Pointed Paragraphs:
People spend much time and energy in worrying about things that are entirely in the hands of God. We worry about the weather, and we worry about how God will work out his plans in the final windup of all earthly matters. If we believe in God and in Christ, why worry?
Wherein God invites us to trust him, he will not betray us. To doubt him is sin. He is not slack concerning his promises. He rewards abundantly those who put their trust in him—those who love him serve him.
If by faith we could see the Lord as he is and could realize our own weakness and dependence upon him, all the praise and adulation that men could heap upon us would seem empty and vain. To know that our Lord looked upon us with favor would be sufficient.
THIS GOVERNMENT AND JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES
Dear Brother Whiteside:
It seems to me that we ought not to oppose any move upon the part of the government to respect the conscience of sincere individuals. There are too many people in this country who would like to see us stop preaching for us to help further any movement which would deny the right to preach to certain religious groups.
There have been efforts in some cities to make it illegal for the “Jehovah’s Witnesses” to distribute their literature or to sell it on the streets. These, in so far as they have come to my attention, have been declared unconstitutional. For this I am thankful, for I know once such laws are placed upon the books that they will be used by people against us in certain sections of the country. I have met people who would have invoked legal aid, if they had the power to do so, to prevent us from preaching in certain places by means of the tract. It seems to me that laws which might be passed and used against “Jehovah’s Witnesses” could be easily used in the hands of vested interests and tricky lawyers to rob the church of Christ of the liberty of free speech.
Then, too, it would be easy for an intense patriot to label the teachings of the New Testament, and thus of the church of Christ, as subversive. They could point out that the New Testament teaches that—
1. Christians are kings and priests. (Rev. 1:6.)
2. That we are endeavoring to establish a kingdom in the United States which is world-wide in its mission and which acknowledges as its supreme ruler Jesus Christ instead of Washington.
3. That this kingdom has been antagonistic, to say the least, to some governments of the past. (Dan. 2:44.)
4. That members of this kingdom believe that it was prophesied by Isaiah, who said that, among other things, its members would beat their swords into plowshares and cease to learn the ways of war. (Isa. 2:2-4.)
5. That they are not allowed to take vengeance. (Rom. 12:19.) From this they could draw conclusions which would lead many people to take steps to curtail our religious freedom.
For these reasons, if for no other, it seems to me that your article in the Gospel Advocate for March 26, 1942, was unnecessary. It helps encourage a movement which could easily result in opposition to the gospel.
Of course I do not accept the peculiar doctrines of the “Jehovah’s Witnesses.” I think we ought to teach them, among other things, Paul’s teaching concerning the proper attitude to civil powers. (Rom. 13:1.)—James D. Bales.
Brother Bales surely has not thought this thing through. As I see it, if “Jehovah’s Witnesses” are to be allowed unmolested to distribute their literature of opposition to all human governments, neither should a rabid German propagandist be molested in this country.
I made no effort to “oppose any move on the part of the government to respect the conscience” of any citizen of this government. So far the government has been as considerate as could be expected. But suppose a citizen of Germany, one wholly loyal to his government, were doing propaganda work on the streets of our cities, he would certainly be conscientiously opposed to doing military service for this government. Would Brother Bales think this government should so respect his conscience as to let him go on with his subversive activities? He is an individual, and he has a conscience, and he would certainly be sincere in his devotion to his government. Brother Bales makes no exceptions when he speaks of “the conscience of sincere individuals.” Do you say he was speaking of citizens of this government? If so, he leaves “Jehovah’s Witnesses” out, they themselves being witnesses, as a glance at their teaching will show.
Both Russell and Rutherford taught that “the times of the Gentiles,” of which the Bible speaks, is the time in which God permitted the Gentiles to rule in the governments of the earth. Their language is too plain to admit of any misunderstanding. Mr. Russell taught that the saints should be submissive to Gentile governments up to the close of the times of the Gentiles, or to the limit of their right to rule. With these people the times of the Gentiles began “when the diadem was taken from Zedekiah,” and lasted till A. D. 1914. In the 1912 edition of The Time Is at Hand, Vol. 2, (“copyright 1889”), Mr. Russell says: “In this chapter we present the Bible evidence proving that the full end of the times of the Gentiles—i. e., the full end of their lease of dominion—will be reached in A. D. 1914; and that date will be the fartherest limit of the rule of imperfect men.” (Pages 76, 77.) “So, then, Gentile rule had a beginning, will last for a fixed time, and will end at the time appointed.” (Page 78.) During the times of the Gentiles the saints were to “render to them due respect and obedience,” but “to keep separate from the kingdoms of this world as strangers, pilgrims, and foreigners.” That eliminates them from citizenship in any government of the world, in so far as one can eliminate himself. “Foreigners” are not citizens. And their submission to Gentile governments was to end when the times of the Gentiles ended, when this new order would enter in full force. In the “Finished Mystery,” published in 1917, we have this: “Their united testimony is that the times of the Gentiles have expired, the reign of Christ has begun, all earthly potentates—civil, social, ecclesiastical, and financial—must give way to the new order of things, and will not give way peaceably, but must be ejected.” (Page 231.) This volume was written and published after Russell’s death. After all the date setting for the end of Gentile governments, we have this: “There is evidence that the establishments of the kingdom in Palestine will probably be in 1925, ten years later than we once calculated.” (“Finished Mystery,” page 128.)
In “Our Lord’s return” Rutherford says: “The word ‘world’ means the social and political order or rule governing the people.” (Page 35.) “The end of the Gentile rule, therefore, would mark necessarily the legal end of the present order; therefore, the end of the world”—that is, the end of the “social and political order or rule governing the people.” (Page 37.) “This does not mean the end of trouble, but it does mean, according to Jesus’ words, that the old world legally ended in 1914.” (“Millions Now Living Will Never Die,” page 19.) Hence, according to Rutherford, no government now has any right to exist; they are all usurpers and in rebellion against the world’s rightful ruler. Who is the rightful ruler? In passages too numerous to quote they tell us that Christ would be the universal king when the times of the Gentiles ended in 1914. But who is the Christ of Rutherford? “The Christ consists of Jesus glorified, the head, and the members of his body, which constitute the church.” (Page 76.) Russell taught the same. The church and Jesus constitute the Christ, and they are now the rightful rulers of the world; no other government has any right to exist. That is their teaching. They, therefore, claim to owe no allegiance to any human government, but are opposed to all human governments. If any of our brethren who are conscientious objectors hold to positions similar to the foregoing, then they should have registered as aliens, as should all followers of Rutherford.