If God Never Changes, Why Do Organizational Rules?

The Bible consistently teaches that God does not change. His character, His standards, and His truth remain the same—yesterday, today, and forever.

Jehovah’s Witnesses believe this deeply, often quoting scriptures such as:

“For I am Jehovah; I do not change.” — Malachi 3:6
“With whom there is no variation or shifting shadow.” — James 1:17
“Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.” — Hebrews 13:8

These verses provide comfort. An unchanging God means stability, reliability, and trustworthiness.

Yet this raises an honest and important question worth considering: If God does not change, how should we understand frequent changes to organizational rules that were once presented as reflecting God’s standards?

This question is not asked to criticize, but to reflect—especially in light of recent adjustments within the Jehovah’s Witness organization.

Recent Changes Many Have Noticed

In recent years, Jehovah’s Witnesses have observed several notable changes, including:

• Women being permitted to wear pants to Kingdom Hall meetings and in field service

• Men being permitted to wear beards without facing spiritual scrutiny

For some, these adjustments may feel small. For others, they are significant—because for decades, these same practices were discouraged and often treated as indicators of spiritual maturity, humility, or respect for Jehovah.

What makes these changes worth examining is not the clothing or facial hair themselves, but how firmly such rules were enforced in the past.

What Was Previously Taught?

For many years, publications and local guidance made it clear that these matters were not viewed as neutral.

Beards:

Although the Bible never forbids beards—and in fact describes faithful men who wore them—Jehovah’s Witness men were long discouraged from doing so.

Watchtower publications and congregation culture emphasized that beards could be viewed as:

• Drawing unnecessary attention

• Reflecting rebellion or independence

• Potentially stumbling others

For example:

• A 1972 Watchtower discussed grooming in a way that framed beards as culturally inappropriate and potentially damaging to a Christian’s witness.

• Later guidance reinforced the idea that a bearded man would likely not qualify for privileges or be viewed as exemplary.

While not always stated as a direct command, the practical message was clear: faithful, humble brothers did not wear beards.

Women Wearing Pants:

Similarly, women wearing pants to meetings or in ministry was discouraged for decades.

Publications emphasized:

• “Proper dress” and “modesty”

• Maintaining a “feminine appearance”

• Avoiding styles associated with the world or women’s liberation movements

Again, the Bible does not prohibit women from wearing pants. Yet for many years, this was treated as a matter of spiritual appropriateness rather than personal conscience.

Only recently were sisters officially told that wearing pants in certain settings was acceptable.

Additional Changes Worth Reflecting On

Beyond grooming and dress, there have been other adjustments that many Jehovah’s Witnesses recognize—changes that were once treated as serious spiritual matters.

Clinking Glasses and Toasting:

For many years, Jehovah’s Witnesses were cautioned against clinking glasses when making a toast. This practice was often associated with pagan origins, superstition, or false religious customs. Some were counseled that participating could be displeasing to Jehovah.

In more recent years, this understanding has softened. Toasting—without religious intent—is now generally treated as a matter of conscience rather than a spiritual violation.

The act itself did not change. The interpretation did.

Higher Education:

For decades, pursuing higher education was strongly discouraged.

Witnesses were repeatedly warned that:

• College promotes independent thinking

• Higher education leads to materialism or loss of faith

• Young people should prioritize pioneering and organizational service instead

Many families made life-altering decisions based on this guidance—declining scholarships, limiting career paths, or postponing education out of loyalty to what they believed was Jehovah’s direction.

In recent years, however, the tone has noticeably shifted. While still approached cautiously, higher education is now often framed as a personal decision, especially when motivated by the need to support oneself or one’s family.

Again, this invites reflection:

• If higher education was spiritually dangerous before, what changed?

• Was the danger inherent—or was the concern organizational?

An Honest Question

If God’s standards do not change, we might ask:

• Were these rules expressions of God’s unchanging will?

• Or were they organizational preferences shaped by culture and tradition?

If they came from God, why were they later changed?
If they did not come from God, why were they enforced as spiritual expectations for so long?

This is not a small question—because rules presented as “Jehovah’s direction” carry great weight over people’s lives, choices, and consciences.

Jesus and Man-Made Rules

When reading the Gospels, one thing becomes clear: Jesus repeatedly confronted religious leaders for elevating human traditions to the level of divine law.

“They bind heavy loads and put them on the shoulders of men, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.” — Matthew 23:4

Jesus did not condemn order or structure. What He condemned was measuring spirituality by outward regulations rather than the heart.

The apostle Paul echoed this warning:

“Why do you submit to decrees such as: ‘Do not handle, nor taste, nor touch’… according to human commands and teachings?” — Colossians 2:20–22

He added that such rules:

“have an appearance of wisdom,” but are not from God. — Colossians 2:23

Freedom in Christ

The message of the New Testament is not one of increasing regulations, but of freedom rooted in truth.

“For freedom Christ set us free. Stand firm, therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.” — Galatians 5:1

This raises another gentle question worth considering: Would Jesus have implemented detailed rules about facial hair, clothing, social customs, or education—especially when Scripture itself is silent on these matters?

Or would He have left such decisions to individual conscience, guided by love, modesty, and faith rather than enforcement?

A Helpful Distinction

It is important to be fair.

Organizations may need to adjust logistics, schedules, or methods as times change. That is understandable.

But there is a meaningful difference between:

• Practical adjustments
  and

• Rules that affect a person’s spiritual standing, privileges, or perceived faithfulness

When organizational preferences are treated as reflections of God’s will, they deserve careful examination—especially when those preferences later change.

A Question Worth Reflecting On

If God truly does not change, then His standards do not need revision.

Perhaps the deeper question is not why rules change, but: Why were certain rules treated as God’s direction in the first place—when Scripture never required them?

This question is not meant to accuse.
It is meant to draw sincere believers closer to the unchanging God of the Bible—whose truth does not depend on shifting policies, but on Christ Himself.