If one of Jehovah’s Witnesses were to stand for election, what would be the consequences?
This is not merely a hypothetical question for it has occurred in recent times. See, for example, this thread:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=17723&site=3#217827
The WTS maintains that Christians are to remain neutral as to the world’s affairs and, hence, to have no part in the political process. Hence The Watchtower of November 1st, 1999 stated “In view of the Scriptural principles outlined above, in many lands Jehovah’s Witnesses make a personal decision not to vote in political elections, and their freedom to make that decision is supported by the law of the land.” (pages 28-9 Questions From Readers )
Logically the WTS applies the same “principles” to a ban on the receiving of votes i.e. standing for election in the political process. So in the “Flock” book (the Elders’ Manual), a directive is given to elders to formally Disassociate anyone who campaigns for political office:
“They (Jehovah’s Witnesses) do not interfere with what others do as to voting in political elections, running for or campaigning for political offices….if a member of the congregation unrepentantly pursues a course in violation of his Christian neutrality, he thereby disassociates himself from the neutral Christian congregation” (ks91, page 139,140)
The Proclaimers book (page 673) gives the following quotes in support of their position:
“Early Christianity was little understood and was regarded with little favor by those who ruled the pagan world. . . . Christians refused to share certain duties of Roman citizens. . . . They would not hold political office.” (On the Road to Civilization—A World History, A. K. Heckel and J. G. Sigman, 1937, pp. 237-8) “They refused to take any active part in the civil administration or the military defence of the empire. . . . It was impossible that the Christians, without renouncing a more sacred duty, could assume the character of soldiers, of magistrates, or of princes.”—History of Christianity, Edward Gibbon, 1891, pp. 162-3.Do the facts support the WTS position? Was the early first-century church a community that ruled out political office for its members?
In the conclusion of the apostle Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, he sent greetings to many loyal and fine Christians in Rome and mentioned them by name. Among them was Erastus, “the city steward”. –Romans 16:23 NWT Other translations render this as city treasurer, and the like. What was involved in being a city steward/treasurer?
Firstly, notice how the Insight volume obscures the unpalatable possibility concerning Erastus:
During excavations in Corinth in 1929 Professor T. L. Shear discovered a pavement with an inscription, in Latin, that reads: “Erastus, procurator [and] aedile, laid this pavement at his own expense.” Although it is not known whether this is the Erastus mentioned by Paul, the pavement is believed to have existed in the first century C.E. It has been suggested that the city steward was also Paul’s traveling companion (see No. 1, above). However, since it would have been difficult for Erastus to accompany Paul and at the same time care for his duties as city steward, those who favor this identification generally conclude that Erastus held this official position at an earlier time and therefore Paul refers to him by this title.Notice how it is made to appear as though Bible commentators generally hold the position of their last sentence quoted here.
However, this is not the case at all. The eminent Bible scholar John Stott in his commentary on Romans states that it seems that Erastus was “a responsible local government official. Perhaps he was the aedile, the magistrate in charge of public works….” Stott rejects the argument that he was one of Paul’s ‘itinerant helpers’. (The Message of Romans, 1996 edition, Inter Varsity Press page 402)
Likewise, the eminent Australian Bible scholar, Paul Barnett, shares the same view and pointedly reveals that Erastus held an elected office, which is what the city treasurer/steward was in the Roman system.
So who was Erastus? Was he a new convert who was an elected official at the time of his conversion? It certainly doesn’t appear that way.
Besides, it’s clear that Erastus did not resign his office upon becoming a Christian, nor was he viewed in an unfavourable light by Paul and the congregation. Quite the opposite is the case.
This makes it quite difficult for genuine Bible students (which Jehovah’s Witnesses claim to be) to justify their harsh stand to DA an individual who partook of the election process.
Cheers,
Ozzie
"It's better to light a candle than to curse the darkness."
Anonymous