For years the WT has bragged that there is no clery/laity distinction among Jehovah's Witnesses. Now this attorney refers to Kendrick as just a "rank and file"--he's not a pastor or elder--like that should make a difference?
Clergy/laity distinction
by Bonnie_Clyde 8 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
-
-
Dagney
Before the elder arrangement was formed in the early '70s, IMO, that was true, more or less. But with the current arrangement, there definitely are levels/classes/distinctions.
-
blondie
The WTS still officially says there is no clergy/laity distinction as of an extensive article in the August 2009 Awake and 2010. We know that what is official is not what is practiced in the congregations.
The WTS does hide behind the secular clergy-penitent laws in the US at least betting on non-jw ignorance of WTS doctrine.
*** g 8/10 p. 9 What Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Believe? ***
10. The clergy-laity distinction “All you are brothers,” said Jesus to his followers. (Matthew 23:8) The early Christians, including the Bible writers, had no clergy class. This Biblical pattern is the one that Jehovah’s Witnesses follow.
*** g 8/09 Should There Be a Clergy-Laity Distinction? ***The Bible’s Viewpoint
Most Reverend, Right Reverend, Father, Most Holy Father, Rabbi, His Eminence, His Excellency, His Holiness, His All-Holiness—these are some of the titles that distinguish the clergy of various religions from the laity. The separation of the clergy from the laity is common to many religions, but is the arrangement from God, or is it a human tradition? More important, does it have God’s approval?
“IN THE New Testament and during the early apostolic times there is no mention of clergy or laity,” wrote professor of theology Cletus Wessels. The Encyclopedia of Christianity states: “There gradually arose a differentiation into clergy as the officeholders and the laity as the rest . . . ‘Ordinary’ church members now came to be seen as an unqualified mass.” That differentiation became prominent during the third century C.E.—more than two hundred years after Jesus Christ!
If, then, the clergy-laity distinction is not based on the model set by Jesus’ apostles and other early Christians, does that make it wrong? According to the Bible, yes. Consider why.
“All You Are Brothers”
God’s Word tells us that all Christians serve as God’s ministers and that none is above or beneath the other. (2 Corinthians 3:5, 6) “There was a very positive insistence on the absence of class” among early Christians, says religion writer Alexandre Faivre. That “absence of class” harmonizes with Jesus’ words to his followers: “All you are brothers.”—Matthew 23:8.
Spiritually older men did, of course, serve as overseers, which included being shepherds and teachers. (Acts 20:28) However, these men were not paid clerics. For the most part, they were ordinary working men—husbands and fathers. Moreover, they qualified to serve as overseers, not by attending religious seminaries, but by being diligent students of God’s Word and by cultivating the spiritual qualities required by God. These qualities include being “moderate in habits, sound in mind, orderly, hospitable, qualified to teach, . . . reasonable, not belligerent, not a lover of money, a man presiding over his own household in a fine manner.”—1 Timothy 3:1-7.
Why It Is Wise to Stick to the Bible
“Do not go beyond the things that are written,” the Bible states. (1 Corinthians 4:6) Sadly, when people disregard that divinely inspired directive, spiritual harm usually results, and that is true of the clergy-laity arrangement. How so? Please consider the following six points.
1. The separation of a clergy class implies that one must have a special calling to be a minister of God. Yet, the Bible says that all true Christians should serve God and praise his name. (Romans 10:9, 10) As for ministering within the congregation, Christian men in general are encouraged to reach out for that privilege, which is the custom among Jehovah’s Witnesses.—1 Timothy 3:1.
2. The clergy-laity distinction exalts the clergy class, an evidence being adulatory religious titles. Yet, Jesus said: “He that conducts himself as a lesser one among all of you is the one that is great.” (Luke 9:48) In harmony with that spirit of humility, he told his followers not to adopt religious titles.—Matthew 23:8-12.
3. A paid clergy class can impose a heavy financial burden on the laity, especially when the former have lavish lifestyles. Christian overseers, on the other hand, care for their financial needs by doing normal secular work, thus setting a good example for others.—Acts 18:1-3; 20:33, 34; 2 Thessalonians 3:7-10.
4. Because a clergyman may depend on others for financial support, he might be tempted to dilute the Bible’s message in order to please parishioners. Indeed, the Scriptures foretold that this very thing would occur. “There will be a period of time when they will not put up with the healthful teaching, but, in accord with their own desires, they will accumulate teachers for themselves to have their ears tickled.”—2 Timothy 4:3.
5. The clergy-laity distinction tends to cause lay people to relegate religion to the clergy, while the laity just turn up for weekly services. Yet, all Christians must be conscious of their spiritual need and be good students of the Bible.—Matthew 4:4; 5:3.
6. When the laity are Biblically uninformed, they can easily be misled by clerics, even exploited by them. Indeed, history contains many examples of such abuses.—Acts 20:29, 30.
In order to adhere closely to the pattern set down in the Bible, Jehovah’s Witnesses have, not a clergy class, but unpaid spiritual shepherds and teachers who willingly minister to God’s flock. Why not see for yourself by visiting a Kingdom Hall in your locality?
[Footnotes]
In the first century, some itinerant overseers did at times “live by means of the good news” by accepting hospitality and contributions that were willingly extended.—1 Corinthians 9:14.
Examples include the sale of indulgences, the Catholic Inquisition, and even the burning of Bibles by clerics who wanted to keep God’s Word out of the hands of their flocks.—See the November 15, 2002, issue of our companion magazine, The Watchtower, page 27.
-
Phizzy
The monster Kendrick was a Ministerial Servant was he not ? McCabe may think that is just a R&F JW, the Public may think the title obviously has some relevance and meaning, and may find out that he would be said to have "stepped down" (Back in to the R&F) had he resigned, hardly R&F, a bit above.
The statement from the WT lawyer is typical of them, don't address the lack of protection for the vulnerable and the WT's culpability due to its directives, oh no, just talk about the status of the abuser within the WT.
It does not matter whether the man was chief Panjandrum or just a restroom cleaner in the WT, it is the WT's responsibility that he got away with abuses at all.
-
Band on the Run
Kendrick was not acting as a formal agent of the WT. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. Gertrude Stein. We know there are clear distinctions. Terming members with authority "rank and file" will not fit. The WT lawyer was not defending Kendruck. The lawyer is protecting the Society. The law can see through naming distinctions. If there is no link to the WT, elders would not be instructed to call the WT legal department. If the WT is not liable, why inform it?
I am curious as to what legal and financial support the defendant elders and KH are receiving from the WT. Probably nothing. The WT has very deep pockets. It can survive if this judgment is upheld. The elders cannot. I have many questions but could not speak on the Rick Fearon interview.
Probing in to older sex, restricting education, performing stake outs in cars, visiting and pressuring the ill in hospitals, the Roman Catholic Church never reached so far.
If this case is overturned on appeal, the WT will only be more flagrant.
-
kurtbethel
3. A paid clergy class can impose a heavy financial burden on the laity, especially when the former have lavish lifestyles. Christian overseers, on the other hand, care for their financial needs by doing normal secular work, thus setting a good example for others.—Acts 18:1-3; 20:33, 34; 2 Thessalonians 3:7-10.
4. Because a clergyman may depend on others for financial support, he might be tempted to dilute the Bible’s message in order to please parishioners. Indeed, the Scriptures foretold that this very thing would occur. “There will be a period of time when they will not put up with the healthful teaching, but, in accord with their own desires, they will accumulate teachers for themselves to have their ears tickled.”—2 Timothy 4:3.
5. The clergy-laity distinction tends to cause lay people to relegate religion to the clergy, while the laity just turn up for weekly services. Yet, all Christians must be conscious of their spiritual need and be good students of the Bible.—Matthew 4:4; 5:3.
6. When the laity are Biblically uninformed, they can easily be misled by clerics, even exploited by them. Indeed, history contains many examples of such abuses.—Acts 20:29, 30.
In order to adhere closely to the pattern set down in the Bible, Jehovah’s Witnesses have, not a clergy class, but unpaid spiritual shepherds and teachers who willingly minister to God’s flock. Why not see for yourself by visiting a Kingdom Hall in your locality?
This is total unqualified bullshit.
The CO in this area gets a car and a house provided for him, plus meals. That is easily worth $2500 a month.
At the Gilbert Simental child molestation trial, and Kelle Jarka murder trial, WT lawyers tried to make motions to keep elders from testifying because of "clergy-penitent privelege".
If there is no distinct clergy, then why are only some people getting paid? Can the average JW that goes door to door baptise someone? Can they perform weddings? Or is there only specially qulified ones that are permitted to do that?
The WT is full of wholesale lies.
-
Billy the Ex-Bethelite
Baptized JW's are 'ordained ministers.'
Where McCabe came up with his "rank-and-file" comment, I don't know. Watchtower certainly protected him like he was more than that. If the elders heard that a non-JW had molested a JW child, they would have called the police. Instead, they called Watchtower. Therefore, Watchtower deserves to pay, and pay massively for their malace.
-
AwareBeing
Yes there is:
1) When I was a ministerial servant, two elders told me to use the word "deacon"
when listing their names for character references on my secular resume.
2) I think that those in the audience have been refereed to as "congregants"
from the platform in a few third-person sentences.
-
Billy the Ex-Bethelite
And the question becomes:
Should the clergy do more than lay people?