Well said Narkissos..........
Do JWs qualify as Christ disciples based on John 13:34, 35?
by Sola Scriptura 51 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
AuldSoul
Sola Scriptura,
I apologize for taking so long to respond. I have been busy with training for my new job.
Sola Scriptura: Thanks for you comments…I appreciate stimulating debate. I tend to agree with your comment that an organization in itself cannot be Christian. But Christians are encouraged to organize together, to what could be called a “Christian Organization” for the purpose of spreading the group’s message and encouraging each other. It may be a matter of semantics, but that’s how I see it.
I think you missed the point of my making the distinction, and therefore failed to see why (in this case) a difference—although semantic—can become a difference in perception that is quite a bit more extensive than semantics alone.
The fact that you recognize that an organization cannot be Christian is admirable but does nothing to help my wife (for instance) perceive the distinction. Since Jehovah's Witnesses refer to themselves as a Christian organization she believes the organization to be Christian. If they were not interested in confusing people like my wife into unthinking compliance they might at least somewhere specify that they are not in fact a Christian organization, indeed they might specify that there is no such thing nor will there ever be such a thing.
I think you know at a glance such a clarification will likely never be forthcoming from them. Or from many other religions. And the reason for silence on the point is the same regardless of specific religion: This misperception among the public is an incredibly useful one for religions.
I do appreciate you candidly admitting that the organization which you represent is not Christian. However, it leaves me puzzled as to why you thought the organization might be proved Christian through a mark Jesus reserved for individuals—one toward others. You even specified that you weren't talking about individual people, but about the organization. Which was why I sharpened the contrast further to demonstrate that an organization is completely incapable of being Christian.
You may call it a semantic difference, but I would respond that what we call things affects people's perceptions of those things. You might, for instance, be hesitant to take a deep breath in the presence of something I named a "skunk rose" ... how we refer to things affects how others view them.
I think you are very well aware that the Governing Body is quite careful in choosing how they refer to things on most occasions. I also think you are very well aware of their reasons for such care. Their unscriptural dogma would not have nearly so many adherents/acolytes if they were candidly honest therefore, in the interests of winning and keeping converts, they refrain from candid honesty.
As you have probably assessed I am not similarly encumbered. I wonder whether you have genuine freeness of speech among your "loving brotherhood" or whether you find yourself biting your tongue? What do you say, is there genuinely "love" or is it merely a demonstration?
I say it is merely a demonstration. I have seen precious little evidence of genuine love among Jehovah's Witnesses. I have seen many showy displays of what some perceive to be love. I sincerely hope you have had a radically different experience, but I doubt it. I don't doubt that you likely are a loving person, but I believe you might be seeing rare exceptions and pretending they characterize the organization—blinding yourself to the real and deeply painful absence of love simply because of what it would mean to candidly admit its absence.
I hazzard that I have never seen any congregation (out of the 11 I've been in) where more than 10% of the publishers had genuine love as a dominant characteristic.
However, I have a few questions to bring it down to basics:
(1) Is it ever loving to teach someone they have a Christian burden sanctioned by neither the Son, nor the Father, nor the Spirit? (Galatians 1:6-9)
(2) Is it ever loving to teach someone that the Bible teaches things it does not teach? (Acts 16:30-34)
(3) Is it ever loving to place something between Christ and the head of a household? (1 Corinthians 11:1-3)
You might look at the fact they don't go to war or get involved in politics as an act of love while I see that the Bible never specifically forbids either. Cornelius was a Roman army officer of the Italian band, a centurion. Acts 10 makes no mention that he resigned his post prior to baptism with the Holy Ghost or prior to baptism with water.
On the other hand, it is plainly unloving to prevent someone from recording their own trial if they so choose and I would love to hear any argument to the contrary. We even have a record of the trial of Jesus despite its being held illegally at night. Yet, Jehovah's Witnesses, under the claimed guise of Godly authority, presume to do just that—executing their brothers and sisters in secret trials, killing families, destroying reputations, separating those familiar with one another.
It is plainly unloving to fail to reveal the minutes of leadership meetings, Acts 15 shows there is no reasonable cause for failing to do so. Yet, many Jehovah's Witnesses would not be Jehovah's Witnesses if the leadership in their organization were as candid as the writer of Acts 15.
It is plainly unloving to place a yoke heavier than Christ's on anyone, or a yoke with an unbalanced weight, or a rough hewn yoke. (Galatians 5:1; Matthew 11:28-30) Yet, among Jehovah's Witnesses the yoke of "Christ" is ever-changing, unfairly and unevenly applied about the necks of its victims, and is rough hewn with splinters and angles all about it. It is ever-changing due to the "new light" doctrine. It is unevenly applied because the standards to which the least are held are much higher than the standards to which the lofty are held, making the bearer walk with an ungainly and lurching gait and risking stumbling at every step. It is rough hewn in that the actual imperfections of the lowly chafe at their necks through the splintery, angled barbs of the lofty (whose vile and disgusting wrongs, in turn, are covered neatly and softened by the blanket of "imperfection").
So, on the whole, I would say the organization is not characterized by love. Its own rules prevent it from being characterized by love.
As an aside, have you ever considered who it is that is actually accountable to 1 Timothy 3:1-16 and Titus 2:1-15? I ask your opinion: Scripturally, is there any grounds on which to forbid the marrying of more than one woman or more than one man, or would such a person only be disqualified for appointment? Mind you, I am not a polygamist nor am I so inclined. I am simply curious, why does this organization teach as doctrine for salvation something the Bible does not teach? On many subjects this is clearly the case.
Do you believe any organization that seeks to add to the burden of Christ can then rightly claim love? If so, why?
Respectfully,
AuldSoul