Hierarchical or Congregational?

by TD 26 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Vidiot

  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."

  I'm curious as to how long that's gonna last, once the heirarchy gets wind of it...

  TD - "So legally, they are congregational, and the individual congregations exercise that autonomy by voluntarily choosing to participate in a hierarchical system."

  Okay...headache.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  TD,

  Further reading in legal filings shows that what you suggest is, more or less, how Watchtower presents its activities. That is to say, the Watchtower organization asserts it has an ecclesiastical hierarchy but between congregations and Watchtower Inc. there is no legal chain-of-command; hence no legal hierarchy.

  As you can imagine lawyers have hashed this subject out, and most notably in the Charissa et al v. Watchtower case in California and the earlier Brogdon v. Ruddell (aka Bonham vs. Watchtower) case filed in Texas.

  Opposing counsel has argued the Watchtower system is a de facto legal hierarchy if not by statute or common-law.

  Undoubtedly, whether successful in its attempt or not, Watchtower has obviously (not a word I use often) made every attempt to structure its organization as both hierarchical (ecclesiastically) and congregational (legally), and it has done so in order to enjoy all the legal benefits of both forms of control with as little of the disadvantages of either.

  Marvin Shilmer

  PS: One potential contradiction in this has to do with the Brogdon v. Ruddell (aka Bonham vs. Watchtower) case. Regarding property rights Watchtower asserted that a congregation is subject to the direction of Watchtower. On the surface at least, this supports opposing counsels’ view that Watchtower has crossed a legal threshold from congregational to ecclesiastical.
• 

  james_woods

  Marvin, isn't the Roman Catholic Church organized the same way? That is - religious hierarchy but individual ownership of property (at least within each individual national organization)?

  I think the JWs wittingly or not have greatly imitated Catholic organizational methods.
• 

  TD

  The Catholic Church is hierarchical legally and doctrinally. --That why an entire diocese is legally liable for the misconduct of a single priest.

  The courts have held that ownership of property in hierarchical churches is decided by compulsory deference.
• 

  james_woods

  On that level, yes. But can a U.S. victim sue all the way up to the Vatican in Rome?
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  James,

  All these guys are in the religion business, and like any good business in each case they maneuver themselves legally to the best advantage.

  In this area Watchtower has a big advantage over the Catholic Church. Watchtower is a newcomer to the religion business; hence it can mold itself legally without disturbing too much of how it has portrayed itself historically. The Catholic Church does not have this advantage because of its multi-millennia historical presentation of itself. For the Catholic Church to inform its adherents that it is not a hierarchy in every respect would be to tell them the Church as been wrong for thousands of years. On the other hand, Watchtower can trot our “new light” and be done with it.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  TD

  But can a U.S. victim sue all the way up to the Vatican in Rome?

  I don't think a civil suit can be taken beyond national boundaries.
• 

  PSacramento

  The GB makes the rules, BUT leaves it up to the congregations how to implement it and enforce it, no?

  Of course in reality we know that is not the case, but from a legal stand point I think it is.
• 

  james_woods

  That is right, Marvin - the watchtower lawyers want to have it both ways if it benefits them.

  Similarly, the WTBTS insists it never ordered anyone in the U.S. to resist the military draft - that was all "their own conscience", including the part where they could not accept alternative service. If they did, the were not DFd - they were voluntarily disassociated.

  Interesting, though, that the WTBTS certainly showed total control over all the "independent" congregations over the literature sales tax issue and made everything "free of charge" to avoid paying sales tax.

  Did any "independent congregation" continue charging for the literature and actually pay sales tax?

  Nope -
• 

  Band on the Run

  Im an American lawyer who does not know the answer definitively. I noted that the Society distances itself legally from local KH as to not have liability. If someone goofs up, they can say it was an errant church. The Society would not accept liability for slips and falls or oher tortious acts, IMO. It is interesting question. Thought wise, JWs are very, very hierachical. A bishop has far more latitutde than anyone actor outside of the GB would have.

  There can easily be a divergence between the thought control, legitimacy acquired and the legal posturings. It is sad. I'm a bit of an expert on American Establishment law, which purportedly separate church from state but is more complicated. While I was doing my own private civl rights research, I found an article written by a female lawyer for the Society. It could have been utterly fascinating and uplifting. The topic was how Jehovah's Witnesses fared under persecution in Japan before and during WWII. Not a single example was given of an individual Witness. It was all about the distant Rutherford in Brooklyn. I assume Brooklyn was very scary compared to Tokyo or Osaka. It revolted me. The Catholic Church, so villified by the Witnesses, would report the cases of the individuals and the Pope.

  Of course, they have every right to conduct their legal business as they see fit. I note it precisely because they claim they are so different. Those studies of hierarchy as opposed to congregational seem to come from an anthropoligical type text. The Witnesses are sui generis. They defy categories.