine, it is imperative that they are scripturally adept so that any direction provided in their literature is accurate and correct. Likewise, it’s critical that such direction is translated correctly so that it conveys the same thought from whichever language it has been translated.
Jackson went on to explain the Guardians of Doctrine decision making process. “… If a policy or a question comes up with regard to doctrine, or something that involves a biblical stand, we will allow someone to come in and present to us all the facts concerning that – obviously the seven involved cannot be familiar with every aspect that we need to consider. So once the proposal has been given to the Governing Body, it’s an agenda point. Ahead of time, each Governing Body member, with prayer, by means of prayer and reading the Bible, then tries to see how the Bible would affect any particular decision. So then, in our discussion, generally … in most cases it’s unanimous … but [if it’s not], it’s a rare thing, because if someone – perhaps their conscience is not clear or feel comfortable with a certain decision, then more often than not, we would rely upon God’s spirit by holding up on making a final decision until more research is done, and then we would meet again.”
The Irony in Devotion
How Jackson understands God’s spirit to direct the Guardians of Doctrine in coming to a decision is “by prayer and using our constitution, God’s word, we would go through the scriptures and see if there was any biblical principle at all that would influence our decision – and it could be that in our initial discussions there was something that maybe we were missing and then in another discussion that would come to light. So we would view that as God’s spirit motivating us because we believe the Bible is God’s word and came by means of holy spirit.”
He emphasized the Governing Body’s role is “to devote ourselves to prayer and the word of God, and that’s why 30 helpers have been assigned that are involved more with the practical side of policy and implementation.” by quoting Acts 6:3, 4:
So, brothers, select for yourselves seven reputable men from among you, full of spirit and wisdom, that we may appoint them over this necessary matter; but we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.
In quoting this scripture, Geoffrey Jackson was liking himself and the rest of the Governing Body to the first century Apostles – they devote themselves to prayer and ministry, while others were assigned to implementing policy (although this scripture in context has nothing to do with Christian policy but rather with feeding needy widows). However, he failed to note how they are unlike the Apostles in this verse. The apostles allowed the broader congregation of Christians to select “seven reputable men from among” themselves; whereas – and this was pointed out by Senior Counsel, Angus Stewart – the 30 men responsible for implementing the policy of Jehovah’s Witnesses are selected directly by the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses. The fact of the matter is, the global Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses have no input into this selection process. And as one of the Guardians of Doctrine, Geoffrey Jackson could not guard this aspect of their doctrine. He could only reply, “Your point is well taken” and feebly followed it up with a hypothetical assumption “that others selected these seven men … at the direction of the apostles”.
Make another note of these facts:
- Each Governing Body member by means of prayer and reading the Bible try to see how the Bible would affect any particular decision.
- If a decision is not unanimous, due to maybe something being missing in their initial discussions, additional prayer and using their constitution, God’s word, that would bring it to light.
- A Governing Body member, who considered himself a Guardian of Doctrine, relied on a hypothetical assumption to defend an aspect of their doctrine that he himself had Angus Stewart SC draw attention to by way of a scriptural quote.
Geoffrey Jackson claimed that the Guardians of Doctrine devoted themselves to prayer, bible reading and ministry to come to unanimous decisions about doctrine. However, when a worldly man with little biblical knowledge questioned a simple aspect of scripture that Jackson used to explain the position the Governing Body see themselves in, he failed to guard their doctrine. He could only make a hypothetical assumption.
Here is the irony. Senior Counsel Angus Stewart then asked Jackson if members of the Governing Body regard themselves as being appointed by Jehovah God, or under the capacity, or authority of Jehovah God. Jackson responded, “… we have been given a responsibility to guard or to be guardians of doctrine .. as being appointed by holy spirit”. The very same man who could not defend a simple question of doctrine asked by a man with very little bible knowledge, now claimed that he was appointed by holy spirit to be a guardian of doctrine. Either he is making a mockery of his position, of God’s selection process, or of both.
In another example of irony, Justice Peter McClellan asked Jackson if there was any biblical impediment to a judicial determination being made by a body which included women, although the elders thereafter may respond as the decision-maker in relation to what happens to someone after a decision has been made as to the truth or not of an allegation. Jackson responded by saying that “biblically speaking, the role of the judges in the congregation lays with men. That’s what the Bible says and that’s what we endeavor to follow.” However when asked to give a Biblical reference to such a claim, he couldn’t provide an exact scriptural reference. Instead, he simply quoted one of Jehovah’s Witnesses’ scriptural staples, [the_tooltip text=”1 Timothy 3:1-4″ tooltip=”This statement is trustworthy: If a man is reaching out to be an overseer, he is desirous of a fine work. The overseer should therefore be irreprehensible, a husband of one wife, moderate in habits, sound in mind, orderly, hospitable, qualified to teach, not a drunkard, not violent, but reasonable, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money, a man presiding over his household in a fine manner, having his children in subjection with all seriousness.” background=”333″ color=”fff”] which describes the requirements a man must meet to become a bishop or overseer, and this response has absolutely no bearing on the question being asked. Here again is the irony: How could a man who claims to devote himself to Bible reading not be able to preserve the Doctrine of Jehovah’s Witnesses with the appropriate Bible quotation?
Contradicting Doctrine
A Guardian, in the context of religious doctrine, is one who guards, protects or preserves the belief system of a religious group. In Geoffrey Jackson’s capacity as a Guardian of Doctrine, did he guard, protect or preserve the religious beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses? Let’s first consider different aspects of the belief system of Jehovah’s Witnesses and compare them to statements Geoffrey Jackson made in his testimony.
Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that the Faithful & Discreet Slave as found in Jesus’ Parable at [the_tooltip text=”Matthew 24:45″ tooltip=”Who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over his domestics, to give them their food at the proper time?” background=”333″ color=”fff”] is the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses and that they are God’s only channel of communication.
… the governing body of the expanding Christian congregation, … was recognized by the early Christians everywhere as the channel of communication used by God to render decisions and direct the affairs of the congregation throughout the earth.
– Insight on the Scriptures Vol. I, p.128-129.By word of action, may we never challenge the channel of communication that Jehovah is using today. ([the_tooltip text=”Num 16:1-3″ tooltip=”Then Korah the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, got up together with Dathan and Abiram the sons of Eliab, and On the son of Peleth, of the sons of Reuben. They rose up against Moses along with 250 Israelite men, chieftains of the assembly, chosen ones of the congregation, prominent men. So they gathered together against Moses and Aaron and said to them: We have had enough of you! The whole assembly is holy, all of them, and Jehovah is in their midst. Why, then, should you exalt yourselves above the congregation of Jehovah?” background=”333″ color=”fff”]) On the contrary, we should cherish our privilege to cooperate with the slave class.
– The Watchtower Nov 15 2009, p.14 para 5.Today, we may not clearly see why some organizational matters are handled in a certain way, but we have every reason to trust in Jehovah’s guidance through his faithful channel of communication.
– The Watchtower Dec 15 2007, p.20 para 16.… in heaven (1) Jehovah God originates his utterances; (2) then his official Word, or Spokesman – now known as Jesus Christ – often transmits the message; (3) God’s holy spirit; the active force that is used as the medium of communication, carries it earthward; (4) God’s prophet on earth receives the message; and (5) he then publishes it for the benefit of God’s people.
– All Scripture is Inspired of God and Beneficial, p. 9 para 16.That faithful and discreet slave is represented today by the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses, which has as its publicity agent the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. Most appropriately, that faithful and discreet slave has also been called God’s channel of communication.
– The Watchtower Sep 01 1991, p.18-19 para 15.
Take into consideration these points:
- The governing body are recognized as the channel of communication used by God to render decisions and direct the affairs of the congregation throughout the earth.
- Never challenge the channel of communication that Jehovah is using … cherish the privilege to cooperate with the slave class.
- Trust in Jehovah’s guidance through his faithful channel of communication.
- The faithful and discreet slave is … the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses, which … has also been called God’s channel of communication.
Angus Stewart SC asked Geoffrey Jackson, “… do you see yourselves as Jehovah God’s spokespeople on earth?”
As one of the Guardians of Doctrine, as a person giving testimony at a legal hearing, and in answering this question, it was imperative that Geoffrey Jackson legally defend, guard and preserve Jehovah’s Witnesses’ doctrinal position that the Governing Body are God’s channel of communication, or God’s spokespeople on earth. But did he? No! He responds, “That I think would seem to be quite presumptuous to say that we are the only spokesperson that God is using.” And yet, in the same statement, he contradicts this lie by saying, “we view ourselves as trying to fulfill that role.”
In this case, either he made a mockery of his position AND the position of the governing body, of God’s communication process, or of both.
Jehovah’s Witnesses believe in, and take literally the Proverb, “Whoever holds back his rod hates his son”.
Parental authority. “Rod” is used also to symbolize the authority of parents over their children. The book of Proverbs makes many references to this authority, the term symbolizing all forms of discipline used, including the literal rod used for chastisement. The parent is actually responsible before God to exercise this rod, controlling the child. If the parent fails in this, he will bring ruination and death to his child and disgrace and God’s disapproval to himself also. ([the_tooltip text=”Pr 10:1″ tooltip=”Proverbs of Solomon. A wise son makes his father rejoice, But a foolish son is the grief of his mother.” background=”333″ color=”fff”]; [the_tooltip text=”Pr 15:20″ tooltip=”A wise son makes his father rejoice, But a stupid man despises his mother.” background=”333″ color=”fff”]; [the_tooltip text=”Pr 17:25″ tooltip=”A stupid son brings grief to his father and heartache to the one who gives birth to him.” background=”333″ color=”fff”]; [the_tooltip text=”Pr 19:13″ tooltip=”A stupid son brings adversity on his father, And a quarrelsome wife is like a roof that never stops leaking.” background=”333″ color=”fff”])
– Insight on the Scriptures Vol II, p.818.No wonder, then, that [the_tooltip text=”Proverbs 13:24″ tooltip=”Whoever holds back his rod hates his son, But the one who loves him disciplines him diligently.” background=”333″ color=”fff”] says: “The one holding back his rod is hating his son, but the one loving him is he that does look for him with discipline.” In this context, the rod of discipline represents a means of correction, whatever form it may take. By administering loving discipline, a parent seeks to correct faults that if they were to become deeply rooted, would cause the child much misery in adult life. Truly, withholding such discipline amounts to hate; administering it is an act of love.
– The Watchtower Apr 01 2008, p.14.Taking away a privilege may work. God’s Word says, though, that in some cases physical chastisement—spanking, given without wrath—may be needed.—[the_tooltip text=”Proverbs 23:13, 14″ tooltip=”Do not hold back discipline from a boy. If you strike him with the rod, he will not die. With the rod you should strike him, In order to save him from the Grave.” background=”333″ color=”fff”]; [the_tooltip text=”Proverbs 13:24″ tooltip=”Whoever holds back his rod hates his son, But the one who loves him disciplines him diligently.” background=”333″ color=”fff”].
– Happiness – How to Find It Chapter 9, p.94 para 23.There are times, of course, when every child needs discipline, even with the literal rod, but this should be done—and not overdone—firmly and in love, without displaying the heat of anger. Children will come to appreciate deserved chastisement, and it will not ‘exasperate’ them.
– Good News to Make You Happy Chapter 19, p.166 para 3.
Remember these points:
- “Rod” is … the term symbolizing all forms of discipline used, including the literal rod used for chastisement.
- The rod of discipline represents a means of correction, whatever form it may take.
- God’s Word says … that in some cases physical chastisement – spanking … may be needed.
- There are times .. when every child needs discipline, even with the literal rod.
Justice Peter McClellan asked the Guardian of Doctrine, Geoffrey Jackson, if the verse at [the_tooltip text=”Proverbs 13:24″ tooltip=”Whoever holds back his rod hates his son, But the one who loves him disciplines him diligently.” background=”333″ color=”fff”] was to be taken literal, or in other words, to inflict corporal punishment.
SEVEN TIMES Justice McClellan questioned Geoffrey Jackson on whether Jehovah’s Witnesses take [the_tooltip text=”Proverbs 13:24″ tooltip=”Whoever holds back his rod hates his son, But the one who loves him disciplines him diligently.” background=”333″ color=”fff”] literally and accept corporal punishment. FOUR TIMES, Jackson tried to avoid the questions and THREE TIMES he vehemently denied that this scripture was to be taken literally by Jehovah’s Witnesses. Here are McClellan’s questions and Jackson’s responses:
- Q. “And the exact quote is: Whoever holds back the rod hates his son. What does that mean?”
A. “So in the application of [the_tooltip text=”Proverbs 13:24″ tooltip=”Whoever holds back his rod hates his son, But the one who loves him disciplines him diligently.” background=”333″ color=”fff”] the term “rod” is used as a symbol or a metaphor to indicate the authority to give some punishment.” - Q: “So it’s not about inflicting corporal punishment, then?”
A: “It absolutely is not about inflicting corporal punishment.” - Q: “Does your church accept corporal punishment of children?”
A: “Our church accepts the family arrangement and expects that parents have the responsibility to discipline and raise their children.” - Q: “That doesn’t answer my question. Do you accept corporal punishment?”
A: “In our literature, I think you will see time and time again we’ve endeavored to explain that here “discipline” is referring to more a mental point of view, not corporal punishment.” - Q: “I am going to tell you, you are still not answering my question. Do you accept corporal punishment?”
A: “No.” - Q: “You don’t?”
A: “Not – not personally, no, and not as an organisation – we don’t encourage it.” - Q: “But do you prohibit it?”
A: Our literature has pointed out that the true way to discipline children is by educating them, not giving corporal punishment.
In two of the four Watchtower literature references above, [the_tooltip text=”Proverbs 13:24″ tooltip=”Whoever holds back his rod hates his son, But the one who loves him disciplines him diligently.” background=”333″ color=”fff”] is directly quoted. If you were to look up the other two literature quotations, you’ll find that Proverbs 13:24 is also referenced in the context of those publication references. And in all cases, Watchtower has interpreted this verse literally. Yet repeatedly, Geoffrey Jackson contradicted Jehovah’s Witnesses’ doctrine on discipline, of which he is a Guardian.
To reiterate, a man who claims to be appointed as a Guardian of Doctrine by God’s holy spirit, made a mockery of his position, of the position of his colleagues, and quite possibly God’s view of discipline.
A Response to Jackson’s Written Statement
The Guardian of Doctrine Delusion
There is much more that could be written about Geoffrey Jackson’s testimony to prove how deluded he and his colleagues are in thinking that they are divinely selected to be Guardians of Doctrine.
In reality, Geoffrey Jackson has contradicted his claim that, as a Guardian of Doctrine, he devotes himself to Bible Reading, when he couldn’t defend his interpretation of scripture against the simple inquiries of legal individuals with limited biblical knowledge. If his claim to devoting himself to bible reading had been so readily undermined, how are we believe the claims that he devotes himself to prayer and ministry? Indeed, how are we to believe that he has been divinely selected by God to be a “Faithful & Discreet Slave providing food at the proper time” when he couldn’t provide any spiritually enlightening responses to these legal personnel’s doctrinal and scripture-related questions?
Geoffrey Jackson has clearly proven that he is deluded if he thinks he is a Guardian of Jehovah’s Witnesses’ doctrine, when he continually contradicted it, denied it, or lied about it. If his testimony is supported by the other remaining members of the Governing Body, or the remaining Guardians of Doctrine, they too have placed themselves in a dangerous position. Why? Because if they are truly Guardians of Doctrine, and believe the Doctrine of Jehovah’s Witnesses to be biblical truth, then they should distance themselves from Geoffrey Jackson’s lies, contradictions and denials. Instead, they should do what they claim to be, as Guardians of Doctrine, and stand up and speak the truth. This could include removing Geoffrey Jackson as a member of the Governing Body.
However, such action isn’t going to happen. Because, although Jackson is deluded in thinking he is a Guardian of Doctrine, all the other Guardians of Doctrine are as much deluded, if not more so. Isn’t it no wonder? Each one possibly thinks he is a GOD (Guardian of Doctrine).