Understanding Jehovah’s Witnesses

 

I was wondering whether to write this post. But I think there is something worthwhile here.

I just want to say, as I have done before, that I admire Jehovah’s Witnesses in some tangible respects. If they were my next-door neighbours, I would feel confident that I had honest well-behaved neighbours whom I could trust. And I actually admire how they try not to be swept to and fro by the ever-changing culture of the fast-changing modern world, even if I don’t necessarily agree on their stances sometimes. And insofar as there is a genuine appetite for reading the Bible, I admire that too. Indeed, there is inevitably common ground with the mainstream of Bible-reading Christians, even if the narrative they tell themselves as a group is that this is not so. Even if they tell themselves that they stand in opposition to mainstream Christianity. I always like to acknowledge common ground.

In this post, I want to try to put my finger on why, however, orthodox Christians instinctively feel there is something a bit “off” about Jehovah’s Witnesses’ version of the Christian faith. And it’s not what JWs think.

It may be difficult to warm in the first place to a very polarised us-and-them way of thinking that is never far from the surface. But that it is the tip of an iceberg that we may get glimpses of. The tip of the iceberg signposts to their unusual worldview, and these glimpses of that worldview raise the red flags.

One thing you might get a glimpse of, like the outline of someone in the fog that tells you more than you can first make out is a revelling in a narrative of superiority. It may be slow to come out of the shadows and the fog, but an orthodox Christian may quickly sense that there's something there. I've looked further into the shadows, and this is what I find there. 

 

A love of superiority

Firstly, one has to understand that Jehovah's Witnesses actually believe that they are not representatives of Jesus but rather are representatives of one superior to Jesus, as they see it. 

They believe that, in their hierarchy, they represent a higher position by proxy, whereas Jesus represents a lower position, They literally describe Jesus as "inferior." 

That is, they think they represent someone superior (Jehovah). (Jehovah "superior," Jesus "inferior." That's their mantra.) 

This helps to explain why some Jehovah's Witnesses are keen to say that Jehovah is Almighty and Jesus is not. They don't consider themselves to be representatives of the "inferior" Jesus. They consider themselves to be representatives of the one who is Jesus' superior. This approach makes me feel quite queasy. 

It's as though they think that their Michael-Jesus is on one side of the equation whilst they are on the better side of the equation. 

It may well make them insensitive to how shocking it sounds to orthodox Christians. But when the Jehovah's Witnesses relegate Jesus to being an angel (archangel) and "inferior," all of this is going on in the minds of their organisation. However, ordinary JW members have probably never felt free to do the kind of analysis I have done in some of my posts. 

(If you were to wonder how Jesus being "inferior" reconciles with representing the "body of Christ", it doesn't have to, for Jehovah's Witnesses generally, as they reserve "body of Christ" for their "144,000." Which means they don't have to think through being the body of Christ. And they don't consider they represent Christ. See above.) 

 

De-centring Jesus out of ritual life

Orthodox Christians have included Jesus in their devotions from the earliest days of the apostles. These were well developed devotional practices already by the time the apostle Paul was writing his letters. Allow me to take a moment to explain, so you have the background to recognise the problem when it appears.

As Larry Hurtado wrote here (link) about original earliest known Christianity:

“There is a constellation of devotional actions that reflect the striking inclusion of Jesus: the rite of initiation (baptism) performed by invoking Jesus, the common/sacred meal as one where Jesus is the presiding figure, the invocation of Jesus as “Lord” to constitute the worship-gathering, the ritual confession of Jesus as “Lord” as the mark of early Christian identity, the singing of hymns/odes about Jesus as a central feature of early Christian worship, prayer through him and sometimes to him (either singly or jointly with God).”

Hurtado writes about how the earliest church made ritual invocations of a heavenly Jesus.  “The most common instance seems to have been the corporate acclamation/ invocation by which the corporate worship event was constituted, which involved a “calling upon” Jesus.  Likewise, in early Christian baptism, one called upon Jesus, invoking him over the baptized person.  Indeed, in 1 Cor. 1:2 Paul refers to fellow believers simply as those who everywhere “call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.” 

This absolutely makes the name of Jesus central to early Christian ritual. It thus feels decidedly odd when JWs preach as if the centrality has switched back to the name Jehovah, which is precisely going backwards.

And in 2 Cor. 12:6-10, Paul remembers his repeated appeals to the heavenly Jesus to relieve him of his “thorn in the flesh.” 

Hurtado also notes that “prayers are typically offered with reference to Jesus, e.g., “in his name” and/or “through” him (e.g., Rom. 1:8; 7:25; Col. 3:17; Eph. 5:20).” The centrality of the name of Jesus in early Christian ritual, such as prayer, immediately became part of the DNA. It’s so familiar that it easy to forget it must have been remarkably new to make Jesus’ name a central feature of ritual.

After Jesus' resurrection, baptism is changed from how John the Baptist would have done it. It's done "in the name of Jesus" in the Book of Acts. There is no baptism “in the name of Jesus and Jehovah" anywhere (not even in Kingdom Halls). Jesus is the central name of the earliest Christian ritual life. This apostolic innovation is so ingrained in Christian practice that it is quite jarring when JWs stridently demand that the name Jehovah be central to devotional life, as if early Christian innovation has made little impression on them. They thus seem to be outliers. And here lies the problem. Seeing the centrality of Jesus in church services, JWs are jealous to make the name Jehovah central instead. There is something disquieting about wanting to de-centre Jesus, even if ordinary JW members go into it with good intentions.

As Hurtado says (link) in relation to the early Christians, “the exalted Jesus is their Lord to whom they owe obedience and reverence.” Of course, this is not said or done to de-centre God the Father. Not at all. The centrality of Jesus in Christian life glorifies God the Father. 

There can be doubt about the central ritual confession “Jesus is Lord” and the ritual invocation of Jesus in “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Romans 10:9-13). 

Paul refers to the common meal as “the Lord’s supper.”  Paul makes a favourable comparison with meals in honour of pagan deities, being a sharing in the blood and body of Christ and the Lord’s table (1 Corinthians 10:14-22). Whatever theology we attached to the bread and wine, it is obvious that Jesus is as central to the ritual as pagan gods are central to theirs. Orthodox Christians find it hard to suppress a laugh when they hear that ordinary JWs are not allowed to consume any part of the bread or wine when it is passed around at their annual commemoration of the Last Supper. But it is just one example of how they are sometimes strangely distanced from the centrality of Jesus in Christian ritual.  

Other examples of Jesus’ name being central to invocations are healings and exorcisms “in the name of Jesus” (Acts 3:6; 16:18). Hurtado: “the early Christian practice of invoking Jesus by name means that his name and power were regarded as the power by which they were able to perform these acts.”

Hurtado also reminds us to notice “the high and central place of Jesus in the early Christian circles” as seen in Paul’s letters: “grace and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” (Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 1:3; 2 Corinthians 1:2). Curiously, JWs are marked in contrast by how frequently the say the word Jehovah. Theirs is a departure from Paul’s pattern.

Hurtado adds that Paul’s letters also typically conclude with a benediction as from Christ, for example:  “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you” (1 Thessalonians 5:28).” Consider that these words would have been read out in worship settings!

It all adds to the centrality of the name of Jesus in early Christian ritual life.

Consider also blessings such as this: “Now may our God and Father himself and our Lord Jesus direct our way to you.”  Not, note, “may Jehovah direct you.” This is because of these New Testament innovations, moving on from the ritual use of Jehovah’s name to the ritual use of Jesus’ name. To a large extent, it is what makes authentic Christian meetings Christian In the formal sense.

Elsewhere, Paul refers to pronouncing judgment on an errant believer “in the name of the Lord Jesus,” and to doing so “with the power of our Lord Jesus” (1 Corinthians 5:3-5). As Hurtado says, “the authority and power of the ritual is ascribed to the risen Jesus.” The resurrected Jesus is so central to this life that he is present in power on earth, notwithstanding his place in heaven. This too is remarkable.

Jesus is even salvation itself (John 14:6).

Whatever we think of the divinity of Jesus, it is clear that the central name of the authentic New Testament faith, the much repeated name, was Jesus. The fact that JWs’ insistence on the centrality of the name Jehovah seems odd to orthodox Christians doesn’t mean that JWs are hated, as they think, nor that Jehovah’s name is hated, as they think. It’s just that Christians may instinctively wonder why the JWs have gone backwards, when the New Testament goes forwards, as to which name is central to Christian life. It does make JWs seem a little peculiar. If they revel in that, so be it.

Of course, orthodox Christians are not walking around with lists in their heads like the one above. They have simply lived and breathed this stuff so long that they instinctively know when something isn’t quite right. De-centralising the name Jesus from Christianity is an example of something that isn’t quite right.

What else do the outlines we glimpse tell us about a worldview that can sometimes lead to people feeling polarised in an us-and-them way, which is one of the red flags that can make orthodox Christians recoil somewhat. 

I hope this attempt at capturing that sense that something isn't right is helpful so far.

Their Jehovah Bible (a.k.a. the New World Translation)

One of the great English hymns is “Guide me, o thou great Jehovah,” and this is not something that has required much worry. So it seems odd to Christians that JWs are drawn into being very heavily emotionally invested in the word Jehovah and seemingly anxious about orthodox Christians not saying it often enough and not reading the word Jehovah often enough. We may fairly feel something unbalanced is happening. It can lead to strange accusations emanating from the Watchtower that don’t endear people towards it.  

As happens sometimes, it strikes Christians as odd to be accused of “hiding” the name Jehovah and even “hating” the name - when they have never even had to worry about it. Let me explain.

It's an attack on published Bibles that follow ancient tradition, when there's actually nothing untoward about them. This dispute stems from the ancient Christian tradition of using the word “Lord” in the Bible where it might be expected by a scholar to say Jehovah/Yahweh. All through the New Testament, the apostolic authors quote Old Testament scripture substituting the word 'Lord' for 'Jehovah/Yahweh' and in so doing they established Christian tradition. The New Testament authors didn't do what scholars might expect. There is good reason for it.

But if you have listened to “the Watchtower script,” you will know that the accusation runs like this: in the Hebrew Bible, the name Jehovah/Yahweh occurs nearly 7,000 times. (To the uninitiated, this might just about make the category of “interesting statistic for people who like counting.”) But – oh disaster! – the title ‘Lord‘ appears as a substitute for the name ‘Jehovah.’ And that occurs in most translations.

But it's not hidden at all. The valid reason is explained transparently in the introduction on the New International Version and elsewhere. It's that the New Testament authors were innovative in how they substituted 'Lord' for 'Jehovah' to reveal truths about Jesus. 

So, if it's about revealing something Christian, why the strange accusation about ‘hiding’ something instead?

I’ve even heard the accusation elaborated to say that the name Jehovah is hidden as an agenda to make people believe in the Trinity. But the truth is instead actually rather beautiful. It’s not even to do with the doctrine of the Trinity. It's everything to do with the original New Testament authors being innovative in how they used the word Lord where you would otherwise expect to see the word Jehovah/Yahweh. The New Testament authors didn't do this to hide something. As I said, they did it to reveal something amazing about Jesus. There is more to be said on this.

What may strike orthodox Christians as peculiar is the suggestion of a conspiracy that no-one has ever heard of. And unnecessary and polarising accusations. But it may help us to understand that JWs believe that the name Jehovah is more important than the name Jesus. (This sort of hierarchical thinking is pretty fundamental for them.) So it's easy for them to latch onto the idea that there must be a conspiracy against their use of the word Jehovah. You only have to glimpse a little bit of this to quickly realise that something doesn't feel right about their argumentative positions.

You only have to sing the famous hymn 'Guide me, o thou great Jehovah' to realise that it's nonsense to portray a conspiracy to hide this name.

If one wants a Bible with Yahweh/Jehovah in all the right places in the Old Testament, these are freely available - such as the New Jerusalem Bible which is approved by the Catholic Church. So one can have both kinds of Bibles, reflecting the apostolic tradition and/or reflecting the New Jerusalem Bible approach. I have both.

But Christian translations generally follow in the apostolic tradition of revelation about Jesus, and substituting 'Lord' for 'Jehovah,' as the apostles did from the start, is how it was meant to be. And so turning that upside down and claiming spuriously that it's a dark plot to 'hide' something - instead of being in fact about revealing something - is just misplaced. The end result of their approach can be concealing the very things about Jesus that the apostles wanted to reveal. Which would be an accident of huge proportions, creating a cloud of dust in front of what's meant to be revealed - Jesus. It de-centres Jesus again. 

 

Doubling up

Any Christian could innocently show the divinity of Jesus by reading John 1:1: “and the Word was God.” Meaning Jesus was and is God. But "trying" to advance this runs straight into opposition from  “the script.” It can be quite disorientating to receive the JW answer that it should read “he Word was a god.” One instinctively knows one is being presented with an unwanted error. 

When one is so used to the authentic centrality of Jesus in Christian devotions, this is the sort of thing that seems a bit “off” and makes one intuitively recoil a bit from their message. Not without good cause. And one senses that if one knew a bit more about it, one would quickly see the unspoken problem in making Jesus “a god.”

Indeed, one only has to read what they are reading: “and the Word was with God and the Word was a god.” With no effort, we can count a total of two gods there ("with God... was a god" = 2). This is obviously problematic. The average Christian is not inclined to exhaust their time being Sherlock Holmes at this point, and just dismisses it without further ado. I made the extra effort so that you don’t have to.

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that both of them - the Father and Jesus - are unique, pre-existent, divine, heavenly beings with supernatural power on the cosmic universe-creating level. There is no-one else comparable on this level. Their John 1:1 is evidently a two god beginning, a two god creation, etc. Two unique pre-existent divine heavenly beings prior to anything else. Two at the beginning, two at creation. And they don't believe anyone or anything else is in that complex category. Unlike anything else that might bear the title 'gods.' It is ticking so many boxes on the 'god-like characteristics indicator' that it is really unpersuasive to try to disqualify this from being a two-god system. although they resists the obvious conclusion. (And the more they try to justify this by talking about “other gods,” it just feels more and more strained.) But then, rather tiresomely, you may then be told by a JW that there is only one God, having just been shown two - and this sort of encounter does strike people as odd. It makes for unsatisfying conversation.

It is in fact another way of de-centring Jesus.

Adherence to this sort of thing doesn’t seem attractive to anyone unless they are looking for this kind of thing in the first place.

 

 

Brooklyn, USA

It’s perhaps in this context that we can understand that they have also de-centralised the history of the church from Jerusalem, and re-centred it upon Brooklyn USA at the climax of history. Shifting the centre like this is apocalypticism on steroids. They shouldn’t be offended if it raises an eyebrow.

The strange way that ancient prophecies based on Judean circumstances were pulled out of shape by a small group of 20th century American men in Brooklyn into actually being prophecies about themselves (!!!) is self-serving and sadly a misuse of religion.

It's also difficult to see all this as respectful of a very Jewish Jesus of Nazareth.  But as we have seen, they also do not believe that they are representatives of Jesus.

It is standard Christian belief across denominations that Jesus has been reigning in heaven since the ascension, from around 33AD. It takes some really strained arguments to make Jesus instead be reigning from October 1914 through Brooklyn.

In summary, why would Jesus go to Brooklyn to choose a little committee of English-speaking American men in suits to head up replacements, an organisation of members to replace the entire Jewish race, led from Brooklyn? Does one not stop to think, hang on a minute...? Yes, the Watchtower organisation claims that the entire Jewish people have been replaced in God's plans by their own members (!!!). This is unsafe.

It only take a glimpse of a little bit of this strange picture for orthodox Christians to intuitively know that something there is problematic, and find no reason to dwell on it further.

Other things

I not going to get into very specific policies that the Watchtower has such as on blood transfusions, which is unnecessary here. The point of this post was to aim to put my finger on those Watchtower worldviews that orthodox Christians get glimpses of, which immediately give a clear sense - spiritually even - that something is untoward or unsafe. 

And so

Whereas, the rest of us, we instinctively feel reassured if someone is exalting the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. It’s what Christians have always done.

I hope I have somewhat succeeded, in a little way, in helping Christians understand their intuitive negative reaction, when they listen to Jehovah's Witnesses, the gut feeling that something is not quite right. And in writing this, I hope I have increased understanding.