What is an Apostate?

by happy man 27 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  jgnat

  Beryl, have a good laugh! I AM the one harping on the spelling. Check out Happy's previous posts. They border on the unintelligable, including this one. He confuses his words with those of the article by misplacing the quotation marks. If you read the article three or four times and replace the quotation marks, the whole post will make more sense. But who has the time?

  ..now that I know that Happy Man can spell, I believe the confusion is deliberate.

  Also, no citations, no links. Where did Happy Man find it? How can we check his sources? A very JW thing to do.
• 

  hillary_step

  Hello Happy-Man,

  Hope that you are well. I think you know enough yourself from reading the very real doctrinal issues that many have on this Board, to know that the majority of this persons post is designed to do exactly what he accuses 'apostates' of doing, that is, to 're-convert' those who might have doubts in the WTS theology.

  I will just give one quick example of how persons cognitive-dissonance leads them into a quagmire of hypocrisy; a small quotation that unravels the whole basis of their 'paper' because it clearly shows that they are working from conclusions already made. He starts his point by quoting from Bryan Wilson’s work in defense of the fact that ‘apostates’ are nothing new to any religion and that no JW should be shocked by ‘apostates’ within its movement.

  "Every religion which makes claim to a definitive body of doctrine and practice which it regards as exclusively its own, is likely to be faced with the fact that from time to time some erstwhile members will relinquish their allegiance and cease to subscribe to the formalities of the faith, in at least some, perhaps all, of its teachings, practices, organization, and discipline."

  But they then add the following statement, which shoots themselves in the foot :

  To be sure, this is a sad consequence of those who decide that their own doctrinal understanding, or that of another presents itself as a more expedient solution to questions that may arise from the mouth of those who seek to dissuade others from considering the Witnesses as a viable theological choice.

  What this person is saying is that every religion will have those who question and eventually defect due to doctrinal differences. He then goes on to show why he cannot be relied on to reach any unbiased conclusion on this matter by expressing sadness that JW’s read the ‘apostate’ research and then question WTS religion. This is, as you know, the very process that the WTS chooses to use in undermining the faith of adherents in other religions and subsequently causing them to apostatize from the previously held religion and join the WTS.

  ...Of course other religions are false and the WTS is the true religion so this of course does not fall within the confines of his own definitions! Circular-reasoning perfectly illustrated.

  I would be more than interested if this person were to contact me privately to continue this discussion with him.

  Best regards - HS
• 

  DannyBear

  In a nutshell what this guy is infering is......entertain an immoral thought or actually imbibe in said immorality...you are on the road to apostasy. Quite simpistic thinking imo.

  The idea that everyone who leaves jwdom is looking for an excuse for immoral conduct, is rediculous. But after reading this vain attempt at discouraging 'indepentdent thinking', it is no different in message content than any of the hundreds of Watchtower articles offering counsel to the brother's/sister's on the perils of turning away from the fds.

  Only an attempt at reaching some of the more educated jw rank and file.

  Danny
• 

  Gozz

  Rather, it is the motivation behind such questioning of some people that apparently needs to be given greater attention than the question itself. This becomes evident when a person believes they have no other recourse than to turn to opposers and/or defectors for clarification of troubling matters – thus laying the groundwork for the potentiality of further exploitation.

  ****One problem with Watchtower apologists, and Jehovah's Witnesses in general, is to make an assumption about the state of mind, or motivation of anyone beginning to question. What makes the determination of the person's motivation more important than the question being asked? A fear that the question may not be answered sufficiently well to satisfy the questioner? Or a fear that beneath such questioning lies what the Society hates the most, to answer to their own and admit some wrong? And as the Governing Body wishes that Witnesses not talk to those on the other side (even while engaging in the sacred work of preaching to everyone), just what mechanism is in place to hear the arguments from all sides? None. Again, there's the assumption that opposers and defectors will always want to exploit!

  Hence, sometimes more important than ‘why’ certain individuals are dissatisfied with the role the WTS plays in their spiritual lives is ‘what’ leads these ones to a course of dissatisfaction (and perhaps eventually to opposition) in the first place? This is a long and often difficult study in itself, due mostly to the complexity of situations that lend a person to search for rationality or respite from foreign sources while being in the midst of a personal dilemma. Be that as it may however, it is an important concept that those seeking Jehovah’s friendship do well to consider…

  ****Oh! It's a long and often difficult study? Ever tried doing the simpler thing, answering the questions asked, rather than getting into the mind of the questioner? Isn't Jehovah the one searching hearts? Why don't let Jehovah do that, and you, face up to what Paul wrote about being ready to defend the faith before anyone requiring such? It's a strange concept, one fraught with pain.

  It is my hope that all of us will think candidly about the processes driving disaffection and apostasy despite the fact that they entail a great deal of self-analysis and disclosure; and are often not easily observed, since the “heart is more treacherous than anything else and is desperate.” (Jeremiah 17:9) Yet honesty concerning one’s motivations is an integral factor in determining whether an individual will accept or repudiate refining counsel or understanding that comes from the engine room of Jehovah’s earthly organisation. If not, a person may silently become disaffected and subsequently turn to apostate information due to seemingly rational, faith based judgements. In truth however, this is no more than the foundering of decision justified by scrutiny.

  ****Interesting! So why don't offer refining cousel first? Why bother to strangle the messenger? Witnesses are happy to meet religious people who ask sensible questions when they go out to preach. do they expect these same "thinking" people to stop thinking once they become baptized? How could Jeremiah 17:) be applied to someone honestly asking a question? What desperate hearts?

  Examining this point, I would like to cheat (sorry) and paste a quotation from a paper that I am working on concerning this issue.
  “When under the influence of apostate ideology, the person affected by this thinking experiences an often difficult and sometimes confusing array of emotions. For one to have their life so drastically altered that there arises open repudiation against ones former associates there first has to occur what could be termed a deconversion – reconversion process. This process, which happens prior to their renouncement and subsequent hostility, is the culmination of many long hours spent pondering various discrepancies, spiritual or scriptural, that have hijacked the individuals disposition and absorbed it into one of brooding, fascination and speculation concerning the congregation and its convictions.”

  *****So what exactly is wrong with this picture? First off, not all apostates are hostile to the congregation. To link apostace with subsequent hostility is a tactic the Society employs all the time. It's a false option. Besides, your quote takes off from a wrong location; not all who begin to question are already under the influence of "apostate ideology", rather, it is the inconsistency in teachings, and a conflict between what is preached and what is actually done, and indepth study, up from the state of knowing nothing, and thing like that, that make people begin to question. Your quote mentions, but ignores discrepancies, say.

  Needless to say, I hope that any who may be inclined to engage a known apostate in dialogue will reconsider – not only for the hitherto reasons, but more importantly because of the biblical mandate against such an act. (Romans 16:17)

  ***Even Satan was allowed time in God's court.
• 

  badolputtytat

  Hi HappyMan...

  I have a question about this, because it is such an in-depth look at the question "What is an Apostate?"....

  Over the last few days and weeks as I have taken a "hands on" approach to finding some real answers about the organization that has my family so wrapped up... I have met so many people who put their lives into this thing. Good People. People who would never purposely cause harm to anyone. People who dont go "looking for trouble" ever! BUT they have in fact uncovered many un-truths and inconsistencies in this organization. For instance the whole money i$$ue, the blood issues, the child abuse issues. The list goes on.

  My question to you is this: ARE THESE PEOPLE APOSTATES OR NOT?

  If you dont mind skipping all the intellectual jargon for the benefit of those of us who cannot keep up with it... I would ask that you answer simply "yes" or "no". I mean, I ask my father something like this, and I get a whole lot words, but they dont say anything.. dont answer the question. (actually the question is for anyone)
• 

  plmkrzy

  I don't believe in any religions definition of apostasy because I don't believe there is a religion that does not view one of its members as apostate if they turn their back on the teachings. This would make Russell the first JW who was apostate because not only did he turn his back on the teachings of his church but he also started a church of his own. Maybe his intention was not to build a new church, but that is what happened in the long run. In addition, those who convert are apostate because they converted. Therefore, everyone would be an apostate, by definition eventually, one way or another given enough time.

  I can’t come up with a better definition of the word but I think all the churches including JWs, if not especially JWs, have it all wrong.
• 

  plmkrzy
• 

  badolputtytat

  Dumb question again: So, is an apostate (in this thread) a "heretic"?

  heretic
  noun [C] a person who has beliefs that are opposed to the official belief of a church and that the church considers wrong

  SYLLABICATION:	a·pos·ta·sy
  PRONUNCIATION:	-pst-s
  NOUN:	Inflected forms: pl. a·pos·ta·sies Abandonment of one's religious faith, a political party, one's principles, or a cause.
  ETYMOLOGY:	Middle English apostasie, from Old French, from Late Latin apostasia, defection, from Late Greek apostasi, from Greek apostasis, revolt, from aphistanai, aposta-, to revolt : apo-, apo- + histanai, to stand, place; see st- in Appendix I.
• 

  jgnat

  According to the definitions I use, badolputtytat, I would say so. I am rather fond of the Apologetics website, perhaps too much so. Nevertheless, it summarizes a lot of stuff floating around in my grey matter that I have not had time to organize properly. Them Apologetics peoples are deep thinkers.

  http://www.gospelcom.net/apologeticsindex///h27.html

  Orthodox Christianity rate the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society as heretic, as they have strayed from foundational doctrines. The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, by duly "warning" Christendom's churches of their error by public letter (when was that; 1914? 1919?) have in turn deemed Christendom's churches as heretical. Since the foundational doctrine of the WTBTS is that they are always right, and everybody else is wrong, we are all heretics outside the WTBTS.
• 

  AlanF

  The question of just what constitutes "apostasy" is a good one. The dictionary definition, from Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, is:

  "1: renunciation of a religious faith 2: abandonment of a previous loyalty"

  According to "1", one man's apostate is another man's prophet. And according to "2", everyone who changes jobs is an apostate. Clearly, these definitions are not very useful.

  Nor is the Watchtower Society's definition useful except within the narrow confines of the JW religion. Their working definition is, "anyone who promotes solid criticisms of JW doctrines or policies." This self-serving definition serves but one purpose: to stamp out internal dissent.

  The book Dissent and Order in the Middle Ages: The Search for Legitimate Authority (Jeffrey Burton Russell, Twayne Publishers, 1992) contains what I think is the most useful definition of "apostasy", as well as definitions of related terms (pp. 2-3). Speaking about the development of "heresy" within the Catholic Church, Russell writes:

  Ideas acceptable to the bishops and to approved theologians were defined as orthodox (correct teaching) and catholic (universally held). A popular phrase to define orthodoxy was what was believed semper, ubique, et ab omnibus, always, everywhere, and by all. Dissenting ideas were considered heterodox (divergent). Heterodox ideas, when defined and condemned by the bishops, were deemed heretical. A heretic was a dissenter formally condemned by an accepted ecclesiastical authority. At least that was the theory. In practice, the term heretic was often flung to discredit one's enemies; in the Middle Ages a number of popes, bishops, monks, theologians, and laypeople were called heretics in loose and virtually meaningless vituperation.

  The term heretic is distinguished from infidel, one who is not Christian at all; apostate, one who abandons Christianity; and schismatic, one who has true doctrine but does not submit to ecclesiastical order. To these categories must be added a fuzzily defined constellation of surviving paganism and magic that is best termed folk belief. This included cures through herbs, rituals, or incantations (often mixed with Christian prayers), curses, fertility rites, and other practices. Some heresies contained elements of folk belief. Most folk belief was undetected or ignored by the authorities; because it was not condemned it could not be heretical. Muslims were usually considered infidels, but from the time of John Damascene (675-749) they were often called heretics and Islam a heresy of Christianity. Jews usually occupied their own category.

  A careful study of all uses of "apostasy" in the Watchtower's New World Translation, as well as references in its footnotes, and uses of related words, shows that the Society really does know the Biblical definition of the term.

  In the Old Testament the Hebrew word hanep means "profane, irreligious, godless, ungodly, apostate, corrupt, ungodliness, apostasy". Here is a list of OT passages where the NWT uses the terms "apostate, apostasy" translated from hanep:

  Job 8:13; 13:16; 15:34; 17:8; 20:5; 27:8; 34:30; 36:13
  Psalms 35:16
  Proverbs 11:9
  Isaiah 9:17; 10:6; 32:6; 33:14
  Jeremiah 23:15
  Daniel 11:32

  The only other use of a word like "apostate" in the NWT is translated from another Hebrew word, `azab which means "leave, forsake, loose", and is translated "apostatize" in Jer. 17:13.

  The Greek word aphistemi is related and means "stand away from" and so forth. The NWT translates this as "apostasy" in:

  Acts 21:21
  2 Thessalonians 2:3

  The NWT's footnote on Job 8:13 contains the key idea of what the Hebrew hanep ("apostate") means: "Or, 'ungodly (profane) one'; or, 'anyone alienated from God.'". Note that this is in line with the above definition by Jeffrey Burton Russell, since according to Christian doctrine anyone who has abandoned Christianity is alienated from God, and vice versa.

  The NWT's footnote on Jeremiah 3:6 comments on the word "unfaithfulness" (Hebrew mesubah): "Lit., 'the unfaithfulness (apostasy), Israel,' thus terming Israel a concrete example of unfaithfulness, or apostasy.

  The NWT's footnote on 2 Chronicles 29:19 comments on another word it translates as "unfaithfulness" (Hebrew ma`all; "unfaithful, treacherous"): "'Unfaithfulness,' M; Gr. apostasiai, 'apostasy,' from the verb aphistemi, 'stand away from'; the noun has the sense of desertion, abandonment or rebellion. See Jos 22:22; Ac 21:21; 2Th 2:3 ftns."

  The NWT's footnote on Joshua 22:22 says essentially the same thing about the word "rebellion" as does the footnote on 2 Chron. 29:19. In this case the Hebrew word being translated is marad ("to rebel or revolt, as against a king or God"). The NWT translates various forms of the Hebrew (marad, "to rebel or revolt"; mered, "rebellion, revolt"; mardut "rebellious") as "rebel, revolt, rebellion, and rebellious" in the following passages:

  marad "rebel"
  Numbers 14:9; Joshua 22:16, 18, 19, 29; 2 Kings 18:7, 20; 24:1, 20; 2 Chronicles 13:6; 36:13; Nehemiah 6:6; 9:26; Job 24:13; Isaiah 36:5; Jeremiah 52:3; Ezekiel 2:3; 17:15 Daniel 9:5, 9

  marad "revolt"
  Ezek. 20:38

  mered "rebellion"
  Josh. 22:22; Ezra 4:19

  mered "rebellious"
  Ezra 4:12, 15

  mardut "rebellious"
  1 Samuel 20:30

  The point of all this is to prove that the Watchtower Society is well aware of the fact that the Biblical notion of "apostasy" has to do with rebellion, not against man, but against God. The common sense notion fits perfectly with this, for who would be bothered by being called an "apostate" simply for changing one's job or disagreeing with the claims of any religious organization?

  Of course, we all know the reason that the Watchtower self-servingly mixes up the meanings of "apostasy": to be able to apply various Biblical condemnations of "apostates" to anyone who "rebels" against its own teachings. This is quite in line with the fact that the Fundamental Doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses is that everyone on earth ought to acknowledge the JW Governing Body as God's spokesman to mankind and obey it as if God himself were speaking.

  Note how all of the above exposition comes together in the Society's working definition for elders of "apostasy". This is from the semi-secret elders' manual "Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock" (pp. 94-95):

  Apostasy is a standing away from, a falling away, defection, rebellion, abandonment; it involves teaching false doctrines, supporting or promoting false religion and its holidays or interfaith activities...

  Apostasy includes action taken against true worship of Jehovah or his established order among his dedicated people...

  Persons who deliberately spread (stubbornly hold to and speak about) teachings contrary to Bible truth as taught by Jehovah's Witnesses are apostates...

  The Bible condemns the following:

  Causing divisions and promoting sects.

  This would be deliberate action disrupting the unity of the congregation or undermining the confidence of the brothers in Jehovah's arrangement.

  Note how much of the language is devoted, not to the Biblical notion of "rebellion against God", but of rebellion against or even disagreeing with JW teachings. Indeed, these teachings are claimed to be "Bible truth".

  Now, with some people, who are definitely no longer Christians and do not believe in the Biblical God, the terms "apostate", "infidel" and "heretic" would fit, and people like me who openly admit of such unbelief would have no complaint. Of course, we also think that these terms are as meaningless as if a believer in Zeus applied them to us.

  But many ex-JWs still retain belief in God, the Bible, and so forth, and so according to the above discussion, applying the term "apostate" to them is wrong for several reasons:

  1) Because an "apostate" is one who abandons Christianity, the term does not fit.
  2) They may believe in all JW doctrines but "not submit to ecclesiastical order"; such a person would be a "schismatic".
  3) "Heretic" is the right word to describe someone who dissents and is implicitly or explicitly condemned by "an accepted ecclesiastical authority", namely, the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses and its appointed representatives.

  Of course, anyone who today uses the word "heretic" is rightly branded a braindead, fanatical bigot. Watchtower knows this very well, and so does not use the term. Instead, like the way Russell describes orthodox Catholics as having done with the word "heretic", Jehovah's Witnesses today call critics "apostates" "in loose and virtually meaningless vituperation."

  I hope this information helps clear the air about the proper use and meaning of words like "apostate".

  AlanF