I feel something of a burden for the members of this group. They are to be commended, for on many points they put the larger Evangelical and Protestant world to shame. In terms of ethics and a sense of pilgrim identity, the Witnesses are in many ways much closer to the New Testament than those who consider them a cult.
Nonviolence and even nonresistance are normative concepts
among the Witnesses and they follow through on this in their rejection of
voting and resistance to conscription and all things in service to the state.
And historically they have suffered for it and in many countries still do to
this day.
Castigated by the societal mainstream and many if not most
Churches for their cultural separatism and sense of antithesis, unlike most
groups that view themselves as unique or exclusive, they have actually followed
through on this in many respects when it comes to money – which is at the very
heart of the American value system. Secular media reports identify the
Witnesses as the poorest and least educated of the major religious groups in
the United States and this is presented as a mark of shame. In reality it's a
testimony to their rejection of mammon and the worldliness it brings – along
with the world's definitions of success and status. Refusing to seek fame and
fortune, the Witnesses rightly understand that our jobs are just a means to end
and the main focus of Christians should be in terms of worship and service. Our
only real vocation as Christians is to be Christians and part of the Church and
its martyr testimony to the world. Our jobs may be something we enjoy or even
something truly beneficial to people, but for most of us, our secular and
mundane pursuits will perish with this age. Fellowship and study (and for the
Witnesses door to door ministry), are of far greater value than finding
security and respectability – the counterfeit American Dream that society and
the middle class chase after. For my part it's refreshing to encounter regular
working folk and working poor in Witness circles instead of 'professionals' and
others who have standing in society – such as what I usually find within
Presbyterian and Reformed circles.
But like many movements, the Witnesses are being torn apart
by growing dissent and discord. Like the Mennonites and other separatist
groups, many have forgotten the lessons regarding mammon and its dangers. Prosperity
always leads to a larger investment in society and upon finding it, people
start getting worked up and concerned about politics, taxes, regulations,
rights, and so forth. Consequently many in these otherwise pilgrim-dissident
groups are being pulled into not just politics but its narratives, outlooks,
and ethics – and it's starting to tear them apart.
And there's growing alarm in all circles over the social and
cultural immorality that surrounds us. It's driving some to embrace a kind of
pragmatism over principle or one might say fear over faith. As such many are
turning to evil alliances and starting to get active in promoting politicians
and their goals. They have forgotten that society was no less wicked and broken
in the early centuries of the Church and yet until Constantine there was never
any call for the Christian to enter politics, seek status, or take up the sword
– for that is (at its core) what politics is. It's power and the struggle for
it. And when the judicial and legislative machinations and plots fail, the resulting
anger leads to violence and those in power (or seeking it) are more than
willing to use violence – first of the courts and police, then of the militias
and army to get their way. The Witnesses (along with several other groups
belonging to the historical dissident and non-resistance heritage) have rightly
understood that Christians can have no part in this – but one wonders given the
tensions of the present hour, how many members of the Watchtower are losing
their way on this point?
The end result of such worldly-mindedness is a functional
abandonment of the New Testament's apocalyptic view. Regardless of the specifics
of one's eschatological scheme, the understanding that Christ is coming in Judgment
and that the Day of the Lord is imminent has a real effect on how we live – or
ought to. The concerns of this life are secondary at best and yet those who
have fallen prey to mammon and the struggle for power don't understand this and
it most certainly affects how they live.
Talking to Witnesses and ex-Witnesses, one senses at times a
kind of unease. For some this is going to be a growing conviction toward social
engagement and as such a kind of low-level resistance to the Watchtower's
official teachings. That's not who is being addressed here. Rather this is
written to those who experience unease at the nature of the group's claims, and
a sense that its doctrinal foundation maybe isn't quite as solid as some think.
The Watchtower appeals to Scripture but functionally the group is led by a
Magisterium – an authoritative council that decides what is to be believed and
taught, and as such the Bible is rarely studied alone. It's always supplemented
by Watchtower materials. This reality belies some of the claims of the group
and its narratives. For others there's a sense of unease with how certain internal
questions are dealt with and at times there's a sense of corruption within the
larger body.
And those who sense this and feel anxious about it are right
to do so. Even with the commendations that have been offered here, we must also
engage in criticism and some of it is severe and may make for grim reading but
I pray that those who have read thus far – will read on until the end.
For all the Witnesses have gotten right they have (I would
argue) missed the forest through the trees. I have long pondered and read
Watchtower material concerning the Trinity and Incarnation and just as the
Witnesses are frustrated by caricatures of their own teachings – the Watchtower
literature isn't a lot better when it comes to their representation of these
issues.
There are plenty of problems with the development of these
doctrines in terms of Church history. This must be freely admitted. The Council
of Nicaea is problematic on almost every level and it's a shame that these
doctrines were subsequently developed in terms of Hellenistic philosophy. It
must be granted that these chapters in Church history are ugly and lacking an
ethos worthy of New Testament religion.
But this doesn't mean that the Incarnation or even the
Trinity are false doctrines, nor are they contrived. They were embraced in the
Early Church prior to Constantine and Nicaea. The Constantinian epoch codified
these doctrines, developed them, and integrated them into a larger system that
was undergoing rapid change. From the Church calendar with its many false
holy-days, to so-called sacred music and architecture, many other innovations
entered at this time. It is a period that must be examined carefully and
condemned. Truly it is not out of line to speak of a Constantinian Shift or
even a Great Apostasy.
And yet we can hold to the Trinity without falling into the
morass of philosophical debate over questions of substance, nature, personhood,
and the like. Just as we can appeal to the Scriptures and understand that
Christ is in fact not just divine but Jehovah Himself – the First and Last, the
Alpha and Omega of both Isaiah (44/48) and Revelation 1, the Jehovah of Isaiah
and the Christ of the New Testament.
And yet as David Bercot and others have argued, the
understanding in the Early Church on this question was a bit different when
compared to what emerged after Nicaea – let alone what exists today. Few
Christians are able to elaborate the doctrine and actually many hold to views
that are (in terms of Nicaea and the Council of Chalcedon) heterodox.
There is a way to hold to these Biblical doctrines without
embracing the whole of Christendom and later scholasticism, or the
philosophical theology of the ecumenical councils. These doctrines existed in
the Early or ante-Nicene (pre-325) Church and we can't blame the introduction
of philosophy solely on the shift that took place with Constantine as indeed
some of the early apologists had a rather positive view of the discipline. We
can say they were wrong just as we can condemn much of what happened in
connection to Nicaea, and yet we can still understand the New Testament teaches
Tri-unity in terms of the Godhead and that Christ in the gospels was God (or
Jehovah) incarnate.
It's right to understand and interact with these historical events
(such as Nicaea) but in the Restorationist spirit it's also right to break free
from these influences in a way the Luther and Calvin-led Magisterial Protestant
Reformation did not.
Continue Reading Part 2