Sometimes Witnesses will compare their leaders to others who throughout history have attempted and failed to predict significant dates in connection to the end of the world. Such persons are often respected Church figures who their Christian critics are not likely to condemn as false prophets. Witnesses do this to reveal what they suppose to be a fundamental unfairness in their critics' denunciations against their leaders. However, this does not paint a complete picture of things, in two respects. The first, which is not the concern of this essay, is that Witness leaders claim a special mandate and to have authority that most, if not all, of the historical persons they cite do not. The second, which is relevant to this essay, is that Witness leaders are more than happy to condemn others as false prophets. Doing so, however, is problematic for their attempt to exonerate themselves from the charge of being false prophets, as this essay will show.
When it comes to lambasting others, particularly “Christendom’s clergy-prophets”, the Witnesses’ polemical right hand does not know what their apologetic left hand is doing. (November 1, 1979 Watchtower, p. 26) If it did, it would not set up a definition of false prophet that undermines their whole apologetic effort on this point. Witnesses aim to exonerate their leaders of the accusation of being false prophets even in the eyes of those who disagree with their doctrines and practices. They argue that even if you disagree with their date setting, doctrines, or practices you still ought to concede that their leaders are not false prophets. But the Witness polemic aimed especially at “the clergy” presupposes a definition of false prophet that when applied by their Christian critics to their leaders requires these critics to arrive at precisely the opposite conclusion, namely, that Witness leaders are false prophets. Further, this polemic removes the Witness ability to evade this accusation by merely claiming that their leaders often deny being infallible or possessing the gift of prophecy.
Observe the criteria by which Witness literature judges “the clergy” to be false prophets. “The clergy claim the exclusive right to speak for God and to have His spirit.” (November 1, 1976 Watchtower, p. 665) Presumably they proclaim “messages that they attribute to a superhuman source but that do not originate with the true God and are not in harmony with his revealed will.” (Reasoning from the Scriptures, p. 132) Witnesses claim that “Christendom’s clergy also walk in falsehood, spreading apostate doctrines, teachings not found in God’s word,” such as the doctrine of the Trinity. (March 1, 1994 Watchtower, pp. 9-10) They promoted a merely human organization, the United Nations, as the best hope for mankind. (November 1, 1958 Watchtower, p. 650; April 1, 1972 Watchtower, p. 197) The fruitage of their teaching, such as immoral laity, is bad. (February 1, 1990 Watchtower, p. 21) So they are “false prophets – religious teachers who falsely claim to speak for God.” (True Peace and Security—How Can You Find It?, p. 81) In other words, the clergy are false prophets because they claim a special mandate to speak on God’s behalf, to teach and instruct others, but they fail to live up to these lofty claims because they teach false doctrines and produce bad fruit.
From the Witness perspective only a few of these criteria are met by their own leaders. For instance, Witness leaders claim to constitute the sole visible channel of communication used by God. (October 1, 1994 Watchtower, p. 8) Arguably, even a Witness ought to concede that their leaders have made occasional significant errors. Russell, for instance, revived his 1880s teaching that the Church is not under the New Covenant. (January 1, 1907 Zion’s Watch Tower, p. 9-10) Rutherford taught that the Holy Spirit ceased to be the paraclete or advocate for the Church. (Preservation, p. 51, pp. 193-194) And the disappointments caused by the false expectations that were fostered in part by Witness leaders surely must count as bad fruit even by Witness standards, since it drove many away from “the Truth”. However, Witnesses probably feel content that their leaders cannot count as false leaders by their own standard.
But, they should at least not begrudge others, who do not share their misguided notions of what counts as “apostate doctrines”, the right to apply this standard to the Witness leaders. When such critics do, I think, they are eminently justified in concluding that Witness leaders are false prophets. What Witnesses would call sound doctrine their Christian critics would call false teaching; the sub-par Arianism of Witnesses would be one example of this. And a good deal of what Witnesses would call the good fruit of the “Faithful and Discreet Slave” their Christian critics would call bad fruit; the deception promulgated onto millions of Witnesses, the breaking up of families and friendships over their sectarian teachings, and the needless deaths of those who were taught or pressured to refuse blood transfusions would examples of this. Moreover, Witnesses leaders promote a merely human organization as the best hope for mankind, namely, their own. Turnabout is fair play.
Notice, also, that Witnesses do not claim that “the clergy” – an apparently supposedly monolithic group – claim infallibility or the gift of prophecy. (If they were to do so, this would not be credible. For while some clerics, such as the Roman Pontiff, make relatively limited claims of infallibility, this is not true of clergy generally.) Since Witnesses condemn as false prophets a group that does not claim infallibility or a special gift of prophecy, they tacitly admit that claiming either is not a necessary feature of a false prophet. They thereby concede the irrelevance of one of their best responses to the accusation that their leaders are false prophets, namely, their leader’s statements that they lack both of these.
Scripture warns, “For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you.” (Matthew 7:2) Witness leaders ought to have known better than to apply a definition of false prophet to their religious enemies that in all fairness should be applied to them. When their Christian critics do so, is it really surprising that they would conclude that Witness leaders are false prophets? Moreover, in their polemic zeal Witness leaders reveal that they do not really think that claiming infallibility or a gift of prophecy is a necessary feature of being a false prophet. So, either they are being unfair when they condemn others or they are being disingenuous when they defend themselves on this point. Clearly, the Witness leader’s condemnation of others as false prophets does their defense against the same charge no favors.
No comments:
Post a Comment