The Watchtower: What Are the Marks of True Christianity?

Roma Locuta Est ^ | March 12, 2012

[NYer]

Our house has become a frequent stop for the Jehovah’s Witnesses.  More than likely it is because my beautiful wife smiles, listens, and takes their literature.  Her feeling has always been that it is better for us to take The Watchtower than to have it in the hands of someone else.

At any rate, I rarely read it, but the subtitle on the front cover this month was, “What Are the Marks of the True Christianity?”  I’ve always known that, like Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses consider themselves “Christians” but the rest of Christendom does not for lack of their profession of the Triune God.  However, I can’t say I’ve ever stopped to think about what they themselves consider a “true Christian.”  In the pages of the March Watchtower, I found the answer.

“[The Atlas of Global Christianity] indicate that ... Christians belong to over 41,000 denominations - each with its own doctrines and rules of conduct.  Faced with this bewildering array of ‘Christian’ religions, it is understandable that some observers become confused or even disillusioned.  They may wonder, ‘Are all who claim to be Christians really Christian?’ ... A true Christian needs to do more than profess his faith in Christ.  He needs to have additional identification.  What would that be?”

[Incidentally, the issue can be found here]

Now, I am not usually one to nitpick, but before I begin, I found the following rathe ironic:

“The term ‘Christian’ first came into use sometime after 44 C.E.”

I have no problem with the stated fact.  The irony is the use of the more politically correct “C.E.”  Perhaps, and forgive my being a bit snarky, a “mark” of a true Christian is the ability to unabashedly refer to our numbering system with its proper term: A.D.

Nevertheless, let’s move on.  Watchtower gives five headings to consider: Remain in My Word, No Part of the World, Have Love Among Yourselves, I Have Made Your Name Known, and This Good News of the Kingdom Will be Preached.  Under each of the headings, the structure is parallel: What It Means, How Early Christians Measured Up, and Who Fit the Pattern Today?

As I read through each of the five passages and the corresponding questions, it became clear that this was not simply an article about “Why Jehovah’s Witnesses are Correct,” but specifically, “Why Catholics are Wrong.”  I wonder why there is a deliberate emphasis on the Catholic Church in this article.  With the “41,000 denominations” admitted of at the start of the piece, why is there such a focus on our Church?  I think the answer is twofold.  First, this is clearly in the devil’s best interest.  Why attack faiths that have only a portion of the truth.  If you want to defeat Christianity, you go for the jugular: the one true Church.  Second, Catholics clearly have publicly professed doctrine, so they are an easy target.  Conversely, in order to attack, for example, Lutheranism, one would first have to define what Lutheran’s actually believe.  As many un-catechized Catholics exist in the world, it is an often overlooked fact that most Lutherans (I mention this here only as an example - one could replace it with most any main stream Protestant denomination) would have a difficult time explaining where they differ from, say, Methodists.

With that, let’s turn to the first characteristic of a true Christian.

“Remain in My Word.”  

True Christians, says Watchtower, “accept God’s Word, the Bible, as ‘truth’ and the ultimate authority for their beliefs and practices.”  Now, there are numerous problems that arise in the subsequent paragraphs of the article, but let’s set the record straight from the outset.  As Catholics, we adhere entirely to the notion of accepting God’s Word as truth and as the ultimate authority.  In fact, we adhere to this so entirely that we would say folks like the Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t measure up in this regard ... in two distinct ways.  First, their Bible is incomplete.  They have left off, like our Protestant brothers and sisters, the Old Testament Deuterocanonical texts.  They will attempt a defense that these are not the inspired Word of God, to which I can only ask, “Will you please defend that teaching ... and please do so from Scripture?”  To my knowledge, there is no list of canonical texts in the Bible.  Further, the Bible was not delivered in one piece to us like the Book of Mormon to the Church of Latter Day Saints.  Even the New Testament was written over a period of many years, and eventually it took a solemn definition of the Church to seal the Canon of Scripture.  There are many other texts written around the time of the New Testament, texts that were decidedly not the inspired Word of God.  The problem for the Jehovah’s Witnesses is simple: “How do you know that the Gospel of John in inspired, but the Gospel of Thomas is not?”

The Catholics have an answer for this, and is stems from the second way in which non-Catholic’s adherence to the Word of God is incomplete.  We believe that the Word of God has been communicated in oral tradition as well as in written form, just as it has been since God’s original revelation to His people.  In fact, even the written form of God’s Word attests to this: “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us” (2 Thessalonians 2:15).  We believe (because Jesus taught it when he gave the Apostles the power to bind and loose on earth) that the Word of God is communicated through written Scriptures and through the teachings of the Church ... and these two sources are never contradictory.  Thus, any conception of “accepting God’s word” that leaves off the oral version is lacking in its entirety.  Further, as I hinted at, it is because we believe that the successors of the Apostles have the power to communicate God’s Word that we can defend which books were or were not ultimately included in the canon of Scripture.  To non-Catholics, what say ye?

The response to “Remain in My Word” offered by The Watchtower is along these simplistic lines.  It quotes from the Catechism our teaching that the Word of God is communicated in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.  From this, the Jehovah’s Witnesses conclude that we added something to the Word of God.  Our response: it is quite the other way around, for they have subtracted from the Word of God.  It might be argued, however, that the passage saying, “Remain in my Word,” refers specifically to the written word.  After all, is this not what words are?  The problem is that a central teaching of Christianity is a God who is revealed as Word, (In the beginning was the Word).  Once we understand that, it should be clear that “word” must mean so much more than words-printed-on-pages.  However, lest I be misunderstood, in no way does the Catholic conception of “God’s Word” minimize the written word.  We do believe that Sacred Scripture is inerrant, containing the very Word of God.  In fact, our teaching that this word is communicated through a living breathing Church maximizes the written word.  For the guidance of the teaching Magisterium allows us to not only read the Word of God, but to understand it as Christ intended.

We move on.

“No Part of the Word.”

First, the opening sentence is almost laughable, “Being no part of the world, Jesus was neutral in the social and political conflicts of the day.”  Now, it is true that Jesus never set up a specific political system (for good reason), but to say that he was not involved in the social conflicts is simply incorrect.  In fact, if Jesus stayed away from these tough issues, one could ask why he upset enough people to be put to death.  It could be argued that he only ruffled religious feathers, but such a response falsely draws a bold line between religion and society.  Indeed, such a line is more akin to modern secularism than it is to Jesus’ philosophy.

When we get to the question, “Who Fit the Pattern Today?” we once again find the attack on the Catholic Church.  “Regarding Christian neutrality, the New Catholic Encyclopedia asserts: ‘Conscientious objection is morally indefensible.”  I have to admit that I did a double take when reading this.  I tried to consult the New Catholic Encyclopedia, but it is not available online (to the best of my knowledge).  From what I understand, it is an “updated” version of the traditional Catholic Encyclopedia, which is available online.  Further, in consulting the original, I was unable to find the cited reference to “conscientious objection.”  I would want to know the context of the citation.  In Watchtower it is being used to indicate that the Catholic Church teaches that one cannot object from the morality of a given war.  This, however, is certainly not accurate.  Nevertheless, without an available reference, it is difficult to defend.


I did, however, find a reference in the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, which states quite the opposite of the Watchtower's claim:

c. The right to conscientious objection

399. Citizens are not obligated in conscience to follow the prescriptions of civil authorities if their precepts are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or to the teachings of the Gospel. Unjust laws pose dramatic problems of conscience for morally upright people: when they are called to cooperate in morally evil acts they must refuse. Besides being a moral duty, such a refusal is also a basic human right which, precisely as such, civil law itself is obliged to recognize and protect. “Those who have recourse to conscientious objection must be protected not only from legal penalties but also from any negative effects on the legal, disciplinary, financial and professional plane”.

It is a grave duty of conscience not to cooperate, not even formally, in practices which, although permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to the Law of God. Such cooperation in fact can never be justified, not by invoking respect for the freedom of others nor by appealing to the fact that it is foreseen and required by civil law. No one can escape the moral responsibility for actions taken, and all will be judged by God himself based on this responsibility (cf. Rom 2:6; 14:12).

In regards to a moral code we read, “‘The majority of today’s young adult Catholics disagree with church teachings on issues like cohabitation [and] premarital sex,’ says U.S. Catholic magazine...  The New Encyclopedia Britannica observes that Jehovah’s Witnesses ‘insist upon a high moral code in personal conduct.’”  There are three problems with this.  The first is the source: U.S. Catholic is hardly a Catholic publication.  I spent enough time reading their articles to know that they (at best) border on disobedience.  Perhaps Watchtower should limit itself to actual Catholic publications rather than those that present a caricature of the faith, sadly enough from “within” the faith.  The second problem is that the statistic itself leaves a lot to be desired.  I would want to know the makeup of the interviewees.  I suspect they are more representative of U.S. Catholic Readers than of Catholic in general.  I certainly think this figure would be dramatically different if we were to look at practicing Catholics, those in the pews, rather than any Joe or Jane on the street that calls themselves Catholic.

The third problem is that the contrast between U.S. Catholic and The New Encyclopedia Britannica is more of a contrast of apples and oranges rather than good apples and rotten apples.  The quote from U.S. Catholic speaks of those within the faith that dissent from Church teaching.  The quote for the encyclopedia speaks instead of the moral line drawn by the “church” of the Jehovah’s Witnesses.  In other words, the two are not mutually exclusive.  Even if the first statement is true, the second one (the quote from the encyclopedia) could still be applied to the Catholic Church: “[The Catholic Church] insist[s] upon a high moral code in personal conduct.”  The number of people who follow the “code” laid down by a faith is a separate issue than the code itself.  The Watchtower article offers no statistics as to how many young Jehovah’s Witnesses adhere to the moral code of their faith.

That being said, of the five points, this is the one that should give us, as Catholics, pause.  We are a Church of sinners to be sure, but when our own members publicly dissent from issues of faith and morals, the result will inevitably be more Watchtower articles.  This is the very definition of “scandal,” and it is precisely why the episcopacy needs to take a closer look at how to handle public manifest sinners, particularly those directly involved in politics.

“Have Love Among Yourselves.”

The essence of it is that Christians must love on another and treat each other with the dignity afforded to someone made in the image and likeness of God.  There is nothing terrible revealing here.  Watchtower quotes two scenarios in the last couple decades where Jehovah’s Witnesses responded to tragedy with vigor and organization, often supplying people with basic needs totaling “a million dollars.”

It is unclear whether the assumption is that other faiths don’t perform such charitable works.  Yet it seems biased to not speak of organizations like Catholic Charities and their counterparts among our Protestant brothers and sisters.

Moving on ...

“I have Made Your Name Known.” 

The argument here cause me a bit of a chuckle:

“The Revised Standard Version of the Bible, authorized by the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States, says in its preface: ‘The use of any proper name for the one and only God ... was discontinued in Judaism before the Christian era and is entirely inappropriate for the universal faith of the Christian Church ... More recently, the Vatican directed its bishops: ‘In songs and prayers the name of God in the form of the tetragrammaton YHWH is neither to be used or pronounced.”

As you can imagine, the issue is a bit deeper than this.  In the same Vatican directive, we find a more thorough explanation,

“As an expression of the infinite greatness and majesty of God, (the name) was held to be unpronounceable and hence was replaced during the reading of sacred Scripture by means of the use of an alternate name: ‘Adonai,' which means ‘Lord.’”

That practice continued with Christianity, the letter explains, recalling the “church's tradition, from the beginning, that the sacred Tetragrammaton was never pronounced in the Christian context nor translated into any of the languages into which the Bible was translated.”

There are two issues here.  First, there is a certain amount of respect given to our Jewish forefathers in refraining from pronouncing this sacred name.  Second, it seems that this is not a new decision, but rather part of Christian tradition “from the beginning.”  Thus, in admitting to not following this practice, the Jehovah’s Witnesses admit their departure from the early Christians, something they are working so hard not to do in these five tracts (“How Early Christians Measured Up”).  In other words, one answer to “What Are the Marks of True Christianity?” might be: “Similarity to the earliest Christians, who certainly would have been aware of Christ’s commands as handed on directly through the Apostles.”  In this respect, Jehovah’s Witnesses are clearly “off the mark.”

“This Good News of the Kingdom Will Be Preached.”

In the fifth and last indication of true Christianity it is not only Catholics under attack - The Anglican’s get the first blow:  “‘The church’s failure to take preaching and teaching seriously is one reason for the general spiritual malaise of today,’ writes Anglican priest David Watson.”

Catholics, not to be left out, follow immediately: “In his book Why Are the Catholics Leaving? Jose Luis Perez Guadalupe wrote about the activities of Evangelicals, Adventists, and others and observed that ‘they do not go from house to house.’  Regarding Jehovah’s Witnesses, he wrote: ‘They go systematically from house to house.’”  Well, it doesn’t take a book reference to note that this is true, but I fail to see how going door to door is a mark of the true Christian.  Preaching the Good News: yes ... doing it by knocking on doors: I’m not so sure.

At the end of it all, though, it begs the central question: What Are the Marks of a True Christian?  I offer an incomplete list: five Marks to correspond to the five offered by Watchtower.

Mark #1: No False Prophecies.

It seems to me that any faith claiming to be the true faith should at least be free from false prophecies.  Yet in various editions of Scripture Studies, a seven-volume Watchtower publication, the Jehovah’s witnesses predicted (among other things) the end of the world in 1914, the return of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the faithful prophets of old in 1925, that “Armageddon is surely near . . . soon . . . within a few years” in 1941, that Armageddon would be before 1972 (predicted in 1946), and in offered in 1968 that, “The end of the six thousand years of man’s history in the fall of 1975 is not tentative, but is accepted as a certain date.”  (Quotes care of Catholic Answers.)

Mark #2: The Teachings are not Self-Contradictory

Teachings of any “true” faith should at the very least satisfy the pre-condition for truth: freedom from self-contradiction.  Yet we have several examples of such contradictions in Watchtower history.  For instance, “The men of Sodom will be resurrected” (Watchtower, 7-1879, 7-8), and “The men of Sodom will not be resurrected” (Watchtower, 6-1-1952, 338), followed by, “The men of Sodom will be resurrected” (Watchtower 8-1-1965, 479).

Further: "We may as well join in with the civilized world in celebrating the grand event [Christmas] . . . " (Watchtower Reprints, 12-1-1904, 3468). "Christmas and its music are not from Jehovah . . . What is their source? . . . Satan the devil" (Watchtower, 12-15-1983, 7).  (More quotes care of Catholic Answers.)

Mark #3: God is Revealed as a Trinity

This, of course, is the litmus test that we, as Catholics, use in order to determine whether members of a faith are Christian.  If they use the Trinitarian baptismal formula (“I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”), then we consider it a valid baptism and the recipient a “true” Christian.  This is why we recognize the Christianity of our Protestant brothers and sister, but not of Jehovah’s Witnesses or Mormons.  Ironically, in the very same edition of Watchtower, we find a question in the “Our Readers Ask” section.  The question asked is, “Is the Trinity a Bible teaching?”  The answer begins as such: “The Trinity doctrine is defined this way, although there are many variations: ‘Three divine Persons (the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost), each said to be eternal, each said to be almighty, each said to be God, and yet together being but one God.”  I would correct this definition and replace it with, “Three Persons sharing in one Divine Nature.”  As Frank Sheed says in Theology and Sanity, the question of the Trinity is not a question of contradictory mathematics, as if three equals one.  We do not profess three Persons and one Person, nor do we profess three natures and one nature.  Either of these would in fact be self-contradictory.  Rather, we profess three Persons and one divine nature.  Understanding the difference between Person and Nature is critical to understanding the doctrine of the Trinity.

Watchtower continues to give standard arguments about the Old Testament’s insistence on “one God” and the contradiction that “three” imparts to the concept of “one.”  (Apparently they missed the part in John 8:58 where Jesus says, “I tell you the truth, before Abraham was even born, I AM,” clearly identifying himself with God.)

I will, however, grant the Jehovah’s Witnesses one point here.  Scripture, while it gives hints at the Trinity, does not spell it out.  In fact, I think it would be hard to argue that a neutral reading of the Bible would lead one to even conceive of the concept of the Blessed Trinity, especially in its classic formulation “Three Persons in one Divine Nature.”  We needed this revealed to us, and it was the Church, based on Scripture and Sacred Tradition, that eventually gave us the formulation.  Catholics, with their understanding of a living breathing Church that can infallibly interpret the inerrant Word of God, can offer a defense of the Trinity.  I often wonder if, based on a Sola Scriptura philosophy, Protestants can offer the same.

Mark #4: The Faith Doesn’t Change Sacred Scripture in Order to Suit its Own Teachings.

It seems to me that if a Christian denomination is to use the Bible as the ultimate source of authority, then it would be pretty important to take the Bible as-is, with very careful and meticulous processes involved in translating it to the vernacular.

However The New World Translation, the Jehovah’s Witness produce translation, was created between 1950 and 1961 in several parts.  Of the five men who produced it, one “studied non-biblical Greek for two years, and taught himself Hebrew. The rest had no formal training in any biblical language” (Catholic Answers).  

The divinity of Christ (or the non-divinity, I suppose) is of particular concern for the Jehovah’s Witnesses, so you can image the difficult time they would have with John’s Prologue.  To counter this John 1:1 in the New World Translation reads, “the word was a god.”  Greek scholars call this "a shocking mistranslation," "incorrect," "monstrous," and "evidence of abysmal ignorance of the basic tenets of Greek grammar" (Catholic Answers).

(As a side note, I would point out that Martin Luther failed this litmus test as well, first in his elimination of the Deuterocanonical books after fifteen-hundred years of their acceptance in Christendom, and second when he added the word “alone” to Romans 3:28 so that it reads more consistently with his view of salvation by faith alone: “For we maintain that a man is justified by faith alone apart from works of the Law.”)

Mark #5: The Roots Go Back to Christ.

The Catholic Church claims to have its roots in Christ and is able to trace each Pope and each Bishop back to Peter and the Apostles.  The Jehovah’s Witnesses were founded by Charles Taze Russell in 1870.  Enough said.

Finally, I would like to leave you with two of my favorite “stumpers” (care of the good folks at Catholic Answers) for our friends the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

First, one of the more peculiar beliefs of the Jehovah’s Witnesses is their insistence that Jesus and St. Michael the Archangel are the same person.  However, the Letter to the Hebrews states, “To which of the angels did God ever say, ‘You are my son? . . . Let all the angels of God worship him. . . . Your throne, O God, stands firm forever. . . . O Lord, you established the earth, and the heavens are the works of your hands’ . . . to which of the angels has he ever said ‘Sit at my right hand . . .’”

Second, the Jehovah’s Witnesses claim that Christ was never raised from the dead.  However, St. Paul tells us, “If Christ has not been raised, your faith is in vain, and you are still in your sins” (1 Cor. 15:17).

As for the “Marks” of the “True Christian Church,” I think I’ll stick with one, holy, catholic, and apostolic ... and the Catholic Church fits the bill.

[NYer]

Catholic ping!

[conservativejoy]

One of the most blasphemous teachings of Jehovah’s Witnesses is that Jesus was the Archangel Michael before He came to earth. They have changed all scriptures that show Jesus is God and the Creator of all things.

Your post was interesting and I hope it will empart to readers the need to beware of those preaching “another gospel”. Galatians 1

[Busywhiskers]

How the heck would the Watchtower know anything about the signs of true Christianity. That would be like asking Angelina Jolie what its like to be poor and ugly.

[DarthVader]

Thank you for this.

[reaganaut]

Thanks for posting this. We so often deal with Mormons and I have only seen ONE JW thread (vanity posted by a professed JW) here in all the years I’ve been here.

This is info that needs to be out there.

[Salvation]

Nothing about One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic, huh?

[Raycpa]

Very funny. Thanks.

[Raycpa]

Jehovah’s:

Watchtower gives five headings to consider: Remain in My Word, No Part of the World, Have Love Among Yourselves, I Have Made Your Name Known, and This Good News of the Kingdom Will be Preached. (Only 5? )

Paul:

Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard? 3 Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh? (Gal 3:2) (What about all the other stuff the Jehovah’s say I must do?)

Jehovah’s bring us back to bondage:

1 It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery. (Gal 5:1) (So, if Christ came to set us free, how does assuming the yoke of bondage that the Jehovah’s offer add to my freedom?)

[Sergio]

bkmk

[SECURE AMERICA]

A Christian is not about “religion” or a “church building”.
It is about being a disciple of Jesus CHRIST.
Get it? Christ - Christian.
Not hard at all.

[varina davis]

I do not appreciate that they come to my home whenever their mood strikes, without invitation and act as though they are our best friends. They even bring at times, other JW members as back up.

Even if I appear in a nightgown with uncombed hair, they push their way in as though they were invited.(unfortunately, there is a member of our household who won’t turn them away).

This type of in your face evangelism just doesn’t wash with me. My home is my space. Plus, I don’t believe, as they contend, that JW is the “only true religion.”

[GingerC]

What ‘bondage’ are JWs saying you should subject yourself to?

[Dallas59]

I just tell em I’m Mormon.

[reaganaut]

I have fun with them. When we lived in CA they would show up every once in awhile and then they would quickly leave after speaking to me for a few minutes and not show up again for YEARS.

One time, I was at my friends house in San Diego and her whole family was there - she is a Born Again Christian, her mom an Atheist, her brother an agnostic, and her SIL a nominal Christian and her SIL would be nice to them so they would always come by. So this day, the brother had enough and said ‘hold on, I’ve got someone who might be interested - she is very religious’ (which isn’t really true but he doesn’t understand religous vs. faith).

Anyway, my friend heard this and told me as he comes to the back of the house to get me and as I’m walking to the front of the house (with my bible) my friend asks her brother “Did you tell them she works in counter cult ministry”? He laughed and said “No, that will show them”.

I had a nice conversation, never letting them in, pointing out where they were wrong and problems with their translation and they left and never came back. My friends brother is STILL grateful for that.

[reaganaut]

I just tell em I’m Mormon.

- - - -
When I lived in Provo (and was Mormon), all the neighbors used to tell the JWs to try my house. I loved debating them even then.

[The_Reader_David]

Neither the neo-gnostics (Mormons — and I’m being generous in interpreting their severely defective triadology as comparable to classical gnosticism) nor the neo-Ariana (Jehovah’s Witnesses) come by my house any more.

After a few rounds each in which they turned up, and I came out on my doorstep and preached the Orthodox Faith to them, critiquing the errors of their confession, they seem to have put some sort of mark on my house indicating not to visit any more.

[Dallas59]

[Dallas59]

All kidding aside...At least they chop peoples heads off or blow cars up.

[reaganaut]

came out on my doorstep and preached the Orthodox Faith to them, critiquing the errors of their confession,

- - - - -
That is exactly how you should deal with them. All cults are taught to seek out those who do not know the Bible or their faith very well, since they are easy marks. Show them you are knowledgeable and they will leave you alone.