Hierarchical or Congregational?

by TD 26 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  TD

  Congregational polity is a system of church governence where each congregation is ecclesiastically autonomous. Many Protestant churches are organized this way and one of its advantages is that it protects the parent organization(s) from legal actions originating at the congregational level. One of it's disadvantages is that a minister in one congregation does not hold that same status in other congregations. The Baptist and Lutheran denominations are congregational

  Hierarchical churches organize their congregations as entities subordinate to other entities. This structure usually has the shape of a pyramid with a single entity at the top controlling them all. There are advantages and disadvantages to this system too, and they are pretty much a negative image to those in the congregational system. The Catholic and Presbyterian denominations are hierarchical.

  With that in mind, are Jehovah's Witnesses a hierarchical or a congregational church? My understanding has always been that they are congregational, but I could be wrong. I know this can be confusing. A denomination that is structured congregationally in a legal sense can still claim to be hierarchical in a "spiritual sense" and attempt to exercise the advantages of both systems. (Which seems to be the case here.)

  What do you think?
• 

  TD

  Here's a simple example that should be a litmus test. I think I know the answer to it, but those of you who were actually JW's at one time would know better than me.

  Let's assume that you're an elder in Washington D.C. You move to Melborne, Australia and start attending the local congregation. Are you still an elder or are you now just a publisher? (Who will not be an elder again until the elders in Melborne have consulted with the elders in Washington D.C. and recommended and appointed you.)
• 

  fokyc

  They try to be both; depending on the circumstances.

  In my wife's UK cong they are definitely congregational,

  as the elders DO NOT agree with some of the GB policies.

  They DO NOT agree with the Branch office in North London either.
• 

  TD

  They try to be both; depending on the circumstances.

  Don't doubt that at all

  Legally, they are one or the other though. --Not both
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  TD,

  I always enjoy your questions; incisive and always presenting a learning opportunity for everyone.

  My view:

  The Watchtower system is hierarchical.

  It is legally possible for local congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses to exercise autonomy by deciding to exit themselves from Watchtower’s system, but in that case the congregation is no longer in the system. Aside from this one prerogative, local congregations are part of a hierarchical system and do not have independent autonomy.

  It works the same way with individuals. Individuals are recognized as Jehovah’s Witnesses by Watchtower’s system if and only if Watchtower decides to do so, as it decides to do so and when it decides to do so. Because the individual has autonomy to decide whether they want to abide by threshold values determined by Watchtower does not mean a person who accepts those values exercises autonomy henceforth.

  Essentially, individuals and congregations who decide to abide by Watchtower’s system have submitted themselves to a hierarchical system.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  stuckinamovement

  Definitely hierarchical. All appointments for Elders, Servants, DO, CO's, Missionaries come from the headquarters. All publications come from one location. If you move as an elder the new congregations BOE will write the branch and as that you be reappointed in their cong.

  The GB acts as a collective Pope, the DO's are Cardinals, the CO's are Bishops, and the Elders are Priests.

  SIAM
• 

  TD

  Thanks everyone

  The system is definitely hierarchical. There's no argument on that. I agree that organizationally, the system does bear a certain resemblence to Catholicism. But that system is reflective only of doctrine and doesn't necessarily translate to legal status.

  In a hierarchical polity, the organizational units are all legal entities. A see or diocese is an entity that can be held legally liable for complaints that occur in the smaller organizational units below it. In the JW denomination, are "Circuits" and "Districts" legal entities or are they purely organizational entities?

  In a hierarchical polity, appointments are generally universal throughout the denomination. A priest is a priest pretty much anywhere he goes. In the JW denomination, is an elder an elder throughout the entire denomination or is he an elder only in the congregation in which he was appointed? In other words, if he moves to another congregation, will he need to be reappointed?

  In a congregational polity, each congregation is individually responsible for their financial obligations. When a financial obligation is about to be incurred, Robert's rules of order are observed. Motions are introduced, seconded and voted on democratically.

  In a congregational polity, ministers are often soley responsible for their misconduct. The autonomous exercise of ecclesiastical authority indemnifies the parent organization and the parent organization wants it that way. They will not hesitate to hang a minister out to dry if he screws up.

  In a congregational polity, ownership of real estate is determined on the basis of nondoctrinal provisions in the deed. In a hierarchical polity ultimate control of property is always retained by the national organization inasmuch as individual parishes and congregations are simply agents of that organization.

  In every single test I can think of, Jehovah's Witnesses seem to fall into the congregational classification. But it's really, really confusing because the doctrinal system is arranged so that they have many of the benefits of a hierarchical system with none of the liabilities.

  Maybe I'm wrong again, but that seems to be the pattern thoughout this whole religion. They seem to be all about grabbing the maximum amount of authority and accepting the minimum amount of responsibility.
• 

  james_woods

  hierarchical.

  Historically, the Russellite "Bible Students" were supposed to be Congregational. They supposedly had independent congregations and elected their own leadership. Rutherford basically changed this to a hierarchical organization by expelling those congregations that did not agree with him and firing their "elected elders".

  These congregationalists within the Watchtower Organization were labeled "evil slaves" and everything was brought under Watchtower (Rutherford) control at that point.

  While (for a time), many local congregations may have owned their kingdom hall - they were still under a hierarchical church government. Individal congregation ownership of their property is now being discouraged and limited by the Watchtower Society.
• 

  TD

  Essentially, individuals and congregations who decide to abide by Watchtower’s system have submitted themselves to a hierarchical system

  It took awhile for that to sink in --Thanks Marvin.

  So legally, they are congregational, and the individual congregations exercise that autonomy by voluntarily choosing to participate in a hierarchical system. --To do otherwise would be the congregational equivalent of disassociation

  I have to admit, there's a certain elegance to that.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  TD,

  Perhaps it comes down to the Pennsylvania Corporation’s Charter, which is a legal instrument.

  The Penn. Corp’s Charter includes this statement:

  “The purposes of the corporation are religious, educational, and charitable, including to act as the servant and legal entity for the religious body of Christian persons known as Jehovah’s Witnesses;… and do any and all other lawful things that its Board of Directors, in accordance with the spiritual direction of the ecclesiastical Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses, shall deem appropriate in harmony with those purposes.”

  In Watchtower’s system all congregations are, eventually, either accepted as such or not as such by “the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses” which in turn is the instrument that drives the Penn. Corp.

  Congregations recognized by Watchtower as such do, in each case, have to complete and submit a form provided by Watchtower where it acknowledges its subservience to “the faithful slave” et al.

  Additionally, Watchtower has congregations file charters or articles of incorporation to establish itself from a legal perspective. Primarily these legal documents are filed for the purpose of holding title to property, such as the Kingdom Hall. However, these documents I have read do, in one form or another, state as a purpose to distribute religious matter under supervision of Watchtower or something akin to that. It also speaks of elders being appointed, which is solely controlled by the Watchtower system.

  Marvin Shilmer