Is it right?
Jehovah's
Witnesses are taught that one of the signs that Jehovah is
behind the religion is the unity it has among all its members
in what they believe. You can go to a Kingdom Hall anywhere in
the world and the people there will believe exactly the same
things that you do. It sounds quite amazing. What other
religion could say this? It appears to be an indication that
God is with this organization. But it’s all by design. It is
impossible for it to be any other way. No one is allowed
to think independently. Any Jehovah’s Witnesses who begin to
formulate their own views and interpretations of doctrine and
faith, even in small areas, are deemed apostates, not
tolerated, and put out (disfellowshipped). This complete
uniformity in thought, therefore, is not a spiritual
"gift" from God. It is rather the result of
artificial rules put in place by the organization, whereby any
who hold different opinions are put out of the way. There have
been tens of thousands of persons who have been expelled for
this reason over the years.
One thing that many Jehovah's Witnesses do not realize is that
the administration of their religion does not restrict the
label "apostate" to those who actively slander the
organization or try to draw people off as their followers. It
goes much further than that.
"To
be disfellowshipped, an apostate does not have to be a
promoter of apostate views....If a baptized Christian abandons
the teachings of Jehovah, as presented by the faithful and
discreet slave, and persists in believing other doctrine
despite Scriptural reproof, then he is apostasizing. Extended,
kindly efforts should be put forth to readjust his thinking.
However, if, after such extended efforts have been put forth
to readjust his thinking, he continues to believe the apostate
ideas and rejects what he has been provided through the 'slave
class', then appropriate judicial action should be
taken." (Letter to all Circuit and District Overseers,
9/1/80).
The
reformation movement is against the current policy, because the
Bible does not teach that people should be ousted from the
congregation if they don’t conform to a delineated theology.
To clarify, we are NOT talking about matters of behavior,
attitude and conduct. We are talking about understanding of
scripture in relation to prophecy, or teachings about God,
Jesus, the angels and the Devil. On one hand, the writings of
the representatives of the organization have condemned other
religions for using fear tactics, inquisitions, and stifling
free thought. On the other, they are guilty of doing the same
thing to their own people:
“A
basis for approved fellowship with Jehovah’s Witnesses
cannot rest merely on a belief in God, in the Bible, in Jesus
Christ, and so forth…. Simply professing to have such
beliefs would not authorize one to be known as one of
Jehovah’s Witnesses. Approved association with Jehovah’s
Witnesses requires accepting the entire range of the true
teachings of the Bible, including those Scriptural beliefs
that are unique to Jehovah’s Witnesses” (Watchtower,
April 1, 1986, p. 31).
“A
mature Christian must be in unity and full harmony with fellow
believers as far as faith and knowledge are concerned. He does
not advocate or insist on personal opinions or harbor private
ideas when it comes to Bible understanding. Rather, he has
complete confidence in the truth as it is revealed by Jehovah
God through his Son, Jesus Christ, and ‘the faithful and
discreet slave.’” (Watchtower, August 1, 2001, p.
14).
Note
that the first Watchtower quote makes it clear that a
person can be one of Jehovah's Witnesses only with
authorization. Such authorization comes from a centralized
governing council, who grant approval based on a person's
acceptance of Jehovah's Witness teachings ("the entire
range"). Granted, people who harbor private opinions are
not burnt at the stake, but keep in mind that
disfellowshipping is the absolute worst punishment (or
discipline) the organization can inflict upon someone. So if
the organization is evicting God's sheep without biblical
precedent, would this not be an injustice? Clearly, the attitude
manifested by the Witness leadership is still very similar to
the attitude manifested by the Catholic leadership in the
Inquisition. Note this comment from a Watchtower
article:
"We
are not living today among theocratic nations where such
members of our fleshly family relationship could be
exterminated for apostasy from God and his theocratic
organization, as was possible and was ordered in the nation of
Israel in the wilderness of Sinai and in the land of
Palestine. 'Thou shalt surely kill him; thy hand shall be
first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of
all the people. And thou shalt stone him to death with stones,
because he hath sought to draw thee away from Jehovah thy God,
. . . And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall
do no more any such wickedness as this is in the midst of
thee.'—Deut. 13:6-11, AS. Being
limited by the laws of the worldly nation in which we live and
also by the laws of God through Jesus Christ, we can take
action against apostates only to a certain extent, that is,
consistent with both sets of laws. The law of the land and
God’s law through Christ forbid us to kill apostates, even
though they be members of our own flesh-and-blood family
relationship. However, God’s law requires us to
recognize their being disfellowshiped from his congregation,
and this despite the fact that the law of the land in which we
live requires us under some natural obligation to live with
and have dealings with such apostates under the same
roof" (w52 11/15 pp. 703-704).
These
words make it sound like the organization would desire to put
apostates to death if it were only permitted to do so. It also
makes it sound as if we are to live by the old Sinai law code
as long as it doesn't contradict the Christian Scriptures. The
scripture quoted from Deuteronomy refers to those who allure
people to go "serve other gods," not to those who do
not accept a group of doctrines, yet the governing body of
Jehovah's Witnesses sees no difference. This is where the
problem lies.
In
the 2000 tract, What Do Jehovah's Witnesses Believe?, a
seemingly comprehensive list of beliefs is provided to inform
new and interested ones about the faith of Jehovah's
Witnesses. The following 32 beliefs are outlined:
WHAT
JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES BELIEVE
Bible
is God’s Word and is truth
Bible
is more reliable than tradition
God’s
name is Jehovah
Christ
is God’s Son and is inferior to Him
Christ
was first of God’s creations
Christ
died on a stake, not a cross
Christ’s
human life was paid as a ransom for obedient humans
Christ’s
one sacrifice was sufficient
Christ
was raised from the dead as an immortal spirit person
Christ’s
presence is in spirit
We
are now in the ‘time of the end’
Kingdom
under Christ will rule earth in righteousness and peace
Kingdom
will bring ideal living conditions to earth
Earth
will never be destroyed or depopulated
God
will eliminate present system of things in the battle at Har–Magedon
Wicked
will be eternally destroyed
People
God approves will receive everlasting life
There
is only one road to life
Human
death is due to Adam’s sin
The
human soul ceases to exist at death
Hell
is mankind’s common grave
Hope
for dead is resurrection
Adamic
death will cease
Only
a little flock of 144,000 go to heaven and rule with Christ
The
144,000 are born again as spiritual sons of God
New
covenant is made with spiritual Israel
Christ’s
congregation is built upon himself
Prayers
are to be directed only to Jehovah through Christ
Images
should not be used in worship
Spiritism
must be shunned
Satan
is invisible ruler of world
A
Christian ought to have no part in interfaith movements
A
Christian should keep separate from world
Obey
human laws that do not conflict with God’s laws
Taking
blood into body through mouth or veins violates God’s laws
Bible’s
laws on morals must be obeyed
Sabbath
observance was given only to Israel and ended with Mosaic
Law
A
clergy class and special titles are improper
Man
did not evolve but was created
Christ
set example that must be followed in serving God
Baptism
by complete immersion symbolizes dedication
Christians
gladly give public testimony to Scriptural truth
A
student is expected to accept every doctrine on this list
before receiving permission to become one of Jehovah's
Witnesses. Although the presentation and wording of the list
of teachings differs slightly from one piece of literature to
the next, it is, in effect, a creed, because conformity to its
tenets is required. And yet it does not end here. After
persons becomes associated with Jehovah's Witnesses, they are
exposed to other doctrines, which are not highlighted to the
general public, and yet which are also required.
In
a "Questions from Readers" column in the 4/1/86 Watchtower,
the organization provides a list of doctrines that a
person must adhere to in order to remain in good
standing among Jehovah's Witnesses. The list includes more
controversial doctrines not found in the list above.
Two significant ones are:
That
there is a "faithful and discreet slave" upon earth
today ‘entrusted with all of Jesus’ earthly interests,’
which slave is associated with the Governing Body of
Jehovah’s Witnesses.
That
1914 marked the end of the Gentile Times and the establishment
of the Kingdom of God in the heavens, as well as the time for
Christ’s foretold presence.
It is common
for these particular teachings not to be advertised to
newly-interested persons, because they are the most difficult
to accept. Yet, as the article asserts, adherence to these doctrines is essential to
remain in good standing. Let's say, for example, that you
accepted the entire list of over 30 doctrines, but could not
bring yourself to believe that 1914 marked the end of the
Gentile Times. You could be disfellowshipped for apostasy. In
fact, many have been put of the congregation for that very
reason.
Think
for a moment. Can you picture Jesus presenting such a long
list of doctrines which every Christian must accept in order
to be approved by God? Did he not, in fact, criticize the
religious leaders of his day for doing something similar?
And yet it does
not stop even there. It is, in fact, expected that everything
that is taught by the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses,
not just
the major teachings like the Kingdom, the identification of
Jesus as God’s son, etc., but even the nitty gritty details,
such as the timing of certain past or future events and those
teachings in which one would expect some sort of flexibility
and individuality of judgment, are not to be questioned, and
acceptance of them are absolute requirements for approved
association. Furthermore, the Watchtower interprets how
each of the central tenets listed above comes into play in the
various decisions we make on a personal level. It is expected
that all Jehovah's Witnesses conform to these interpretations
as well. Those who would harbor private views at odds with the
Watchtower’s teachings, even if quiet about their
beliefs, are viewed as apostates. The only reason they are not
disfellowshipped is because the elders are not aware of their
views. This policy differs from the position of the typical
Christian church, which may not tolerate someone who actively
and consciously objects to major doctrines, but would
not have any problems with a person who disagreed on minor
issues. Such things are usually considered by most religions
to be secondary. Moreover, from everything one can see in the
Bible, the early Christian church left room for flexibility of
difference of opinion in minor areas of doctrine. But among
Jehovah’s Witnesses all members are expected to conform to
every doctrine and teaching be it major or minor, public or
personal.
When
it comes right down to it, although Jehovah’s Witnesses
often pride themselves in being a group who look to the Bible
as their authority, the truth of the matter is that it is not
so much the Bible that acts as the sole authority, but rather
the organization’s interpretation of what it thinks
the Bible says.
Look over the list again, and this will become apparent.
Let’s
say, just for sake of argument, that in some point you see a
discrepancy between what the Bible says and what the
organization says. Which would you, as an individual, choose
to uphold? The Bible or the organization’s teaching? Which
comes first? Which has the higher authority? If you chose the
Bible, then you would be in violation of the organization's
rules.
It
has not always been this way among Jehovah's Witnesses. In
earlier days, this sort of authoritarianism was viewed as one
of the vices of other Christian religions and looked down
upon. Even as late as 1920, statements would appear in the Watchtower
like this:
"We
would not refuse to treat one as a brother because he did not
believe the Society is the Lord's channel. If others see it in
a different way, that is their privilege. There should be full
liberty of conscience." (Watchtower April 1, 1920,
pp.100-101)
Today, the
leaders of Jehovah's Witnesses have taken the opposite view.
The minds and consciences of the general membership are
becoming more and more restricted.
If
you take a look at the matters that bodies of elders,
including the famous Jerusalem council, ruled on in the first
century, you will find that they handled only matters of
organization and of morality and behavior (Acts 15:28-29).
They never issued rules on matters of theology. Why doesn’t
the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses imitate this
example?
One
scripture used to justify disfellowshipping people for their
belief in different doctrine is this one:
“For
many deceivers have gone forth into the world, persons not
confessing Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the
deceiver and the antichrist. Look out for yourselves, that you
do not lose the things we have worked to produce, but that you
may obtain a full reward. Everyone that pushes ahead and does
not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God. He
that does remain in this teaching is the one that has both the
Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring
this teaching, never receive him into your homes or say a
greeting to him. For he that says a greeting to him is
a sharer in his wicked works” (2 John 5-11).
Here
counsel is given about the antichrist. This is said to be all
persons not confessing Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. It
is then said that everyone that pushes ahead and does not
remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God. And
these persons are not to be greeted by Christians or they will
be a sharer in his or her wicked works. Brother Russell
recognized the import of this passage:
"Examining
the text we find that the Apostle is controverting an error
prevalent in his day--a gross error which, in the name of the
Truth, in the name of Christianity, in the name of
discipleship to the Lord, was virtually making void the entire
revelation. He declared this erroneous system to be no part of
the true Church or its doctrines, but, on the contrary,
antichrist, or opposed to Christ while claiming his name; thus
sailing under false colors. He says of these that "they
went out from us because they were not of us [either they
never were true Christians or they had ceased to be such]; for
if they had been of us they would have remained with us."
He points out their error; namely that the prophecies of a
Messiah were figurative, and never to be fulfilled through
mankind, and declared this a complete denial of the Gospel
statement that the Son of God became flesh, was anointed at
his baptism by the holy Spirit as the Messiah and that he
redeemed us. The Apostle's thought is, that any who have
become Christians at all, any who have understood the divine
plan to any extent, must first have before them the fact that
they and all were sinners and in need of a Redeemer; and,
secondly, the fact that Jesus, the Anointed One, had redeemed
them by the sacrifice of his own life. The Apostle further
declares that they have no need that any man teach them
this basic truth. They could not be Christians
at all and yet be in ignorance of this fundamental of the
Christian religion-- that Christ died for their sins
according to the Scriptures, and rose again for their
justification--and that our justification and consequent
sanctification and hope of glory are all dependent upon the
fact and value of Christ's sacrifice on their behalf. He
points out that although it might have been possible to trust
in and believe on the Father without believing on the Son
before the Son was manifested, yet now, whosoever
denieth the Son of God denies thereby the Father; and no one
can confess the Son of God without confessing at the same time
the Father and the Father's plan, of which he is the center
and executor. So, then, we today can see exactly what the
Apostle meant; namely, that whoever had been begotten of the
holy Spirit must first have been a believer in the Lord Jesus;
that he was the Only Begotten of the Father; that he was
manifested in the flesh; that he was holy, harmless and
separate from sinners; that he gave himself as our ransom; and
that the sacrifice was accepted of the Father and witnessed by
his resurrection to be the glorious King and Deliverer.
Without this faith no one could receive the holy Spirit, the
anointing: consequently, whoever has the anointing needs not
that any man shall waste time in discussing further the
fundamental question as to whether Jesus was or was not the
Son of God; whether or not he was the Redeemer; whether or not
he was the anointed Messiah who shall fulfil in God's due time
the precious promises of the Scriptures. The same anointing
which we have received, if it abides in us, will assure us of
the truth of these things"--The New Creation,
pages 259-261.
It
would be a serious misapplication of John's letter to label a
person an “antichrist,” because of their disagreeing in
areas of biblical interpretation where the Bible is open to
interpretation. The teaching of “Jesus coming in the
flesh” is, as Brother Russell says, a "basic
truth," even THE fundamental teaching of Christianity.
Someone who doesn’t acknowledge Jesus as coming in the flesh
is not even a Christian. So John is clearly talking about
people who were once Christian rejecting the Christian message
altogether.
How
does the Bible say we should treat those who, while still
confessing Jesus as coming in the flesh, hold to different
doctrines? We should imitate Paul, who reasoned with
others on matters of doctrine (1 Cor. 15:12-19). In several
places in the Bible, Christians are encouraged to speak
to any persons who have a difference of opinion. In James
5:19-20, Christians are told to “turn a sinner back”
“who has been mislead from the truth.” In 2 Timothy
2:24-26, Christians are told to help ones to “come back to
their proper senses out from the snare of the Devil.” The
implication here is that these people once had their proper
senses but have now left the right way. And in Titus 1:10-13,
we are told to “keep on reproving” those who are
“deceivers of the mind.” (Notice that the reproof is
ongoing.) Indeed, Paul, throughout his letters does just that.
Those who contradict are reproved, but not excommunicated. So
it is very clear that Christians are instructed to reason with
(i.e., speak to) all those who turn away from true teachings.
A
good question to ask is: what would Jesus do? Well, Jesus was
willing to have a conversation with the father of
apostates, Satan the Devil (Matt. 4; Luke 4). He was willing
to speak to him, refute him and prove him wrong. Jesus also
exchanged greetings with and spoke to the apostate Jewish
Pharisees, trying to bring them back to God. After Jesus’
death, he preached and communicated with the apostate demons
(1 Pet 3:19). Jehovah also had spoken over and over again with
the apostate nation of Israel, repeatedly sending forth
prophets to talk to them. He was willing to “set matters
straight” (Isaiah 1:18).
In the book of Job, when Satan himself, the ultimate apostate,
appeared before Jehovah in heaven and challenged him, Jehovah
did not shun Satan. He did not oust him from the heavens as
soon as he spoke. He did not fear that the angels present
would be swayed by Satan's words. He actually listened to
Satan and gave him the opportunity to prove his claim in front
of everyone.. He was willing to test the words of Satan
against his own words, so that the truth would become
apparent. The truth does not need to hide. If it is true, it
will stand, no matter what.
In
his letters to Timothy, Paul mentions an instance where
persons were to be "handed over to Satan" (i.e., put
out of the congregation) for acts he calls
"blasphemy" (1 Tim. 1:20). Later Paul says that
these ones "deviated from the truth, saying the
resurrection has already occurred" (2 Tim. 2:18). Perhaps
a case could be made that this set a precedent for
disfellowshipping any persons who disagree with established
doctrine. However, whose established doctrine are we talking
about? Is Paul saying that anyone who contradicts what he says
should be subject to judicial action? Would such discipline
encompass ALL issues of doctrine--even the small matters? Even
the interpretation of scripture? We should keep in mind that
in other cases, disagreement did not result in
disfellowshipping. Moreover, it is clear that Hymenaeus' and
Philetus' actions involved far more than simple disagreement
with a central authority.
Another
scripture used to justify the disfellowshipping of those with
contrary views is Titus 3:10-11:
“As
for a man that promotes a sect, reject him after a first and a
second admonition; knowing that such a man has been turned out
of the way and is sinning, he being self-condemned.”
Here,
Titus is instructed to reject those in the congregation who
are promoting a sect, but only after admonishing them two
times. But what does it mean to “promote a sect”? The
Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses says it refers to all
those who teach something at variance with what they say. In
their opinion, this would promote a sect, because anyone who
has a contrary opinion cannot be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses,
and they would be forced to break off from the group and thus
form a sect. But they don’t seem to realize that if the
Governing Body did not make contrary opinion a divisive issue,
then it would not divide the congregation, and there would be
no sects as a result of this. The vast majority of those who
are disfellowshipped for apostasy have no intention or desire
of promoting a sect. They want to stay in the religion.
Paul’s counsel “not to make decisions on inward
questionings” should be applied by the Witness leaders (Rom.
14:1). By making the rule that there can be no difference of
opinion, the Governing Body creates the problem of
division. Promoting a sect is putting theology and doctrinal
interpretations above love, forgiveness and mercy. True
Christian freedom contains the allowance of personal beliefs
on all doctrinal interpretations that do not hurt someone else
or cause a person to disobey God’s moral commandments.
Enforcing the theology of a particular religious council would
instead be promoting a sect and should be avoided at all
costs.
This
organization claims to stand for the truth. It encourages its
members to call their religion "the truth." However,
it seems to have the tendency only to stand for the
truth and not to love it. Truth is not afraid of
falsehood, because it can hold up against it. It is only
falsehood that needs to fear the truth, because it melts away
in its presence, and if the Governing Body really loved the
truth, it would do anything it could to find it. It would
welcome opposing viewpoints in order to see if its assertions
could hold up, and if its claims didn't hold up to scrutiny,
then it would be willing to change them, and it would do so
gladly. To be sure, the Governing Body adjusts its
understandings of the Bible from time to time, but this is
done only when it is necessary or convenient for the
betterment of the organization itself. In other words, the
organization and its interests are of supreme importance. They
are valued more than the truth, for the sake of which the
organization was created. The establishment is much more
concerned with conserving the "spiritual paradise"
that they have made than with planting new seeds of
understanding. If one is really interested in gaining a better
understanding of truth, one must be welcoming of alternate
ideas rather than dismissive of them. One will follow the
proverb, which tells us to "pay attention to wisdom with
your ear, that you may incline your heart to
discernment," "call out for understanding itself and
give your voice for discernment itself," "keep
seeking for it as for silver, and as for hid treasures you
keep searching for it" (Proverbs 2:1-5). The Governing
Body claims that there is no wisdom anywhere except where it
sits. The world does not have wisdom, and the everyday
publishers among Jehovah's Witnesses do not have it. Instead
of paying attention to wisdom with its ears, the Governing
Body stops up its ear when anyone outside of its inner circle
speaks. Instead of calling out for understanding, our leaders
call out for the silencing of all who disagree with them.
Instead of seeking for truth as for hidden treasure, they seek
for it only in front of their very faces. A condition of
knowing the truth is the willingness to reach out for it, to
make some sacrifice for it, to work for it, and to suffer for
it. The willingness to listen to anyone who has something to
offer, to set aside pride, to sacrifice the comfort of
established opinions, and, yes, even to sacrifice the smooth
running of the organization itself, is necessary if we really
love the truth. He who loves the organization more than the
truth will end up loving himself more than either.
For
these reasons, the reformation movement calls upon the
Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses to change their policy
on this matter and make it conform to the Bible's viewpoint.
Needless lives have been ruined as a result of the current
policy, and the present practice cannot continue.
|
