Today I was having my irregular chat with a Jehovah’s Witness (who visits me) and we got onto the topic (unsurprisingly perhaps) of denominational differences and how Churches can oppose each other in some respects (in fact, I note today that Jonathan Bartley observes that Christians even sometimes kill other Christians!).

Naturally JWs come out of this as shining examples of unity – so I was pondering as to why this was and whether the reasons mattered.

Now, JWs claim to be the one true church and so claim complete unity across the one true church. What are the reasons for this unity (the following are my speculation, not to be taken as perfect science!):

1. The Boundary – the JW church has a boundary, you are either in or out.
2. The Institution – the JW church is a strictly controlled institution which cannot be duplicated. It wouldn’t be possible to start another JW church that is separate to the original.
3. The Sect – because it is a sect that is on the edge of the Judaism family tree, if another sect were to form from it, they would recast themselves significantly.
4. Modes of Dis-integration – if JWs leave they do not leave to form close derivative churches, they either leave the (broad) concept of Christian belief entirely or just go into an existing church.
5. The Theology – essential to JWs is the expectancy that one should accept the whole JW Theology. There is little room for disagreement.

These are the major points of difference with the rest of the Christian Church, although many churches will have varying degrees of the above properties.

Examining the above points, what is the problem with the wider church?

It is my impression that differences appear between Christians because they meet in an institutionalised manner rather than in the manner of close friends – i.e. we Christians think it is important to tackle differences of opinion with people we barely know, simply because they are in the same institution and, because we barely know them, it is easy to fall out with them.

Another point is that we often make out that our opinion is our faith. Both myself and Reg (the JW) agreed that there is only one truth, so, for there to be clashes in people’s belief of what that one truth is, must mean that one or both of those people are believing something which isn’t true – i.e. the casting of an opinion as a matter of faith. A bit more humility about what we believe would be helpful, but haven’t we all been taught that we mustn’t doubt our faith? Well if we doubt our opinion, we aren’t doubting our faith! So I wouldn’t worry too much about that!

The wider Christian Church places less emphasis on scripture than the JWs and more emphasis on the personal revelation of the Holy Spirit (often of Scripture). JWs place an emphasis on specific interpretations of scripture and no emphasis on personal revelation. In some ways the JW approach is safer – it certainly appeals to the rules based security that our culture likes so much. On the other side of the fence you could say that the wider church is much more anarchic and dangerous!

My Dad told me the other day that ‘Uncle’ Sid Purse (who founded the the church that I grew up in at South Chard) said:

“The Church is an organism, not an organisation”

which I thought an excellent comment which works in many ways including the understanding of the church as being the body of Christ.

Anyway, I feel that the opportunity to chat with Reg (JW) is a great way to gain a deeper understanding of church – so I would be most appreciative of your comments, but I don’t want this to become a ‘why the JWs are wrong’ thread! That really isn’t the point of this post. Thanks.

Another thing that Bartley mentions (in passing) near the beginning of the book (mentioned here) is the way the church could exclude people, and through exclusion exercise power and control.

This is a very limited form of control, by exclusion one is not actively controlling the life of the excluded, one is simply controlling one’s own life (or a group are simply controlling their own lives) and choosing not to spend much/any time with that particular person.

However, to exclude someone, a tough judgement has to take place: Is this person so bad/far gone that it isn’t wise to spend time with them? That isn’t a nice and easy question to answer, it has hard repercussions. It is also a fairly public judgement that can have a negative effect on oneself (alongside the positive effect of not being adversely influenced by that person).

It’s a tough thing to do, but I do feel that it is a choice that we must continually make. Yes, it is part of the concept of exclusive church (hopefully alongside inclusive mission) and also we can’t expect exclusion to be perfectly exercised – there will always be the ‘weeds’ amongst the ‘wheat’.

I expect that Bartley will cover this more in the rest of the book – so maybe there will be more comment to come on this.