January 7, 2008
Dear ----
First let me say that I very much appreciate you keeping in
touch with me after all these years. And I want to thank you for taking the time
out of your busy schedule to write me such a personal and heartfelt letter. I
re-read your letter carefully and feel grateful for the opportunity to respond
and to clarify my concerns relative to the Christian faith and to the unique claims
of the Watchtower Society. But let me, first, back up to what I remember most
clearly about the beginning of my “journey” in the Christian faith.
I remember being around fifteen or sixteen years old when I
first took a serious interest in religion and in the “big” questions of life. Where
did the world and human beings come from, ultimately? What is the meaning and purpose of our existence? Is there really a God? And perhaps one of
the most significant questions for me at the time, Does the certain eventuality
of death really represent the irreversible termination of human life and
consciousness, as it surely seems?
It might sound somewhat odd that a person that young would become
concerned over these kinds of questions. But, for some reason, or for a number
of reasons, I began to think about them often. I think a lot of it had to do
simply with the ever-increasing awareness on my part of my own, helplessly
mortal condition. I remember I would often dwell on the fact that, in time, not
only would the lives of everyone around me who I knew and loved end in death,
my own life too would come to the same end, sooner or later, but inevitably. I don’t know precisely when,
or under what exact circumstances, but, at some point, I was confronted with
the distinct realization that (without question or possibility of escape) one
day I would stop breathing, my heart would stop beating, and I would permanently
lose all consciousness—in other words, that I really was “a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes”
(James 4:14); and coming to terms with this fact produced great terror
and overwhelming anxiety within my soul—what I can only describe as a chilling sense
of helplessness. So although I was,
at that point, without the aid of any revelatory-based insights into what we
might call “the mystery of life and death,” one thing I knew for certain was
that I was alive now and that one day, sooner or later, I would certainly die. In
the depths of my soul I cried desperately for a way out.
Although I was baptized Roman Catholic as an infant (the
cultural heritage of my mother), and although my father had a background in
Mormonism through my grandmother, I wasn’t raised with any formal or
deeply-inculcated religious beliefs or commitments. I was Roman Catholic by
name and infant baptism only. I do also remember our family being visited by
Mormon missionaries in my grandparents’ apartment from time to time. But this
was the extent of my exposure to, and association with, any type of “organized
religion.”
The first time I remember reading Scripture directly for
myself was as a freshman in high school. This came about through being given one
of those small, pocket-sized New Testaments published and distributed for free by
the Gideons—the same organization that provides Bibles for hotel rooms and hospitals
throughout the country. This is what I remember as my first, genuine
introduction to the Gospel message, the “Good News,”—“For God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son…”
(John 3:16)—or, at least, a very important part of it.
As simple as the thought was expressed in that one verse, the
message itself seemed to my young ears and impressionable mind, in a striking
way, to have the powerful and confidence-inspiring “ring of truth”—a message of
hope and of life, timely and profoundly refreshing to my truth-seeking mindset.
This is what I remember most distinctly as the “spark” that ignited my faith
and interest in the Christian message and in the Scriptures that revealed it. In
a very real sense, as far as I can remember, reading this text marked the
beginning of my life as a “believer”—a believer in God and in the one he sent
to give life to the world.
Not long after, I began to look deeper into the Scriptures to
learn more about this joyous message concerning God (the Creator), the love
expressed by God in the gift of his Son, and the prospect of eternal life and
salvation. I remember, at one point, attending various kinds of church
services, from Baptist to Pentecostal to non-denominational. I was eventually
baptized in a Spanish Pentecostal church by a very caring and selfless young
pastor, but not yet fully aware of what made “Pentecostals” different from
other Christian groups, or even fully cognizant of the widespread division that
existed within “Christianity”—although I was beginning to grow more and more aware
of it. And in my own mind at the time, baptism was not a “denominational” or
“organizational” affair, but a personal and spiritual one. Nor was I baptized
with the intention of becoming a member of the “Pentecostal” denomination. It
was simply my attempt to express faith in the one I accepted as the Son of God
and obedience to the scriptural command (Acts 2:38). But I was never attracted
to “church” as much as I was interested in studying and meditating on
Scripture, the original Christian message itself. And I was always partial to
the atmosphere of a more informal, at-home, group Bible study, as opposed to the
traditional “church service” where a pastor in a pulpit delivers a sermon to
congregants in a pew.
Around the same time, it was my mother, interestingly enough,
who actually introduced me to Jehovah’s Witnesses for the first time after she
had been involved with them in a weekly Bible study. She came into contact with
the Witnesses not long after her mother (my grandmother) had passed away, through
the door-to-door ministry. Although my mother never progressed in the faith to
the point of attending meetings, I know that—in light of my grandmother’s
passing—she derived a significant measure of comfort when she learned about the
future resurrection of the dead, as promised in Scripture; and she felt very grateful
to the Witnesses for pointing her to that hope (The book they were studying at
that time was called You Can Live Forever
in Paradise On Earth).
Around the same time that I developed a desire to learn more
about the Christian faith, and to progress in Bible study, my mother arranged a
meeting for me with the husband of the lady she first studied with, and I
agreed. We studied from the Society’s book Knowledge
that Leads to Everlasting Life, meeting at our house on a weekly basis. I
enjoyed and benefited from the study very much, and I took an even greater interest
in the Bible and in the Witness faith than my mother had. Eventually, I
attended some meetings at the Kingdom hall, several book studies, and even the
annual Memorial and one district convention.
The primary reason I gravitated toward the Witnesses had to
do with our mutual belief that Jesus was the
Son of God—since I too, based on my own, independent reading of Scripture,
always derived the very same impression. In light of my own, personal Bible
study, I was truthfully rather puzzled by the mainstream churches and pastors
upon hearing them use, for the first time, language like “God died on a cross”
or “Jesus is God in the flesh,” and even more so when I eventually learned about
the “orthodox” doctrine of “the Trinity.” I could have sworn to myself that
Scripture repeatedly said that Jesus was God’s beloved Son, that God was his Father, that God “gave” him, and that God had
“sent” him (John 3:16; 17:3; 1 John 5:5; Matthew 3:17). Simply put, instead of
thinking of Jesus as “God,” I conceived of him rather as God’s Son, and as the apostle Paul put it, as the
“one mediator between God and men.”
(1Timothy 2:5).
I also began to recognize what I viewed as a significant
difference between the Witnesses and other Christian denominations I became
familiar with. I noticed that the Witnesses visited people at their homes to
study the Bible (along with WT literature), free of charge. I noticed that they
took their faith seriously, to the point of actively trying to spread their
message to others, primarily through their door-to-door outreach. This was impressive
to me, and I consequently developed deep respect for the Witness faith. In
fact, their came a point in my studies where I basically said to myself, “I’m
going to make it my goal to join the organization and become one of Jehovah’s
Witness, one of these days.”
I continued to study with the Witnesses off and on for a
number of years. As I did I remember coming across certain, popular
“evangelical” literature that sought to criticize and condemn the Witnesses as
false teachers. The focus of their criticisms revolved largely around the
subject of the identities of God and Christ, and various, common criticisms
against the New World Translation of the
Holy Scriptures. Upon close examination, I found the reasoning and
scholarship presented in these publications to be on the whole weak and
misinformed, and this only served to strengthen my original faith in Jesus as
the Son of God (not ‘God the Son, the second person of the Trinity’), and only
enhanced my appreciation for the beliefs and teachings of Jehovah’s Witnesses,
as distinct from the majority of the “organized” Christian world and
culture—what the Witnesses would describe as “Christendom.”
But as much as I appreciated and agreed with Witness beliefs
on several important subjects (like ‘the Trinity,’ the Divine Name, the ‘immortality
of the soul,’ and ‘hell-fire’), I always remained skeptical toward some of
their more unique and controversial claims, claims that I immediately recognized
as the product of interpretation and more
complex reasoning and argumentation, as opposed to that which was based on
straightforward scriptural teaching or instruction. One of the most outstanding
of these claims, as you know, involved the notion that Jesus Christ has been “invisibly
present” since the year “1914 C.E.,” and that he
shortly after (in 1918 or 1919) chose the Watchtower Society and its associates
as his “faithful & discreet slave,” which eventually claimed to be, and
came to be regarded by the Witness community as, God’s “sole channel of communication.”
My problem was, and still is, that the 1914 doctrine is
simply not taught in Scripture in a way that merits or inspires my complete
confidence, in the same way and in the same sense that Scripture presents
other, genuine, and verifiable, doctrines of the Gospel. It is, without
question, much like the Trinity, the product of a unique set of interpretations of Scripture (yet involving
controversial and complex issues relating to prophecy and chronology), not a direct or fundamental teaching of the Christian Gospel as it was proclaimed
in the first century. What is more, I found that the Society actually taught—and still
teaches—that in order to have a right standing before God, in order to be saved
in his kingdom, it is necessary for a person to become a member of the organization
and submit himself to the existing organizational arrangement, recognizing the
professed role and authority of the “faithful & discreet slave class” (the
leadership of the organization). Yet, in order to be an approved member of the
organization, it is necessary for a person to accept the doctrine of 1914,
Christ’s alleged “invisible presence” in that year, the corresponding end of
the “Gentile times,” and Christ’s subsequent appointment of the “slave class”
as God’s exclusive vehicle of communication and congregational authority.
Yet all of this seems, quite clearly, to represent a problem
if one is convinced that the original Gospel message—as it was preached by Jesus
and his earliest followers—is the very same Gospel that should be preached and
obeyed by the people of God today, with no additions or alterations.
It is clear, for example, from the book of Acts, that the
apostles preached the Gospel of the kingdom of God, the necessity of repentance
toward God and faith in Jesus as God’s promised Messiah (God’s anointed one),
and the need to exercise faith in Jesus’ propitiatory sacrifice and following
resurrection from the dead. It is also clear from the apostles’ teaching that a
life approved by God is one characterized by intense love of, and profound humility
before, God and fellow man—a clean and holy life. These are, clearly, essential
doctrines of the Christian faith, pleasing to both God and to his Son. Any
Christian can verify these points in sacred Scripture, simply because they are
consistently and explicitly taught.
Of course the original Gospel—as presented by Scripture in
its purest form—did not carry with it the requirement to believe a certain
interpretation (yet of monumental proportions) regarding a certain date, as it
now does in the modern-day message of Jehovah’s Witnesses. In fact, the April 1, 1986 Watchtower (Questions from the Readers) indicates
that a person must accept the 1914
doctrine in order to be an approved member of the organization, which
represents, according to the Society’s teaching, the only authentic community
of Christians on earth. The Society further claims, on the other hand, that the
organization (the modern ‘Christian congregation of JWs’) is much like the ark
constructed by Noah before the time of the great flood. All—human and
animal—that boarded the ark were saved; all outside of it perished. Similar to
the time of Noah and the circumstances existing then, the Society teaches, a
person must now enter the “organization” as an approved member—based on the
criteria of the Society—in order to be saved from the impending judgment of
God. If one is outside of the organization, one is out of step with God’s will
and cannot have God’s approval and be saved. This is the official doctrine of
the “faithful and discreet slave” class.
So the problem, as I see it (and which I know very few Witnesses have thought through
carefully), is that even though a person may have full faith and love for
Jehovah God, in Jesus as the Christ, faith in the Good News, repentance toward
God, profound love for his neighbor and a commitment to clean Christian living,
if that person does not believe what the Society teaches about what allegedly
took place in the year “1914” (and
devote his life preaching this message to others), that person, according to
the Society’s official doctrine, cannot be a part of the organization (what
they consider to be the only true
Christian congregation on earth) and therefore cannot have God’s approval.
Thus, the very prospect of one’s salvation and status as a Christian becomes
directly contingent upon what one believes about the significance of the year 1914.
Again, my problem is that, in point of fact, such concepts never
formed part of the original Christian Gospel proclamation as found in the
Christian Scriptures.
Another significant difficulty in this is, if one were to objectively
study the Society’ history, one would discover that the Society has, from its
inception, engaged in the regrettable practice of setting dates as marking the
fulfillment of various Bible prophecies—all of which proved to be false. Even all the Witnesses I have
spoken to in my life have been surprisingly unaware that the Watchtower in its
original form (Zion's Watch Tower and
Herald of Christ's Presence) was actually based on the premise that Jesus’
foretold parousia had commenced in the year 1874. In fact, the Society taught this
(that which it now considers to be false) for approximately the first 50 years of its history, as if it were
an established truth, misleading multitudes of adherents in the process. All of the expectations and teachings associated with the other dates
promoted in the Society’s history proved false and misleading as well (1799, 1914: originally the date for Armageddon, 1918, 1925, 1975, and there are more).
Consider for a moment, carefully, the necessary effect this
has on the Society’s credibility in the area of “date-setting.” Yet even though
the Society has a well-documented record of repeated failure in this area, rather
than urging caution or removing chronological interpretations and speculations
from its list of required beliefs, the Society still demands that Christians
believe what they now teach regarding
the year 1914. It is an essential requirement of Christian faith, we are told.
But in what way has the Society merited faith and confidence in the
truthfulness of such a teaching? Again, not a teaching explicitly articulated
in the Bible, but a teaching that rests on a certain method of interpretation
(with its own set of questionable assumptions), a complicated process of
inference and deduction, based on controversial dates, debatable scriptural
connections, and unverifiable scriptural applications. See, for example, the
discussion in the booklet What Does the
Bible Really Teach?, pages 215-218.
If you look at the material there carefully and objectively,
you will see that the formula and chain of reasoning used to establish 1914, and
what allegedly took place that year, is by no means verifiable. That is, without
going into a detailed examination at this point, any reasonable person can, upon
careful scrutiny, safely recognize that the Society’s formula is an interpretation, in fact, a combination of interpretations, that is neither certain nor necessary. Yet the
Society presents its conclusion just as confidently, and based on the same basic
kind of reasoning, as it did for all the other dates in its history that proved
to be false, after the fact.
But allow me to illustrate one more point regarding the issue
of credibility itself. If I, for example (as an individual), were to profess to
the world to be God’s “mouthpiece” (as did Charles Russell) and “sole” and
exclusive “channel of communication” (as does the Watchtower presently) and
were to openly and confidently announce, “Jesus is going to come back in 2010”…and
yet this failed to unfold according to my interpretive conclusions, what would
the world think of my claim of being God’s exclusive channel? Then, what if I
were to repeat a claim like this five more times, and each time my claim was
shown to be false when the date finally arrived? I would, naturally, lose
credibility in regard to date-setting and people would rightly become skeptical
about (and even reject) my claim to be God’s exclusive channel of
communication. Of course this would have nothing
to do with lack of faith or love for God on the people’s part. It would
simply be the inevitable and justifiable result of repeated indiscreetness and
failure on the part of the one who claimed to be God’s “sole channel of
communication,” yet who consistently preached false teachings and aroused
misleading expectations in God’s name.
Another point that serves to cast serious doubt on 1914 relates
to the Society’s long-held yet now abandoned (or modified) “1914 generation”
teaching (based on a misapplication of Matthew 24:34). The teaching is
illustrated in the statement that used to be found in the masthead of the
Society’s Awake! magazine, which had
for about thirteen years—from 1982 until October 22, 1995—claimed that its
purpose was “to build confidence in the Creator’s
promise of a peaceful and secure new world before the generation that saw
the events of 1914 passes away.”
For years—with confidence and frequency—the Society sought to
stimulate a sense of urgency among its members based on the notion that people
of the “1914 generation” would still be alive to the end of the “system of
things.” But as time went on the Society was compelled to “adjust” and “extend”
the meaning they had assigned to the term “generation” in order to avoid the
problem of unfulfilled expectation, until it finally reached a point where they
had to abandon the interpretation and silently remove all reference to the
“Creator’s promise.” Once again, they had confused their own (false) interpretation
of Scripture with a direct “promise” of the Creator, attributing to Jehovah
that which he never stated, and encouraging false expectations of mere human
origin.
I do not point this out (the Society’s history of
‘date-setting’) to judge or condemn JWs as “false prophets” as others have, or
to paint the Witnesses in the worst possible light while ignoring the positive
elements of the religion, or even to suggest that one should expect perfection
from “those taking the lead” in the congregational context. I simply want to
illustrate—in the clearest way possible—why it would be difficult, even
irresponsible, for an informed person (someone who knows the available and
verifiable facts) to accept with unwavering confidence the Society’s current
doctrine regarding 1914, based on the Society’s well-known history of misleading
its own members and misrepresenting the Bible on issues like these. The Society
has been wrong on matters like these several times in the past. To any fair and
reasonable mind, this would clearly imply the likelihood, or at least open up
the possibility, that the Society
could be wrong on what they teach today—their interpretation leading to “1914.”
Yet to me and many others it seems far safer, and far wiser, as professed
followers of Christ, to simply promote what we know the Bible teaches for sure (the things that really matter anyway) and not seek to
impose questionable interpretations of Scripture on our fellow Christians as
required doctrines. The early Bible Student movements did not practice this.
After a close examination of the available facts, and based
on long-term reflection on these issues, even one of the most capable JW
scholars was forced to depart from the Society’s dogmatic stance on this point,
observing,
Have the
Gentile times ended? No one knows for sure. We do not even know if Jesus’
reference to the Gentile times relates to the seven times in Daniel.
Then he writes,
But it is
not necessary to know when the Gentile times ended to be secure in one’s faith.
Due to uncertainties or even historical contradictions in secular sources or between
secular sources and the Bible, it is unwise to place prophetic applications or
speculations about the implications of Bible chronology on so high a level that
persons who do not fall in line with all the details of a particular doctrine
are viewed as unfaithful. Bible chronology does not appear to be a touchstone
for faithfulness in the Holy Scriptures; therefore, neither should it be for
Christians today. –Greg Stafford, Three
Dissertations on the Teachings of Jehovah’s Witnesses (Huntington Beach: Elihu
books, 2002), p. 253
Yet, as I alluded to earlier, in a 1986 Watch Tower article it was stated that,
“Approved association
with Jehovah’s Witnesses requires
accepting the entire range of the true teachings of the Bible, including those
Scriptural beliefs that are unique to
Jehovah’s Witnesses. What do those beliefs include?…That there is a
‘faithful and discreet slave’ upon the earth today ‘entrusted with all of
Jesus’ earthly interests,’ which slave is associated with the Governing Body of
Jehovah’s Witnesses (Matthew 24:45-47). That
1914 marked the end of the
Gentile Times and the establishment of the Kingdom of God in the heavens,
as well as the time for Christ’s foretold presence…” (April 1, 1986, Watch Tower ‘Questions
From Readers’, Emphasis added)
I believe we would be better off remaining closer to the
views of Charles Russell and the early Bible Students, for they seem to be far
wiser and truer to the original Christian spirit. For in contrast to the
Watchtower’s modern teaching, the Bible students had the following attitude:
“We
are in fellowship with all Christians in whom we recognize the Spirit of
Christ, and especially with those who recognize the Bible as the only standard.
We do not require, therefore, that all shall see just as we do in order to be
called Christians; realizing that growth in both grace and knowledge is a
gradual process.” (The Watch Tower,
April 1882, pages 71, 72)
JWs have clearly departed from the honorable ideals of their
predecessors on these points. And who could rightfully argue that they are not
honorable? In a stark and unfortunate contrast, the Society has locked itself
into a position where they will actually reject (and tell others to reject) as
a fellow Christian someone who loves God and his Son yet who is not convinced
by the Society’s interpretive model regarding the year “1914.” But do you and the Society really believe, perhaps, that in
order for one to genuinely love God and worship him “in spirit and truth,” one
must believe that the “Gentile times” ended in 1914? If so (and it appears that
the Society certainly does), I wonder where you or the Society see the logical
connection, or the scriptural necessity?
So my main question to
you, Sean, based on your obvious knowledge of Scripture and familiarity with
the spirit of Jesus, is it really wise for the leadership of a religious
community to require Christians (those who love God and his Son) to accept a
doctrine like “1914” in order to be an approved member of their association
(what they view as the only true
association of Christians on earth), in light the original Gospel message found
in Scripture, and in light of the Society’s well-documented record of failed
speculation in this area? Is not the very notion of setting dates for Christ’s
presence, “the day of the Lord,” and all things associated with “the end of the
age,” completely contrary to the spirit of the scriptural instruction? Are not the words of
the apostle Paul sufficient to dispel all doubt and speculation on these matters?
“Now concerning the times and the
seasons [times and dates, NIV],
brothers, you do not need to have anything written to you. For you yourselves
know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night.
When they say, ‘There is peace and security’, then sudden destruction will come
upon them, as labour pains come upon a pregnant woman, and there will be no
escape!” (1 Thessalonians 5:1-3, NRSV)
To
the same group of people, Paul wrote in another letter:
“Now
concerning the coming [presence, NWT]
of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you,
brothers, not to be quickly shaken in
mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be
from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come.”
(2
Thessalonians 2:1, 2, ESV)
Clearly, Paul equated the “coming” or
“presence” of “our Lord Jesus” with “the day of the Lord [Jehovah, NWT],”
regarding which we do “not need to have anything
written to [us]” concerning “the times and seasons.”
Similarly, when asked by his disciples
about the sign of his “coming/presence” and the conclusion of the age, Jesus
responded (after a discussion on wars, rumors of wars, earthquakes, false
messiahs, etc.),
“But
concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor
the Son, but the Father only. As were the days of Noah, so
will be the coming of the Son of Man. For as in those days before the flood
they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day
when Noah entered the ark, and they were unaware until the flood came and swept
them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.” (Matthew 24:36-39, ESV)
On another occasion, the disciples asked
Jesus if he was going to restore the kingdom of Israel at that time. Instead of
encouraging them to devise a chronological formula, or to pinpoint a date based
on various interpretations of prophecy, Jesus responded, in the same manner as
the apostle Paul,
“It is not for you to know times or seasons that
the Father has fixed by his own authority.” (Acts 1:7, ESV)
To me these statements are definitional. These are the
Scriptures that should mold our thinking and outlook on the matter of “times
and seasons,” “the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ,” and “the end of the age.”
From the general thrust of the aforementioned passages, it comes across quite
clear that the time of the return of Jesus Christ and full establishment of the
kingdom of God is simply not known. That is why Mark’s account records Jesus
concluding:
“Therefore
stay awake—for you do not know when
the master of the house will come, in the evening, or at midnight, or when
the cock crows, or in the morning—lest
he come suddenly and find you asleep. And what I say to you I say to all: Stay
awake.” (Mark 13:35-37, ESV)
How do
we stay awake? By speculating on the time of the end? By setting time tables
and publishing various dates? No. It is not necessary to be concerned with such
things. Why? Because we ourselves “are
fully aware that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night.”
How do we prepare? As the apostle Paul puts it simply, by being “sober,” and by putting on “the breastplate of
faith and love, and for a helmet the hope of salvation” (1 Thessalonians 5:8).
That is to say, if we continue to live lives of godly devotion, we will never
have anything to fear, no matter what hour the Master arrives. In the meantime, Paul insists, we should “encourage one
another and build each other up” in the faith (v. 11), not by setting dates,
but through ceaseless prayer (v. 17), by helping “the weak,” and by at all
times seeking “to do good to one another and to all” (v. 15)—“for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus
for you” (v. 18).
So my overall point, Sean, is that I am fully confident,
based on my study of Scripture, and experience in life, that Jehovah is the
true God of creation (worthy of my allegiance), that Jesus is the Christ, the
Son of God (‘the one whom the Father consecrated and sent forth into the world’
John 10:36), who died on behalf of sinners, and who was raised to life by God; that
the kingdom, or righteous reign, of God is the true answer to humanity’s
seemingly hopeless condition, and the means through which God will vindicate
his holy name before all creation. These and other essential Christian
doctrines are taught in such a direct way in Scripture that they merit my full
confidence. It is difficult, however, for me to put the 1914 doctrine on the
same level, or in the same category, as the above clearly-set-forth teachings
of inspired Scripture; and it is even harder for to comprehend why it would be
necessary for me to even begin to think that I should. And I remain unclear, in
light of Scripture, how this precludes one from being a faithful follower of
Christ (an approved Christian associate) and a true worshipper of Jehovah God.
At this point, I’d like to respond to several statements and
questions appearing in the remainder of your letter. At one point you wrote:
“You have, no doubt, heard of our application of
Proverbs 4:18, “But the path of the righteous ones is like the bright light
that is getting lighter and lighter until the day is firmly established.” How
do you feel about our application of this verse? I’ve had people scoff at it. But it must have
some application for those Jehovah considers righteous ones.”
My answer is that certainly Proverbs 4:18 has a beneficial application to those Jehovah
considers “righteous ones,” as well as definite relevance toward bringing all
“wicked ones” to repentance. But there is no good reason at all to think that Proverbs
4:18 was somehow designed to support or excuse future religious organizations
and leaders from preaching falsehood at certain points in their history and to
justify later changes in official doctrine. If you simply read the passage
(without any preconceived notions), considering its whole context, you will see
that it is first stated,
“But the path of the righteous is
like the light of dawn,
which shines brighter and brighter until full day. (v.18)
Yet the statement
does not stand alone. It represents, rather, a principle set forth in contrast
to “the way of the wicked,” as verse 19 shows—
The way of the wicked is like deep darkness;
they do not know what they stumble over” (v.19)
The
text itself simply presents an important, moral
principle in poetic language—a contrast between the way of the wicked and the
way of the righteous. That is, the way of the righteous (the life course of a godly person) can be
compared with the light of dawn, which only gets brighter and brighter until
the full light of day is established. As F. C. Cook, a 19th century
Bible commentator, explains: “the full and perfect day…is chosen as the fittest
figure of the ever-increasing brightness of the good man’s life” (Barnes’ Notes, Proverbs to Ezekiel,
Grand Rapids, Baker Books, 2005, p. 23); and, as another source points out, “knowledge, faith, love, [and] holiness irradiate [the
good man’s] every step” (A Commentary on
Proverbs, Charles Bridges, 1847).
The way, or the life, of the wicked is
not like that. It is like “deep darkness,” because they stumble in their wicked
conduct, not knowing where they’re going, with only the dark specter of death
in view (compare John 12:35; Romans 6:23).
This all harmonizes with the common
theme found throughout Scripture that sin, ignorance of God, blindness, and
death, are all associated with “darkness”; whereas love, walking in the spirit,
life, and goodness, are all associated with the “light.”
Overall the text presents, to me, an
incentive for godly living, a good reason to live according to the righteous
will of our Creator. The same essential principle about “light” seems to be
echoed in the apostle John’s encouraging words, namely, that we should “walk in
the light as [God] himself is in the light.” And I believe a similar, related
contrast as set forth in Proverbs 4:18 appears expressed in Paul’s letter to
the Romans, where he writes: “for if you live according to the flesh, you will
die; but if by the spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will
live.” (Romans 8:13; compare 1 John 2:9-11 for a similar contrast). The “path
of the righteous,” to walk in the light, and in the spirit, are all essentially
the same things.
Contrary to Watchtower tradition, Proverbs
4:18 has nothing to do with
justifying, or ameliorating the effects of, changes in official, published
interpretations on the part of a modern, religious organization claiming to be
God’s “sole channel of communication,” nor was it ever intended to be such by
the one who wrote it or by the One who inspired it. The text simply does not
involve or support the notion of an organization progressively receiving new
doctrinal truths or interpretations that replace previously-held teachings, or
as a means to trivialize the errors, past and present, of any religious
movement. While I don’t believe
that the common “Watchtower” application of this text needs to be “scoffed at,”
it does need to be recognized for what it is, namely, as a self-serving and
essentially sectarian mishandling of a sacred text, which robs it of its true
meaning, spiritual value, and rather obvious, original intent.
“If someone tries to uncover the truth in a way not
approved by God, will he be successful?
A number of scriptures can answer that.” The main point is, the more we
comprehend the “big picture” the greater our understanding of even the most
insignificant features and how they all relate to one another and contribute to
our perceiving more and more Jehovah’s grand purpose and draw us ever closer to
Him.”
Although I’m not exactly sure what you mean by someone trying
to “uncover the truth in a way not approved by God,” speaking personally,
believing that the “Gentiles times” ended in “1914” does nothing to strengthen
my faith in the Gospel or to draw me closer to Jehovah. The “Gentiles” are in
fact still ruling yet my faith in Christ and my love for Jehovah remain
unshaken.
“Why did Jehovah give me this insight before it was
in print? Was He testing my faithfulness
to Him and His organization?
I see no evidence in Scripture that Jehovah wants an
“organization” to constitute an accompanying object of faith. I believe, based
on Scripture, that God and Christ should be the true objects of our devotion
and loyalty, and that all true Christians are united together because of this
common faith, based on the bonds of love and the spirit, not the bonds of “organizational”
conformity.
“A hundred years ago the
International Bible Students had infinitely more spiritual light than
Christendom with its false teachings of the Trinity, the immortal soul, Hell
fire and worship of images.”
I agree that the International Bible Students had a more
accurate knowledge and understanding of the Scriptures than much of
“mainstream” or “orthodox” Christianity at the time. But they were not alone.
Nor were they the first group of people to recognize the unscriptural nature of
the teachings you mentioned. Other groups, like the Christadelphians, the Socinians,
quite a number within the Churches of Christ (Restoration movement), many
within the Adventist movements, the Churches of God of Abrahamic faith and
their predecessors, and other groups and individuals recognized and made known many
of the same points, either before or independently of the Bible Students and
JWs. It is also helpful to recognize, as a side note, that although JWs grew
out of the early Bible Student movement (which still exists internationally to
this day), the two groups cannot simply be equated. The Bible students,
although believing they had a more accurate understanding of Scripture than the
mainstream churches, never claimed to be the only true Christians on earth like
JWs do.
“I recall, early on in our discussions, that you
mentioned having a problem with organized religion. I know that there is a lot
of depth to your conclusion but I have heard that statement from many people. And
that’s very understandable considering the example that’s apparent in the great
majority of organized religions around us…”
I have no problem with the concept of “organized religion”
per se. It is more the problem of “institutionalized,” “authoritarian” and
“corrupted” forms of Christianity, particularly the kinds (and there are many) that
regularly insist on certain, unique doctrinal interpretations as a test of
fellowship but which the Scriptures themselves do not teach or spell out in any
certain or verifiable way.
“Jehovah knows what we all need. Each one of us,
though unique, need the exact
same basic things. And Jehovah requires the same basic things from all of His
worshippers. Satan is also well aware of these things and thus focuses his
efforts on either preventing us from getting all of our basic needs or from
meeting all of Jehovah’s requirements.”
Yet, clearly, the spirit of Jehovah’s requirements are embodied
in a text you yourself quoted,
“He has told you, O man, what is good; and what
does Jehovah require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to
walk humbly with your God?” (Micah 6:8)
Do we really want to take the position that such can only be
accomplished within the parameters and confines of the modern, organizational
structure of JWs? Or in response to the question, “what does Jehovah require of
you?”, do we truly want to take the side of those who claim that Jehovah “requires accepting” even “beliefs that
are unique to Jehovah’s Witnesses [affiliated
with the Watchtower]…That there is a ‘faithful and discreet slave’ upon the
earth today ‘entrusted with all of Jesus’ earthly interests,’ which slave is
associated with the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses...That 1914 marked the end of the Gentile
Times and the establishment of the
Kingdom of God in the heavens, as well as the time for Christ’s foretold
presence…”?
Do we really
believe in our hearts that such requirements accord with the original Gospel
message and with the true, liberating spirit of Christianity? I know of no
Scripture indicating that the spirit of Jehovah’s requirements has changed,
that they now include believing that Jesus’ foretold “coming/presence” and the
end of the “Gentile Times” began in the year “1914,” or that Jesus appointed a
“faithful & discreet slave class” that all Christians must obey.
As a Bible student committed to “mak[ing]
sure of all things,” have you never given serious thought to how it seems decidedly
“unfaithful” and noticeably “indiscreet” for the leaders of a
religion to self-assign—and to self-promote themselves as having—the
title and position of “faithful and discreet slave” (without any verification
that Jesus' himself has made such an appointment), and to continually use the
claimed position as a leverage for exacting the exclusive loyalty of all the
religion’s adherents?
“Could we expect Jehovah’s truth to not be
organized? Definitely not disorderly, right? But isn’t it interesting that the
opposite Paul gives for “disorder” is not “order” but “peace”? At 1Corinthians 14:33 he wrote, “For God is
[a God] not of disorder, but of peace.”
Then he told his readers to “let all things take place decently and by
arrangement.” (1Corinthians 14:40)
Certainly. But none of these instructions regarding peace and
order require us to believe that Paul had in mind the type of organizational
structure existing among JWs today. In fact, we can practice “peace” and
“order” in any true Christian gathering, based on the spirit and principles of
Jesus, and even in one as simple and as humble as a home-based Christian
fellowship, as customarily practiced by the original, first-century Christian
congregations (Romans 16:5; 1 Corinthians 16:19; Colossians 4:15; Philemon 2)
He must have had in mind many things we read in the
Christian Greek Scriptures, including the direction from “the apostles and the
older men together with the whole congregation” and everything he had ‘declared
to them as good news.’ (Acts 15:22; Galatians 1:8)”
Yes, but, again, none of the things “declared to [the
believers] as good news” involved the acceptance of “1914,” or that God had
appointed a body of men to be a “faithful and discreet slave class” that all
believers had to give unqualified submission to in order to gain God’s
approval—so why should it now? On what scriptural basis can we confidently
claim this to be so?
There is nothing wrong in my mind about recognizing
the first-century Christian community as an organized body. But I see no evidence
that we need to go further. Why is there even a need, after all, for such
mesmerizing emphasis on the word “organization,” especially if the term itself never
even appears in Scripture (yet the term and accompanying concept holds one of
the most prominent places in the minds of JWs)?
“But in our day everyone is “looking out for number
one.” The very “spirit of the world”
doesn’t make it easy for anyone to “be obedient to those who are taking the
lead” or “be submissive.” (1Corinthians 2:12; Hebrews 13:17)”
But we should keep in mind that, as a
Christian friend of mine once pointed out, the scriptural instruction to be “obedient”
and submissive “to those who are taking the lead” in the congregation never
implied being submissive or obedient toward those who are misleading the congregation. I personally have no problem
whatsoever with receiving direction by older and wiser Christians than myself,
but that wise scriptural instruction simply does not apply where the “direction”
given is in conflict with what is clearly taught by Christ and Scripture. The
instruction regarding “submission” to those “taking the lead,” clearly, implies
a relative submission. That is to
say, Christians can be obedient to those taking the lead only to the extent that the “leaders” are faithfully representing the
will of God and the principles of the Gospel. To blindly follow the power
holders of a religious organization wherever they lead us is not the true
import of this text, nor is it a sign of true humility or a mark of true
wisdom—and it would seem to be both irresponsible and even dangerous for any of
us to do or think that.
Yet it
is clear from my experience that, for most Witnesses, loyalty and submission to
the Watchtower, or the “faithful & discreet slave class,” is the most
important virtue, the ultimate litmus test of humility and love for God—the
measure of one’s spiritual condition.
“I definitely want your book Patrick, if you still
have the copy you were going to give to me, I’m sure it can help someone with
the truth further strengthen their faith. But I’m sad for you because I think
that you have missed out on “the good portion.” (Luke 10:42) I hope you don’t
misunderstand my point there.”
Yes, I do understand what you mean. And I agree in the sense
that I have been deprived of the benefits of regular Christian association for
quite some time. But this is not by choice as much as it is due to the unfortunate
conditions that exist, not only in reference to the community of JWs, but in
reference to the “mainstream” Christian groups as well. Since I am persuaded
that the doctrine of the Trinity is unbiblical, a misrepresentation of the true
God, I’m branded as a “heretic” by the mainstream. Since I have not been
persuaded to accept the veracity of the “1914” doctrine (or that JWs affiliated
with the Watchtower are the only true Christians on earth), in the eyes of the
organization I cannot qualify as an “approved Christian associate.” So where
does that leave me? Well, it leaves me (and others) in the somewhat unique and
certainly challenging position of trying to express my faith and loyalty to God
and Christ alone at times. But I’m not really alone. I have my wife, my son,
and many friends who are sincere Bible students. Thankfully, I have made many like-minded
friends since my Bible studies first began, friends whom I regard as Christians
even though I may believe they might be mistaken on certain points of belief,
or vise versa. But, in my mind, certain mistaken beliefs do not automatically
disqualify one from being a Christian, since a Christian is a “follower” or “disciple”
of Christ—one who recognizes Christ’s authority and seeks to abide by his
teachings. And I think that being a Christian represents a life-long journey.
We are disciples, which means that we
are “learners.” We follow Christ and, as we do, we grow in the knowledge of
God’s will as revealed by him and in our understanding of the Christian
message. I have many friends who are JWs (who I accept as my Christian
brothers), former JWs (those who JWs would consider ‘apostates’ yet who clearly
love God), evangelicals, free-thinking Christians (affiliated with no organized
group), people from the Church of God of Abrahamic Faith, Churches of Christ,
Christadelphian, and people from other kinds of denominations. Only I look at
each friend, as I believe God does, as an individual, a person who is trying,
based on what they know and are learning, to be a follower of Christ. I do not
require that one believe everything I do in order for me to “extend the right
hand of fellowship,” since I myself am hardly perfect in my understanding of
the Christian faith. As long as we abide by the things Scripture teaches as
essential, and as long as we remain humble, teachable, ready to learn and to
take in whatever light comes through from God’s revelation, and through God’s
Spirit, I believe we have the right to the name “Christian,” in spite of
whatever errors in belief or mistaken understandings of certain scriptural
points we might have.
“If Jehovah could look past those things at that
time and see the right heart condition in people, then it must not be that
difficult for him to look past the imperfections of His modern day organization
and the teachable, sincere people worshipping Him today also. The key is that He sees our potential as
individuals and as an organization.
I agree, as you said, that “Jehovah could look past” certain
imperfections “and see the right heart condition in people” and that “it must
not be that difficult for him to look past the imperfections of the JW “organization
and the teachable, sincere people worshipping Him today…” But why would it be
wrong to think that, similarly, Jehovah could look past the imperfections of
other Christian groups and individuals, those who are likewise teachable,
sincere, truth-seeking, and doing their best to worship him based on their
present understanding of Scripture and continual effort to conform their lives
to his will?
He also sees that those the world knows as
Jehovah’s Witnesses are the only religious group on earth today that have
continued to respond to His increased spiritual light and humbly make known
throughout the world their corrected understanding. Even to this very day. The
Watchtower that I received today has a corrected understanding.”
I believe that, if you really thought about it, you would probably
want to reconsider and perhaps withdraw your position. Jehovah’s Witnesses
affiliated with the Watchtower are not “the
only religious group on earth today that have continued to respond to
[God’s] increased spiritual light” or who have humbly made “known throughout
the world their corrected understanding.” In all love and respect, I think this
outlook is quite misinformed and unrealistic. I think that your statement is,
unfortunately, symptomatic of the prevailing mindset among all who are loyal to
the Society and governed by the effects of its indoctrination.
Unfortunately, many Witnesses have a very inaccurate and
one-sided outlook on other Bible students and Bible-based affiliations outside
of their movement. This is largely because the Society strongly discourages
members from reading anything in the form of religious literature that does not
come to them through its own approved, organizational channels. Other groups
and individuals, in fact, have changed and even officially apologized for their
previously held, mistaken beliefs. And other groups and individuals have certainly
responded to “increased spiritual light” through their own efforts to
understand and apply Scripture, quite independently of JWs, all throughout
history.
“I think you had a valid question about 1914 and
probably many others too. I’m willing to
discuss them with you. But beware! Satan is making sure that “his ministers
also keep transforming themselves into ministers of righteousness.”
(2Corinthians 11:15)
I agree, and I thank you sincerely for your willingness to discuss
these issues with me. However, I would also urge you to exercise the same
degree of caution—as unthinkable as it might seem from your perspective as a
JW—with respect to the leadership of your own organization. It would be extremely
naïve of us to think that the JW organization, in spite of the wonderful things
that it does and teaches, is, out of all the religions of the world, somehow
immune from the danger of false teaching, corruption, or the kinds of unscriptural
traditions that render “the word of
God invalid” (Matthew 15:6).
So if you keep on reading the material of those you
know do not have Jehovah’s
backing, even if just to prove them wrong, you cannot expect Jehovah to help you draw closer to Him through
accurate knowledge. I believe that Jehovah’s Witnesses are God’s true people
today and that by our fruits the world has the evidence that it needs. I hope
and pray to be able to help you appreciate this also.”
I believe that all those who are loyal to the truth, to Jehovah and to his Son,
are God’s true people.
I am familiar with the “fruits” JWs often point to as
evidence that they alone are God’s people. The fruits JWs have in mind when
they make this argument relates primarily to their world-wide preaching work. To
me it is unquestionable that JWs are, and have been, performing a valuable
service around the world in so far as they are spreading the word of truth. But
if the unique JW doctrines of 1914 and others are falsehoods, then this would
unfortunately detract much from the “goodness” of the fruits they have been
bearing on a world-wide basis for nearly a century. As confident as most JWs
are in the direction and teachings provided by “the slave,” I just don’t think
it is wise to prematurely self-congratulate the organization for its “fruits,”
since the organization has not yet been vindicated regarding the truthfulness
of its unique message. And we should never make the mistake of thinking that
the “1914” doctrine is in any sense insignificant or dispensable to the central
message of the movement. It is, in fact, foundational
to the JW message and basis for the organization’s claims to authority. For example,
the January 1, 1983 Watchtower even emphasized that “the ending of the Gentile Times in the latter half of 1914 still stands
on a historical basis as one of the fundamental Kingdom
truths to which we must hold today.” And the Society’s former president,
Frederick Franz, in a Bible discussion at the Brooklyn headquarters on November
17, 1979, went as far as to state: “The sole purpose of our existence as a
Society is to announce the Kingdom established in 1914 and to sound the
warning of the fall of Babylon the Great. We have a special message to deliver” (Quoted in The So-Called “Bible Chronology” of the Watch Tower Society, Carl
Olof Jonsson 1993). The organization’s
position is further made clear in a 1981 Watchtower which says:
“Let
the honest-hearted person compare the kind of preaching of the gospel of the
Kingdom done by the religious systems of Christendom during all the centuries
with that done by Jehovah’s Witnesses since the end of World War I in 1918.
They are not one and the same kind. That of Jehovah’s Witnesses is really
‘gospel,’ or ‘good news,’ as of God’s heavenly kingdom that was established by
the enthronement of his Son Jesus Christ at the end of the Gentile Times in 1914. (Luke 21:24)” (Watchtower, May
1, 1981, p. 17)
Clearly, then, the Watchtower doctrine of 1914 is essential
to its own version and proclamation of the “Gospel” or “Good News”—a doctrine
that simply did not form a part of the original Christian message. Yet in his first
letter to the Galatians Paul warned that “even if we [the apostles themselves] or
an angel out of heaven were to declare to YOU as good news something beyond what we declared to YOU as good news, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:8).
This is a sobering
statement. And my question is, why would we ever want to even take the risk of
our version of the Gospel being different from or “beyond” the original one
presented in Scripture, in light of the apostle’s solemn warning. The Gospel of
the kingdom I read about in Scripture seems, to me, quite sufficient, able to
stand on its own, and able to speak for itself. It is the true source of our
hope, and the solid rock of our faith. Let it be our goal to remain ever
faithful to it and to the one who revealed it, for we will never be “put to
shame” or “disappointed” if we do (Romans 10:11, ESV, NWT).
With sincere appreciation,