NOTE: Again, I apologize if this topic has been already discussed previously.
Among the many practices and professed beliefs that I have been indoctrinated into believing my entire life, there is a few in particular that have really made me scratch my head. And this would be the claim that Jehovah's Witnesses do NOT have a clergy. If I'm correct I think this is printed outright in a recent public edition of the Watchtower regarding the beliefs of Witnesses. Yet, throughout my time as a Jehovah's Witness and even as I received certian "positions", I continually noticed certian practices that seemed to contradict this claim.
When JWs give talks, it is a very common practice to state a word, read the definition and then explain how this definition justifies their belief structure. For instance, how many of us have heard a 50,000 talks that starts off something like this - "Brothers, how would you define hope? Well, Webster's Dictionary defines hope as 'blah blah blah' and this helps us to see why <insert JW belief> is valid." Let's take a moment and use that same tactic to break down the word clergy.
There are certian words in the Jehovah's Witness vocabulary that makes them immediately think negative thoughts. The terms apostate, Easter and Christendom are examples. Certianly, we can include the term clergy in this nefarious list. Why is this? Well one need only browse through Watchtower publications to read about the evil, corrupt clergyman (cheifly depicted of Catholic and Protestant faiths) or see illustration after illustration of the evil Catholic Pope or Archbishop shaking hands with some Nazi officer or capitalistic caricature that looks like the dude from the Monopoly game. We go door to door challenging people to "question their clergy about what the Bible really says" and how these "clergyman have been lying to them". When a person is continually exposed to such teachings and such a biased viewpoint against the term clergy, is it any wonder that a practicing Jehovah's Witness would cringe at the mere mention of such a dastardly word?
But is this a fair, justified view towards the word clergy? The term clergy is defined as "A group ordained to perform pastoral or sacerdotal functions in a Christian church." (Merriam-Webster) It mentions nothing regarding whether these individuals are salaried or not, or whether they wear any specific kind of garment such as a robe or mitre. This non-specific definition simply states "pastoral and sacerdotal functions". This would entail anything ranging from complex ritualistic ceremonies to basic everyday administration of the church/temple/synagogue/whatever. Now, in the practices of Jehovah's Witness, teaching, preaching, discipline and other "pastoral functions" are handled primarily through the elder/servant body. When visiting JW hospital patients, they are allowed visitor access as "clergymen". Confession is made not to any average JW, but to the "older men" or elders. When reporters show up occasionally to do a story on our District conventions, the assembly administration doesn't just send any regular publisher, they send an elder, preferably a high-ranking one to represent them in making a public statement.
I realize that people on this board may differ in their opinion of whether or not the JW elder-arrangement is a valid Bible-based system, but that's a debate for another time. The question here for discussion is simply - is there anything wrong with having clergymen in your particular faith?
I've given you topic to discuss. Talk amongst ya selves.
