2024 Governing Body Update #2

[Tortuga]

6 hours ago, lesage NM said:

Good morning. According to the latest governing body update: if we have an assignment, can we just wear a *shirt with tie* right?  Should we wear a *jacket* too?

The simple answer is to do what you were doing before the announcement.

[Sepie93]

That was about disfellowshipping… I personally can’t understand why the suit & tie part would need anything further - they were very clear - only if you have a part on the program or are visiting Bethel…

I've heard from brothers from the branch here: don't expect any further instructions from the branch when it comes to the announcement about clothes. The update said it all.

So... I think that's the only thing we will get haha

Verstuurd vanaf mijn SM-S911B met Tapatalk

[Tortuga]

9 hours ago, Leslie.m said:

Depends on your Body of Elders - some seem to be going “beyond the things that are written” and enforcing jackets and ties for all manner of assignments that have nothing to do with parts on the program…

That may be so but unless we have personally seen that happen, we may be turning assumptions into facts. The loving thing to do is to give the brothers time to fully understand the information and apply it. 

[jwhess]

51 minutes ago, Tortuga said:

That may be so but unless we have personally seen that happen, we may be turning assumptions into facts. The loving thing to do is to give the brothers time to fully understand the information and apply it. 

Our Body of Elders met (as instructed) and one of the points we discussed was  the dress for congregation assignments or duties.  In the end our COBE summarized the differences between having "meeting parts" from the stage or platform and having "meeting assignments or duties" in support of the program.

 

We agreed on microphone attendants. A/V personnell, Zoom attendants, Entry or door greeters and the congregation attendants.  It took a few minutes of discussion to analyze the platform or stage attendant since he was going to be "on stage" for part of his assignment.  In the end, our COBE  asked us to consider the outcome that would allow us to be unaminous in our decision.  he wanted to be sure that whenever anyone in the hall asked for direction in application of the new understanding of our "dress-code", that we would all give the same, considered and unanimous decision.

 

So we agreed that unless the person had a part "on stage" teaching, demonstrating, reading or counseling (regular meeting parts), he or she could wear the modified dress outlined in the update.  We decided not to try to add any anything additional to the list given by the GB.  We decided not to 'stretch' the instructions to cover any duty not specifically mentioned.

 

We have the the Circuit Assembly in 3 weeks and the visit of the CO in 4 weeks.  If anything needs adjusting we will be instructed soon.

[BPelder]

8 minutes ago, jwhess said:

Our Body of Elders met (as instructed) and one of the points we discussed was  the dress for congregation assignments or duties.  In the end our COBE summarized the differences between having "meeting parts" from the stage or platform and having "meeting assignments or duties" in support of the program.

 

We agreed on microphone attendants. A/V personnell, Zoom attendants, Entry or door greeters and the congregation attendants.  It took a few minutes of discussion to analyze the platform or stage attendant since he was going to be "on stage" for part of his assignment.  In the end, our COBE  asked us to consider the outcome that would allow us to be unaminous in our decision.  he wanted to be sure that whenever anyone in the hall asked for direction in application of the new understanding of our "dress-code", that we would all give the same, considered and unanimous decision.

 

So we agreed that unless the person had a part "on stage" teaching, demonstrating, reading or counseling (regular meeting parts), he or she could wear the modified dress outlined in the update.  We decided not to try to add any anything additional to the list given by the GB.  We decided not to 'stretch' the instructions to cover any duty not specifically mentioned.

 

We have the the Circuit Assembly in 3 weeks and the visit of the CO in 4 weeks.  If anything needs adjusting we will be instructed soon.

Our BOE met and reached a similar conclusion.  Our CO visit is next month and we'll wait for further clarification, if there's any.

[Leslie.m]

2 hours ago, Tortuga said:

That may be so but unless we have personally seen that happen, we may be turning assumptions into facts. The loving thing to do is to give the brothers time to fully understand the information and apply it. 

They came right out and said they were doing it right here on the forum. What @jwhess said next summarises it best.

Edited March 24 by Leslie.m

[Leslie.m]

I do appreciate these changes being announced worldwide in an update. Those of us who were privileged to watch the Annual Meeting live felt a bit guilty; and we weren't allowed to discuss parts of it for months afterward - even with our closest friends and family. I understand the important role the AM plays, but I'm all here for the big changes being announced to everyone all at once. I, for one, hope it expands...

[carlos]

On 3/23/2024 at 3:10 PM, LeolaRootStew said:

Where does the standard of platform=ties/dresses even come from? How do we know that dresses and ties are a standard in our land?

 

I had this same conversation with a sister yesterday. She seemed to think the standard of dress is something worldly people set: If the queen of Spain can attend an important event wearing elegant slacks, then that's the standard. That viewpoint is wrong.

 

The standard is whatever the congregation feels it's proper attire for the platform. In other words, as Richard put it, the way you were dressing when you had a part in the meeting before the update. In most of the Western world that is a dress for sisters and tie and jacket for brothers. Then there are places were jackets are not required or ties are not that common. In a handful of countries sisters wear a saree with trousers or brothers use a skirt. In those places, that is the standard of dress. They don't need to start wearing dresses and jackets and ties now.

 

21 hours ago, LeolaRootStew said:

That's what I was getting at. It seems we may be caught in a loop until another update.

 

It doesn't look like a terrible thing anyway.

 

On 3/23/2024 at 3:29 PM, Mike047 said:

Your Bethel Branch, will be sending to travelling overseers and local elders instructions based on the GB update, this will surely be sufficient.

 

The branch has already sent instructions but they don't have anything to do with our clothing. I don't think they will be sending any instructions about this, since the update was perfectly clear.

 

[Pabo]

In our congregation, the BoE haven't "formalised" what constitutes what is deemed to be "a part of the meeting" for those with other assignments such as roving mics, stage etc, but we have had small discussions between the various brothers. As we are coming up to a long weekend, and many in our congregation will be going away, so they address it afterwards, as we have to have other meetings as well in regards to security and maintenance etc, so it can be discussed more fully. So for the time being, it is whatever the brother's choice on what they decide to do. Most here generally will still wear a tie irregardless, but jackets may be optional for most.

 

Most in our congregation feel that non-part assignments don't require a jacket and tie, whereas some feel that it would be best for them to wear a jacket and tie. I made mention that if sisters that can do these roles do not have to wear a jacket and tie, why then should a brother? One elder thought that it was interesting way of viewing it and very much agreed with the scenario. But we are somewhat in the air about the stage attendant, as he would be visable on the stage, and also the camera as well. Most feel that it would look much nicer if they did wear a jacket and tie, but we haven't made any fast rule on it.

 

As @jwhess has posted, what his BoE decided on in regards to their understanding, I guess that will be the majority of what most congregations will do. I have already heard some congregations have already made the viewpoint that those with "non-stage assignments" are still required to be wearing coats and jackets. So I guess it may take a bit of time to fine tune some viewpoints, also humilty by those who may feel the other way until things have settled down.

 

But we have come across one interesting scenario in respects of the field service group. We had one brother having the viewpoint that the brother conducting the field service should be wearing a tie, as well as the brother giving the prayer on behalf of the group. When he conducted the group, he gave the prayer himself because he mentioned that the other brother that was in the group wasn't wearing a tie. This raised my wife's eyebrow it was mentioned, and the other brother didn't questioned it, just went with it (both being MS's).

 

She asked me for my thought's as she felt that having a tie wasn't a requirement for saying a prayer at the group, nor even conducting the group. The explaination I could interpret is as follows:

 

As the announcement regarding that jacket and ties are optional for witnessing, as the group meeting together is informal, that is, it is not a meeting itself like the MWM or weekend meeting. As these two "formal" meetings are stated on the KH's signage outside, any other meeting would be informal, such as the field service groups. Thus it can be reasoned that there is no requirement for jacket and ties needed for these meetings, as these meetings were not mentioned in the announcement.

 

So, it begs the question, do meetings such as the field service group or perhaps, meetings for elders, service committees, hall committees etc require the need for jacket and ties? Would there be any adjusted guidelines for these types of meetings?

Edited March 25 by Pabo

[Broseph]

9 minutes ago, Pabo said:

In our congregation, the BoE haven't "formalised" what constitutes what is deemed to be "a part of the meeting" for those with other assignments such as roving mics, stage etc, but we have had small discussions between the various brothers. As we are coming up to a long weekend, and many in our congregation will be going away, so they address it afterwards, as we have to have other meetings as well in regards to security and maintenance etc, so it can be discussed more fully. So for the time being, it is whatever the brother's choice on what they decide to do. Most here generally will still wear a tie irregardless, but jackets may be optional for most.

 

Most in our congregation feel that non-part assignments don't require a jacket and tie, whereas some feel that it would be best for them to wear a jacket and tie. I made mention that if sisters that can do these roles do not have to wear a jacket and tie, why then should a brother? One elder thought that it was interesting way of viewing it and very much agreed with the scenario. But we are somewhat in the air about the stage attendant, as he would be visable on the stage, and also the camera as well. Most feel that it would look much nicer if they did wear a jacket and tie, but we haven't made any fast rule on it.

 

As @jwhess has posted, what his BoE decided on in regards to their understanding, I guess that will be the majority of what most congregations will do. I have already heard some congregations have already made the viewpoint that those with "non-stage assignments" are still required to be wearing coats and jackets. So I guess it may take a bit of time to fine tune some viewpoints, also humilty by those who may feel the other way until things have settled down.

 

But we have come across one interesting scenario in respects of the field service group. We had one brother having the viewpoint that the brother conducting the field service should be wearing a tie, as well as the brother giving the prayer on behalf of the group. When he conducted the group, he gave the prayer himself because he mentioned that the other brother that was in the group wasn't wearing a tie. This raised my wife's eyebrow it was mentioned, and the other brother didn't questioned it, just went with it (both being MS's).

 

She asked me for my thought's as she felt that having a tie wasn't a requirement for saying a prayer at the group, nor even conducting the group. The explaination I could interpret is as follows:

 

As the announcement regarding that jacket and ties are optional for witnessing, as the group meeting together is informal, that is, it is not a meeting itself like the MWM or weekend meeting. As these two "formal" meetings are stated on the KH's signage outside, any other meeting would be informal, such as the field service groups. Thus it can be reasoned that there is no requirement for jacket and ties needed for these meetings, as these meetings were not mentioned in the announcement.

 

So, it begs the question, do meetings such as the field service group or perhaps, meetings for elders, service committees, hall committees etc require the need for jacket and ties? Would there be any adjusted guidelines for these types of meetings?

See how distracting this is? Seems even more complicated than it was before, which of course wasn’t the intent.

[Pabo]

1 minute ago, JonE said:

See how distracting this is? Seems even more complicated than it was before, which of course wasn’t the intent.

 

So true.

 

How many times when certain "recommendations" or "suggestions" made by the Branch or the GB were somehow changed to "requirements" or "statutes" that made it more burdensome to the congregation?

[Leslie.m]

2 hours ago, Pabo said:

In our congregation, the BoE haven't "formalised" what constitutes what is deemed to be "a part of the meeting" for those with other assignments such as roving mics, stage etc, but we have had small discussions between the various brothers. As we are coming up to a long weekend, and many in our congregation will be going away, so they address it afterwards, as we have to have other meetings as well in regards to security and maintenance etc, so it can be discussed more fully. So for the time being, it is whatever the brother's choice on what they decide to do. Most here generally will still wear a tie irregardless, but jackets may be optional for most.

 

Most in our congregation feel that non-part assignments don't require a jacket and tie, whereas some feel that it would be best for them to wear a jacket and tie. I made mention that if sisters that can do these roles do not have to wear a jacket and tie, why then should a brother? One elder thought that it was interesting way of viewing it and very much agreed with the scenario. But we are somewhat in the air about the stage attendant, as he would be visable on the stage, and also the camera as well. Most feel that it would look much nicer if they did wear a jacket and tie, but we haven't made any fast rule on it.

 

As @jwhess has posted, what his BoE decided on in regards to their understanding, I guess that will be the majority of what most congregations will do. I have already heard some congregations have already made the viewpoint that those with "non-stage assignments" are still required to be wearing coats and jackets. So I guess it may take a bit of time to fine tune some viewpoints, also humilty by those who may feel the other way until things have settled down.

 

But we have come across one interesting scenario in respects of the field service group. We had one brother having the viewpoint that the brother conducting the field service should be wearing a tie, as well as the brother giving the prayer on behalf of the group. When he conducted the group, he gave the prayer himself because he mentioned that the other brother that was in the group wasn't wearing a tie. This raised my wife's eyebrow it was mentioned, and the other brother didn't questioned it, just went with it (both being MS's).

 

She asked me for my thought's as she felt that having a tie wasn't a requirement for saying a prayer at the group, nor even conducting the group. The explaination I could interpret is as follows:

 

As the announcement regarding that jacket and ties are optional for witnessing, as the group meeting together is informal, that is, it is not a meeting itself like the MWM or weekend meeting. As these two "formal" meetings are stated on the KH's signage outside, any other meeting would be informal, such as the field service groups. Thus it can be reasoned that there is no requirement for jacket and ties needed for these meetings, as these meetings were not mentioned in the announcement.

 

So, it begs the question, do meetings such as the field service group or perhaps, meetings for elders, service committees, hall committees etc require the need for jacket and ties? Would there be any adjusted guidelines for these types of meetings?

Wow, that all seems waaaaay more complicated than it should be!

[Amygdala]

5 hours ago, carlos said:

I had this same conversation with a sister yesterday. She seemed to think the standard of dress is something worldly people set: If the queen of Spain can attend an important event wearing elegant slacks, then that's the standard. That viewpoint is wrong.

No the reason isn’t right, but if some do wear slacks for non-congregational parts, and it’s common for women to wear slacks in the area, then it’s a personal decision if one chooses to do so.

[TheKid23]

4 hours ago, Pabo said:

 

So true.

 

How many times when certain "recommendations" or "suggestions" made by the Branch or the GB were somehow changed to "requirements" or "statutes" that made it more burdensome to the congregation?

Back last October the CO warned our BOE about things like that. Changing words like “may” into “should” got to be so careful not to set rules when it’s unnecessary. 

[Dustparticle]

2 hours ago, Leslie.m said:

Wow, that all seems waaaaay more complicated than it should be!

That is why there no growth in many congregations for brothers to reach out. I seen this all through the years.

[Pabo]

3 hours ago, Leslie.m said:

Wow, that all seems waaaaay more complicated than it should be!

 

[blue-jay]

The letter/announcement was so simple. I don't think there's any clarification needed. It's kinda sad that so many are trying to read things into it and are making their own rules. And since it's the BOEs, everyone else has to go along. It's frustrating. But a good exercise in being obedient. 

I hope the important instructions during the GT are even simpler, if that's even possible. 

Have any elders called Bethel before they reached their decision? I'm sure the brothers at the help desks on the phones will be able to clarify/explain. 

[carlos]

10 hours ago, JonE said:

See how distracting this is? Seems even more complicated than it was before, which of course wasn’t the intent.

 

I don't think it's complicated or distracting. The elders are in charge of the congregation. If they give instructions, follow the instructions. If they don't, do as you feel is better.

 

Things only become complicated when we disagree with the instructions and try to argue with the elders.

 

2 hours ago, blue-jay said:

Have any elders called Bethel before they reached their decision? I'm sure the brothers at the help desks on the phones will be able to clarify/explain. 

 

If someone calls Bethel the brothers won't give any explanation. They will only tell us to watch the update again, apply Bible principles and follow the instructions by the elders. Every body of elders knows what is the feeling of the local congregation.

 

[coony77]

6 hours ago, carlos said:

Things only become complicated when we disagree with the instructions and try to argue with the elders.

 

My goodness - "why keep it simple if "complicated" is also possible?" (a saying here in Germany: "Warum einfach, wenn´s auch kompliziert geht?")

[Sepie93]

 
If someone calls Bethel the brothers won't give any explanation. They will only tell us to watch the update again, apply Bible principles and follow the instructions by the elders. Every body of elders knows what is the feeling of the local congregation.
 

It's true that the instructions need to be followed. But that is also the case for elders themselves, of course.

Even with the most simple instructions, some elders or BOE still tend to find ways to complicate it. It's not that I'm complaining, and I know that even in these cases, it's 100% with the best of intentions. Some aren't even aware of this.

An example: when the beard update was published, an elder (not in my congregation) said: nice update, but(!) in our field, it's still not acceptable to wear a beard... what?
It's totally fine when this brother, or even a group of brothers, feels this way. But it will not annul the update we received as a worldwide brotherhood, including the ones within "their" congregations.
Maybe it's due to the Dutch culture, but I for sure would at least ask the details about such a claim

This is what I love about these recent updates. The GB is actually telling us to use our individual sound mind as Christians and Bible based conscience. And they trust the brothers and sisters in this. Personally, I always get a little itchy when I feel I'm being micromanaged. Especially when I ask details and the reaction is along the lines of: because we (elders) said so.

In this regard, I really love the decision our BOE made. They said: well, the GB was clear. Having a part in the program in congregation meetings: (the Dutch translation of the announcement): wear a suit/tie or dress. We will not add anything else to what the brothers said.

(In Dutch, we don't really use the word "meetings" for field service meetings. We call it differently. So, at least for the Dutch, the announcement was only speaking about meetings as a congregation)

Verstuurd vanaf mijn SM-S911B met Tapatalk

[Eejay]

19 hours ago, carlos said:

She seemed to think the standard of dress is something worldly people set

Our standards of dress are not set by worldly people. We are the ones who SET our standard. However, we do consider what is generally acceptable to the world in respect of our role as ministers,  because we want to follow the example of Paul and "become all things to people of all sorts" (1Cor.9:22), whilst at the same time not "giving any cause for stumbling" (2Cor.6:3).

 

Because the GB has prayerfully made this consideration, that is why brothers now are, without criticism, able to wear a neatly-trimmed beard if they wish. They may also dispense with jackets and ties in general, apart from meeting program assignments. Sisters can now wear slacks, also apart from meeting program assignments. An over-riding principle is that the garb we choose to wear, whatever the situation, does not appear "casual".

 

In setting these standards, the GB will have given some consideration to how the world in general views the appearance of those claiming to be "ministers", but with far more weight given to honouring Jehovah, especially when carrying out duties relating to the ministry.

 

A great deal of discussion has been generated over local elders making rules over and above the direction provided by the Governing Body, particularly regarding the dress code for support duties in theocratic meeting situations and in certain field ministry situations. Requirements set by local elders appear to differ.

 

The absence of specific direction in certain matters indicates to me that the GB wants to allow us freedom to exercise our consciences and good sense in respect of how we appear when carrying out a range of ministerial activities. It seems there is also an extra space for the exercise of "reasonableness" on the part of those who have a delegated responsibility to keep things "orderly"  in the congregation. For example, an insistance on brothers wearing jackets and even ties in activities in or outside of theocratic establishments where the ambient temperature is uncomfortably high and a cause of excessive perspiration is, (to me), unreasonable, and actually achieves the opposite of what is intended. (Reminds me of the collapsing British guardsman parading in full uniform in the summer sun!).

 

The principles illustrated by the experience below is enlightening, not least because of when it was recorded.

 

*** w88 9/15 p. 30 Christians—Firm yet Flexible ***
The elders may feel that generally a certain form of attire—such as a jacket and tie for men—is appropriate for door-to-door preaching. Such was the case in a congregation in a South American land. Nevertheless, an elder there learned that a young man was holding back from sharing the good news with others. The reason? He could not afford to buy a jacket and a tie. The elder concluded that flexibility was in order and therefore encouraged the young man to begin sharing his faith with others.

 

Perhaps a little research on the practice of infantilisation is needed? Are we really in the position of those described at 1Cor.1-2? The GB appears to think not. And our willingness to apply what is said at Heb.13:17 gives weight to that.
 

Edited March 25 by Eejay

[Tortuga]

On 3/18/2024 at 1:25 PM, Qapla said:

That sister is obviously very busy, she looks all tied up...

[Pabo]

23 minutes ago, Tortuga said:

That sister is obviously very busy, she looks all tied up...

 

Or that she has sewn up the matter regarding the new dress requirements.

[Tortuga]

1 minute ago, Pabo said:

 

Or that she has sewn up the matter regarding the new dress requirements.

All knotted up...

[Qapla]

Like her, you guys are keeping me in stitches.