Two Not-So-Gross Sins - 2005/03/22 08:36I'm working on another article, to eventually post here at Beth Sarim, and I wanted to show you all my rough draft to get your thoughts.
Two Not-So-Gross Sins
The Watchtower Society and its Governing Body have told us that judicial action is brought only upon those who commit or practice "serious" or "gross" sin. Over the years, they have made decisions as to which sins are to be regarded as serious and for which disfellowshipping might be in order. In addition to offenses implied by Paul's condemnation of fornicators, greedy persons, idolators, revilers, drunkards, and extortioners (1 Cor. 5:11), the organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses has added a long list of other offenses for which someone might be disfellowshipped. These include: manslaughter, lying, obscene speech, failure to abstain from blood, refusal to provide materially for one’s family, non-neutral activities, fits of anger, misuse of tobacco or addictive drugs, loose conduct, and several activities that come under the “apostasy” umbrella and have to do with syncretism, like attending meetings of another religious group, working secularly for another religious organization, celebrating a religious holiday, and the possession of images or pictures employed in another religion (Pay Attention, pp. 92-96). All of these are considered, not just ordinary sins, but serious or "gross" sins. Setting aside the issue of whether it is justifiable to add to Paul’s words, this essay is concerned with two disfellowshipping offenses that are not only absent from Paul’s list, but are not mentioned anywhere in the Bible even as sins. They are: 1) non-neutral activites, and 2) syncretism. Are we justified in calling these serious?
Non-Neutral Activities
Regarding the issue of political neutrality, reference here is to whether an individual should maintain strict neutrality, not whether an organization should do so. Surely it is best for religions to stay out of politics. Fortunately, there are laws about the separation of Church and State in this country, so it is difficult in this country for church organizations to involve themselves directly in politics. But what about individual Christians? Are they allowed to vote on a proposition or for a candidate or run for office themselves? The question is whether there is scriptural precedent for condemnation of involvement in politics. Certainly there would have to be in order to justify its classification as a "gross sin." Here is the organization’s position on this issue:
“Since true dedicated Christians are ‘no part of this world,’ if a member of the congregation unrepentantly pursues a course in violation of his Christian neutrality, he thereby disassociates himself from the neutral Christian congregation” (Pay Attention, p. 140).
It’s interesting that they don’t exactly “disfellowship” a person for this, but they simply consider him “disassociated,” whether he likes it or not. One might call it “involuntary disassociation.” It still amounts to disfellowshipping, no matter what they call it.
The scriptures they use to back up their position are John 15:19 and 17:16, where Jesus says his followers are “no part of the world.” The WT argument is that, since the political systems are part of the world, then we should be no part of the political systems. But does the scripture mean that we should be no part of everything that is in the world? Clearly, there is a place to draw the line, and the scripture doesn’t say anything about politics. John later specifies what is wrong with the world when he refers to “the desire of the flesh and the desire of the eyes and the showy display of one’s means of life” (1 John 1:16). He clearly doesn’t have politics in mind here.
Sometimes it is pointed out that Jesus did not get involved in politics, and since he is our exemplar, we should do the same. But we have to ask WHY Jesus didn’t get involved in politics. Is it because he was politically neutral on a matter of principle, or is it simply because he had other plans? Jesus didn’t open up a restaurant either. Does that mean it is wrong for us to do so?
The organization is forced to go outside of the Bible to back up their position on neutrality. For example, they point to the fact that the early Christians refused to participate in war. That is an important point. They did not engage in warfare, and this could set a precedent for Christians today. But war is not all there is to politics. If a person sees that two candidates are running for city council, and one wants to put a highway through the person’s backyard and one doesn’t, is it wrong to vote for the one who won’t build the highway? If one presidential candidate wants to put more money into schools and one doesn’t, is it wrong for someone to vote for the policy that would be better for their children? It seems that what we should be worrying about is whether involvement in politics causes us to break one other of God’s laws (like killing someone else in war). But in and of itself, involvement in politics does not automatically break one of God’s laws.
Some might argue that the early Christians never held political offices. But we should keep in mind that participation in Roman politics required participation in religious rites, including sacrifices to the emperor. This explains the Christians’ stance. The Roman government was also not democratic. Nobody ran for office in that system. The Romans were not interested in what their people thought, and no one voted for anything. So a parallel between the Roman government and modern democratic governments cannot be made. They operate on different principles. Besides, pointing to what Christians did in the second and third centuries C.E. is not the same as pointing to a scripture. If God wanted to make strict political neutrality a command, if it were such a serious issue, it would be in the Bible. We would not have to search our history books for justification for our position.
It is also said that, since we support God’s kingdom government, we cannot support any other government, because that would be an act of disloyalty. And that would be true, if God’s government were already ruling over the earth’s secular affairs. But it isn’t. And we really don’t know precisely when it will. In the meantime, “the existing authorities stand places in their relative positions by God” (Rom. 13:1). So if God has sanctioned the existing governments until his own kingdom comes, is it wrong to vote someone into office for the next four years because God’s kingdom might come during that time? If so, then it would likewise be wrong to make any plans for the next four years in conjunction with an institution of this system, political or otherwise, whether it be college or bank savings accounts or life insurance or retirement, or whatever, because it would be disloyal to the new incoming government, which would put an end to all these institutions. But, of course, that makes little sense and is unreasonable.
The greatest way to disrespect a government is to pledge allegiance to an opposing government. No other action would be as significant as this one. It would therefore be disloyal to God to place oneself in subjection to any other government apart from his, since we can only serve one master. This is especially true if Satan the Devil owns all the governments, as the WT tells us. Why would we be obedient to the governments owned by the Devil? Would that not be considered obedience to Satan? We should be obedient only to God or his public servants, not to Satan or his public servants. Yet we know this is NOT the Bible’s position. The Bible actually tells us to obey the government. The Bible does not consider loyalty to the government as disloyalty to God. Paul tells us that “they are God’s public servants,” that they are the “arrangement of God,” and he tells us to be in subjection to them (Romans 13). If that is true, if obedience and subjection is acceptabe, then what would God think of political activity of a lesser degree? If allegiance is okay, then why isn’t voting?
Considering that there is no biblical foundation for the rule of strict political neutrality (including not running for student council), we should be shocked and offended by the policy of the Watchtower Society to forcibly disassociate anyone who engages in some sort of political activity. It goes well beyond the word of God.
Syncretism
Another issue for which people can be disfellowshipped is their involvement in some kind of syncretistic practice, that is, engaging in an activity that has some historical connection to a non-Christian religion:
“God expects Christians to keep their worship pure and untainted, having nothing to do with customs, symbols, or festivals associated with false gods.” (Awake, 3/8/86, p. 17)
“In the days before Jesus Christ walked the earth, the Israelites attempted to mix the beliefs of their pagan neighbors with their worship of Jehovah God. As a result, they got involved in sex worship, ‘sacred’ prostitution, even child sacrifice. This led Jehovah God to withhold his protection, and they became easy prey for the empire-building Assyrians. (2 Kings 17:16-18) Why such an extreme reaction? The reason is obvious. The worship Jehovah gave to the Israelites promoted high moral standards. When observed faithfully (without mixing in pagan teachings), it protected them physically, as well as spiritually, and prepared them for the coming of the Messiah. Adding pagan elements degraded it, just as adding polluted water to fresh water will pollute the fresh water.” (Awake, 8/22/83, p. 18).
“Sincere Christians are concerned that the Bible says: ‘For what fellowship do righteousness and lawlessness have? Or what sharing does light have with darkness?’…. ‘Therefore get out from among them, and separate yourselves,’ says Jehovah, ‘and quit touching the unclean thing.’” (2 Corinthians 6:14-17) Surely that would include customs that are clearly derived from—or unmistakably resemble—false religious practices.” (Awake, 3/22/86, pp. 7-8)
On the surface, these words sound reasonable. But they are very deceptive. In every single example that the magazines give to show that the Israelites were punished for mixing pagan beliefs with true beliefs, the Israelites either directly disobeyed an already-existing commandment (like creating an idol) or actually worshipped a false god. Nowhere are they punished for simply mixing pagan practices into their worship. Nowhere in the Bible is there an example of “mixing” Christian practice with non-Christian practice that is said to be a sin, and the WT doesn’t provide any example either. The above words of Paul in 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 are a combination of quotes from Isaiah 52:11, Jeremiah 51:45, Exodus 23:32-33 and Deuteronomy 7:3. All of these scriptures have to do with directly worshiping false gods, going against God’s teachings of love and mercy or marriage to worshippers of false gods, who engaged in harmful and immoral practices. How do they apply also to an Israelite who obeyed Jehovah’s Mosaic law code, yet followed various pagan customs that did not involve the worship of another god? To interpret Paul’s words as a blanket condemnation of each and every custom containing pagan origins is to miss the whole point of what he is saying.
On the other hand, when a pagan custom or celebration becomes harmful to others, or involves the direct worship of other gods, with harmful, selfish and immoral practices, it goes against the Mosaic law, and the Christian law of love, and thus against God. For instance, many Israelites were sacrificing their children by burning them in fire, apparently to please Jehovah. This pagan custom may not have involved the worship of another god, but it was condemned because it directly violated God’s law.
When Moses went up to Mount Sinai to receive the Ten Commandments, he came down to find all of the Israelites worshipping the golden calf. In this case also, the Israelites claimed to be worshipping Jehovah. Yet God became very angry at this and administered punishment. But this was not for simply singing and dancing according to pagan customs. Their sin was in violation of one of the commandments they had just received, not to make any idols.
On the other hand, there is evidence all throughout the Bible that even loyal servants of God sometimes incorporated pagan practices into their own customs and were not judged badly for it.
For example, many of the psalms in the Bible are based on ancient Canaanite hymns to Baal and El, as is evidenced by our recent archeological discovery of the tablets at Ugarit. Of course, all the references to the false gods were taken out of the songs, but many of the words and mythological references are the same. Isn’t this a mixture of customs?
The Egyptian practice of embalming was directly connected with their belief in the afterlife. Yet Joseph commanded his servants to embalm Jacob in the customary fashion when he died (Gen. 49:33-50:3). The pagan origins of embalming were not considered reason for rejecting the practice and had no significance to Joseph and Jacob’s worship of the only true God. The practice of mummification was also associated with the Egyptian belief in the afterlife. The purpose of mummification was to preserve the body as an aid to the soul as it made its journey to the next world. The body would be treated with myrrh and other spices, washed, wrapped, and then placed within a cave in a mountain or a tomb. The pagan origins of treating a dead body with various spices, wrapping them and burying them in caves, did not bother the ancient Israelites who lived in Egypt and God was not offended when they practiced it themselves (Gen. 23:11,17,19-20; 25:9; 49:29-30; 50:13; 2 Chron. 16:14). And the process in which Jesus’ and Lazarus' bodies were prepared suggests that ancient pagan customs were also employed. Neither of these actions were found offensive or unacceptable to God (Mark 16:1; Luke 23:56; 24:1; John 19:39-40).
The practice of baptism definitely comes from a pagan practice. It was done in Babylon, Egypt and Greece before the time of Jesus (Wt 1/1/93, p. 4). The Christians picked up the practice and used it in their own system of worship. So it is clear that practices with pagan origins had no impact on pleasing or displeasing God. John the Baptizer was sent to baptize for the forgiveness of sins. Jesus himself submitted to the pagan practice of baptism by John, and he sent his disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and holy spirit.
Ironically, various practices that clearly have their origins in ancient paganism, such as rice throwing, honeymoons, anniversaries, wedding rings, wedding veils, wedding cakes, and tombstones, etc. are acceptable to Jehovah’s Witnesses today. Some of the days of the week are named after pagan Viking gods. Despite the pagan nature of the days of the week, Witnesses produce calendars that use the names. Even though all these things are of pagan origin, they are now stripped of their false and immoral associations and are considered acceptable. Yet the same is also true of many holidays and customs that the WT has condemned. Why there is an inconsistency in the WT's judgment of the various customs is unclear.
Pagan connections can be found in almost all long-held customs. The important thing to consider is whether an aspect of a custom is scripturally condemned by God because it involves disobedience of a specific command. Condemning something simply for the reason that there is an element of it that once was pagan is not based on scripture (Col. 2:16; 3:2).
In one sense it is admirable to want to be as pure as one possibly can be. But it is another situation entirely when someone creates a standard of purity beyond the one the Bible suggests and enforces that upon others. How Christian is that? It is more in keeping with the religion of the Pharisees, who gave “the tenth of the mint and the dill and the cumin,” but “disregarded the weightier matters of the Law, namely, justice and mercy and faithfulness” (Matt. 23:23-24). It is a perfect example of “straining out the gnat.”
This discussion is not meant in any way to encourage people to begin getting involved in politics or employing pagan customs into their daily activities. One's conscience may indeed not permit them to do such things. One has the right to make such a choice. The point here is that, since there is no scriptural basis for considering non-neutral activities and syncretism to be serious sins, there is likewise no scriptural basis for making these disfellowshipping offenses. Let's not read more into the Bible than what is actually there.
| | The topic has been locked.
polemotheos
User Platinum Boarder
Posts: 530
Re:Two Not-So-Gross Sins - 2005/03/22 11:44(Jeremiah 10:1-3) Hear the word that Jehovah has spoken against YOU people, O house of Israel. This is what Jehovah has said: “Do not learn the way of the nations at all,... For the customs of the peoples are just an exhalation,. . ."
(Leviticus 18:3) The way the land of Egypt does, in which YOU dwelt, YOU must not do; and the way the land of Ca´naan does, into which I am bringing YOU, YOU must not do; and in their statutes YOU must not walk.
(Leviticus 20:23) And YOU must not walk in the statutes of the nations whom I am sending out from before YOU, because they have done all these things and I abhor them.
(Deuteronomy 12:30) Watch out for yourself for fear you may be entrapped after them, after they have been annihilated from before you, and for fear you may inquire respecting their gods, saying, ‘How was it these nations used to serve their gods? And I, yes, I, will do the same way.’
(Deuteronomy 13:1-5) 13 “In case a prophet or a dreamer of a dream arises in your midst and does give you a sign or a portent, 2 and the sign or the portent does come true of which he spoke to you, saying, ‘Let us walk after other gods, whom you have not known, and let us serve them,’ 3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or to the dreamer of that dream, because Jehovah YOUR God is testing YOU to know whether YOU are loving Jehovah YOUR God with all YOUR heart and all YOUR soul. 4 After Jehovah YOUR God YOU should walk, and him YOU should fear, and his commandments YOU should keep, and to his voice YOU should listen, and him YOU should serve, and to him YOU should cling. 5 And that prophet or that dreamer of the dream should be put to death, because he has spoken of revolt against Jehovah YOUR God, who has brought YOU out of the land of Egypt and has redeemed you from the house of slaves, to turn you from the way in which Jehovah your God has commanded you to walk; and you must clear out what is evil from your midst.
I have an idea; lets all celibrate christmas this year. But I wonder does the christmas tree constitute an idol that we "with silver and with gold one makes it pretty"? Ah who cares Jehovah will forgive us.
Thanks for the scriptures, which I assume are comments on my section about syncretism.
The one from Jeremiah, if you look at the context, is specifically about making idols.
The one from Deuteronomy 12 is about serving other gods. I don't understand how Deuteronomy 13 applies to this topic. Fill me in, please.
The ones in Leviticus are trying to make a dichotomy between the statutes of the nations (their laws) and the statutes of Jehovah (just given them). They are to prefer the laws of Jehovah over those of the nations. Jehovah's laws they must learn, rather than the laws of the nations. I don't think that's about syncretism.
| | The topic has been locked.
polemotheos
User Platinum Boarder
Posts: 530
Re:Two Not-So-Gross Sins - 2005/03/22 13:42December 25 has since ancient times been a religious holy day of the birth of god. Where "a mere tree out of the forest that one has cut down" "With silver and with gold one makes it pretty." Then there comes Santa I mean Satan the giver of all gifts even more then we ask.
I wonder why you are so intent on worshiping other gods?
Re:Two Not-So-Gross Sins - 2005/03/22 14:44Haha. I am assuming you are being funny, pole. I certainly acknowledge the pagan origins of the Christmas tree, but I haven't met anyone who bows down to one. Have you?
Remember, my essay is not about whether we should or shouldn't celebrate Christmas or any other holiday, or whether we should be allowed to say "bless you" when somebody sneezes, make toasts, or give to the Salvation Army. It's about whether we should be disfellowshipped for such things.
| | The topic has been locked.
polemotheos
User Platinum Boarder
Posts: 530
Re:Two Not-So-Gross Sins - 2005/03/22 14:52O Christmas Tree, O Christmas Tree, Your branches green delight us. They're green when summer days are bright: They're green when winter snow is white. O Christmas Tree, O Christmas Tree, Your branches green delight us.
O Christmas Tree, O Christmas Tree, You give us so much pleasure! How oft at Christmas tide the sight, O green fir tree, gives us delight! O Christmas Tree, O Christmas Tree, You give us so much pleasure!
Forum 
