Skip to main content

Jehovah's Organisation?

Image
By

 



On their website the Watch Tower asks, 'Is it Necessary to Belong to an Organised Religion?

In Reasoning from the Scriptures (pp. 283/4) Jehovah's Witnesses offer seven characteristics that identify Jehovah's organisation:


(1) It truly exalts Jehovah as the only true God, magnifying his name.—Matt. 4:10; John 17:3.

(2) It fully recognizes the vital role of Jesus Christ in Jehovah’s purpose—as the vindicator of Jehovah’s sovereignty, the Chief Agent of life, the head of the Christian congregation, the ruling Messianic King.—Rev. 19:11-13; 12:10; Acts 5:31; Eph. 1:22, 23.

(3) It adheres closely to God’s inspired Word, basing all its teachings and standards of conduct on the Bible.—2 Tim. 3:16, 17.

(4) It keeps separate from the world.—Jas. 1:27; 4:4.

(5) It maintains a high level of moral cleanness among its members, because Jehovah himself is holy.—1 Pet. 1:15, 16; 1 Cor. 5:9-13.

(6) It devotes its principal efforts to doing the work that the Bible foretold for our day, namely, the preaching of the good news of God’s Kingdom in all the world for a witness.—Matt. 24:14.

(7) Despite human imperfections, its members cultivate and produce the fruits of God’s spirit—love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, mildness, self-control—doing so to such a degree that it sets them apart from the world in general.—Gal. 5:22, 23; John 13:35.


A fundamental claim of every cult is they are the only ones with the truth. They are organised like the first century church, they have 'restored' what was lost in apostasy, and their organisational structure is evidence of these things.

Is organisation evidence of authenticity? Is there a difference being an organisation and being organised? How does your church match up to the list?

The problem with this approach is it takes more from the text than is actually there. Compare two cults and see what I mean.

The Watch Tower Society has a Governing Body sitting at the top of the organisation. When they look at the New Testament they see a Governing Body sitting in judgement in the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15.

The Mormon Church would argue the leadership of the Jehovah’s Witnesses looks nothing like the leadership in the New Testament. They would ask why the Watch Tower Society doesn’t have twelve members on its Governing Body, and why are they not apostles and prophets as described in Ephesians 4. You can see their point.

Of course each party would have an answer to questions on leadership, each appealing to passages in Scripture. But the church is an organism not an organisation. You can read something about what church is in Cults and Messy Church on the Reachout website.


Point by Point

Starting with starting with their last point:

(7) Despite human imperfections, its members cultivate and produce the fruits of God’s spirit—love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, mildness, self-control—doing so to such a degree that it sets them apart from the world in general.—Gal. 5:22, 23; John 13:35.

This is an important point. If Jehovah’s Witnesses think it reasonable that we should allow for their human imperfections surely they must respond to us in kind. We are far from perfect, and there will always be those who go by the name Christian who prove to be anything but. There will also be those who ‘produce the fruits of God’s spirit—love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, mildness, self-control—doing so to such a degree that it sets them apart from the world in general.’ Will Witnesses recognise, indeed celebrate that?

(1) On their first point, do Christians magnify God’s name if we don’t use it? Jesus never used God’s name, no matter how much JWs insist ‘he must have’ on the strength of Matthew 6 and John 17. Further, he taught his disciples to call God Father (Mt.6:9). How did he ‘make God’s name known’ (Jn.17:6,26) if he didn’t utter it? By making God’s character known: ‘whoever has seen me has seen the Father.’ (Jn.14:9) In Jesus, God has a good name. As a church it is our duty to give God a good name before a watching world.

(2) I have never known a genuine Christian believer who fails to recognise Jesus’ role in God’s purposes. Indeed we make more of him than Jehovah’s Witnesses do (Jn.1:1; Jn.14:9; Heb.1).

(3) Christians adhere faithfully to the word of God in the Bible. In fact, our Bibles are much more true to the originals than the NWT, which has a decided translation bias. Read more here.

(4) Christians keep separate from the world, although not in the paranoid manner of the cults. We are in the world but not of the world. Read this great article by John Piper to see where the balance lies.

(5) Christian churches maintain a high level of moral cleanness among its members, because God himself is holy and a called out people are to be holy. Are they suggesting my Christian friends don’t seek holiness before the Lord? Might this be a good time to mention child abuse in Kingdom Halls and their point 7? People in glass house...

(6) It devotes its principal efforts to doing the work that the Bible foretold for our day, namely, the preaching of the good news of God’s Kingdom in all the world for a witness.—Matt. 24:14. I have a quarrel with this one, not because it’s completely wrong but because it’s incomplete. Four chapters on in Matthew’s gospel we find Jesus describing the rest of this rescue mission – making disciples (Mt.28:16-20)

It is sad that the Kingdom Hall fails ,in this fundamental duty, to win people and then to bring them into the community to grow them into well-rounded Christian individuals. It seems to me they bring them in, drum doctrine into them, in order to do little more than send them out again and ill-equipped for the task in my experience.

How great is the good news we have to share with Jehovah's Witnesses, about Christ, about God's purposes in a new creation, about the assurance true disciples can have because of God's promises in the Bible (John 5:24)

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Obama's mother posthumously baptized into LDS Church - Salt Lake Tribune

By
In the wake of his remarkable success it seemed that the world and his wife wanted to claim President Obama as their own with even an Irish connection being dug up. Now the Mormons have got in on the act by posthumously baptising his mother. They have in the past upset the Jewish community, the Catholic Church and now the American President with this wacky and unbiblical practice but there is no indication that they will review it. And, of course, it is always someone else’s fault and they promise a thorough inquiry to uncover the real culprits. Maybe they should try looking in the mirror. President Barack Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, who died in 1995, was baptized posthumously into The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints last year during her son's campaign, according to Salt Lake City-based researcher Helen Radkey. The ritual, known as “baptism for the dead,” was done June 4 in the Provo temple, and another LDS temple rite, known as the “endowment,” was...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mormon Christians? Whats in a Name?

By
The Mormon Church, disturbed by the continuing identifying of polygamus sects in the news with the name Mormon, recently issued a press statement aimed at "clarifying" issues. It is interesting to note that if you substitute the name "Christian" where they use the name "Mormon" it makes a very good argument for us against the claims of the Mormon Church. The full press release is reproduced below in italics with each paragraph rewritten in ordinary text to present it from a Christian perspective. SALT LAKE CITY 10 July 2008 On 26 June, Newsroom published a package of information featuring profiles of ordinary Latter-day Saints in Texas. With no other intention but to define themselves, these members provided a tangible depiction of what their faith is all about. They serve as the best distinction between the lifestyles and values of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and a Texas-based polygamous group that has recently attracted media attent...
70 comments
Read more

Is atheism an intolerant belief?

By
The Big Questions , Sunday 2 August 2009, third question. A growing number of Britons say they are certain there is no God - but how do they know? Professor John Adams of the North Yorkshire Humanist Association begins by asking theists what evidence they have for their beliefs. Paul Woolley of Theos continues by pointing out Richard Dawkins description of faith as a 'virus', and the appalling track record of atheism in the 20th Century, as spearheaded by Pol Pot and Stalin. Chloe Clifford-Frith of the Humanist and Secular Students Society contends that Stalin did not do the things he did because he was an atheist, but because he was evil. Paul Woolley rejoins that atheists are trying to have it both ways when they claim that religion is the cause of evil, but refuse to acknowledge the ideological impetus of atheism when it comes to many evil acts. Mao and Stalin both replaced God with the State - a 'religious' manoeuvre. Rev Alistair Rycroft of St Michael Le Belfrey Ch...
18 comments
Read more