Jehovah's Witnesses have no clergy-laity division - Right or Wrong?

by truthseeker 21 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  truthseeker

  Is this really true?

  http://www.jw-media.org/beliefs/membership.htm

  Organization

  Following the model of first-century Christianity, Jehovah's Witnesses have no clergy-laity division. All baptized members are ordained ministers and share in the preaching and teaching work.

  consider the following article by Jons Zens....

  http://www.searchingtogether.org/articles/clergylaity.htm

  The "Clergy/Laity" Distinction: A Help or
  a Hindrance to the Body of Christ?

  By Jon Zens

  ---

  In February 1996, several well-known Christian leaders hosted a "Clergy Conference" in Atlanta. These kinds of events, though undoubtedly well-intended, nevertheless serve to perpetuate what I believe to be an unhealthy division of God's people into two classes: the "clergy" and the "laity" - a distinction that is totally without biblical justification. We have reproduced below the letter that I sent to the sponsors of this Atlanta conference.

  To: The sponsors of the Atlanta "Clergy Conference"

  Re: Undermining the authority of God's Word by your promotion of the unscriptural "Clergy/Laity" distinction

  In several weeks you will be having a "Clergy Conference" in Atlanta. I know you are well-meaning in your desire to support and affirm the "clergy". However, in assuming this category of the "ordained", you are overlooking a more basic and pressing question that must be addressed: "Does the New Testament teach that there is a separate caste of church leaders designated as 'clergy' who are over the 'laity' ?" It does not. I have prepared a paper on this question that is enclosed for you perusal.

  By gathering "clergymen" together you are just assenting to the status quo and, in effect, putting band aids on it. What really needs to be done is to hold a conference where the New Testament's teaching on leadership is unfolded. If this were done, of course, then the traditional "clergy/laity" practice would have to be jettisoned in favor of the New Testament patterns.

  Looking at the big picture, you are really doing harm to the very class of persons you are trying to help. By not challenging the "clergy" system, which has brought untold hurt to those within its pale, you end up giving pep-talks and encouragement to people who are functioning in an office Christ has nowhere revealed in His Word. You admit in Men of Action (Nov. 1995, p. 4), "Pastors are worn out, discouraged, and in need of affirmation. In fact, poll after poll reveals that most pastors are battling isolation, depression, and loneliness. They are so beaten up by the ministry . . ."Actually, the situation among the "clergy" is much worse than this brief statement. But should this be surprising when people are forced to fill a job description found nowhere in the New Testament? The most Christ-honoring and caring thing you could do is to tell the 70,000 men that come to Atlanta to stop being "clergy", because God's Word teaches nothing about "clergy".

  I guess I have to honestly wonder: Do you leaders care at all that the New Testament is, in fact, against the "clergy" system? Are you concerned that the "clergy" system, as James D. G. Dunn points out, does more to undermine the canonical authority of the New Testament than other heresies? You claim that God's Word must be our authority in all matters of faith and practice. But you undermine and nullify this confession by promoting a "clergy" system that is claiming the lives of men and their families every moment. By assuming that the "clergy" category is correct, your conference actually is perpetuating an unbiblical system that is to the detriment of those who attend. Does this concern you? Is your conscience pricked because you are promoting and cultivating that which the New Testament is against?

  I do not think that I am beating in the air, or making a mountain out of a molehill. There is substance to my concerns. Do you care enough to give real answers to your constituents, or are you satisfied to go on encouraging a human tradition that has deeply wounded untold thousands of men?

  Thank you for considering my thoughts and article.

  Jon
• 

  stillajwexelder

  Yes they all do the preaching work IN THEORY - In practice (according to Ray Franz) the GB (priestly class) dont go out on the ministry. As to TEACHING in the congregation and circuit assemblies etc, all done by elders - so no question in my opinion THERE IS A CLERGY(PRIESTLY) - LAITY division.

  they are just picking their words carefully and selectively applying what they want.
• 

  Scully

  The WTS has always asserted in its publications that it does not have a distinct clergy-laity division. However, when legal issues come up, such as the protection of pedophiles from due process, the WTS conveniently pulls out the "clerical privilege" or "ecclesiastical privilege" card in an attempt to avoid responsibility.
• 

  greendawn

  It would have been better if they did have a professional clerical class that was trained to deal with problems of its members intelligently. As they are now they are a superficial ramshackle organisation that does everything in an amateurish and often damaging way.
• 

  Doubting Bro

  There absolutely is a clergy-laity division. Even within the clergy, there is a division among the lay preachers (local elders) and the CO/DO/higher up Bethelites/GB.

  I agree with the author of this article. Probably the single worse development in Christianity is the clergy. Power corrupts and unfortunately when you give folks the ability to decide who will gain eternal life and who will suffer either eternal death or punishment in the afterlife (and certainly the elders in JC situations are deciding exactly that in their minds) they will ALWAYS as a group abuse it.

  I'm sure there are plenty of caring clergy/elders/whatever you want to call them, but I sincerely believe they are in the minority.

  While the Bible through Pauls letters does clearly indicate that older men would shepard the flock, these folks were not to be masters over anyones faith and were really supposed to fill a mentoring role as well as being able to provide assistance in times of crises. What we have today is pretty far from this in my opinion.
• 

  blondie

  The WTS has a clergy class when they want to play the clergy-penitent law in a child abuse case which allows them not to report abuse to secular authorities.
• 

  Pubsinger

  Typical WT.

  What has the fact that they all preach the gospel got to do with a clergy-laity division.

  The "Great Commision" of Matt 28 was given to everyone and so all Christians spread the gospel. The Church recognises that. WT recognises that.

  But within both the Church and the WT certain ones have been given the authority/role of public preaching from the pulpit/platform.

  As such they have clergy/elders meetings.

  Whats the big deal big deal?
• 

  metatron

  FALSE

  This is a lie. How so? Because the Watchtower Society CLAIMS CLERICAL PRIVILEGE in

  court cases involving elders. Thus, the Watchtower itself is identifying elders as clergy in

  attempts to conceal wrongdoing from prosecution , when sued.

  The organization also has paid clergy. Circuit Overseers may receive a stipend, a free car, housing,

  free auto insurance, free health insurance and possibly retirement benefits, besides contributions

  from congregations they visit. Paid? "to be compensated, renumerated" etc. as the Dictionary

  says.

  metatron
• 

  LongHairGal

  Wow, what a load of bull!

  Back when I was coming in they were bragging how they had no clergy like christendom. This was one of the draws for me because I have no use for and would never support a clergy class. It didn't take me long to figure out that they in fact do have a clergy-like class and it was my opinion they are morphing into a paid clergy class more and more every day.

  They may not wear vestments like christendom but the idea is still there all the same. Who do they think they are fooling?

  LHG
• 

  Oroborus21

  Greetings!

  JWs do have a de facto "clergy class" but not for any of the reasons espoused thus far in this thread.

  Note to those discussing the Clerical privilege in the justice system. This has nothing to do with the distinction of clergy or laiety. This is an evidentiary privilege which may be available in some cases. It may be referred to as a clerical privilege but one need not be a priest or even an ordained minister. It is likely that the court would apply it, if at all, to any religious context where one person is deemed to be in a position of confidence and there is an expectation of privacy of the communication.

  Bottom line is this legal aspect is not what establishes a clergy-laity separation. What establishes a clergy class among JWs is the insistence and the assertion that an ordinary publisher after such one has committed a "gross sin" cannot obtain complete spiritual healing without confessing or telling their elders about such sin.

  The WT/Society believes that rather than being an option for the "spiritually sick," James specifically outlines that the older men must be sought out to help.

  The de facto result then is that a person who has sinned cannot claim that they have been forgiven by God or Christ (having taken corrective steps on their own including prayer and asking forgiveness of Christ or God) unless they have confessed their sins to the elders (and subjected themselves to the congregation's "judicial" procedure).

  Thus the WTS has inserted the elders as an intermediate level of authority between individuals and Christ Jesus and God which is the exact function of a priesthood.

  Obviously this is completely contrary to the scriptures.

  -Eduardo Leaton Jr.