31 May 2018

New Calvinism versus The Watchtower Society: Problematic Refutations and Muddied Waters


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.