The Elusiveness of Christian Freedom under the Watchtower (Part 1)
June 25th, 2011 by Steve
© 2011 Jaco van Zyl
Very early in his ministry, Jesus the Messiah made the purpose and ultimate goal of his appearance known in the synagogue in Nazareth when he read from Isaiah 61, saying, “The LORD’s spirit is upon me, because he anointed me to declare good news to the poor, he sent me forth to preach a release to the captives and a recovery of sight to the blind, to send the crushed ones away with a release, to preach the LORD’s acceptable year†(Luke 4:18, 19). Freedom, release, liberation were the purpose and ultimate goal of Jesus’ saving ministry on earth. Through the perfection he brought about in fulfilling everything of the Old Testament and sending the “helper†to guide his followers into all the truth, Christian freedom in Christ this side of the coming Age was established in the First Century. So noble and central was this freedom to the true Christian that Paul wrote:
Galatians 5:1 “It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.â€
This Christian freedom was one of the first Christian virtues to gradually disintegrate into non-Christian (even anti-Christian) headship and slavery. The First Century Church had its own battles with Judaizers (Galatians 2:14), syncretism (2 Corinthians 6:14-18) and tolerance of sin (1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Jude 4). Today we find ourselves on the receiving end of centuries of developing traditions complete with their own peculiar ways of shackling the average church-goer. One aspect of such a betrayal of freedom was the development of a church hierarchy.
In Schaff’s History of the Christian Church, page 176, 178, we read: “…we have no distinct trace of Councils before the middle of the second century…when they fist appear. But with the advance of the hierarchical spirit, this republican spirit gradually vanished. After the council of Nicaea (325) bishops alone had seat and voice….The bishops, moreover, did not act as representatives of their churches, nor in the name of the body of believers, as formerly, but in their own right as successors of the apostles.â€
There was no “Governing Body†with their eventual successors (akin to the Roman Catholic Apostolic Succession) established as an arrangement in the First Century. The influence of the Governing Bodies of post-biblical times was regarded to be the decision of God or Jesus themselves and anyone disagreeing with these deliberations was regarded as guilty of the sin of Korah, Dathan and Abiram.  Cyprian (200-258 C.E) used this OT reference specifically in denouncing all those who did not accept what came through this “channel.â€Â Moreover, Cyprian had the following to say: “He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother. If anyone could escape who was outside the ark of Noah, then he also may escape who was outside the church.â€Â (History of the Christian Church, p 174)
The church was no longer seen as a brotherhood, united by common faith and mutual love, but as a religious institution with defined boundaries. Anyone who found themselves outside these boundaries would meet with disastrous consequences. Jesus’ ransom sacrifice was therefore no longer sufficient for salvation. It was, instead, added to, enlarged upon and elaborated beyond what the Scriptures themselves had to say. The exclusive role of God’s Son as the means of salvation was no longer exclusive. The church institution or organisation shared Christ’s life-giving role as also being essential for salvation. Even the word ekklesia changed from “assembly†or “gathering†to religious authority. Loyalty to the Church now meant loyalty to the leadership and its direction.
In his commentary on Philippians, p 243, Lightfoot said that the bishop or overseer had become the “indispensable channel of divine grace.â€
This centralisation process eventually led to the formation of a Catholic (universal) Church and the formation of a religious governmental authority. This process took few centuries to achieve. Now uniformity of belief could be accomplished with Christian freedom totally lost. Questions as to the veracity of certain teachings, rules or arrangements could now be overcome, not by the convincing power of truth, but by the crushing application of ecclesiastical authority. What started off as an arrangement to build up and serve was perverted into authority to subordinate, to control and to dominate; a process destroying, not only Christian freedom, but every spirit of Christianity and the Christian brotherhood. This gradual and unchristian development directly violated the words of Peter in 1 Peter 5:3-5 “Not tyrannizing over those who are allotted to your care, but setting an example to the flock. And then, when the head Shepherd appears, you will receive for your own the unfading garland of glory….Indeed, all of you should wrap yourselves in the garment of humility towards each other, because God sets his face against the arrogant but favours the humble.â€
Contrary to what “Church authority†eventually started to demand  – namely exclusive, unquestioned obedience to an authority even as to Christ – Jesus had the following to say: “…the sheep follow him [the true Shepherd], because they know his voice. But they will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will run away from him because they do not recognise a stranger’s voice.â€Â (John 10:4, 5) Certainly the sheep had to know the voice of Christ in order to judge by themselves whether they hear Christ speaking, or someone else – an impostor. This parable in itself excludes the necessity for Church authority. The Church had one authority, and that was Christ. Each Christian, properly guided by the spirit given through Christ at his exaltation, would therefore be able to discern the spirit and act accordingly.  This ensured the free flow of God’s spirit to work in the hearts and thoughts of Christians. Proper Christian freedom would be enacted and the resulting harmony would testify to yet another miracle being worked by God’s own hand. Enough Christian freedom would render the exaltation of men, dogmatism, conformation, legalism, authoritarianism and intolerance redundant. Jesus directed his sheep to reject anyone with a domineering and oppressive approach, since that would be the sign of alienation from Christ, of being non- or even anti-Christ – certainly a description befitting the “man of sin†(2 Thessalonians 2:3).
In Barnes’ Notes pp 82-84, he had the following to say regarding the “man of lawlessness:†Any claim of a dominion over conscience; or any arrangement to set aside the divine laws, and to render them nugatory, would correspond with what is implied in this description. It cannot be supposed that anyone would openly claim to be superior to God, but the sense must be that the enactments and ordinances of the “man of sin†would pertain to the province in which God only can legislate, and that the ordinances made by him would be such as to render nugatory the divine laws, by appointing others in their place….This does not necessarily mean that he actually in so many words, claimed to be God, but that he usurped the place of God and claimed the prerogatives of God.â€
It is clear that this type of person arrogates authority that rightly only belongs to God and Jesus. This authority falls in the area of conscience, dogma not clearly taught in Scripture, qualification to be eligible for everlasting life and rendering judgments belonging only to the one “who judges not what the eye can see†(Isaiah chapter 11).
To read part 2 of this article, you may click here.
Awesome Jaco!! Well done.
Jaco
According to verses like 1Cor 7.22, you become a “freedman” when you become “a slave to Christ”.
Can you expand on this seeming contradictory statement?
What about the “governing body” [apostles/elders] in the Jerusalem church of Acts 15?
Lastly, how would you interpret the following:
The church at Corinth has always intrigued me. Here you had “the spirit” working mightily in these people who, for all intents and purposes had the sound doctrine of the One God and the Gospel Kingdom. Yet, they err quite badly. Any suggestions as to why if they were “properly guided by the spirit” in both miraculous works and “discernment” concerning false doctrines??
CORRECTION:
Lastly, you said…
The church at Corinth has always intrigued me. Here you had “the spirit†working mightily in these people who, for all intents and purposes had the sound doctrine of the One God and the Gospel Kingdom. Yet, they err quite badly. Any suggestions as to why if they were “properly guided by the spirit†in both miraculous works and “discernment†concerning false doctrines??
Jaco,
I agree. That was an awesome article. I especially like the part where you said,
“The Church had one authority, and that was Christ. Each Christian, properly guided by the spirit given through Christ at his exaltation, would therefore be able to discern the spirit and act accordingly. This ensured the free flow of God’s spirit to work in the hearts and thoughts of Christians.”
I believe that Y’shua (the Christ) is our “Teacher”, “Rabbi”, “Messiah”, “High Priest”, “Savior”, “King”, and also our loving “Big Brother” who genuinely cares about us and our salvation…
Thank you, Tannie Petro and Tom.
Hi, Xavier
I’ve come to appreciate the fact that there’s no such thing as absolute freedom. We shall always be subject to certain limitations, going beyond which would result in harm and even human death. On the other hand, harm also results when limitations are imposed upon humans which go contrary to God’s guidelines and divinely-imposed limitations. Therefore, slavery to Christ is the ultimate freedom that can be gained – as paradoxical as it might sound – and will always be beneficial.
There was no First-Century Governing Body. Contrary to what we see in modern-day Churchianity and the JW approximation toward that model, First-Century churches were autonomous. Even though the Watchtower organization has argued ad nauseam for this position using the Jerusalem Edict in Acts 15, the evidence shows otherwise.
Galatians 2:1 speaks of Paul and Barnabas going up to Jerusalem after receiving a revelation. Acts 15:1, 2 shows that the issue of reintroducing Mosaic elements came from among members of the Jerusalem congregation. From v. 6 it appears as if many of the Jerusalem Christians present were in favor of this contradictory teaching, since a “dispute arose” among them. After the addresses by Peter and James, in other words deliberation, chosen men were sent to the congregations to correct the issue. Evidence was provided as a solution to the dispute and holy spirit compelled all spiritually-minded believers to be persuaded by the evidence. Christian freedom prevailed therefore as is evidenced by this very dramatic account.
Such action is not tolerated in the Watchtower at all. Anyone challenging certain of the Watchtower’s arguably false and inaccurate doctrines will meet with opposition and covert threats if any of these concerns were to be spread. Those who would not keep silent will summarily be charged before a judicial committee and, if not repentent, be disfellowshipped and shunned by JW family and friends.
Your question regarding the troublesome Corinthian congregation is very interesting. What happened there is a classical example of what the writer of Hebrews mentions in Hebrews 3:7, 8 and 12, where the Hebrew Christians were warned to not harden their hearts and their actually develop a “wicked heart lacking faith by drawing away from the living God.” And even if a “shrinking back” might temporarily occur, correction could be effected and destruction be evaded (Heb. 19:39). The condoning of serious sin (1 Corinthians chapters 5 and 6) and even tolerating spiritual contamination (2 Corinthians 6) indicate to what an extent free and forgiven Christians can gradually draw away from Jesus and his God and oppose the working of holy spirit. Hurtful and deceptive influence also contributed to that dangerous situation (Jude 4). The solution?
2 Corinthians 13:5 “Keep testing whether you are in the faith, keep proving what you yourselves are. Or do you not recognise that Jesus Christ is in you? Unless you are disapproved.”
So, apostasy and deviation from the true Christian model is not inevitable. It can and should be resisted. Evidently the Watchtower Organisation did not.
In Christ,
Jaco
Jaco
I guess the saying is true then…freedom is one of Imagination’s most precious possessions. : /
Not according to Acts 15.
Yet the HS still worked mightily with them? Where is this “drawing away”?
Lastly, I understand that coming from such an evil organization as the Watchtower has scarred you alot. But we have to mindful that the NT still lays out a hierarchy when it comes to church governance and obedience/submission to “spiritual leaders” [Heb 13.17].
Xavier,
Why not according to Acts 15?
Yes, there are those who take the lead, but they need to constantly show evidence of their being full of spirit. That does not give them the right to dictate over others what should and should not be believed. Especially not where the Bible does not teach something explicitly. What is more, the idea of Heb. 13:17 is clearly following through CONVICTION, not merely on the basis of their authority. Each Christian has to be convinced in his/her own heart. So, no, there’s no hierarchy in the Christian congregation. It is Jesus, the rest of us are brothers and sister. If there are exemplary Christians who display the working of God’s spirit, they are to be imitated, but not to the exclustion of one’s conscience. We need to reimagine church.
Jaco
Jaco,
You said, “So, no, there’s no hierarchy in the Christian congregation. It is Jesus, the rest of us are brothers and sisters.”
I agree completely. We should not blindly follow any human leader. This idea that we should blindly follow our leaders is taught by many churches and usually results in the formation of religious cults.
Matthew 23:8-10 English Standard Version (ESV)
“But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and ‘YOU ARE ALL BROTHERS’. (9) And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. (10) Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ.” (emphasis mine)…
Jaco & DT
What part of “SUBMIT and be OBEDIENT to your [HUMAN] spiritual leaders” is not hierarchical or to do with a governing body within the Church?
Yes, I agree that we must “test the spirits”, ESPECIALLY those of our “spiritual leaders”, on the face of the scriptures. But their still people we’re supposed to “submit and be obedient” towards.
As for the teacher part, yes, Jesus is ultimately THE teacher/master/shepherd of all. But somewhere in scripture he also said…
Xavier,
I think you are aware of what I think about the letter of Hebrews or any other letter that we don’t know who the author is. But even if you disagree with me about whether Hebrews should have been included in the N.T. cannon, I don’t understand how you could think what this unknown writer says takes precedence over what Y’shua/Jesus our Lord/King/Saviour and Teacher said. Jesus clearly said we are “all” brothers and we have “ONE” teacher and “ONE” instructor and that is “the Christ”.
The way I see it, if “ANYONE” contradicts what Y’shua said then we should dismiss it…
DT
Discount my queries concerning this subject. I forgot your Marcionist stance. 😛
Xavier,
You keep labeling me as a Marcionist even though I have repeatedly told you I have no beliefs in common with Marcion. Marcion believed Jesus Christ was the savior sent by God and Paul of Tarsus was his chief apostle, but he rejected the Hebrew Bible and the God of Israel (YHWH Elohim). Marcionists believed that the wrathful Hebrew God was a separate and lower entity than the all-forgiving God of the New Testament.
I believe that Paul was a self appointed apostle, and certainly do not see him as the chief apostle. As a matter of fact I’m not convinced that Peter and the Apostles and the rest of the early church even considered him to be an apostle. And I certainly don’t believe that the God of the O.T. was a separate and lower entity than the all-forgiving God of the New Testament.
Marcion’s canon consisted of eleven books: A gospel consisting of ten chapters from the Gospel of Luke edited by Marcion (the current canonical Gospel of Luke has 24 chapters); and ten of Paul’s epistles. All other epistles and gospels of the 27 book New Testament canon were rejected. Marcion followed Paul’s teachings exclusively. Whereas I have my doubts about Paul’s writings and, as a result, do not study them.
If you insist on making comparison’s you should pick someone whose beliefs are at least similar to my own like Luther. Luther rejected the idea that the collection of books in the N.T. cannon were infallible and beyond critical examination (just like I do). Luther believed that at least one of the gospels (Luke) and a couple of the epistles/letters (James/?) should not have been included in the N.T. cannon.
Of course I disagree with his idea that Luke and James should not have been included in the bible, but I do agree with his notion that we should look at each book and letter in the N.T. individually so as to determine whether they should have been included in the N.T. cannon. If you insist on labeling me then “Lutheran” would be a much more accurate label than “Marcionist”.
Of course the problem with using broad labels is that they do not accurately represent what a person may or may not believe. That’s why I personally don’t like labels and try my best to avoid them whenever possible. Of course there are some people (like you) that seem to have a need to label everyone and everything.
Labels can be useful, but “ONLY” if they accurately reflect what it is a person believes.
Peace…
DT,
I think part of the problem is that Unitarians are afraid to be called out by Trinitarians if they say that the NT canon is rather loose and doubtful. They will be called out as conspiracy theorists, and accused that the only way a Unitarian can back up their beliefs is by discrediting the NT canonization. So the Unitarian has been forced to accept the NT canon with authority and as scripture.
IMO, The NT serves the main purpose of adding to the story of Messiah Yeshua, the Kingdom Message, resurrection, and the extent of the commandments (Law) of God. We get that all from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Otherwise, the NT is basically a copy of the Tanach. All of the Apostles, and including Yeshua studied from the Tanach, that was their Bible. So to me, I’m going to interpret the NT in light of the Tanach, not in light of the NT. This is the type of exegesis needed to see what the minds of the the Apostles and Messiah were coming from.
As far as Paul, he pledge obedience to Torah, and I believe that he expected the same out of anyone else that matured in the faith. He taught a Torah lite approach as he was in the business of converting people to Monotheism from paganism. Let’s think about the common sense approach here… you don’t go into a foreign, or pagan filled nation and slap the whole Torah on some fresh ears. Paul would have converted close to no one using this approach! If one doesn’t think that non-Jews should not be following the Torah, they need to ask themselves that why did Yeshua follow Torah?… and aren’t we suppose to be following in his footsteps?… taking up our cross and following what he did to the best of our ability? Did Yeshua not say, that he will once again celebrate the passover?
Let’s get down to brass here. Who is the ultimate mediator between God and man? Is it Paul?
DT
My “Marcionist” comment was meant in jest. Sorry if I have offended you.
Joseph
Comes with the territory of being a Christian doesn’t it? If your a Muslim wouldn’t we say they are “forced” to accept the Koran? A Mormon “forced” to accept the Book of Mormon?
The simply concept you guys seem to fail to grasp time and time again is that, just as “God was IN Christ”, so was “Christ in Paul, Jude, Peter” etc. Meaning? Their words/teachings/commandments are SUPPOSED to have the same level of authority as that of Messiah’s.
Xavier,
You said, “My “Marcionist†comment was meant in jest. Sorry if I have offended you.”
I apologize if I over reacted. It’s just that 98% of what of what Marcion believed is the exact opposite of what I believe. The only thing I have in common with him is that we both believe Y’shua was our Saviour and that the current N.T. cannon is not infallible. Other then that our beliefs are completely polar opposite to one another.
You also said, “Their words/teachings/commandments are SUPPOSED to have the same level of authority as that of Messiah’s.”
The simple concept that you seem to fail to grasp is that in Luke 10:16 when Y’shua said, “The one who hears you hears me, and the one who rejects you rejects me, and the one who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” Y’shua was talking to 72 of his hand picked disciples that he was sending out on his behalf. What proof is there that Y’shua hand picked Paul as a disciple/apostle beyond Paul’s own claims.
Like in 2 Corinthians 11:5 where he said, “Indeed, I consider that I am not in the least inferior to these super-apostles.”
And 2 Corinthians 12:11 where he said, “I have been a fool! You forced me to it, for I ought to have been commended by you. For I was not at all inferior to these super-apostles, even though I am nothing.”
It is clear from these two passages that there were people that didn’t consider Paul to be equal to Peter and the apostles. In other words they didn’t believe his claim to be an apostle of Christ. Other than 2nd. Peter, which most biblical scholars agree wasn’t written by Peter, there is no evidence of anyone outside of Paul that referred to Paul as an apostle of Christ.
Because of my doubting nature, that leaves to believe that Paul wasn’t a real apostle of Christ, but just a self-appointed apostle. Paul says so much in his own words at the beginning of Galatians in chapter 1 verse 1, “Paul, an apostle— not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father…” (ESV).
It is even clearer in the NLT version of Galatians 1:1, “This letter is from Paul, an apostle. I was not appointed by any group or by human authority. My call is from Jesus Christ himself and from God the Father…”
In other words Paul, in his own words, seems to be saying that Peter and the apostles didn’t appoint him or recognize him as an apostle of Christ. But, you keep insisting that I must recognize him as an apostle of Christ. I’m sorry, but I don’t see any evidence that would convince me that Paul was anything more than a self appointed apostle.
I don’t expect you to agree with me, but I at least hope you can understand why it is I believe what I believe, and why it is I have my doubts about Paul’s writings….
Gentlemen,
Can we perhaps stick to the topic of the article, rather than deviate to the subject of Paul’s apostolic authenticity? The article I posted was on behalf of Jaco and I think it most appropriate that if there is any feedback on the article, we should leave our comments here!
If you wish to discuss Paul’s apostleship, perhaps somewhere else.
Let me try and reboot this discussion using Xavier’s last known comment:
DT
Let me get this straight. You believe in Luke’s Gospel but not in his book of Acts?
If you see the context of 2Cor 11-12 Paul was probably using a sarcastic title to describe the false apostles who were troubling the Corinthian church, by preaching “another Jesus†and “a different gospel†(see vv. 4, 13–15; see also 12:11).
The Gal 1 supports what Luke relates in Acts, Paul was not chosen [appointed] by men to be an apostle but directly by God through His Son. But then again, you do not believe in Luke either right?
Steve
Sorry bro. Did not full read your last comment. What thread did you have in mind to answer DT?
Steve,
I apologize if I was hijacking the thread. It was unintentional. I’ve been having this ongoing discussion with Xavier for more than a year now. I just find it offensive when he repeatedly tries to label my beliefs as Marcionist. It reminds me of how the early church labeled anyone who spoke against the Trinity as an Arian even though most of these people didn’t agree with many of the Arian beleifs and had probably never even heard of Arius and his teachings.
Xavier,
My ESV says, “Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town.” (Matthew 23:34).
It doesn’t say teachers, it says scribes. Nevertheless it is just common sense that any one teaching on behalf of Y’shua shouldn’t be contradicting anything that Y’shua has said. Like I said in msg. #10 above.
(quote) But even if you disagree with me about whether Hebrews should have been included in the N.T. cannon, I don’t understand how you could think what this unknown writer says takes precedence over what Y’shua/Jesus our Lord/King/Saviour and Teacher said. Jesus clearly said we are “all†brothers and we have “ONE†teacher and “ONE†instructor and that is “the Christâ€. (unquote).
If you call yourself a Christian then I would think that what Christ said and taught should take precedence over what anyone else might have said and taught (no matter who they are).
That’s the way I see it anywaze…
DT
Just to be clear…not your beliefs but the way you pick apart the NT. Big difference. Anyways, I had apologized and for the sake of peace I shall apologize again.
I am sorry but that is not what I meant.
Some translations have “teachers”, if you look up the meaning of the words you will find their synanymous.
You do realize the Gospels were NOT written by Jesus himself but by other people like Luke, someone you do not believe in either. Right?
Xavier,
I don’t expect you to agree with me. I have doubts about certain writings and you don’t. I don’t know why we just can’t accept each other the way we are. I’m not trying to force you or anyone else to believe the same things that I do. I would just appreciate it if you didn’t make demeaning comments about my beliefs.
If you want to continue discussing why I have my doubts about Paul’s writings then I suggest we move this conversation over to the “Is the NT “infalliableâ€/â€inerrantâ€? Something close? Or something else?” thread. I would like to point out that I’m not looking for an argument, but if you are sincerely interested in learning why it is I believe what I believe, I will certainly be happy to share my beliefs with you.
Peace…
[…] To read part 1 of this article, you may click here. […]
A great article on Christian freedom, focusing on the absence thereof in the Watchtower organisation, can be viewed here: http://www.jwstruggle.com/2012/03/witness-history-and-christian-freedom/#comments. Valuable lessons can be learnt and all of us can benefit from the information provided.