This article is a case of a New Calvinist critiquing the
Watchtower Society. His intent is to quickly summarise the issues but due to
his own lack of insight and bias, he actually just muddies the waters.
The Jehovah's Witnesses certainly need refuting but
critiquing them from an Evangelical standpoint isn't going to cut it. In this
case I'm using Evangelical in its modern post-WWII definition. I'm not
referring to historic Protestantism which in the past was referred to (rightly
or wrongly) as Evangelical. Rather in this case Evangelical refers to the very
deliberate attempt (beginning in the late 1940's) to pull Confessionalist and
Fundamentalist Christianity into a position of cultural influence and
respectability.
The division between Evangelical thinking and Confessionalism
is real but not as distant as Confessionalists would sometimes have it.
Dominionist thinking dominates both camps but Evangelicals have always been
more accommodating and broad minded. In this case that is no compliment.
Confessionalists when put to the test as they were in the 20th
century, have been willing to take the minority position and sacrifice
influence in order to maintain their historic creeds. That said, they are not
opposed to cultural influence and if given the chance would readily re-assume
that role. New Calvinism (not to be confused with Neo-Calvinism) is basically
an Evangelical movement that has latched onto a couple of the main doctrines
associated with historic Calvinism. They may believe in predestination but
beyond that their doctrines and certainly their impulses are thoroughly in line
with mainstream conservative Evangelicalism.
In this case rather than lay additional groundwork I'm simply
going to comment on each of the points raised by Storms.
From the beginning his Evangelical proclivities appear. Part
of the problem with Jehovah's Witnesses is that they are uneducated.
Evangelicals strive for cultural respectability and influence and in our modern
techno-industrial cultural such aspirations mandate education. So already the
Witnesses and their sectarian separatism are out of sync with the culture.
Additionally he seems to suggest their lack of education means they are
unintelligent or unsophisticated and perhaps unable to grasp what the
Scriptures teach.
This is not the case and additionally the Scriptures teach
that worldly wisdom will not bring someone to knowledge of Christ. These are
mysteries revealed to us by the Holy Spirit and rather than rely on academic
standards and worldly philosophy as a basis for theological inquiry we are
instead called upon to submit to revelation and compare spiritual things with
spiritual. As an Evangelical, Storms has fallen into the trap of thinking that
Christianity and theology are approached in the same way one approaches
engineering or other sciences. You get the education and you only accept things
that have been accepted by the academy and subjected to peer review. This
attitude is very prevalent even in Confessional circles but sadly it is not
Biblical in the least.
The Watchtower is wrong on several points but when it comes
to their counter-cultural ideals and their approach to worldly accolade and
endorsement they put Evangelicals to shame. Storms in this case is telling us more
about him than he is the Watchtower Society.
1. The Watchtower does not believe in eternal punishment but
Storms misleads his audience. They're not universalists, nor do they believe
that sin and death have no consequence. The issue with the Watchtower is over
the immortality of the soul. They wrongly believe that consciousness is related
to physicality and that physical death eliminates consciousness and all that it
implies, the self and continuity etc... Surprisingly not a few conservative
Evangelical thinkers have posited a similar monistic constructs of
consciousness. Indeed similar views were held by representatives of Old
Princeton and Scottish Realism. This is not to say they held the Witness view
of mortality. Rather it does indicate the Watchtower arose in a specific
intellectual context (late 19th/early 20th century) and
in some cases their views represent what could be described as logical out-workings
of Realist and Analytic-oriented philosophy and Baconian induction.
Storms of course is just trying to construct a quick primer
but sometimes quick primers can be misleading which is my point. The Witnesses
are wrong but I wouldn't play fast and loose with their positions just because
most people write them off as unorthodox and somewhat eccentric.
Their views even on issues regarding the return of Christ are
complicated. While its founders were not moral men and had their shortcomings I
would warn Storms and others who share his confidence to beware in their own labels
and heritage. There's plenty to criticise when it comes to Reformed 'heroes'.
Not all view them as moral men.
Perhaps it's better for all if we avoid hitching our wagons
to factions and namesake associations.
There's more than a little ad hominem at work in the Storms piece but some of it comes across
as nonsensical because he's assuming his audience shares his values. In the
Evangelical mind, non-conformity especially something like resistance to conscription
is patently shameful. On the contrary New Testament Christianity would view it
as virtuous, faithful and honourable.
And as far as Roman Catholicism and Protestantism both
representing Babylon... Storms as an Evangelical 'New' Calvinist will be about
the last person to understand the claim is not only plausible but largely
valid. While I would not go to the sectarian extreme of the Watchtower I myself
am quite comfortable making the same claim and arguing it on Biblical and
historical grounds. What irks me is that I'm confident Storms would dismiss my
position just as summarily as that of the Watchtower. They are wrong, but so is
he.
2. The Watchtower has corrupted the Scriptures. Storms is
right. The Watchtower has tinkered with the Scriptures and is rightly
condemned. Nevertheless modern Confessionalists and Evangelicals have little to
say on this score. Confessionalists have de
facto elevated secondary standards to Deutero-canonical status. They deny
this but they only mislead themselves. As one who has navigated the
bureaucracies of several Reformed denominations I am more convinced of this
than ever. Confessions and creeds are valid expressions of doctrine but they
are not used as historical guides but instead are wielded as restraints, chain-like
political tools that bind the thinking of the hierarchy and party members...
not to Biblical standards but to the polities, categories and frameworks of
post-Reformation scholasticism.
Additionally both modern Confessionalists and virtually all
Evangelicals have abandoned the historic Protestant view of the text of the New
Testament and have embraced Critical, theologically liberal views of both the
text and its preservation. Modern inerrancy, relying on autograph
reconstruction is an innovation. Their attempts to connect it with older
concepts of inerrancy and the older and quite sufficient concept of
infallibility are misleading.
There are terrible trends at work in so-called conservative
Evangelical circles when it comes to the text of Scripture. The NWT is rightly
condemned but neither will I use the ESV or NIV with their computer generated
textual speculations and gender inclusive language. The Scriptures are under
attack from all quarters.
3. The Watchtower is wrong on the Trinity and there is no
'but' or exception when it comes to this. That said, I will risk condemnation
by adding that the Nicene and Post-Nicene formulations are problematic and
create as many difficulties as they solve. Is there a problem with the doctrine
of the Trinity? No, but the Nicene tendency was to appropriate and incorporate
a great deal of philosophical categorisation and speculation which have continued
to generate controversy and confusion to this day. In some ways it has made the
doctrine inaccessible to the average Christian and I'm sad to report the
doctrine has become something of a philosophical plaything for strutting
theologians. I have quite literally shut off broadcasts of Calvinistic
theologians discussing the Trinity believing they are treading the verge of
blasphemy in their speculations and attempts to parse and dissect the Godhead.
The East and West were never quite speaking the same language,
no pun intended and to this day there are divisions in how the Trinity is to be
understood. And this ranges far beyond the controversy over the Creed and filioque. The East obviously suffered
further splinters in the realm of Christology and I find many of the debates
less than helpful. I'm afraid I believe the East has a case when it comes to
the Latin concept of the Trinity as being a form of modalism. Most Western
Christians (the East would argue) think of the Trinity in either Modalistic or
sometimes even in quaternarian terms. Of course the East to this day is accused
of subordination and is reckoned to be in danger of slipping into tri-theism.
I am probably more inclined toward ante-Nicene primitivism. I
am somewhat with Tertullian, not just in his not entirely acceptable Trinitarian
primitivism but in his condemnation of Jerusalem working hand-in-hand with
Athens. The early apologists were brave men and some died as true martyrs and
yet they along with the tendencies at work in both Alexandria and Antioch set the Church on a bad path
that found its fruition in the Constantinian era and the Trinitarian
controversies.
The Witnesses are perilously wrong and yet given the course
of Church history and the reality of the Constantinian Shift their argument is
not a hard one to make. That said, it fails. Many primitivist and restorationist
groups fall into the error of hard lines, sharp divisions and neat package
narratives. They rightly question the mainstream Catholic and Magisterial
Protestant narratives of Church History but then all too often fall into a
similar error.
Reform is needed. Orthodox doctrine does not need to be
re-written but I will offend some in arguing it needs to be revisited,
reconsidered and in some cases re-cast. A shift in narrative alone will not
suffice but it will help us to reckon with Church history without writing it
off or finding the need to appropriate the mainstream.
4. The Jehovah's Witnesses are not polytheists. Storms is
dishonest here on this point and in his reference to Michael. There are
orthodox theologians who believe Michael and Christ are one and the same.
Additionally there is an entire realm of theological inquiry regarding the
angelic realm, the Divine Council, thrones, principalities, elohim and the like
that has been written off by most Evangelicals and Confessionalists. Though
they will take umbrage at the suggestion I will argue they have largely
rejected the supernaturalistic ethos and cosmology of Scripture. In many ways
this is in keeping with their desire to be culturally relevant and respectable.
They don't want to come across as foolish or bizarre. In some cases it is
Calvinistic Deduction which has led them to downplay and all but eliminate what
the Scriptures teach about the spirit world, the angelic realms and demonic
activity. If God ordains all how can these things have any real meaning? Of
course under such misguided logic we could say the same about prayer or the
sacraments and some extremists have gone so far in their theology to perilously
downplay their meaning as well. It is no accident that many modern Calvinists
find themselves on a trajectory toward what I reckon a Hyper-Calvinist
Baptistic end. It's a bad case of Ockham's Razor being applied to Biblical
doctrine and the result is a very neat, tight and coherent theological package
but it is reductionist and no longer reflects the full orb of Scriptural
teaching.
There are Biblical passages that speak of elohim in reference
to entities other than YHWH. This is not polytheism but such inquiries will
lead many into uncomfortable waters as many theological antinomies are sure to
arise.
Storms comments are ill-informed on this point and somewhat
shallow. The Bible is far richer than his reductionist schema.
5. The Watchtower is in error when it comes to the
Incarnation. When arguing with them I go right to Isaiah and Revelation and
demonstrate Jesus is Jehovah. That said, I think there are both Nestorian and
Eutychian tendencies at work in Evangelicalism. The Nestorianism arises when it
comes to worship and issues surrounding dominion, the restoration of nature and
the human body. But largely I would argue Eutychian tendencies dominate in that
most Evangelicals and Confessionalists focus on Christ's Divinity to such an
extent they miss some of the important redemptive-historical themes associated
with the victory and glorification of Christ as the Second Adam. The
Vosian-Klinean camps by prioritising Redemptive-History are much better on this
than the standard Systematic-rationalist oriented theologians and certainly the
bulk of Evangelicals. Baconianism and Common Sense Realism still dominate in
Fundamentalist circles and their grasp of these subtleties is lacking indeed.
That said, once again many of the debates surrounding the
Incarnation fell into philosophical categorisation and speculation. While even
the 'giant' theologians such as Aquinas admitted the doctrine ended in mystery
I'm not sure driving the formulations to the philosophical extreme and then
declaring 'mystery' is the same as admitting from the start that we can analogically
reflect what the Scriptures say but all attempts at synthesis let alone
systematisation are doomed from the start.
Once again terms like nature and person are being defined
philosophically and I'm not sure how helpful let alone faithful that really is.
I am comfortable with the orthodox formulation but I am more inclined to
understand it (the formulation) in unelaborated terms. I am not for a moment
endorsing the deconstruction attempted by someone like Gordon Clark who on
purely philosophical grounds attempted to recast the doctrine in terms of
rationalist coherence.
Though many pay lip service to apprehension versus
comprehension when it comes to the Incarnation and the Trinity, they pursue an
intellectual project of comprehension which I believe to be in error from the
start. Apprehension (on the basis of analogical knowledge) as a doctrinal
posture (which I believe is Biblically warranted from several (primarily New
Testament) passages which touch on prolegomenical concerns) is more likely and
willing to limit inquiry and leave concepts undeveloped and unresolved.
6. I have revisited the Hoekema work on numerous occasions
and each time I read it I come away disappointed. His research and presentation
are not as airtight as some would have it. He is not free from the charge of
misrepresentation and I find significant errors in some of his other works and
so I have learned not to trust him. This is not to discount all he says. By no
means, but I would not quote him authoritatively when it comes to the 'Four
Major Cults', Anthropology and a few other topics.
Of course we could further say that attempting to understand
how the Second Person of the Trinity is now permanently incarnate is something
beyond our ken. To understand how Jesus is physically in heaven right now when
it is also argued the New Heavens and Earth have not yet been created is also
something that defies normative explanations, let alone the notion that flesh
and blood do not inherit the Kingdom of God. The Witnesses are wrong but these
are deep waters and I cannot help but raise an eyebrow when fingers are
pointed.
Storms of course is attacking on the basis of historic
orthodox formulation. But as he is a self-professed charismatic I find this to
be somewhat absurd.
7. The Early Church's record on atonement theory is somewhat
ambiguous. Exegetically several cases can be made. Most formulations we are familiar
with are rooted in coherence based on a
priori deduction. Whether such methods are valid and whether what is
treated a priori ought to be should
be valid questions but of course they're not. The Watchtower view on the
atonement is unsatisfactory but a serious examination of the issues leads once
again to rather deep waters.
Of course Christ's resurrection signifies the new creation,
the New Heavens and Earth wherein we will live once more as in Eden and yet due
to redemption the experience will seemingly prove to be richer and more
profound.
Rather than try and elaborate the details of the Watchtower
view of the atonement I will say with confidence that Storms has misrepresented
them. Once again I find that Hoekema is not always accurate and his
interpretations of their doctrines do not always reflect what they believe.
They most certainly will say that Jesus atoned for their sins. Their view is a
variant of the Ransom Theory of Atonement, a view now largely denied but once
held by figures in the early Church. This touches on the Progressive View of
History that many Protestants embrace even while condemning the concept when
they find it at work in other schools of thought.
8. The erroneous eschatological scheme of the Witnesses also
points to the time-frame of their origin and in their case they have gone
completely off the rails. The Watchtower is wrong and quite convoluted when it
comes to the 144,000 in Revelation. That said, the Dispensationalists are also
desperately wrong on this passage and older Scofield Dispensationalism clearly
taught a different salvation for the Jews of old. A heretical position, I find
few Evangelicals willing to take a hard-line against Dispensationalism. Why
not? Their reasons are clear to me but
they're more practical than idealistic.
9. Secret Second Comings? Likewise the Pre-Tribulational
Rapture theory represents a serious error when it comes to the Second Coming of
Christ. Granted, Dispensationalists will ultimately have a physical second
coming.... which is in reality a Third Coming. When put that way its heterodox
nature becomes a little more poignant. They deny such terminology but it is
nevertheless accurate. The so-called 'secret' Rapture is based off a terrible
misreading of 1 Thessalonians 4 which in fact references the Second Coming. Why
aren't non-dispensational Evangelicals like Storms more vigorous when it comes
to denouncing this doctrine?
Maybe they would be if the Dispensationalists refused to
salute the flag and serve in the military. Many early Dispensationalists took such
non-conformist positions and were attacked for it. But as allies in the Culture
War they (all too often along with Roman Catholics) are given something of a 'pass'
that others are not granted.
10. The intermediate state is not as clear-cut as some think
it is. It's a difficult topic and more speculative than many realise and it
ties in with one's view of the soul, personhood, consciousness, temporality vis-à-vis
eternity, location, extension, eschatology, interaction, two-ages and thus even
multi-dimensionality. Yes, I am in this case muddying the waters but I grow
weary of trite and pat answers.
The Witnesses are wrong when it comes to blood transfusions.
They base their view on a grave misunderstanding of Acts 15. That said, the
popular perception of their position is that it relates to views on modern
medicine. It actually doesn't but that's where the stigma comes in and on that
point most Evangelicals (including Storms?) largely assume the cultural norms
when it comes to medicine and technology. This is what I think lies behind his
pat dismissal of their position. I have winced more than once listening to
Evangelical takes on bio-ethics and the praise they would lavish on modern
'medicine' and its many procedures and methods. Few have seriously considered
the ethics and what they assume.
To Storms, of course it's just absurd to not salute the flag.
Surely Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego would have done so. But then of course
most Americans are not even honest about the religious nature of flag
veneration, the sacredness and sacral character of patriotic song and the
religious elements in patriotic ritual. Storms is clearly no exception on this
point. Even if I disagreed with the Watchtower on these points (which I don't) I
would not dismiss them so readily.
Interesting phrasing... 'they claim exemption from military
service'.
One wonders if Storms not only accepts that Christians can
enlist in the military but if he thinks its obligatory, a duty of citizenship
or something to that effect? Of course as a Piper-ite self-proclaimed Christian
Hedonist he would be opposed to deontological mandates so I'm not sure what he
means by such phrasing but the New Testament has clearly failed to penetrate
his thinking on this point.
Jeremiah 10 is not about Christmas trees per se but the
passage is relevant. That said, the case against Christmas does not in any way
rest upon or require Jeremiah 10. The Watchtower arguments against Christmas
are fairly sound, far more than Storms assumptions to the contrary. Of course
his own Calvinistic heritage and certainly the British Confessional tradition
would side with the Watchtower on this point... but you'll never hear that in
New Calvinist circles. Of course nothing is more innovative than modern
Evangelical so-called worship, something Storms heartily embraces. Both Calvin
and the Calvinists would sharply condemn him on this point.
Easter is ancient to be sure but the case for its celebration
is weak and altogether absent in the New Testament. The Church historian
Socrates clearly acknowledged that neither Christ nor the Apostles commanded
it. As far as birthdays go, it's a
cultural norm without basis in Scripture. I don't think it's sinful because
it's not religious. That said, the only birthdays celebrated in Scripture are
Herod and Pharaoh. You can't argue that we must celebrate them but at the same
time I would not bind the conscience against them, apart from their
materialistic abuse of course. By way of clarification we celebrate very
low-key and downplayed birthdays in our home so I am not opposed to them.
Storms contradicts himself at the end of his article by
proclaiming the Watchtower believes in annihilationism, something he clearly
denied at the beginning of point ten. They actually do not believe in that
doctrine, at least not in the way it has normally been understood.
Once again the criticisms in point 10 are less about
Scripture and more an indictment on the basis of cultural norms. Storms at this
point is purely Evangelical.
I chose to read this article because I'm interested in the
topic and wanted to see if the author would put together a good summary breaking
down their errors. Instead I grew frustrated and found myself as irritated with
Storms as I might be with reading a propaganda tract put out by the Witnesses.
Once again they are deserving of criticism. They are
heterodox and cannot be reckoned Christians. But critiques such as this are not
helpful. Filled with inaccuracies, what shines through is an ad hominem attack on the basis of Evangelicalism
and cultural norms. A Witness could absolutely shred this article and Bible in
hand could make many an Evangelical quake in uncertainty... the very people
Storms is trying to reach.
This is why I don't think his article is helpful and is maybe
even harmful.