|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Are the JWs announcing a gospel that can save?
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@Gee Dee - yes, I am cognisant of that. I grew up in South Wales - which had a strong non-conformist heritage of course - and spent two years in Australia as a £10 Pom in the early/mid 60s.
The Brethren I knew were friends at school during the 1970s and people I encountered after my evangelical conversion in the early '80s, both in South Wales and at university in Leeds.
I've only lived in Cheshire for the last 10 years.
Roman Catholicism in South Wales was predominantly Irish with a smattering of Poles and Italians.
The Brethren, as I've said, weren't 'posh' according to the UK's rather arcane and devilishly detailed class-distinctions - but they were 'self-made' and fairly prosperous. Their life-style was no different from that of other upper-working class/lower middle-class honest artisan type people in that region. They had foreign holidays, drove decent cars, owned their own homes ... They didn't live on the council estates unlike the JWs, the Pentecostals and the RCs.
The RCs contributed to the development of the Labour and Trades Union movements in South Wales too - the Brethren were mostly very conservative politically - whilst feigning to be a-political.
The Baptists tended to be more liberal in politics as a throw-back to the Lloyd George high-water mark of UK Liberalism.
Although some of the Baptists were Tories - of the small shopkeeper alderman Thatcher type ...
Up here in Cheshire the religious landscape is somewhat different - with residual influence from the strong Wesleyan/Primitive Methodist heritage of The Potteries (I'm close to the Staffordshire border). The Chester Diocese is pretty evangelical or MoTR - and 'High Anglican' parishes stick out like sore thumbs.
I'd suggest that the RCs here are more 'mixed' and less homogeneous than they were in South Wales where I grew up.
They are certainly far more ecumenical.
I suspect that's more true across the board these days.
Meanwhile, with some caveats, I'm still with mr cheesy on the cultural/mindset issues that independent or non-mainline groups of all kinds share in common.
To an extent, you can find that within evangelical Anglicanism too - it's always 'the world' or 'the media' or some significant 'other' who is the enemy ...
As I've said on these boards before, I'm quite active in local politics and on the voluntary arts/community arts scene here. Through that I encounter plenty of people from the non-evangelical or MoTR churches - but rarely any of the evangelicals from the evangelical parish or from the Pentecostals here. I know them from other contexts.
The only interest the evangelical Anglicans seem to have in some of the building developments going on around here is that it gives them an opportunity to leaflet more houses and invite more people to church ...
Once you've said that, you've said it all.
End-of.
That doesn't mean they aren't doing other valuable things in the community - they are - but in many respects their mindset isn't as dissimilar to that of 'gathered church' non-conformist types - it's all about what goes on in church - it's all about getting bums on seats ...
I am painting with a broad-brush but the picture I paint is an accurate one.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Well to be fair, I wasn't talking about sociology with regard to secular economic class. I don't think there is a major difference between many low Anglican, RC, various non-conformists etc in the UK. Indeed, I think the class thing is more likely to relate to location than denomination.
I was talking about the mindset, the worldview, the way that these groups relate to society, the way that they understand theology, themselves, other groups, practices, etc.
Phrased that way, I don't have any issue with what you are saying nor the comparisions you're making and parallels you are drawing.
I don't understand why Brethren / former Brethren are getting so defensive about that.
All these things are a question of degree.
The JWs are a lot 'looser' on some things these days than they were at one time - they don't have an issue with people having a pint now and again, for instance - although I was interested to read that alcoholism is an unspoken issue among them ...
Equally, they don't seem to object so much to taking part in things within church buildings - musical concerts, recitals other 'neutral' activities ...
The same applies to orthodox non-conformist/independent evangelical groups. The Pentecostals and the Brethren would have taken a dim view of attending the cinema at one time - certainly as recently as the 1960s and 70s in some parts of the UK.
Heck, even some evangelical Anglicans would have baulked at pubs and so on until comparatively recently.
All churches have modified their stance on these sorts of things over time - and not only evangelicals. I know a very liberal Anglican chap whose father was a vicar. In the 1950s and '60s the sidesmen would stop anyone who came in after the general confession from receiving communion ... I doubt you'd find that happening in any Anglican setting these days.
At any rate, noting similarities in culture and mindset between independent evangelical groups and some of the more 'out there' or marginal / heretical groups such as Mormons and JWs isn't to tar them with the same brush.
I really don't see what the problem is.
You can be in a 'sect' (in sociological terms) without being sectarian ... and plenty of Brethren, Pentecostals and independent evangelicals of all stripes seem to manage that ... although they will all exhibit 'sectarian' characteristics too, of course.
But that applies equally to members of those historic Churches who find themselves in a minority within a religious culture that differs from those in their own 'heartlands' ... Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox in 'the West' say, RCs in a predominantly Protestant culture, say - or Anglicans or other Protestants in a predominantly RC culture such as Italy or Spain.
Of course, the Orthodox 'diaspora' has a wide and rather nominal penumbra, but the 'faithful' within Orthodox parishes in the UK, say, are going to display aspects/elements of a 'gathered' community in a similar way to how Brethren, Baptists and others do ...
The way that is expressed will be different, but there will be a degree of conscious self-identification and not only from converts - whether that is expressed in national/ethnic terms - 'We are Greeks ... We are Romanians ...' or in theological terms, 'We are Orthodox' (as opposed to RC, Anglican, Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran ...).
That's why I'm happy to apply a continuum spectrum model. I'm using the spectrum to run from the historic Big C Churches through the Protestant denominations and 'streams', independent evangelical groups and so on - until you reach the point where things topple over into something that is no longer recognisable as small o orthodox ... such as the 'marginal' sects such as Mormons, JWs, Christadelphians etc.
I am not suggesting that the Brethren, say, are 'the same' as JWs - of course they aren't - but they undoubtedly share some social/cultural and mindset characteristics in common. Heck, the last few times I've spoken to JWs they have been at pains to stress that we do have common ground - perhaps a change of tactic, I don't know ...
When it comes to cultic behaviour, though, then no tradition / Tradition is immune from that.
Some of the non-canonical Orthodox groups are certainly cult-like in the way they operate - and I wouldn't be surprised if some canonical parishes could, under certain circumstances, become abusive and controlling.
The Nine O'Clock Service at St Thomas Crooks in Sheffield is a salutary example of a group within the CofE that turned toxic and cultic ...
Convents and monasteries can turn into hellish communities ... just as much as Hutterite or Amish ones ...
Without being paranoid, there's a potential cult lurking within any church grouping of whatever kind - it simply needs certain circumstances to bring that to fruition - a lack of checks and balances etc.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Anteater wrote:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
My alcoholic friend's son has worked openly for a department of the UN,
which would have not happened back in the day.
Apparently, the JWs had a secret, decade-long affiliation with the UN, as a recognized NGO, but broke it off quickly after exposures in the media.
The Guardian
I know the Moonies sometimes style their front-groups as being "in consultation with the UN"(whatever that means), but they've always been pretty open about lusting after establishment cred. The JWs are more vulnerable to a charge of hypocrisy on this.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Al Eluia
Inquisitor
# 864
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:
I'm curious if anyone knows their rationale for this belief, BTW - as I understand it, crucifixion was what the Romans did to criminals, particularly in the provinces, and stauros was the commonly accepted Koine translation for crux. Jesus was crucified. I'm not sure what theological difference the method of his execution would make, anyway.
It's the usual restorationist obsession with sniffing out paganism in apostate symbol and rituals. I've just been doing some refresher reading of JW pamphlets, and they say that the cross was a symbol used in pagan sex rites.
As a teenager, I read a book by an ex-Witness who said that they think the cross is specifically a vaginal symbol. The author pointed out that the upright stake could be just as easily interpreted as phallic.
Interesting. I had wondered if it was just to dissociate themselves from mainstream churches that use the cross on their buildings.
--------------------
Consider helping out the Anglican Seminary in El Salvador with a book or two! https://www.amazon.es/registry/wishlist/YDAZNSAWWWBT/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_ep_ws_7IRSzbD16R9RQ
https://www.episcopalcafe.com/a-seminary-is-born-in-el-salvador/
Posts: 1157 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
I had wondered if it was just to dissociate themselves from mainstream churches that use the cross on their buildings.
Well(if I dare use the following adverb), sociologically speaking, trashing the cross probably does have the effect of reminding their members how separate they are from "apostate" denominations, regardless of the theological rationale.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Well, sorry, I don't accept that even the lowest Anglicans are similar to Brethren.
Whether you accept it or not, it is a fact that most Open Brethren have far more in common with evangelical Anglicans than with the Exclusive Brethren.
quote:
I think there is a messy middle where many denominations merge into very similar space, but Brethren are necessarily not part of it.
Most Open Bethren are very much part and parcel of the broad mass of common evangelicalism, and in fact play a role in it quite out of proportion to their numbers.
quote:
If they are, then by definition, they're not Brethren.
Nonsense.
You seem to be stuck in some sort of time warp - perhaps a century ago, when even Open Brethren were less prone (though even then by no means entirely opposed) to fellowshipping and cooperating with "the denominations" than they are today, some pretending indeed that they themselves did not constitute a denomination.
You are also moving into "true Scotsman fallacy" territory.
[ 06. April 2017, 00:46: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Well, I'm sorry you're not arguing with me, you're arguing with those who say that they're Open Brethren:
quote:
Is a Gospel Hall part of the “exclusive brethren” or “open brethren”?
Most of the assemblies listed on this site could be called “conservative open brethren”. Exclusive assemblies often use the name “Gospel Hall” for their building, but these assemblies have very little relationship to the assemblies listed on this site.
The Gospel Halls are “exclusive” in the sense that unity and fellowship between assemblies is maintained by sharing common doctrines. For example, if one assembly began to promote speaking in tongues or promoted a teaching for a works-based salvation, other assemblies would no longer cooperate with them in evangelism, conducting confereces or by providing financial help when needs arise.
The majority of "open brethren" assemblies in North America meet in a building named “Gospel Chapel”. These assemblies share much of the same doctrine as a Gospel Hall, but may have a less direct approach in gospel preaching and some may have an open policy of fellowship with all other churches in their community. Outside of North America and in other languages, there is a variety of names applied to buildings for groups that meet in a similar manner.
from here
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Furthermore, this is a useful picture of the Brethren from the Brethren Archivists and Historians Network which clearly shows the similarities between the various grades of Open and Closed Brethren. Note that all of the distinguishing features of the Brethren mentioned are quite different to anything found in Anglicanism.
As the page says, there are necessarily differences between them due to 100 years of separate evolution, the marks of what it means to be Brethren are things that one wouldn't find in an Anglican church.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I don't see how that contradicts what Kaplan was saying about most Brethren being fully involved with the broader evangelical scene, mr cheesy.
All it tells us is that there is some kind of sliding-scale within the Brethren between varying degrees of 'openness'.
Heck, everyone knows that and there are sliding-scales and and a spectrum or continuum within any tradition or denomination - whether it's evangelical, Anabaptist, liberal, Anglo-Catholic or whatever else.
I have some sympathy with your broader points but think you are over-stating your case.
Meanwhile, Russia is reportedly considering a ban on JWs on the grounds that they are 'extremists' - which strikes me as counter-productive and not at all helpful.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Also this written by Peter Brierley, the church statistician:
quote:
Some of these assemblies are becoming almost indistinguishable from other
Independent churches, adopting more modern styles of worship, leadership and ministry, sometimes using effectively ordained pastors. They will often name themselves as “XXX Christian Fellowship” or “XXX Community Church.” Their Brethren roots are sometimes valued, a number will be members of Partnership, but the impact of their ministry and willingness to collaborate with other local churches will be very different from the previous generation. It could be argued they should not be included in the Open Christian Brethren category of churches.
From page 10 of this, my emphasis.
You can, KC, keep loudly deny what I'm saying as bullshit, but the fact is that I'm not the only person saying it.
[ 06. April 2017, 07:26: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I don't see how that contradicts what Kaplan was saying about most Brethren being fully involved with the broader evangelical scene, mr cheesy.
It says that Brethren self define in certain ways, and those who are involved in ecumenical and the broader evangelical scene are not considered Brethren.
quote:
All it tells us is that there is some kind of sliding-scale within the Brethren between varying degrees of 'openness'.
Heck, everyone knows that and there are sliding-scales and and a spectrum or continuum within any tradition or denomination - whether it's evangelical, Anabaptist, liberal, Anglo-Catholic or whatever else.
I have some sympathy with your broader points but think you are over-stating your case.
I don't understand what you are talking about. There are clearly some ex-Brethren churches who are more engaged with wider Evangelicalism, but as the man says above, they've often taken on marks which are non-Brethren (such as having paid ministers) to the extent that it can be argued that they're no longer Brethren.
There are certain marks which distinguish the Brethren according to the Brethren and according to those who observe them. When they lose those marks, I can't see how they can be described as Brethren, and just saying "oh they're deeply involved in wider evangelicalism" hides the reality that those who still want to call themselves Open Brethren don't engage with wider evangelicalism, never mind anyone else.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ok, so when does 'being Brethren' stop and 'not being Brethren' start?
I can see how having paid ministers prevents a Brethren assembly from being a pukka Brethren assembly in the full sense ... but I can't see how involvement/engagement with the wider evangelical scene does.
Evangelicals tend to have a fairly weak ecclesiology anyway ... so they tend to fellowship/fraternise within the broader evangelical constituency anyway without it interfering with what they happen to do on their home turf.
I get that the Brethren tend to have a more strongly defined ecclesiology than many evangelicals - and Kaplan himself has acknowledged that there were full-on Brethren in the assemblies he's known who bought into that and into the eschatological emphases (which seem to be less pronounced these days than they were at one time).
And alongside that there were fellow travellers who were there not because the assembly was a Brethren one necessarily, but because they found it more consistently evangelical than the liberal Protestant denomination they might have been attending previously.
Were these latter 'Brethren without being Brethren'?
I dunno ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
[QUOTE]Some of these assemblies are becoming almost indistinguishable from other
Independent churches, adopting more modern styles of worship, leadership and ministry, sometimes using effectively ordained pastors. They will often name themselves as “XXX Christian Fellowship” or “XXX Community Church.” Their Brethren roots are sometimes valued, a number will be members of Partnership, but the impact of their ministry and willingness to collaborate with other local churches will be very different from the previous generation. It could be argued they should not be included in the Open Christian Brethren category of churches.[/QUOTE
As to whether there are now "Brethren who used to be Brethren but are not now", the only criteria adduced in your quote are "modern" styles of worship etc, which is very trivial and weak; "effectively" ordained pastors (many assemblies have full-time paid pastors, but they are not ordained in any formal theological sense, and their authority is no greater than that of the other elders); and co-operation with other Christians, which the Open Brethren have always practised from their beginning to varying degrees.
As for Opens and Anglicans, whatever their shared early history, and some features of their ecclesiology, the sinister cultish, separatist and authoritarian character and modus operandi of today's Exclusives forms a chasm between them and Opens which is infinitely wider than any differences between Opens and evangelical Anglicans, because their differences (liturgy, clericalism, and yes, sometimes buildings) are insignificant compared to their shared theology and other similarities (for example, "family services", fellowship with the rest of the evangelical world, and appreciation of genuine evangelical scholarship).
[ 06. April 2017, 23:18: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
A more general point ... To a degree, most evangelicals I've come across tend to sit comparatively loosely by denominational affiliation. Brethren kids I knew at university would generally start out attending a Brethren assembly and then gravitate towards whichever evangelical church happened to attract a fair number of students - whether it was Anglican, Baptist or whatever else.
This didn't appear to cause tremendous upset in their home assemblies, although the mileage would have varied on that I'd imagine.
Likewise, I knew Baptist kids who didn't necessarily worship at Baptist churches after they'd flown the nest and plenty of evangelical Anglican kids, including those from sometimes 'high-ranking' clerical families who worshipped at other forms of evangelical church at university and beyond. This caused neither comment or concern unless it was one of the 'new church' restorationist streams where concerns were rightly evoked on the grounds of authoritarianism and 'heavy-shepherding'.
There is always a danger of the outer edge of any group or movement toppling into abusive territory.
That applies to the historic Churches as well as to 19th century movements such as The Brethren and 20th century ones like the UK 'house-church movement' and its equivalents elsewhere.
I knew a charismatic evangelical network of congregations in Spain with Brethren roots and they could be very authoritarian and controlling.
I don't know why there's urge to distance ourselves - all ourselves - from the more obviously authoritarian groups like the Exclusive Brethren or some of the more heavy-handed forms of restorationism.
They are extensions of 'ourselves' if you like. The only difference is that they have ratcheted up the separatist impulses that characterise independent evangelicalism or 'sectarian Protestantism and taken them to the nth degree.
We are not talking about separate species but subsets of the same genus.
If Open Brethren are a horse then they might be a pit-pony or a Welsh cob, whereas the Exclusives are still recognisable as a horse - they are a breed of horse - but they will display characteristics that are more muted among other equids.
It's not that the Open Brethren are a race horse, say and the Exclusives a St Bernard dog or a canary. They are both forms of 'Brethren' but the latter are a more extreme or mutated form.
This is the continuum thing I'm talking about. This isn't guilt by association, a standard overly defensive evangelical trait I've found.
Kaplan's adherence to creedal Christianity and mainstream evangelicalism isn't compromised by the fact that some elements of the movement or 'tribe' he represents toppled over into Exclusive territory.
Is an evangelical Anglican's Anglicanism compromised by the fact that there are non-evangelicals in other parishes?
Is a non-health/wealth Pentecostals non-health/wealth Pentecostalism compromised because there are health-wealth Penties around?
There's a continuum. A spectrum. We all find ourselves somewhere or other along it.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I think the truth is that there are Open Brethren and Open Brethren. I've known people from the gospel hall end who have been disowned by their congregations for associating with other Christians. Whose congregations made other very conservative Evangelicals extremely uncomfortable when they visited.
But I've also noticed friendly relations between other Open Brethren and various FIEC churches, which often seems to be a sink into which the ex-Brethren churches end up. My observation on this is that the relationship is very one-way; the FIEC churches seem to be open to welcoming individuals and even speakers from those Brethren backgrounds, but it is very unlikely that there would be the same thing offered in reverse.
I think the way this works is that there are various pockets of conservative Evangelical who tend to only associate with each other. Beyond their immediate sphere of influence, they might recognise that other Evangelicals exist but tend to measure their "soundness" naturally against their own tradition and find it wanting. So you get these ghettos of similar churches only talking to themselves.
Generally speaking, people who leave these groups (which are often very geographical in the sense of being a "big deal" in one place but absent in another) initially tend to move to another just outside their sphere of influence, because anyone who moves too far is suspiciously liberal or just gives up on Christianity altogether. In time they may even fall as far as the Anglican church, but by that time various bridges have been burned, in my experience. Attempting to row back is an almost impossible task.
[ 07. April 2017, 07:44: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I've seen elements of that too, but the localism issue is a feature of wider forms of evangelicalism too - and indeed of other forms of churchmanship.
Someone who is a big noise in Anglo-Catholic circles is likely to be pretty much invisible to almost anyone else.
But in the broad point you are making, yes, I quite agree. The Gospel Halls I knew in the early 1980s have pretty much disappeared or morphed into something less Brethren-like. Most have ceased to exist.
The traffic tended to be one way and that way was out into other forms of independent evangelicalism or into the 'mainstream' denominations.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The other issue, of course, is that there are sliding scales within sub-divisions. There are Open Brethren who are less 'Open' than others.
The Open Brethren I knew were pretty 'open' but there were other assemblies, often named through clenched teeth or out of the corner of the mouth - which, although still considered Open were somewhat teetering on the edge and in danger of toppling into the Exclusive bracket ...
It's all relative of course.
Even an Open Brethren assembly is going to look pretty closed to someone from a more liberal tradition.
In the same way we find people describing particular Anglican parishes as 'high' when they are nowhere near stratospheric ...
It all depends on where our reference points lie.
As mr cheesy has pointed out, our reference points almost invariably start with ourselves.
If only everyone were as moderate / balanced / 'sound' / [insert epithet of choice] as we are then everything would be ok.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Not disagreeing with that. But I stand by the point that Exclusive are closest to Open Brethren and that the JWs are closest to both. Whether there is direct traffic between them is hard to assess, but in my opinion the JWs are trying hardest to attract those at this edge of Evangelicalism because they are (superficially I'm sure) look so similar.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Hmmmm ...
I can see the point you're making but still feel you might be over-doing it. I've yet to meet someone from a conservative evangelical background who has ended up among the JWs.
I've met MoTR people - nominal Methodists particularly - who have ended up there - as well as nominal RCs. I've not heard of an evangelical who has converted to the Watchtower.
I think the most we can say is that culturally and sociologically there are strong parallels and similarities between some of the 'marginal' sects such as JWs, Christadelphians and Mormons and the outer limits of independent Protestant evangelicalism.
I've heard Orthodox priests say that they think some ultra-conservative evangelicals will be attracted to Islam. I've heard of one or two evangelical converts to Islam, and not only from BME backgrounds - where there have been kids from black-led Pentecostal backgrounds who've turned to Islam as they feel it is more 'authentic' or more in tune with their concerns.
Fr Gregory, who used to post here, was concerned about that. He felt that the judgementalism of many US-style conservative evangelicals - not to mention a lack of creedal awareness in some cases - made them targets for extreme forms of jihadist or conservative Islam ...
I'm not saying I was entirely convinced, but I could understand his drift on that one.
Going back to the JWs, I'm still of the mind that their use/adoption of evangelical-sounding language isn't so much a turn towards more mainstream evangelical views - nor of a conscious strategy of targeting evangelicals as potential converts.
Rather, I'd see it as the natural outworking of their roots in Millenialist forms of 19th century independent Protestantism.
If a Seventh Day Adventist or a Plymouth Brother toppled out of Trinitarianism into some kind of neo-Arianism then they would sound very much like the JWs, even if they didn't share all aspects of their theology.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
Stetson: I think the anti-cross thing was mainly to get a disinctive and was never a big thing. I never heard anything about it representing a vagina!
Similarly they taught for ages that Jesus was clean shaven, but abandoned that.
As for the comparisons with other groups, I think that the Taylorite sect is totally off on its own.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The Jehovah's Witnesses were in our street yesterday and knocked my door. I'd met one of them before and in terms of patter, manner and presentation he reminded me a lot ... a LOT ... of Brethren, Pentecostal and other Free Church/independent evangelical evangelists I've known over the years.
The similarities - in delivery if not in terms of the actual 'message' and content - were uncanny.
I suppose I was more alert to that given the recent conversations on this thread, but nevertheless the patter, the attempts to find common ground - we'd both lived in Yorkshire for a time - the 'elevator pitch' style presentation - they all reminded me of how independent evangelical evangelists operate.
Ok, one could say that the similarities were superficial and that if RC, Anglo-Catholic or other Christian traditions were to adopt door-knocking as a tactic they would very quickly develop a similar modus operandi.
I'm sure that would be the case.
Nevertheless, the similarities between these people and independent evangelicals I've knocked about with were very, very striking indeed.
If one were unfamiliar with historic creedal Christianity then one could easily be forgiven for thinking that these JWs simply represented a more in-you-face form of that.
Of course, what they mean by 'Jesus' isn't the Second Person of the Holy and Undivided Trinity, the Word made Flesh ... God Incarnate ... but some of the rhetoric would have sounded very similar to anyone who wasn't familiar with all that.
'What a wonderful thing Jesus has done for us,' the smooth-talking JW evangelist intoned and simpered.
Ok, I know that similarity in tone and delivery doesn't mean overlap in terms of beliefs.
Yet I am still very much of the view that culturally, sociologically and also in terms of presentation style, JWs and independent evangelicals aren't pole apart - irrespective of how they differ doctrinally.
That isn't to put independent evangelicals - Brethren or otherwise - on a par with JWs, Mormons, Christadelphians or other marginal groups - the Plain Truth Armstrongism lot that Martin60 was involved with ... etc etc ...
But it is to acknowledge undeniable similarities both in terms of style and presentation.
Coming back to the OP and Eutychus's question - are the JW's announcing a Gospel that can save?
No, I don't believe they are.
Any resemblance with the Gospel evangelicals 'announce' is purely coincidental - and is more a question of style rather than substance.
However, I would tentatively suggest that some independent evangelicals have become so 'reductionist' that the Gospel they announce has become attenuated and suffers as a result.
Conversely, of course, the same charge could be levelled in reverse at the ultra-stratospheric side of things - lost in clouds of incense and casuistry.
That said, I still believe that there's a 'there' there in the way most conservative or charismatic evangelicals behave and indeed most sacramentalists too - I mean, you have to believe in God who is there in order to have a Real Presence in some form in the Eucharist ...
But then, it's not for me to determine where the Wind bloweth as it listeth ...
I'm sure the wind of the Spirit bloweth through the empty corridors of Spong too, in some way or other - even if it isn't over fields of waving corn ...
Howbeit ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I'm not sure I follow: what kind of wonderful thing has Jesus done if he is not part of the Trinity? If they're saying he has done something wonderful, are they not saying he has done something salvic?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Anteater wrote:
quote:
Stetson: I think the anti-cross thing was mainly to get a disinctive and was never a big thing. I never heard anything about it representing a vagina!
Well, this is the book I was referencing, written by an ex-JW for a university press. I'm pretty sure that's where the vaginal explanation was given. The recent copy of JW literature that I have at my house says that the cross was used in pagan sex rituals, but doesn't get more specific than that.
I'm guessing that if they teach that it was a sex symbol, the gritty details of the interpretation might be something the higher-ups know about, but don't discuss it openly with the congregations.
quote:
Similarly they taught for ages that Jesus was clean shaven, but abandoned that.
They do currently seem to have their own rather unique take on the image of Jesus. He looks a bit stockier than in traditional renderings, with a more prosaic beard.
[ 09. April 2017, 16:09: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm not sure I follow: what kind of wonderful thing has Jesus done if he is not part of the Trinity? If they're saying he has done something wonderful, are they not saying he has done something salvic?
I think it's pretty clear that they believe Jesus died to save mankind. The question is: What difference is there between saying that the guy who died on the cross was separate from God, and on the other hand saying that the guy who died on the cross was God himself?
For me, the beauty of the Trinity is that it means God himself underwent the pain of being nailed to the cross, rather than just sitting up in heaven watching his son take the fall.
In the JW literature I was reading last week, they seem to make a very big deal about how much Jehovah and Jesus love each other, and how Jesus is somehow identical to Jehovah(citing John 12:45 on this), despite being different people.
So, at times, it seems as if they're trying to get as close as possible to saying that Jesus and God are the same, without slipping into Trinitarianism.
[ 09. April 2017, 16:26: Message edited by: Stetson ]
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The 'elevator pitch' I heard yesterday seemed to suggest that by his obedience and death Jesus had somehow inaugurated the way for the New Heavens and the New Earth to become a reality where we could all live in peace and harmony as in the Isaiah prophecies ...
That was 'the wonderful thing Jesus has done' whilst society itself would collapse like a 'pack of cards' and in the midst of the turmoil Jehovah-God would step in to 'sweep away the wicked.'
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
we could all live in peace and harmony as in the Isaiah prophecies
Yes. They are especially fond of imagery showing various carnivores, mostly lions, carousing peacefully with human beings during the Paradise On Earth.
I realize it's officially just making the point that conflict and violence will disappear from nature during the rule of Jehovah. But the image is reproduced so obsessively in the literature, one wonders if it's not a form of sublimated nature-worship.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
Stetson:
I might read the book, though I've read lots of them. The Bottings are certainly colourful:
quote:
Michele Favarger attended Coven Celeste rituals in Alberta in 1982 and subsequently formed the Canadian Aquarian Tabernacle Church ("ATC") on Vancouver Island, inviting Heather Botting (as "Lady Aurora") and Gary Botting (as "Lord Pan") to become founding elders. The Bottings and Favarger, along with Favarger's partner and high priest Erik Lindblad, successfully campaigned the Province of British Columbia to recognize Wiccan weddings.[23] By 1995 Coven Celeste had become one of the mainstay covens of Temple of the Lady in Victoria, BC, and the ATC was conducting a prison ministry and most pagan weddings in the province—mostly led by Arch-Priestess Michele Favarger and High Priestess Lady Aurora.[24] Heather Botting is currently High Priestess of Circle of the Wolfsong, the Victoria branch of the ATC. Her husband, Denis O'Brien, is the coven's high priest. Wikipedia
Gary B was brought up by Leonard Cheshire VC and is an eminent lawyer, who seems to recognise that JWs did progress religious rights legislation in Canada.
quote:
In the JW literature I was reading last week, they seem to make a very big deal about how much Jehovah and Jesus love each other, and how Jesus is somehow identical to Jehovah(citing John 12:45 on this), despite being different people.
So, at times, it seems as if they're trying to get as close as possible to saying that Jesus and God are the same, without slipping into Trinitarianism.
THat's true, and I nearly got to agreement with some JW missionaries in Spain, though I have to declare that Squiggle Andrew (late of this ship) did think I was a unitarian at heart.
And to be fair, most evos haven't got much of a clue about the problems of trinitarian theology, and quite a lot would think that's not the main problem for the JWs and I have sympathy with this.
Gamaliel: quote:
Any resemblance with the Gospel evangelicals 'announce' is purely coincidental - and is more a question of style rather than substance.
I'm not sure you haven't gone a bit far there. The JWs would believe that Jesus, the Son of God, died to take away the punishment due to you (Ransom Sacrifice in their jargon) and that if you embrace this with a living faith, you will be saved. So it's quite close.
I agree it is flawed but you have to be quite subtle to see the flaws. Of course it's all bollocks really - agreed. But they do try and get as close to orthodoxy as they can, and sometimes they verge on Jesuitical casuistry.
I must see what their latest spiel is. The non events after 1914 must have caused them problems.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
The Bottings are certainly colourful
Thanks for the info. I lost track of them after reading that book, and wasn't aware that they had gotten into Wicca.
quote:
Gary B was brought up by Leonard Cheshire VC and is an eminent lawyer, who seems to recognise that JWs did progress religious rights legislation in Canada.
I believe that the Bottings were associates of M. James Penton, another academic whose career took an interesting trajectory. He started off devout, writing well-regarded peer-reviewed work lauding the JWs for their struggles for political freedom. After lapsing at some point, he wrote equally well-regarded, peer-reviewed work critiquing the internal authoritarianism of the group.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
The non events after 1914 must have caused them problems.
Well, 1914 was non-eventful from the POV of fulfilling the prophecies of C.T. Russell. By other yardsticks, however, it was ANYTHING BUT uneventful.
I've always thought that the Bible Students lucked out with the things that did actually happen in that year. Even if, technically, they weren't part of Russell's prophecy, they had the effect of making that particular year seem very pivotal indeed, which probably made a lot people less likely to dismiss the prophecies as total failures.
Certainly, JW literature has been eager to capitalize on the events of 1914.
[ 09. April 2017, 18:12: Message edited by: Stetson ]
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
Eutychus: quote:
I'm surprised to see such... parsimoniouness here when it comes to admitting somebody might possibly come to faith through something written by a JW purely because of the affiliation of the author.
I very much doubt that anyone has said that, and I certainly would not.
However, the full deal, for a JW is that you must believe and be baptised by which they mean baptised into their religion. And it is made absolutely plain that this means accepting the Watchtower Society as God's sole channel of communication bringing the truth to mankind, and submitting to their authority.
Even then, I would not deny that for some people this may be a way to some form of salvation. In Poland I met an Evangelical lady whose brother was a hopeless alcoholic, and only the JWs were able to get him to turn his life around. In cases like that, are you supposed to believe that this was a bad thing? Of course not, anymore that you would deny credit to the Nation of Islam for turning around the lives of many drug addicts.
Clearly, the restoral of broken lives is a work of God, whoever does it. But the Gospel emphasis of freedom is strong, and if anyone believes that being a JW is a life of freedom, then I'm afraid they're mistaken.
You do what you are told by The Governing Body.
As to the OP question whether we should accept them as brothers in Christ, I think it is relevant that they would have no wish at all for that. They have no recognition of any other religion but their own, and I think fellowship is a two-way street.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure, and I'm very sceptical of attempts to clamp down on the JWs in majority Orthodox countries for all sorts of reasons.
Kaplan would probably contest the point that many evangelicals are theologically illiterate in Trinitarian terms and insist that many MoTR and more Catholic folk are too. Well yes, but in practice I've found many evangelicals to be practically binitarian or else overly Christocentric.
Mind you, I always found Squiggly Andrew's views rather baffling and almost Tritheistic at times ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Kaplan would probably contest the point that many evangelicals are theologically illiterate in Trinitarian terms and insist that many MoTR and more Catholic folk are too. Well yes, but in practice I've found many evangelicals to be practically binitarian or else overly Christocentric.
Yes, there are many theologically illiterate evangelicals, and yes,I suspect that there are many theological illiterates from other traditions.
Non-evangelicals are more likely to recite the creeds on a regular basis, but whether they think about, and understand, what they are saying, or whether they treat them as a mantra or incantation ( a bit like some usage of the Lord's Prayer, or Psalm 23) might be asked.
As to whether some evangelicals are Christocentric (some penties actually have a Christocentric version of modalism, known as Jesus Only), it might also be asked whether some RCs are Mariocentric.
It might also be asked whether we sometimes fall into the trap of imagining a past Golden Age when all Christians were theologically balanced and literate.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Kaplan would probably contest the point that many evangelicals are theologically illiterate in Trinitarian terms and insist that many MoTR and more Catholic folk are too. Well yes, but in practice I've found many evangelicals to be practically binitarian or else overly Christocentric.
Yes, there are many theologically illiterate evangelicals, and yes,I suspect that there are many theological illiterates from other traditions.
Non-evangelicals are more likely to recite the creeds on a regular basis, but whether they think about, and understand, what they are saying, or whether they treat them as a mantra or incantation ( a bit like some usage of the Lord's Prayer, or Psalm 23) might be asked.
As to whether some evangelicals are Christocentric (some penties actually have a Christocentric version of modalism, known as Jesus Only), it might also be asked whether some RCs are Mariocentric.
It might also be asked whether we sometimes fall into the trap of imagining a past Golden Age when all Christians were theologically balanced and literate.
Sure, and it might also be asked whether our particular prejudices and predilections come into all of this ...
'I'm evangelical therefore balanced. RCs are prone to Mariocentricity ...'
'I'm evangelical and understand the creeds, therefore balanced. I don't recite them like a mantra or incantation like those nasty liberals and MoTR people and sacramentalists do ...'
'I'm evangelical and therefore balanced. I don't recite The Lord's Prayer or Psalm 23 like some meaningless mantra but think about what I say and pray because I am more sound and balanced than those evil nominal Christians at the non-evangelical churches down the road ...'
Or ...
'I am Orthodox / RC / Anglo-Catholic and therefore balanced. I understand Mary's role in the economy of salvation and treat her with due reverence and honour, yet not as a Fourth Member of the Holy Trinity ...'
'As a sacramentalist I am more balanced than those wild and woolly evangelicals down the road. I understand the Creeds and regularly recite them as well as the Lord's Prayer and Psalm 23 - and much else besides. At least I don't pray "Lord we really just Lord, Father, Jesus, really just pray Lord that Father you would really just ..." like those sub-creedal evangelicals down the road ...'
The reality, of course, is that yes, there was never a Golden Age and yes, some RCs and Anglo-Catholics are so Marian as to extend the bounds of all propriety ...
But as a Church in Wales cleric once put it, rather hyperbolically perhaps, 'Unless you're a good Marian you could make a good Arian ...'
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
It all boils down to this, 'I wish everyone was as sane, balanced and theologically sound as I am,' thing that we all engage in.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
