quote:

---

A gift becomes yours only when you reach out and accept it. So you must reach out and accept the ransom. How? Learn how God wants you to live, and then act accordingly. * Pray to God for forgiveness and a clean conscience. Approach God in full confidence that the ransom guarantees an eternal future of peace, security, and prosperity for all who exercise faith in it!—Hebrews 11:1

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

Of course any respondent may well get sucked into the JWs thereafter (indeed, the presentation goes on to invite people to the upcoming annual Memorial)

We may qualify the Watchtower organisation as non-Christian, but it strikes me that it could have quite a number of Christians in it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
We may qualify the Watchtower organisation as non-Christian, but it strikes me that it could have quite a number of Christians in it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

We may qualify the Watchtower organisation as non-Christian, but it strikes me that it could have quite a number of Christians in it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
I would be surprised if many of us on the Ship saw strict doctrinal orthodoxy as the acid test of saving faith.

I would also be surprised if many of us saw saving faith as something so vague it is not attached to a minimum of propositional truth.

---

quote:

---

It is relatively easy to categorise the Watchtower organisation as heretical (my primary objection to it is its implicit claim to be the only source of salvation).

I don't think it's so easy to rule out the possibility of individual Jehovah's Witnesses having grasped enough of the truth of the Gospel to trust in it in a meaningful way - although as chris stiles points out, that might end up in a conflict between the organisation and them.

---

quote:

---

I also persist in thinking that they are gradually inching towards mainstream Christianity.

---

quote:

---

Orthopraxis and Orthodoxy are only important in the sense of those being outworkings of the church, not some kind of measure of the church.

---

quote:

---

There is a simple measure of belief in the gospels

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

I also persist in thinking that they are gradually inching towards mainstream Christianity.

---

I think that's utter bullshit.

---

And no doubt you are simply awaiting the Lord's green light to call down fire on them

JWs certainly never used to describe themselves as Christians and certainly did use to announce specific dates for the end of the world.

They apppear to be finding more accommodation with the world at large over issues such as military service.

The difference in how JWs are perceived in the UK compared to France is noticeable - they are more accepted.

None of the above makes them orthodox but I think it does indicate change in an encouraging direction.

As far as non-Trinitarian schismatic groups becoming orthodox, as I understand it this happened to at least a chunk of Christadelphian congregations in the UK in recent decades.

Plenty of other groups that could be described as having cultic tendencies have ended up becoming more mainstream given enough time. Why should JWs be any different?
 

---

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
My cultlet did. From the top down. It's a good job God's a universalist.
 

---

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Belief appears to exist in your mind as a separate issue from the Church.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

I think that's utter bullshit.

---

And no doubt you are simply awaiting the Lord's green light to call down fire on them

JWs certainly never used to describe themselves as Christians and certainly did use to announce specific dates for the end of the world.

---

quote:

---

They apppear to be finding more accommodation with the world at large over issues such as military service.

---

quote:

---

The difference in how JWs are perceived in the UK compared to France is noticeable - they are more accepted.

---

quote:

---

None of the above makes them orthodox but I think it does indicate change in an encouraging direction.

---

quote:

---

As far as non-Trinitarian schismatic groups becoming orthodox, as I understand it this happened to at least a chunk of Christadelphian congregations in the UK in recent decades.

---

quote:

---

Plenty of other groups that could be described as having cultic tendencies have ended up becoming more mainstream given enough time. Why should JWs be any different?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
The JWs are one of the groups* that espouse the doctrines of Arius, and chief amongst those is the belief that Jesus is not the Son of God. They are non-Trinitarian

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
There is a simple measure of belief in the gospels, and the number of hours stood on a street corner or knocking on doors isn't it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't agree with Evangelicals that the only measure worth having is whether particular words have been invoked.

---

quote:

---

Even a cursory search suggests that Watchtower referred to JWs as Christians since at last the 1960s.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

They apppear to be finding more accommodation with the world at large over issues such as military service.

---

Not according to JW.org they don't:

"For the following reasons, Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t go to war.."

---

quote:

---

I can't see that there is any sense that JWs are not accepted in the UK, other than maybe in ecumenical Christian institutions which they probably wouldn't want to join anyway.

---

quote:

---

I can't see that these things are in any sense a real phenomena.

---

quote:

---

Really? You think Christadelphians are considered orthodox?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Plenty of other groups that could be described as having cultic tendencies have ended up becoming more mainstream given enough time. Why should JWs be any different?

---

They have, but that tends to be when they change their beliefs and/or behaviours.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
AIUI JWs believe that they earn salvation by knocking on doors and standing on street corners. It makes no difference what people's response is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I've never heard of whole congregations of Christadelphians who have "become orthodox" by joining Evangelical churches

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Again, this seems to only be an idea in the minds of Evangelicals. For everyone else, it seems to me, who and what the church is and has been is really important. Orthopraxis and Orthodoxy are only important in the sense of those being outworkings of the church, not some kind of measure of the church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

Both of these beliefs may leap out at us as being heretical, but I think they are closer to many Christians' functional beliefs than we might like to admit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:


The greatest Christian I can think of in a generation is, of course, a Muslim. A modern good Samaritan or what. Can anyone come up with a Christian whose orthopraxis is equal, let alone better?

Does the good Samaritan burn in Hell now? Maybe we just don't know, eh?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:


The greatest Christian I can think of in a generation is, of course, a Muslim. A modern good Samaritan or what. Can anyone come up with a Christian whose orthopraxis is equal, let alone better?

Does the good Samaritan burn in Hell now? Maybe we just don't know, eh?

---

Well, that's the rub, isn't it? I happen to think that Tariq Jahan showed remarkable Christian values in a dangerous moment (even though his other actions before and since have not always been completely spotless). Our othodoxy and orthopraxis can be absolutely perfect, but if we're not displaying Matthew 25 actions along with Beatitude values, it is hard to say that we're anything to do with the Christ of the gospels; and it is also hard to say that those who display these values are not walking in the way of the Christ.

But, again, that's the oxymoron. The church is not the only displayer of these values, those way outside often understand them instinctively, actively, coherently long before we do . . .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

*and, as per my OP, believe in the eternal pre-existence of the Son, citing Proverbs 8 as evidence, even if they refer rather sloppily to him as Jesus. They appear to be more orthodox on this point than, say, Servetus.

---

quote:

---

They apppear to be finding more accommodation with the world at large over issues such as military service.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think the dividing line emerging is that between "professing" and "confessing" Christians, or in other words, the significance one attaches to one's personal belief as opposed to the official belief of the church to which one may belong.

---

quote:

---

I also persist in thinking that they are gradually inching towards mainstream Christianity

---

quote:

---

Do not JW's consider Christ as a created being,lesser than God?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Al Eluia:
The quotes in the OP certainly sound to me like boiler-plate evangelical language. I wouldn't be surprised if they're consciously tailoring their message more to appeal to folks with an "orthodox" evangelical background. I noticed the same thing in the last mailing I got from the Mormons.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

Plenty of other groups that could be described as having cultic tendencies have ended up becoming more mainstream given enough time. Why should JWs be any different?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Ooh, and what is a gospel that can save? How does a gospel do that? Are there good newses that don't as well?

---

At the risk of repeating myself, I think most professed Christians here think that being a Christian involves at least a degree of assent to propositional truth that revolves around the person and work of Christ.

This is generally referred to as the Gospel, as you know perfectly well. "Saved" is, as I understand it, a common translation of the Greek word for "made whole".

We can argue ad nauseam about the exact meaning and scope of all of that, but if you think the person and work of Christ, or any summary of it, and our response to it, is pretty much irrelevant to being "made whole", then feel free to explore alternative good newses.

I often quote Paul, "the Gospel is preached, and in this I rejoice", even as he goes on to slam the motives and methods of some of the preachers. 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.

The Gospel is bigger than the heresies that are built around it, whether it's health and wealth or Arianism.
 

---

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
JW's are little more than off-the-chart extreme Brethrenish Evangelicals.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Bullshit.

Whatever else you might think of evangelicals in general and the Brethren in particular, they are thoroughly credally orthodox in their Trinitarianism and Christology - more so than, for example, sections of moribund liberal Protestantism.

---

quote:

---

Of course you will find individual evangelicals with a fairly tenuous grasp of, and inability to clearly articulate, the theology they profess, but that is equally true of individual Rcs, Orthodox and mainstream Protestants.

---

quote:

---

The Gospel is bigger than the heresies that are built around it, whether it's health and wealth or Arianism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
Does not everything depend on the identification of Christ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Is He the Christ of 'Take, eat, this is my body, broken for you.'?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by mr cheesy:
[qb]I'm saying if you consider Evangelicalism a spectrum, and you head out towards the Brethren end, and keep then going - then eventually you end up in the JWs.

---

quote:

---

JWs and Evangelicals are much closer than (eg) JWs and RCs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
As the number of self-professed Christians and active churchgoers continues to decline in the UK it may seem self-defeating to insist that the JWs don't belong.

There may be more attempts at rapprochement. Several years ago I invited a local JW writer I know to read one of his poems at our Methodist church concert. He had to ask for permission from his 'church' to come along - but he did get it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
No you don't.

JWs are not on any evangelical spectrum.

Credal, orthodox evangelism is categorically and qualitatively different from heterodox JW heresy.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

JWs and Evangelicals are much closer than (eg) JWs and RCs.

---

Wrong.

Doctrinally both RCs and evangelicals are far closer to one another than either is to the JWs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
As the number of self-professed Christians and active churchgoers continues to decline in the UK it may seem self-defeating to insist that the JWs don't belong.

There may be more attempts at rapprochement. Several years ago I invited a local JW writer I know to read one of his poems at our Methodist church concert. He had to ask for permission from his 'church' to come along - but he did get it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:


It's less about a 'message' or a 'package'. I know Eutychus isn't setting out to be reductionist, but it strikes me that a lot of evangelicalism can head that way. What is the essence of the 'message', what is the minimum we can pare everything down to ...?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

There are many ways that JWs are far closer to Brethren-type Evangelicals than RCs, not least the style of the services and the shape of the building.

---

quote:

---

Of course this is all a subjective judgement, but mine is that JWs are a form of ultra-ultra-ultra Evangelical, out in the woods way beyond the Brethren.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Certainly there is little to distinguish Penetecostals say, from JWs I'm sociological terms

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Similarity in "style of service" (assuming this is is in any way true) trumps differences in fundamentals such as Christology, Trinitarianism and soteriology?

Really?

---

quote:

---

As for "shape of building", I can't believe that after all these decades as an evangelical I have failed to notice this putative evangelical normative architectural morphology. I'll make a point of taking a good look around me next Sunday.

---

quote:

---

Given that JWs are not evangelicals at all, alternative expressions to 'subjective judgement" spring to mind.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:


It's less about a 'message' or a 'package'. I know Eutychus isn't setting out to be reductionist, but it strikes me that a lot of evangelicalism can head that way. What is the essence of the 'message', what is the minimum we can pare everything down to ...?

---

I already made this point.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Ok, so I was agreeing with you/reinforcing your point ... is that a problem?

I hadn't actually noticed that particular point in your posts, to be honest but FWIW I've been in broad agreement with you on this thread.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Certainly there is little to distinguish Penetecostals say, from JWs I'm sociological terms

---

And there is little to distinguish Pentecostals and JWs from RCs - in sociological terms.

So what?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Ok, so I was agreeing with you/reinforcing your point ... is that a problem?

I hadn't actually noticed that particular point in your posts, to be honest but FWIW I've been in broad agreement with you on this thread.

---

No, but as I'd already put that point to Eutychus and he'd already replied it seems to be a somewhat circular debate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
No 'so what' about it unless you want to ignore the sociological aspects.

What it means in practice is that Penties, JWs - and yes, popular grassroots Roman Catholicism - go head to head in competing among similar demographics.

It's no accident, for instance, that JWs are numerically comparatively strong in countries like Poland and Spain - because they draw on a demographic steeped in Catholicism but which may be poorly catechised. 'We're here to tell you about the Bible ...' 'Yes please ...'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Should we be welcoming Jehovah's Witnesses as brothers and sisters in Christ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, I'll buy that, mr cheesy.

More broadly, in terms of the similarities between marginal groups like the JWs and both independent evangelicals or the historic churches/denominations ... well, at one level that's inevitable as:

1) All marginal groups split from more mainstream ones at some time or other.

2) Whether coincidentally or otherwise, many of them seem to echo or parallel ancient Christian heresies - Arianism in the case of the JWs.

I think it's overly simplistic to suggest that 'there's no new heresy' and that there's some kind of connection or lineal descent ...

But what we find across most of these groups is a tendency found within more mainstream independent evangelicals ie. the idea that things went badly pear-shaped at some point in the Christian past ... usually Constantine is blamed ... and that they are either part of some great recovery - the Mormons - or else offering a more 'biblical' alternative - the JWs.

The resonances/parallels with certain restorationist forms of Protestant evangelicalism is all too obvious. They were following a trajectory established by the radical reformers of the 16th and 17th centuries and the independent evangelical groups of the 19th century.

The only difference is that some of these groups stopped short of toppling over into outright heresy/marginal territory - when seen from an historic perspective.

If we look at the denominational histories of any of the non-conformist sects and non-state church groups that emerged after the first waves of the Reformation we find them to essentially be a series of actions/reactions to the re-emergence of incipient heresies ...

Whole tranches of Anabaptists as well as Congregationalists and Presbyterians went Unitarian or Arian over time.

Arguably, it was influence from Wesleyan evangelicalism, with its roots in traditional 'high-church' Anglicanism (using the term in its older sense not the ritualistic one) that prevented more of these groups from tumbling off the table-top of received orthodoxy.

In other words, remove episcopacy (or modify it) and sit more loosely by the historic creeds and the inevitable result is somewhat out-there groups like the JWs - and indeed the Exclusive Brethren to bring things closer to home ...

That's not to say that everything within the historic Churches has remained hunky-dory and above-board either - however we define that.

But it is to acknowledge the trajectory.

I'm puzzled as to why Kaplan Corday seems so reluctant to acknowledge that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Should we be welcoming Jehovah's Witnesses as brothers and sisters in Christ?

---

I always did.

OK, I disagree with them about some elements of theology and practice. But then I disagree with The RCC, the Orthodox, the Methodists, the Baptists, the Evangelicals, the Pentecostals and many Anglicans (amongst others) about some elements of theology and practice as well.

OK, the JWs don't believe in the Trinity. And I get that some people here think that's enough to cast them out. But ultimately, I have to ask myself if I honestly think Jesus Christ as revealed through the Gospels and Revelation would cast out someone who earnestly seeks to follow His teachings but has a screwy idea of who He actually is. And I can't see it. I just can't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Don't the JWs believe that Jesus is the same as Michael the Archangel?

I wonder where they got that. Any thoughts?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Should we be welcoming Jehovah's Witnesses as brothers and sisters in Christ?

---

I always did.

OK, I disagree with them about some elements of theology and practice. But then I disagree with The RCC, the Orthodox, the Methodists, the Baptists, the Evangelicals, the Pentecostals and many Anglicans (amongst others) about some elements of theology and practice as well.

OK, the JWs don't believe in the Trinity. And I get that some people here think that's enough to cast them out. But ultimately, I have to ask myself if I honestly think Jesus Christ as revealed through the Gospels and Revelation would cast out someone who earnestly seeks to follow His teachings but has a screwy idea of who He actually is. And I can't see it. I just can't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
It seems to me that the whole 'prophetic' heavenly tourism, " I had a visitation from the patriarch Joseph and he told me.." is gnostic. It depends on extra biblical mysticism.

As for sacramentalism, the idea of a man making God so people can eat him? Go figure! Christ in the form of a host displayed in a monstrance? Go figure!

Both are deceptions.

---

Walking on water, raising people from the dead, raising oneself from the dead... If you are going to accept some non-rational things, you are hypocritical lining out others.
---------
As far as heresies, those are often simply the result of losing.
Yes, there has to be a threshold after which a definition no longer applies, else the definition is meaningless. However, one should be careful in setting the line.
 

---

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

Walking on water, raising people from the dead, raising oneself from the dead... If you are going to accept some non-rational things, you are hypocritical lining out others.

---

quote:

---

As far as heresies, those are often simply the result of losing.
Yes, there has to be a threshold after which a definition no longer applies, else the definition is meaningless. However, one should be careful in setting the line.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
You can't simply say that the person who accepts some non-rational things must therefore accept all of them or be a hypocrite.

---

quote:

---

Well, yes, this is obviously true. However, is this telling us anything? Maybe they lost because they were not convincing anyone away from the central orthodoxy. Maybe they lost because the thing has more coherence when it coalesces around orthodox doctrines. Maybe they lost because the heterodoxies attract fruitcakes more than the orthodox.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:
the illustration of the Crucifixion is pretty clearly NOT the standard evangelical rendition of said event.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:
the illustration of the Crucifixion is pretty clearly NOT the standard evangelical rendition of said event.

---

Looks like it to me - ransom, echoes of penal substitution

---

I was talking about the picture, not the theology. Having that particular image front and centre probably shows that they're not toning down their idiosyncrasies to fit into the evangelical comfort-zone.

But yes, apart from thinking that it wasn't God himself who died on the tree, the underlying theology of what happened isn't that heterodox.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Unless you consider ransom theories and substitutionary atonement to be heterodox ...

Some do ...


 

---

Posted by Margaret (# 283) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
So why don't they keep the Sabbath, Margaret, eh?!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Margaret:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
So why don't they keep the Sabbath, Margaret, eh?!

---

Um, Martin, not entirely sure what you're asking - do you mean keeping Saturday as the Sabbath because of their Adventist background? Not all Adventists were Seventh-day, though they've become much the biggest group - others kept the Sabbath on Sunday, and I believe there are still some First-day Adventist groups in America.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It depends on how we want to assess things.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Margaret:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
So why don't they keep the Sabbath, Margaret, eh?!

---

Um, Martin, not entirely sure what you're asking - do you mean keeping Saturday as the Sabbath because of their Adventist background? Not all Adventists were Seventh-day, though they've become much the biggest group - others kept the Sabbath on Sunday, and I believe there are still some First-day Adventist groups in America.

---

quote:

---

Lil Buddah: you are hypocritical lining out others

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
In other words, remove episcopacy (or modify it) and sit more loosely by the historic creeds and the inevitable result is somewhat out-there groups like the JWs

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Lil Buddah: you are hypocritical lining out others

---

Hosts take note please.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
For the nth time, I didn't say they were Evangelicals, I said that they are what you get when you go out towards Brethrenish evangelicalism, and then keep going.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm just saying that the crossover between JWs and Brethren evangelicals is much closer than, for example, between JWs and RCs, who are culturally much further apart.

---

quote:

---

You've seriously not noticed the shape of Brethren buildings and thought that they're different to RC buildings.

---

quote:

---

I said that they are what you get when you go out towards Brethrenish evangelicalism, and then keep going.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Last time I looked, it was the nasty unbiblical bishops at a council called by that nasty Constantine who drafted the Nicene Creed.

That doesn't justify everything else they did, of course ... But no bishops no Creed. One might say no Constantine no Creed, but that might scare the horses ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Steady on, Kaplan. I quite like my sacred sites ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
We may qualify the Watchtower organisation as non-Christian, but it strikes me that it could have quite a number of Christians in it.

---

I don't see how it can. The JWs are one of the groups* that espouse the doctrines of Arius, and chief amongst those is the belief that Jesus is not the Son of God. They are non-Trinitarian. That was the point addressed in the very complicated but very precisely worked out formulae in the Nicene Creed. Arius denied these and was condemned for heresy. If you accept the Nicene Creed, you cannot be a JW. Unless you accept it, you can't be a Christian.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
And I'm saying that's nonsense, first because in sociological terms JWs and RCs are quite similar, and secondly because the theological (ie cultural) gulf between RCs and evangelicals is minute compared to the cultural/theological gulf between evangelicals and JWs.

---

quote:

---

Evangelicals meet in buildings ranging from "tin tabernacles" and severely minimalist functionalism, to full-blown Gothic Revival.

---

quote:

---

RC churches range from traditional cathedrals to modernist (le dernier cri when they were built in the 1950s/1960s) to shabby weatherboard bush chapels.
There is no architectural homogeneity in either tradition.

---

quote:

---

And I am pointing out that they clearly are not - they are qualitatively different, not just further along a spectrum.

Please try to listen to what people are saying.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by W Hyatt:

I worship Jesus Christ as the one and only God, without accepting the Nicene Creed. How does that fail to qualify me as a Christian? All it does is make me non-creedal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Don't the JWs believe that Jesus is the same as Michael the Archangel?

I wonder where they got that. Any thoughts?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
We may qualify the Watchtower organisation as non-Christian, but it strikes me that it could have quite a number of Christians in it.

---

I don't see how it can. The JWs are one of the groups* that espouse the doctrines of Arius, and chief amongst those is the belief that Jesus is not the Son of God. They are non-Trinitarian. That was the point addressed in the very complicated but very precisely worked out formulae in the Nicene Creed. Arius denied these and was condemned for heresy. If you accept the Nicene Creed, you cannot be a JW. Unless you accept it, you can't be a Christian.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
We may qualify the Watchtower organisation as non-Christian, but it strikes me that it could have quite a number of Christians in it.

---

I don't see how it can. The JWs are one of the groups* that espouse the doctrines of Arius, and chief amongst those is the belief that Jesus is not the Son of God. They are non-Trinitarian. That was the point addressed in the very complicated but very precisely worked out formulae in the Nicene Creed. Arius denied these and was condemned for heresy. If you accept the Nicene Creed, you cannot be a JW. Unless you accept it, you can't be a Christian.

---

Steady now! I know quite a few eg: Baptists who won't say the Nicene Creed because they don't believe that baptism forgives sins, but are nevertheless kosher Trinitarian Christians (oxymoron intentional).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Margaret:
[QUOTE]I believe there are still some First-day Adventist groups in America.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
Do you accept the Trinity though?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by W Hyatt:

I worship Jesus Christ as the one and only God, without accepting the Nicene Creed. How does that fail to qualify me as a Christian? All it does is make me non-creedal.

---

Whilst noting what I said above about living Beatitude values, I'd also suggest that the majority of the church wouldn't consider Swedenborgians to be orthodox.

Is that a controversial idea? I thought the whole point of Swedenborgians was that they had some kind of new revelation and were building a "new church".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Brethren meet in buildings that are almost always the same shape.

The more Brethren the evangelical church, the more homogeneity there is.

AFAIU Closed Brethren buildings are almost identical.

---

quote:

---

the extremes when you get towards the Brethren.

---

quote:

---

your opinion is a fact.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
On the Providence thing - without being too post-modern and relative about it, surely that's in the eye of the beholder?{/QB]

---

quote:

---

[QB} Paschal's Wager

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
On the Providence thing - without being too post-modern and relative about it, surely that's in the eye of the beholder?{/QB]

---

quote:

---

[QB} Paschal's Wager

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I don't think we can separate out our theology from our aesthetic and affective responses.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
On the Providence thing - without being too post-modern and relative about it, surely that's in the eye of the beholder?{/QB]

---

Not from the point of view of all the Christian traditions, which believe that God providentially revealed his truth in the Bible despite the faults and failures of its human authors.

It is slightly different, but no more difficult, to believe that the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed and Definition of Chalcedon articulated and defined that truth accurately despite the shortcomings of their authors.

Constantine's faith (or lack thereof), character, morality and politics don't come into it.

quote:

---

[QB} Paschal's Wager

---

Is that a bet placed during Easter?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by W Hyatt:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
Do you accept the Trinity though?

---

Yes, although instead of a Trinity of three persons, I believe in a Trinity in a single person.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:

quote:

---

Originally posted by W Hyatt:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
Do you accept the Trinity though?

---

Yes, although instead of a Trinity of three persons, I believe in a Trinity in a single person.

---

A trinity of what? Modes? Can they be concurrent? Or do the masks have to take turns? Oooh, and while you're at it, maybe you can reconcile God the Son, or God in Son mode, with the Son of God. No one else here can.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:

quote:

---

Originally posted by W Hyatt:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
Do you accept the Trinity though?

---

Yes, although instead of a Trinity of three persons, I believe in a Trinity in a single person.

---

A trinity of what? Modes? Can they be concurrent? Or do the masks have to take turns? Oooh, and while you're at it, maybe you can reconcile God the Son, or God in Son mode, with the Son of God. No one else here can.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Mind you, in my years of ministry and church life, only one person I have encountered questioned the creed because it stated that baptism forgives sins.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I don't think we can separate out our theology from our aesthetic and affective responses.

---

Yes and no.

My wife and I read together Peter's confession of faith at Caesarea Philippi when we were in Banias a million years ago backpackng around Israel.

It didn't make it any more true or meaningful, but it seemed a good thing to do.

Likewise my visit to C.S.Lewis's grave in Oxford made no difference to my appreciation and criticisms of his writings, but again I felt an urge to do it.

The dangers of "aesthetic and affective responses' are twofold.

First, they can replace or undermine sound theology rather than complementing it.

Wordsworth's (I am quoting from memory) "Each impulse form a vernal wood/Can tell us more of man/Of moral evil and of good/Than all the sages can", for example, is unmitigated bullshit.

Secondly, there is the danger of turning superstitious (or harmlessly fanciful) notions of sacred spaces and objects into dogmas and imposing them on others.

---

You're doing it again. Whilst I'm broadly in agreement with the points you raise here - and I don't think I ever said that there weren't 'dangers' - you seem to be suggesting that you (or I) are some kind of arbiter of what constitutes 'sound theology'.

We aren't.

Or at least, we are to the extent that we hold to the received tradition which we've inherited and which has been passed down to us.

I have absolutely no idea at what point reciting Peter's confession of faith at the location it was made or visiting C S Lewis's grave or whatever else topples over into superstition .... but we all draw the line somewhere.

Heck, my RC friends are more than happy to tell me about the 'superstitious' practices they've observed among Catholics from other cultural backgrounds to themselves - Romanies, say, or people from Eastern Europe ...

It's always someone else's practices that are superstitious and not our own.

Equally, I know Orthodox priests who are quite outspoken about renouncing Greek ideas about 'the evil eye' as sheer superstition ... whereas a fruit-cake convert I've come across on-line is convinced that they are only doing so to dilute the Faith and make it more acceptable to a Western audience ...



It's always easier to spot superstitions in other people, less easy to spot them in ourselves.

I'm thinking aloud here. At what point does a superstition or whacky-idea undermine 'sound theology' and who decides?

I remember hatless saying something on these boards once about Spanish villagers whipping statues of St Anthony for apparently failing to find lost sets of keys and other objects ...

Clearly, most of us - RC, Protestant, Orthodox - would probably find that rather 'out there' and iffy ...

On the Wordsworth thing, no it's not bullshit - he was being Romantic and we should allow him some poetic licence ... and, of course, to tick your 'sound theology' box, he also moved away from his youthful pantheism to a stolidly respectable orthodox Anglican position in later life. Arguably to the detriment of his poetry ...
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Meanwhile, on the providential thing ... yes, I do believe that God providentially 'arranged' the circumstances that led to the definitions agreed at Nicea and Chalcedon - and also in the process of discussion / discernment that led to the formation of the canon of scripture ...

That's not the point I was making.
 

---

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Aha, so in an attempt to rescue the first two of these three statements from meaninglessness, now you have to bring in Closed/Exclusive Brethren, instead of the Open Brethren who are far more representative of evangelicalism and have an enormous range of architecture worldwide.

---

quote:

---

It is simply a fact that JWs do not hold the orthodox, credal Trinitarian and Christological doctrines that evangelicals do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I was trying to observe some features of Brethren as they go to the extremes. They're unlikely to consider the RCC to be Christian, they're unlikely to worry too much about creeds, and so on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I was trying to observe some features of Brethren as they go to the extremes. They're unlikely to consider the RCC to be Christian, they're unlikely to worry too much about creeds, and so on.

---

That's a ridiculous and ignorant generalisation about Brethren in particular and evangelicals more broadly.

For a start, all believe the central doctrines of the creeds (unlike JWs) whether they know about them or not.

And there is no consensus whatsoever about whether RCs are not Christian - my guess is that nowadays only a minority would go that far.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The further out you go in this direction, the more uniform the architecture becomes, until at the furthest extreme there is very little variety and very little difference to the JW's Kingdom Halls.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
On the Wordsworth thing, no it's not bullshit - he was being Romantic and we should allow him some poetic licence

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
On the Wordsworth thing, no it's not bullshit - he was being Romantic and we should allow him some poetic licence

---

To use Sellar and Yeatman's terminology, he was Wromantic but Wrong, and not just from a Christian, but also from a secular standpoint.

Deriving morality from nature brings to mind hearty bands of Hitler Youth hikers marching along in the forests and mountains and open air absorbing Kraft durche Freude.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Meanwhile, on the providential thing ... yes, I do believe that God providentially 'arranged' the circumstances that led to the definitions agreed at Nicea and Chalcedon - and also in the process of discussion / discernment that led to the formation of the canon of scripture ...

That's not the point I was making.

---

quote:

---

The JWs do have problems. I thought that they would abandon their 1914 dating of the establishment of Christ's kingdom, since the "generation that sees these things" will go through Armageddon.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

On the JW's appropriating evangelical sounding language, I'm not so convinced that this is a conscious strategy or ploy. It's more a case of a kind of parisitic growth outside but alongside more mainstream forms of evangelical-style religion.

---

quote:

---

On the JW's appropriating evangelical sounding language, I'm not so convinced that this is a conscious strategy or ploy. It's more a case of a kind of parisitic growth outside but alongside more mainstream forms of evangelical-style religion.

Culturally and sociologically, JWs are very similar to the demographic one finds in Pentecostalism and independent evangelicalism. Back in my door-knocking days it always struck me how hard it was to evangelise without coming across like a JW ...

The commonality is probably more down to a common modus operandi than anything else.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:


That doesn't denigrate evangelical Protestantism or lead to a kind of guilt by association. No, it's simply an acknowledgement of historical fact.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
... It's a Paschal Wager thing. ....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

It's a Paschal Wager thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
... It's a Paschal Wager thing. ....

---

Best Freudian typo ever.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by W Hyatt:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:

quote:

---

Originally posted by W Hyatt:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
Do you accept the Trinity though?

---

Yes, although instead of a Trinity of three persons, I believe in a Trinity in a single person.

---

A trinity of what? Modes? Can they be concurrent? Or do the masks have to take turns? Oooh, and while you're at it, maybe you can reconcile God the Son, or God in Son mode, with the Son of God. No one else here can.

---

Not a Trinity of anything - modes, masks, persons, or otherwise.

The Holy Trinity is the original Trinity that creates the trinity constituting each each of us: soul, body, and spirit. God the Father is the Divine Soul, which is Life itself. God the Son is Christ as the Divine Body or Logos who manifests God to creation, and God the Holy Spirit is God's effect on creation.

As a finite image and likeness of God, our soul is what allows us to receive a sliver of life from God (without our being aware of it so it feels like our life and so we can't mess it up). Our body is what allows us to manifest that life and decide what we do with it. And our spirit is the life we are living and the effect it has on the world around us.

God is a single Divine Person in the same way each of us is a single person, albeit finite and imperfect. Hence "I and the Father are one" and "He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, `Show us the Father'?"

What makes you think there's anything to reconcile between God the Son and the Son of God?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It's a Paschal Wager thing.

---

quote:

---

just to take one: their bizarre belief that Christ's body was never raised.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:

quote:

---

Originally posted by W Hyatt:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:

quote:

---

Originally posted by W Hyatt:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
Do you accept the Trinity though?

---

Yes, although instead of a Trinity of three persons, I believe in a Trinity in a single person.

---

A trinity of what? Modes? Can they be concurrent? Or do the masks have to take turns? Oooh, and while you're at it, maybe you can reconcile God the Son, or God in Son mode, with the Son of God. No one else here can.

---

Not a Trinity of anything - modes, masks, persons, or otherwise.

The Holy Trinity is the original Trinity that creates the trinity constituting each each of us: soul, body, and spirit. God the Father is the Divine Soul, which is Life itself. God the Son is Christ as the Divine Body or Logos who manifests God to creation, and God the Holy Spirit is God's effect on creation.

As a finite image and likeness of God, our soul is what allows us to receive a sliver of life from God (without our being aware of it so it feels like our life and so we can't mess it up). Our body is what allows us to manifest that life and decide what we do with it. And our spirit is the life we are living and the effect it has on the world around us.

God is a single Divine Person in the same way each of us is a single person, albeit finite and imperfect. Hence "I and the Father are one" and "He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, `Show us the Father'?"

What makes you think there's anything to reconcile between God the Son and the Son of God?

---

W Hyatt. That is a trinity of something. Of substances in fact. Not 'Not a Trinity of anything'. That would be a something of nothing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
tightly-knit or tightly controlled evangelical Protestant outfits such as the FIEC or Plymouth Brethren.

---

quote:

---

I've often said that you need a very short memory to hang around in some charismatic evangelical or revivalist circles for any length of time ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
tightly-knit or tightly controlled evangelical Protestant outfits such as the FIEC or Plymouth Brethren.

---

References in this context to the "Plymouth Brethren" without qualification are meaningless.

Not only are Exclusive/ Closed groups distinctly different from the Open Brethren, but even amongst the latter there are great differences.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Older RCs could say the same, and might also have something to contribute on "mind control".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anteater:
Stetson:

JWs believe that Jesus was raised as a pure spirit without his human body. They believe his human life was sacrificed and that it is a permanent sacrifice.

There seems no reason for this since no major aspect of their belief depends on it, so they could change it at any time, and indeed since I last discussed this over 20 years ago, they may already have.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
References in this context to the "Plymouth Brethren" without qualification are meaningless.

Not only are Exclusive/ Closed groups distinctly different from the Open Brethren, but even amomgst the latter there are great differences.

---

What is it about the concept of a "spectrum" that you don't understand? I introduced Brethren to this discussion because I believe that they have certain characteristics which are sociologically and historically similar to the JWs. That's as opposed to other conservative Christian groups I could have mentioned - JWs are not really as similar to conservative Baptists, or conservative Presbyterians or other conservative groups within the general understanding of the word "Evangelical".

Closed Brethren are necessarily most similar to Open Brethren in that they share direct lineage. Various Brethren groups use different names - but in this context it doesn't really matter. There are less open and more open Brethren. There are groups who used to be Brethren but are now considered to be general Evangelical or even Charismatic.

I'd also note that even the most Open Brethren would be considered towards the most conservative end of (that part) of Evangelicalism.

I don't understand why this is such a controversial idea for you KC - different groups exist, some are similar other groups and progressively more different to others.
 

---

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by anteater:
The RCC and the Watchtower Society are like chalk and cheese.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

Like brie and camembert actually.

Both are conservative, authoritarian, and produce more - more even then ex-evangelicals, not just ex-mainstream prots - than their fair share of resentful ex memebers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
[QB] I notice you didn't get up tight when I listed health-wealth prosperity gospellers among those I considered capable of mind-control.
/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Closed Brethren are necessarily most similar to Open Brethren in that they share direct lineage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:


Despite their common origin nearly two hundred years ago, Open Brethren today share far more similarities with other evangelicals (Anglican, Baptist, etc) than they do with Exclusives.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

Despite their common origin nearly two hundred years ago, Open Brethren today share far more similarities with other evangelicals (Anglican, Baptist, etc) than they do with Exclusives.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

Like brie and camembert actually.

Both are conservative, authoritarian, and produce more - more even then ex-evangelicals, not just ex-mainstream prots - than their fair share of resentful ex memebers.

---

I wonder if anyone has ever done proper research into ex-members. I think this statement is highly unlikely.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
To be fair, mr cheesy, most of the differences between evangelical Anglicans and Open Brethren folk tend to be more an issue of externals rather than 'essence' ...

---

I suppose this depends what you mean. It is certainly true that Brethren-folk end up in many contexts, and it is also true that Brethren influence bleeds into various other evangelical groups. I know an Evangelical church near here with a solid baptist-type background over 100 years which is becoming more like a Brethren congregation (ie no pastor, heavy reliance on visiting speakers etc) because the elders have a Brethren background.

But I'd argue that at a particular point (and I'd agree that one could debate exactly what that point is) people who leave the Brethren cease to be Brethren. Even though the Evangelical church I mentioned above has been influenced by ex-Brethren members it still has various other features which put it solidly into the baptist strand of Evangelical.

Obviously a charismatic church which grew out of a Brethren tradition may retain tinges of the tradition - depending on the length of time, the people involved, the way the constitution of the organisation has evolved - but it isn't just a Brethren congregation which has gone a bit charismatic.

As a base statement, a church which describes itself as Brethren is different in many ways to one that describes itself as Anglican. There may well be some meeting in the middle where the thing is merged, but these things rarely describe themselves as Brethren.

And as a Brethren congregation, whilst there may be some overlap and similarities in some of the associations with some of the more conservative Anglican churches, as a whole they are completely different. You don't get Anglican churches which are like the Brethren, because that's a contradiction in terms.

In contrast, there are a smallish number of Conservative Evangelical Anglican parishes which behave very much like Calvinistic Baptist or Evangelical churches. The ties between those groups are (sometimes) much closer.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Sure, I'd go along with all of that, mr cheesy.

I suppose if we see the state of 'Brethrenness' as much a state-of-mind as an external organisation as such then we can take the 'Brethren' out of the assembly without them necessarily losing their 'Brethrenness' ...

Or am I missing something?

I've been involved with networks of charismatic evangelical churches which had a strong Brethren influence - and you could always recognise the former Brethren in such circles - and I've seen that in Spain too as well as the UK.

Kaplan probably thinks I have a downer on the Brethren. I don't. I owe them a lot. They introduced me to Bible study and gave me a broad grasp/overview of the scriptures ...

They may well have broadened out by now - I suspect they have - or else morphed into other forms of evangelicalism.

From what I can gather they've dropped a lot of the Dispensationalism and obsession with Eschatology ...

All they need to do now is ... [insert solution of choice] ...


 

---

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sure, I'd go along with all of that, mr cheesy.

I suppose if we see the state of 'Brethrenness' as much a state-of-mind as an external organisation as such then we can take the 'Brethren' out of the assembly without them necessarily losing their 'Brethrenness' ...

Or am I missing something?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
And, y'know, the Brethren in my family have almost nothing in common with the Anglicans. The practices are different, the church organisation is different, the buildings look different, the services are completely different.

---

quote:

---

In all of those aspects, closed Brethren are much more similar to Open Brethren than any Anglican church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
But if I'd carried out a survey of the Gospel Halls I encountered in my late teens/early 20s and compared it with the local Kingdom Halls I suspect I'd have found a high degree of correlation in socio-economic and demographic terms. The same with the local Mormons.

If I'd have carried out a similar exercise with the local RCs the results would, I think, have been somewhat different ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'd think there are some distinctive things about being Brethren - so if you've left and decided that those things are no longer relevant to you, then you're not Brethren.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Al Eluia:
Since someone mentioned their doctrine that Jesus was not crucified, I must share my favorite verse from the New World Translation, I Cor. 1:18 - "The message about the torture-stake is foolishness to those who are perishing."

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
@Latchkey Kid ... The Brethren I encountered were like that.

These days, though, I don't see supporting Billy Graham crusades or joining the local Baptists in mission as representing the pinnacle of openness and ecumenism ...

All groups draw the line somewhere. Would they have sent a representative on St Saviour's annual pilgrimage to Walsingham? Would St Saviour's have offered Billy Graham members of its choir?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

I had wondered if it was just to dissociate themselves from mainstream churches that use the cross on their buildings.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Well, sorry, I don't accept that even the lowest Anglicans are similar to 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.

---

quote:

---

If they are, then by definition, they're not 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.

---

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:

---

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.

---

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.

---

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 ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
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 ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
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.


 

---

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
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 ...
 

---

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
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?
 

---

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
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!

---

quote:

---

Similarly they taught for ages that Jesus was clean shaven, but abandoned that.

---

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?

---

quote:

---

we could all live in peace and harmony as in the Isaiah prophecies

---

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

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Any resemblance with the Gospel evangelicals 'announce' is purely coincidental - and is more a question of style rather than substance.

---

quote:

---

The Bottings are certainly colourful

---

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.

---

quote:

---

The non events after 1914 must have caused them problems.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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 ...'



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.
 

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0