On Religious Complexity

The premise of this paper will deal exclusively with the tendency for religions to grow not only
in terms of creedal complexity, but in sheer aloofness from their core origins. I will compare the
growth and evolution of original Christianity with that of the origins of Jehovah’s Witnesses; to
better grasp the historical susceptibility of religion to doctrinal drift. Just as the origins of the
Christianity began humbly enough only to grow into what is known as the Catholic Church, so
the Watchtower Society also entered existence as truth-seekers only to splinter off from the
mainstream and devolve into something akin to early Catholicism. Their growth tracks are ex-
traordinarily similar.

The Transformation of Christianity

Christianity as a religion1 grew quite rapidly, from Jesus and his twelve disciples to hundreds of
thousands by the end of the first century to over a million by the end of the second. 2 A sect of a
conquered people, Christianity was often misunderstood by the Romans as a “depraved and im-
moderate superstition” full of strange practices but which Pliny the Younger3 claimed strove to-
ward a relentless spreading out, ‘captivating people of every age, rank, and sex.’4 Under Nero the
religion was banned and was viewed suspiciously thereafter by subsequent rulers.5

In the period following Jerusalem’s destruction, the Jewish nation was essentially wiped out, be-
coming no more than a scattered people of small communities. As Paul Johnson put it, “The cen-

1 History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science, Twenty-Fifth Edition, 1910, London, Kegan Paul, Trench, Thrübner & Co. Ltd., Dryden

House, Gerrard Street, W, John William Draper, M.D., LL.D. Professor University of New York, Chapter 2: “[Jesus’] doctrines of benevolence
and human brotherhood outlasted [his death] . . . From this germ was developed a new, and as the events proved, all-powerful society -- the
Church; new, for nothing of the kind had existed in antiquity; powerful, for the local churches, at first isolated, soon began to confederate for their
common interest. Through this organization Christianity achieved all her political triumphs.”

2 World Christian Encyclopedia, 1st Edition, 1982, includes membership data for the majority of world religions.

3 Encyclopedia Britannica, 1911, entry “Pliny the Younger”: “Publius Caecilius Secundus, later known as Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus
(A.D. c. 61-c. 113), Latin author of the Letters and the Panegyric on Trajan.”

4 History of the Christian Church, Volume 2, Philip Schaff, records Emporer Trajan’s reply to Pliny: “[Christians] should not be searched for; but
when accused and convicted, they should be punished; yet if any one denies that be has been a Christian, and proves it by action, namely, by
worshipping our gods, he is to be pardoned upon his repentance, even though suspicion may still cleave to him from his antecedents. But anony-
mous accusations must not be admitted in any criminal process; it sets a bad example, and is contrary to our age . . . The emperor evidently pro-
ceeded on political principles, and thought that a transient and contagious enthusiasm, as Christianity in his judgment was, could be suppressed
sooner by leaving it unnoticed, than by openly assailing it. He wished to ignore it as much as possible.”

5 Church in Rome in the First Century, Lecture 8, George Edmundson, writing of the Neronian persecution of 65: “The Christians were then
condemned for crimes which were summed up by Tacitus as constituting ‘hatred of the human race,’ in other words they were condemned as
enemies of the Roman state and people. The mere confession of the Christian name henceforth in itself entailed punishment. The principle of
action, which Tertullian calls the Neronian Institution, continued to be the settled policy of the Roman government.”

Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine, Eusebius Pamphilius: “It is said that in [Domitian’s] persecution the apos-
tle and evangelist John, who was still alive, was condemned to dwell on the island of Patmos in consequence of his testimony to the divine word .
. . To such a degree, indeed, did the teaching of our faith flourish at that time that even those writers who were far from our religion did not hesi-
tate to mention in their histories the persecution and the martyrdoms which took place during it.”

Apologeticus, Tertullian, Chapter 5: “Domitian also, who possessed a share of Nero’s cruelty, attempted once to do the same thing that the latter
did. But because he had, I suppose, some intelligence, he very soon ceased, and even recalled those whom he had banished.”

1
tral organization of the Church disappeared.”6 It was at this point “the Christian Church could no
longer find shelter under the shadow of the privileges of the synagogues.”7 They had become a
religion unto themselves, fully exposed to all grievances and persecutions once leveled against
their Jewish heritage.8 And as the persecutions came upon them, growth followed thereafter. As
Tertullian stated: “All your ingenious cruelties can accomplish nothing; they are only a lure to
this sect. Our number increases the more you destroy us. The blood of the Christians is their
seed.” Why it grew so rapidly and so completely as to become first a legal religion, and subse-
quently the official religion of Rome, is a subject for another debate.9 Yet, grow it did.

The need for unity in the new faith was a natural outgrowth of its expansion. However, the nature
of such unity was, and continues to be, a point of contention. Early on, they were in near com-
plete harmony.10 At the time of Jerusalem’s fall, the ‘body of Christian doctrine’ had come into
its own, durable enough to survive a relentless wave of expansion. Yet “it had no organization to
it . . . Paul did not believe in such a thing. He believed in the Spirit working through him and
others. Why should man regulate when the Spirit would do it for him. And of course he did not
want a fixed system with rules and prohibitions . . . Worship was still completely unorganized
and subject to no special control . . . The atmosphere was in short that of a loosely organized re-
vivalist movement . . . From the start there were numerous varieties of Christianity.”11

Of these varieties, gnosticism, the religion of knowledge which “claims to have an inner explana-
tion of life”, was a primary danger to the young religion.12 Johnson described it as a “spiritual

6 A History of Christianity, 1976, Paul Johnson, p.44

7 History of the Christian Church, Volume 2, Lecture 8, Schaff.

8 History of the Christian Church, Lecture 8, Schaff, “Hindrances and Helps”: Until the reign of Constantine it had not even a legal existence in
the Roman empire, but was first ignored as a Jewish sect, then slandered, proscribed, and persecuted, as a treasonable innovation, and the adop-
tion of it made punishable with confiscation and death. Besides, it offered not the slightest favor, as Mohammedanism afterwards did, to the cor-
rupt inclinations of the heart, but against the current ideas of Jews and heathen it so presented its inexorable demand of repentance and conver-
sion, renunciation of self and the world, that more, according to Tertullian, were kept out of the new sect by love of pleasure than by love of life.
The Jewish origin of Christianity also, and the poverty and obscurity of a majority of its professors particularly offended the pride of the Greeks,
and Romans.”

9 History of Latin Christianity, Book One, Henry Hart Milman, 1867, p. 50: “[Christianity] was ever instilling feelings of humanity yet unknown
or coldly commended by an impotent philosophy, among men and women, whose infant ears had been habituated to the shrieks of dying gladia-
tors; it was giving dignity to minds prostrated by years, almost centuries, of degrading despotism; it was nurturing purity and modesty of manners
in an unspeakable state of depravation; it was enshrining the marriage bed in a sanctity long almost entirely lost, and rekindling to a steady
warmth the domestic affections; it was substituting a simple, calm, and rational faith and worship for the worn-out superstitions of heathenism;
gently establishing in the soul of man the sense of immortality, till it became a natural and inextinguishable part of his moral being.”

10 The Apostles, Ernest Renan, Carleton, Madison Square, New York, 1869, p. 116: “The perusal of the books of the Old Testament, above all the
Psalms and the prophets, was a constant habit of the sect . . . They were persuaded that the ancient Hebrew books were full of him, [and] they
were convinced that the life of Jesus was foretold and described in advance . . . Jesus, with his exquisite tact in religious matters, instituted no
new ritual movement. The new sect had not, as yet, any special ceremonies . . . [Their] assemblies had nothing precisely liturgic about them . . .
There was nothing yet of sacerdotalism. There was no priest; the presbyter is the elder of the community, nothing more. The only priest is Jesus . .
. Fasting was considered a very meritorious usage. Baptism was the sign of entrance into the sect.”

11 A History of Christianity, Johnson, p. 44.

12 The Intellectual Development of Europe, Volume 1, John William Draper, p. 273: “Gnostic Christianity had reached its full development
within a century after the death of Christ; it maintained an active influence through the first four centuries and gave birth, during that time, to
many different subordinate sects.”

2
parasite which used other religions as a carrier.” He also explained that “Paul fought hard against
gnosticism, recognizing that it might cannibalize Christianity and destroy it.” The Corinthians
and Collosians both had sizable numbers of adherents who were “well-educated” and ready to
change with the constant inflow of new knowledge and understanding.13 Irenaeus, Bishop of Ly-
ons at the end of the second century, was also an enemy of gnosticism.14

The Encyclopedia Britannica (1911), stated: “In the period between 130 and 180 A.D. the varied
and complicated Christian fellowships in the Roman Empire crystallized into close and mutually
exclusive societies—churches with fixed constitutions and creeds, schools with distinctive eso-
teric doctrines, associations for worship with peculiar mysteries, and ascetic sects with special
rules of conduct.”15 Wrote John W. Draper: “In the beginning, the Church was agitated by a lin-
gering attachment to the Hebrew rites, and with difficulty tore itself away from Judaism.” In do-
ing so, their former attachment was replaced by countless sects, each with its own peculiar
creeds and traditions unique to its geographic culture16; some mystic in nature, others conserva-
tive existentialists.17 Amidst this flurry of variety, though, Christians remained united in the sense
of their standing out as different.18

Tertullian, in his argument Apology or Defense of the Christians against the Accusations of the
Gentiles (c. 200) to the Roman magistrates at the trial of Severus, attempted to give credence to
his faith, dating the foundation of Christianity as much earlier than was generally understood.
“The books of Moses, in which God has inclosed, as in a treasure, all the religion of the Jews,
and consequently all the Christian religion, reach far beyond the oldest you have, even beyond
all your public monuments, the establishment of your state, the foundation of many great cities --
all that is most advanced by you in all ages of history, and memory of times; the invention of let-
ters, which are the interpreters of sciences and the guardians of all excellent things. I think I may
say more -- beyond your gods, your temples, your oracles and sacrifices. The author of those
books lived a thousand years before the siege of Troy, and more than fifteen hundred before
Homer.”

13 A History of Christianity, Johnson, p. 45.

14 Encyclopedia Britannica, 1911, entry “Irenaeus”: “The chief work of Irenaeus, written about 180, is his Refutation and Overthrow of Gnosis,
(usually indicated by the name Against the Heresies).”

15 Entry, “Marcion”

16 History of Dogma, Volume 3, Adolph Harnack, p. 124: “[The Church] went right back to the Apostles, and deduced from secret traditions what
no tradition ever possessed. Huge spheres of ecclesiastical activity embracing new and extensive institutions — the reception of national customs
and of the practices of heathen sects — were in this way placed under “Apostolic” sanction, without any controversy.”

17 The Intellectual Development of Europe, Volume 1, John William Draper M.D., Harper & Brothers, New York, 1876, p. 270: “For several
centuries, [the Church] became engrossed with disputes respecting the nature of Christ, and creed after creed arose therefrom; to the Ebionites he
was a mere man; to the Docetes, a phantasm; to the Jewish Gnostic, Cerinthus, possessed of a two-fold nature.”

Page 271, regarding the differences between Eastern and Western Christianity: “[The East] was rich in doctrines respecting the nature of Divinity.
The [West] abounded in regulations for the improvement and consolation of humanity. For long there was a tolerance, and even liberality toward
differences of opinion. Until the Council of Nicea, no one was accounted a heretic if only he professed his belief in the Apostles’ Creed.”

18 Ibid, p.275: “As a body, the Christians not only kept aloof from all the amusements of the times, avoiding theatres and public rejoicings, but in
every respect constituting themselves an empire within an empire,”

3
In an effort to accomplish a palpable unity 19 in such a liberal environment, the early leaders re-
sorted to creed. Regarding its initial formation, Philip Schaff detailed in his book Creeds in
Christendom, that from the humble beginnings of confession of Christ, the Church expanded this
foundation to include various aspects of living and acceptable worship to God.20 He went on to
articulate the basic fundamental difference in how Catholics and Protestants view creed in their
respective systems of worship.21 He stated the purpose for creeds was “to distinguish the Church
from the world, from Jews and heathen, afterwards orthodoxy from heresy, and finally denomi-
nation from denomination.”22 But Schaff recognized an inherent danger in the blind acceptance
and following of creeds when place above the scriptures in weight and importance.23 He also un-
derstood the primary value of the nature of creeds: cohesiveness, durability, and unity.24

Professor Draper explained the external pressures on Christianity that began to shape it: “The
primitive modifications of Christianity are three--Judaic Christianity, Gnostic Christianity, Afri-
can Christianity.”25 However, in time, the influence of gnosticism gradually died out, leaving the
Petrine-Judaic version and the Pauline-Hellenistic version to vie for control; the latter of which
was victorious, largely due to Marcion’s efforts. By the third century, Harnack describes the gen-
eral view of the leadership: “The Church, its doctrine, institutions, and constitution, were held, in
and by themselves, to constitute the source of knowledge and the authoritative guarantee of truth.

19 History of Dogma, Volume 3, Harnack, p. 192: “Necessity became a virtue, i.e., every new point which was felt to be needed in order to pre-
serve the unity of the Church, or to adapt its institutions to the taste of the time, was inserted in the list of authorities. This method was in vogue
even in the third century.”

20 Creeds in Christendom with Historical and Critical Notes, 1877, Philip Schaff, Volume 1, p. 26: “The first Christian confession or creed is that
of Peter, when Christ asked the apostles, 'Who say ye that I am?' and Peter, in the name of all the rest, exclaimed, as by divine inspiration, 'Thou
art the Christ, the Son of the living God' (Matt. xvi. 16). This became naturally the substance of the baptismal confession, since Christ is the chief
object of the Christian faith. Philip required the eunuch simply to profess the belief that 'Jesus was the Son of God.' . . . Gradually it was ex-
panded, by the addition of other articles, into the various rules of faith, of which the Roman form under the title 'the Apostles' Creed' became the
prevailing one, after the fourth century, in the West, and the Nicene Creed in the East.”

21 Ibid, p. 27: “In the Protestant system, the authority of symbols, as of all human compositions, is relative and limited. It is not co-ordinate with,
but always subordinate to, the Bible, as the only infallible rule of the Christian faith and practice. The value of creeds depends upon the measure
of their agreement with the Scriptures . . . The Greek Church, and still more the Roman Church, regarding the Bible and tradition as two co-
ordinate sources of truth and rules of faith, claim absolute and infallible authority for their confessions of faith. The Greek Church confines the
claim of infallibility to the seven ecumenical Councils, from the first Council of Nicæa, 325, to the second of Nicæa, 787. The Roman Church
extends the same claim to the Council of Trent and all the subsequent official Papal decisions on questions of faith down to the decree of the
Immaculate Conception in 1854, and the dogma of Papal Infallibility proclaimed by the Vatican Council in 1870.”

22 Ibid, p. 28.

23 Ibid, p.28: “It is objected that [creeds] obstruct the free interpretation of the Bible and the progress of theology; that they interfere with the
liberty of conscience and the right of private judgment; that they engender hypocrisy, intolerance, and bigotry; that they produce division and
distraction; that they perpetuate religious animosity and the curse of sectarianism; that, by the law of reaction, they produce dogmatic indifferen-
tism, skepticism, and infidelity . . . The objections have some force in those State Churches which allow no liberty for dissenting organizations, or
when the creeds are virtually put above the Scriptures instead of being subordinated to them.”

24 Ibid, p. 30: “The heretical sects connected with Protestantism mostly reject symbolical books altogether, as a yoke of human authority and a
new kind of popery. Some of them set aside even the Scriptures, and make their own reason or the spirit of the age the supreme judge and guide
in matters of faith; but such loose undenominational denominations have generally no cohesive power, and seldom outlast their founders.”

25 The Intellectual Development of Europe, Volume 1, John William Draper, p. 271.

4
As the holy, Apostolic, and Catholic institution, it possessed nothing whatever untrue or capable
of amendment either in its foundations or its development.”26

In the midst of this doctrinal struggle, what began as general guidelines to a principled life of
faith and love, hardened over time to become a set of inelastic regulations, complete with struc-
tured punishments for disobedience. In short, they needed a book of their own, 27 a canon to form
the spiritual foundation of their faith. The Jews had the Old Testament, which was tailored to
their formal style of worship. The Christians, however, as followers of Jesus, had no such con-
crete formality; a fact that was seen as the root cause for regional variety in their teachings. With
Christians now entering every level of Roman society, it was practically unavoidable for some
amount of cultural amalgamation to occur within its system of beliefs and traditions; a fact that
was worrisome to early Church leaders. In this respect, Islam took a much different tack.28

With the passing of the last of the original twelve “pillars” an inevitable issue arose over which
of the “masses” of Christian texts floating among and between the disparate congregations to
canonize as divine in origin. Marcion, from Greece, traveled to Rome in the 120s with the ex-
press intention of bolstering and enabling the spread of the unadulterated Christian faith.29 He
saw it through Paul’s eyes and found it interwoven among Paul’s writings to the congregations;
throughout he noticed a purity in Paul that was lacking in many of the others. “To Marcion, the
teaching of Paul was, essentially, the gospel of Jesus.” Proceeding from such a narrow notion of
what constituted literature Jesus might hypothetically endorse, he championed the pruning of
thousands of circulating letters and expositions30 until the texture of the New Testament became
purely Pauline in nature.31 A primary challenge facing that generation of leadership is described
by Harnack: “It had (1) to demonstrate the agreement between the two Testaments, in other
words; to christianise the O. T. completely, to discover prophecy everywhere, to get rid of the
literal meaning where it was obnoxious, and to repel Jewish claims; Sozomen says (H. E. V.22)
that the Jews were more readily seduced to heathenism, because they only interpreted Holy
Scripture πρὸς ῥητόν, and not πρὸς θεωρίαν; (2) to harmonise the statements of Holy Scripture

26 History of Dogma, Volume 3, Harnack, p. 207.

27 History of Dogma, Volume 3, Harnack, p. 197: “When the collection was limited to 26 (27) books, the reading of others in the Church was,
from the end of the fourth century, more strictly prohibited. But even at the beginning of the fifth, men in a position to know, like Jerome and
Sozomen, can tell us that the prohibition was here and there unknown or disregarded. Some primitive Christian writings were thus in use in the
Churches down to the fifth century and later.”

28 History of the Conflict, Draper, Chapter 2: ”Though the Christian party had proved itself sufficiently strong to give a master to the empire, it
was never sufficiently strong to destroy its antagonist, paganism. The issue of the struggle between them was an amalgamation of the principles
of both. In this, Christianity differed from Mohammedanism, which absolutely annihilated its antagonist, and spread its own doctrines without
adulteration.”

29 Encyclopedia Britannica, 1911, entry “Marcion”: “The pure gospel, however, Marcion found to be everywhere more or less corrupted and
mutilated in the Christian circles of his time. His undertaking thus resolved itself into a reformation of Christendom. This reformation was to
deliver Christendom from false Jewish doctrines by restoring the Pauline conception of the gospel.”

30 History of Dogma, Volume 3, Harnack, p. 196, 197: “We have to multiply by hundreds the lists which enumerate 26 (27) books, i.e., the Ac-
knowledged and the Disputed melioris notæ of Eusebius . . . [Though] from the end of the fourth century real unanimity prevailed, in the main, as
to the contents of the N. T. and the authorship of the separate books.”

31 A History of Christianity, Johnson, p. 46.

5
with the prevailing dogmatics; (3) to furnish every text with a profound meaning, one valuable
for the time.”32 In this they were largely successful.

What began as the universally-respected New Testament, then, grew into what we know today as
the Apostles’ Creed.33 It is a summary of ideals and principles generally agreed upon by many
renowned Christians through the ages.34 It is not to be thought of as concrete with defined limits,
however, as were the Ten Commandments or even the original set of holy books35 in their preci-
sion. It was a flexible and yielding entity, organic and prone to revision amongst disparate groups
and cultures.36 As a body, the Creed was not viewed as divine on the same level as were the holy
scriptures, but was more akin to an interpretive expository used to explain what it meant to live
the life of Christ. It was the seed from which all subsequent regulations sprouted, the precursor to
every extraneous bit of dogma still preached to this day.

32 History of Dogma, Volume 3, Harnack, p. 199

33 Creeds, p. 34: “The Apostles' Creed, or Symbolum Apostolicum, is, as to its form, not the production of the apostles, as was formerly believed,
but an admirable popular summary of the apostolic teaching, and in full harmony with the spirit and even the letter of the New Testament . . . It
contains all the fundamental articles of the Christian faith necessary to salvation, in the form of facts, in simple Scripture language, and in the
most natural order—the order of revelation— from God and the creation down to the resurrection and life everlasting.”

34 Ibid, p. 35 footnote: “Augustine calls the Apostolic Symbol 'regula fidei brevis et grandis; brevis numero verborum, grandis pondere sententia-
rum.' Luther says: 'Christian truth could not possibly be put into a shorter and clearer statement.' Calvin (Inst., Lib. II. c. 16, § 18), while doubting
its strictly apostolic composition, yet regards it as an admirable and truly scriptural summary of the Christian faith . . . J. T. Müller (Lutheran, Die
Symb. Bücher der Evang. Luth. K., p. xvi.): ‘It retains the double significance of being the bond of union of the universal Christian Church, and
the seed from which all other creeds have grown.' Dr. Semisch (Evang. United, successor of Dr. Neander in Berlin) concludes his recent essay on
the Creed (p. 28) with the words: 'It is in its primitive form the most genuine Christianity from the mouth of Christ himself (das ächteste Christen-
thum aus dem Munde Christi selbst).’”

35 History of Dogma, Volume 3, Harnack, p. 193, 199: “To the two Testaments a unique authority was ascribed. They were the Holy Scriptures
κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν; every doctrine had to be proved out of them, in other words, opinions that held something necessary to faith which did not occur in
Scripture, had no absolute validity. Any one who declared that he took his stand on Scripture alone did not assume an uncatholic attitude . . .
[However] the conception that the canonical books were solemnly set apart, occurs first in Athanasius.”

36 Creeds, p. 36, 37: This “Creed was at first not precisely the same. It assumed different shapes and forms in different congregations. Some were
longer, some shorter; some declarative, some interrogative in the form of questions and answers.”

6
For the better part of three centuries, this Apostolic Creed ‘was committed to memory, not to
writing,’37 lending itself an aptitude to change and transformation.38 Thereafter, it endured an-
other several hundred years of evolution, eventually congealing into its currently accepted form
around the eighth century.39

In the midst of this span, two other creeds came into being. The first was a direct result of the
Council of Nicea (325 A.D.). Known as the Nicene Creed, it was “more definite and explicit than
the Apostles' Creed.”40 In it, the emphasis of Christ’s divinity and of the Holy Spirit’s nature is
ratcheted up noticeably from their portrayal in the Gospels and by the earliest of writers.41 The
sixth century witnessed the second additional creed, a step in the evolution of this series, when
the Church took up the Athanasian Creed. It was an extended ruleset that Schaff wrote was “in
strong contrast [to] the uncontroversial and peaceful tone of the Apostles' Creed, [and] begins
and ends with the solemn declaration that the catholic faith in the Trinity and the Incarnation
herein set forth is the indispensable condition of salvation, and that those who reject it will be
lost forever.”42 Not only did it represent the first explicit, and definite, elucidation of the Trinity
as a doctrine, it also made it incumbent on all Christians to profess belief in it as a prerequisite to
eternal life.

This poses an interesting question: If what began as a ‘kernel of the apostolic age’ took eight
hundred years to form a body of fundamental, incontrovertible truths, to what external pressures

37 Creeds, p. 37.

Beginnings of Christianity, Volume 1, 1903, Paul Wernle, p. 132: “In the first period of its development Christianity existed as a sect (heresy).
The metamorphosis from sect into Church was a very gradual process. Step by step the Christian sect separated itself from the Jewish Church. By
slow degrees it emerged from its obscurity into publicity. But it was only in the reign of Constantine that the transformation was completed.”

p. 133, 134: “No instruction preceded baptism. It was not necessary. The confession of faith in the Messiah was so simple. But as a rule adults
only were baptized . . . The baptized now shared in the meals of the brethren. The chief meal was always, or at least frequently, connected with
the repetition of a portion of the account of the Last Supper. At the same time they would speak of the blessing of the death of Jesus, and rejoice
at the thought of His coming again . . . The foundation of [Christianity], however, brings about the first great change in the new religion. It can be
traced in a certain increasing rigidity both without, where it assumes the shape of exclusiveness, and within, where it becomes legality. Between
the brethren and those that are without, an impassable barrier has been set up by the institution of baptism and the profession of faith in the Mes-
siah.”

38 Beginnings of Christianity, Volume 1, 1903, Paul Wernle, p. 159: “It was [Paul] who brought Christianity out of Palestine and transplanted it
among the Greeks and Romans, chief of all civilized nations. It could no longer now remain a mere Jewish sect. It had to measure its strength
with the religions, the civilization, and the philosophy of the leading nations in the world’s history. It had to enter into their needs, their language,
and their social intercourse, assuming now a friendly, now a hostile attitude. It was bound to undergo a radical transformation, not merely of
external form but of innermost essence.”

39 Ibid, p. 38: “If we regard, then, the present text of the Apostles' Creed as a complete whole, we can hardly trace it beyond the sixth, certainly
not beyond the close of the fifth century, and its triumph over all the other forms in the Latin Church was not completed till the eighth century, or
about the time when the bishops of Rome strenuously endeavored to conform the liturgies of the Western churches to the Roman order. But if we
look at the several articles of the Creed separately, they are all of Nicene or ante-Nicene origin, while its kernel goes back to the apostolic age.”

40 The Creeds of Christendom, Volume 1, Philip Schaff, p. 24.

41 Epistle of Polycarp to the Phillippians, c. 150: “May the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ Himself, who is the Son of
God, and our everlasting High Priest, build you up in faith and truth.” Polycarp’s belief that there is a clear distinction between God and Christ,
one of a father/son relationship is obvious. There is no hint of Trinitarian oneness in his writings.

42 The Creeds of Christendom, Volume 1, Philip Schaff, p. 39.

7
were these doctrines exposed during their formation? Has the Creed strayed from the original
message of the New Testament?43 If it has, to what extent has it strayed?

In my endeavor to answer that question, I have taken it upon myself to gather together a core list
of authoritative references--both secular and inspired--to break down the heart of what it meant
to be an early Christian44 and then to piece together those materials until they coalesce into the
most simplified list of requirements of approved worship for us today. To do this I will have to
brave the fog of two thousand years of church dogma and seek out the ‘kernel’ of what Jesus
stood for and ultimately gave his life for.

I am chiefly interested in the comparisons, and contrasts, between the Catholic Church and the
Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, and how they each grew and expanded their own power over
their parishioners.45

As the modern-day Catholic Church claims to be the only Christian religion to stretch back two
millennia and as such is--and always has been--the instrument God uses to guide the flock, the
Watchtower Society, while claiming a more recent birth, similarly holds that throughout the past
two thousand years there have always been representatives of God on earth. Yet the beginnings
of both groups were marked by a much humbler tone.46 How did we get from the two greatest
commandments of loving God and neighbor to what we have today? Is earthly organization nec-

43 History of Dogma, Volume 3, Harnack, p. 200: “Tychonius, a Donatist, drew up for the interpretation of Holy Scripture seven rules which
were to remove all difficulties . . . These rules are of material importance (for theology). The first treats of the Lord and his body: i.e., we must
and may apply the truth concerning the Lord to the Church, and vice versa, since they form one person; only in this way do we frequently get a
correct sense. The second deals with the bi-partite body of the Lord: we must carefully consider whether the true or the empirical Church is
meant. The third takes up the promises and the law, i.e., the spirit and letter; the fourth treats of genus and species: we must observe the extent to
which texts apply; the fifth, of the dates: we must harmonize contradictory dates by a fixed method, and understand certain stereotyped numbers
as symbolical. The sixth discusses repetition: i.e., we have frequently to refrain from assuming a chronological order, where such an order appears
to exist, and the seventh deals with the devil and his body, i.e., the devil and the godless, many things referring to the latter which are said of the
devil and vice versa—see the first rule.”

p. 200 footnote: “When brought face to face with inconvenient passages of Scripture, a way was found out of the difficulty in the demand that the
historical occasion of the text must be carefully weighed.”

p.202: “As regards the relation of the two Testaments to each other, three views existed side by side. The Old Testament was a Christian book as
well as the New: it was throughout the record of prophecy: it contained the true creed under certain limitations and imperfections, and led and
still leads educationally to Christ. These points of view were adopted alternately as the occasion required.”

44 Beginnings of Christianity, Volume 1, 1903, Paul Wernle, p. 159: “The immediate result of [Jesus’] activity—the early Christian fellow-
ship—remained a mere sect composed of communities of pious Jews who longed for the Messiah and the kingdom, lived strictly according to the
commandments of Jesus, and loved their own people.”

45 In an effort to remain consistent and to simplify what is needless organizational structure, this paper will refer to the Catholic Church as ex-
actly that and the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of Pennsylvania as the Watchtower Society. Technically, since 2000, the Society has utilized
a legal instrument known as the Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses to organize and coordinate congregational procedure.

46 December 1894 Watchtower: “It is plain that the forming of a visible organization of such gathered out ones would be out of harmony with the
spirit of the divine plan; and, if done, would seem to indicate on the part of the Church a desire to conform to the now popular idea of organiza-
tion or confederacy . . . We do not esteem a visible organization of the gathered ones to be a part of the Lord's plan.”

1 John 2:26, 27: “These things I write YOU about those who are trying to mislead YOU. 27 And as for YOU, the anointing that YOU received
from him remains in YOU, and YOU do not need anyone to be teaching YOU.” (New World Translation) This was a letter to the congregation’s
members, not to a group of men which authority had been given.

8
essary for Jehovah to efficiently teach His people? Tertullian (160-220 AD) had much to say on
the subject.47

In the early days of Abraham’s descendants, they noticed that all the nations around them were
represented by kings, yet they had none. Their desire to place an earthly representative between
them and their God was satisfied but with historically tragic results. Why? Because these repre-
sentatives were human beings with human tendencies which were often at odds with Jehovah’s
purpose for them. When a king led them astray, they were punished for following him. Always
they were expected to live up to Jehovah’s standards, not the king’s. Is there a lesson in there for
us today? Does Jehovah expect us to support a scripturally inaccurate position simply because
our religion refuses to yield? Or does He expect us to uphold His Word above all else, even if our
doing so results in persecution by those close to us?

A glance at where it all began, the Jerusalem Christians, shows the type of mindset and customs48
they had at the beginning. They were Jews in the fullest sense, eager to read and study the
prophesies and were among the majority who were looking for the Messiah to come. They found
fulfillment in Jesus as the One and followed him; which was basically the only difference be-
tween them and their Jewish brothers.49 In the evenings, they would reenact the Last Supper.50
They had a very simplistic view of the soul and what happened after death.51 The initial genera-
tion these brought into Christianity placed their own mark on the religion.52

When we examine the apostolic decision recorded in Acts, another doctrinal development arises.
How binding was the ‘decision’ reached by the older men of Jerusalem, and why was it dissemi-
nated? They stated: “For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden
to YOU, except these necessary things, to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and

47 History, Schaff: “Tertullian, in prophetic anticipation as it were of the modern Protestant theory, boldly tells the heathen that everybody has a
natural and inalienable right to worship God according to his conviction, that all compulsion in matters of conscience is contrary to the very na-
ture of religion, and that no form of worship has any value whatever except as far as it is a free voluntary homage of the heart.”

48 The Apostles, Ernest Renan, Carleton, Madison Square, New York, 1869, p. 104, 105: “The custom of living together in a community profess-
ing one identical faith . . . necessarily produced many habits common to all society. Very soon rules were enacted . . . All, then, lived in common,
having only one heart and one mind . . . On becoming disciples of Jesus, they sold their goods and presented to the society the price of them . . .
They dwelt in one neighborhood only. They took their meals together, and continued to attach to them the mystic sense that Jesus had ordered.
Many hours of the day they spent in prayer . . . Their harmony was perfect; no quarreling about dogmas, no dispute respecting precedence.”

49 Ibid, p. 107: “The faithful of Jesus . . . scrupulously observed all Jewish customs, praying at the appointed hours, and observing all the pre-
cepts of the Law. They were Jews, only differing from others in their belief that the Messiah had already come.”

50 Ibid, p. 108: “[The memorial emblems] were first served every night, but soon custom restricted them to Sunday evenings only.”

51 Ibid, p. 119: “That the soul exists before and after death . . . [was an idea] in no way entertained by the first Christians. They appear generally
to have believed that man has no existence apart from his body. This persuasion lasted a long time, and only gave way when the doctrine of the
immortality of the soul, in the sense of the Greek philosophy, had been received into the Church, and became associated, for good or for evil, with
the Christian dogma of the resurrection and universal restoration.”

52 Ibid, p. 125: “The most celebrated men of the apostolic age [were part of] a second Christian generation, parallel to that which had been
formed five or six years previous . . . This second generation, not having seen Jesus, could not equal the first in authority, but surpassed it in activ-
ity and in the ardor for distant missions . . . Although the new converts were all Jews by religion . . . they belonged to two very different classes of
Jews; ‘Hebrews’ . . . and ‘Hellenists’ . . . The primitive nucleus of the Church [however] was exclusively composed of ‘Hebrews’.”

9
from blood and from things strangled and from fornication.”53 In very concrete terms, that coun-
cil came to the conclusion that it was forbidden for Christians to eat food which had been sacri-
ficed to an idol. Yet, later in his letters to the Corinthian Christians, the apostle Paul informed
those brothers that the eating of food sacrificed to idols was a conscience matter, that there was
nothing fundamentally wrong with it since the gods to which the food had been offered were
powerless. -- 1 Cor. 8:4-11.

To the Christians in Rome, Paul alluded to the fact that faith is a very personal, subjective ideal,
its strength varying widely among individuals in the congregation.54 He did likewise in his letter
to the brothers in Ephesus. (Eph. 4:11,12) He told the brothers in Philipi to “keep working out
your own salvation.” (Phil. 2:12) In his letter to the Collosians, he wrote: “Let no man judge you
in eating and drinking or in respect of a festival or of an observance of the new moon or of a
sabbath . . . why do YOU, as if living in the world, further subject yourselves to the decrees: “Do
not handle, nor taste, nor touch,” respecting things that are all destined to destruction by being
used up, in accordance with the commands and teachings of men? . . . Those very things are, in-
deed, possessed of an appearance of wisdom in a self-imposed form of worship” (Col. 2:16, 20-
23) The brothers were free to engage in these activities as a matter of conscience, but it was no
longer incumbent upon them, or even encouraged for them, to do so.

An examination of Paul’s life and dealings with the early congregations supports the notion that
conscience plays a vital role in Christian living; much more so than tradition and manmade rules.
He asked the Galatians, “Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying
to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ. I want you
to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not re-
ceive it from any man, nor was I taught it.” (Gal. 1:10-12, NIV)

Rather than basing our faith on a rigid set of standards and thereby imposing them on others,
Paul encouraged: “Continue putting up with one another and forgiving one another freely if any-
one has a cause for complaint against another. Even as Jehovah freely forgave YOU, so do YOU
also.” (Col. 3:13, NWT) Even in the case of sexual impropriety, Paul warned “that no one go to
the point of harming and encroach upon the rights of his brother in this matter, because Jehovah
is one who exacts punishment for all these things,” while further admonishing them “to make it
YOUR aim to live quietly and to mind YOUR own business.” (1 Thess. 4:6,11)

The question of congregational authority and the weight of its decisions is at the core of my ar-
gument. If Paul, widely held to be the most zealous of all early Christians, viewed an organiza-
tional rule forbidding something he later viewed to be a conscience matter, how are we to view
‘rules’ written down for us by the many Christian religions that exist today? Are they binding the

53 Acts 15:28, 29 (New World Translation)

54 Romans 14:1-3: “Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. One man's faith allows him to eat every-
thing, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and
the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him.” (New International Version)

10
same way divine scripture is binding? On the flip side, if Paul condemned something in scripture
is that condemnation still honored today two thousand years later? In either case we should be
consistent in our view of scripture.

An example of the latter, Paul stated at Hebrews 10:24, 25 to “not forsake the gathering of your-
selves together.” This is viewed as an absolute command by the Society; no wiggle room, no al-
lowance for personal conscience. They view it in as cut-and-dry fashion as the command relating
to fornication. Yet, Paul also stated at 1 Timothy 2:9 for the women ‘to not braid their hair or
wear gold or pearls.’ Scripturally, this was framed in the same context as Hebrews 10, in a man-
ner that left no room for conscience or opinion. Why, then, does the Society interpret the first
scripture literally, to be wholly binding on Christians today and even a prerequisite for surviving
Armageddon, while they view the second as a mere guideline to dress and grooming, bound only
by cultural trends and personal taste?

Another example is Romans 14:2, 3: “One [man] has faith to eat everything, but the [man] who
is weak eats vegetables. Let the one eating not look down on the one not eating, and let the one
not eating not judge the one eating.” The Society interprets this as a person’s freedom to eat any-
thing as long as it is not blood or tobacco, though the passage provides for no exceptions or ex-
emptions. It plainly states that anyone can eat anything. Period. However, Paul also stated at 1
Timothy 2:11, 12: “Let a woman learn in silence with full submissiveness. I do not permit a
woman to teach, or to exercise authority over a man, but to be in silence.” The Society views this
as hyperbole, an exaggeration to drive home the point that men have the primary responsibility to
teach. The reality is that women teach all the time in their personal ministry, doing so in an obvi-
ous aloofness to Paul’s clear command to them.

My point is this: Does the Society not view much of the Bible as more a guide book than a rule
book? Why, then, do they insist on turning some of Paul’s instructions into rigid laws while skirt-
ing the instructions not in line with their theology? Even more, why do they insist on ‘adding to’
the biblical guide book in terms of their unofficial ban on beards, independent Bible reading and
study, and in the area of questioning the Governing Body?

A further area of concern is how we view those who are taking the lead. How did Paul view
them? “Now we request YOU, brothers, to have regard for those who are working hard among
YOU and presiding over YOU in [the] Lord and admonishing YOU; and to give them more than
extraordinary consideration in love because of their work. Be peaceable with one another.” (1
Thess. 5:12,13) In verse 21 of the same chapter, however, he warned the congregation “to make
sure of all things.” Why would Paul have included that phrase in the context of our view of the
elders? Could it not be that while he wanted there to exist among the brotherhood a sense of love
and mutual respect--especially toward those working hard for the faith--he did not expect the
brothers to blindly follow those who might lead them astray? Is it not possible for the words of
imperfect elders or even mandates emanating from the Governing Body to be out of harmony
with the Bible? Being “a Hebrew born of Hebrews,” (Phil. 3:5) Paul knew well that misdirected
zeal can prove a very dangerous trait.

11
History bears witness that the initial liberty of Christian living, which had freed them from bond-
age to a written set of laws and traditions, would slowly give way to another set of regulations
imposed by subsequent congregational leaders. Their ability to accomplish this was generated by
their gradual accumulation of power.55 Along with this loss of liberty, a cadre of regressive modi-
fications crept into the teachings of the Church. Monotheism was replaced by polytheism.56 The
purity of Christian tradition became adulterated by centuries of adjuncts and manipulations.57
The straightforward understanding of the soul began to grow in complexity and within thirty
years of John’s death took on the character of physical separation from the body and even
intelligence.58 Even the practice of apostolic succession was foreign to the earliest Christians, 59
as was the definition of an ‘apostle’ as a traveling minister.60 The notion of conscience and love
was replaced by harsh dogma to the point that the world, as led by the Catholic Church, would
enter a period called the Dark Ages.61 It was a stretch of time that covered over a thousand years
when fear of church reprisal was rampant, when freedom from anxiety gave way to endless su-

55 The Intellectual Development of Europe, Volume 1, John Draper, p. 274,275: “The constitution of the churches changed, the congregations
gradually losing power, which became concentrated in the bishop.”

56 History of Dogma, Volume 3, Harnack, p. 125: “Up to the middle of the third century, every Catholic Christian was, in all probability, a genu-
ine monotheist. That can no longer be said of the generations who afterwards pressed into the Church. Polytheism had lost its name, indeed, but
not its influence in the Church of the fourth century . . . Christian priests had to respect and adjust superstition, in order to keep the leadership in
their hands, and theologians had no difficulty in finding, in the O. T. and in many views and usages of Christian antiquity, means of justifying
what was most novel, alien, and absurd.”

57 Ibid, p. 184, 185: “In the [fifth and sixth] centuries no one continued to put any trust in a documentary authority, a record of proceedings, or
protocol. The letters by Bishops of this period throng with complaints of forgeries; the defeated party at a Synod almost regularly raises the
charge that the acts of Synod are falsified; Cyril and the great letter-writers complain that their letters are circulated in a corrupt form; the epistles
of dead Fathers—e.g., that of Athanasius to Epictetus—were falsified, and foreign matter was inserted into them; the followers of Apollinaris and
Monophysites, e.g., systematically corrupted the tradition.”

58 Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus, 130 A.D.: “The soul dwells in the body, yet is not of the body . . . The invisible soul is guarded by the visible
body . . . The soul is imprisoned in the body, yet preserves that very body . . . The immortal soul dwells in a mortal tabernacle.”

59 The Apostles, Ernest Renan, Carleton, Madison Square, New York, 1869, p. 110: “[After selecting Matthias as Judas’ replacement], the apos-
tles were considered hitherto as having been named by Jesus once for all, and as not proposing to have any successors. The idea of a permanent
college, preserving in itself all the life and strength of association, was judiciously rejected for a time. The concentration of the Church into an
oligarchy did not occur until much later.”

60 Ibid, p. 110: “We must guard against the misunderstandings which this appellation of ‘apostle’ may induce . . . the idea that the apostles were
essentially traveling missionaries . . . Nothing is more opposed to the truth. The twelve disciples were permanently settled in Jerusalem . . . except
on temporary missions.”

61 History of the Conflict, John Draper, Chapter 2: ”The Christian party asserted that all knowledge is to be found in the Scriptures and in the
traditions of the Church; that, in the written revelation, God had not only given a criterion of truth, but had furnished us all that he intended us to
know. The Scriptures, therefore, contain the sum, the end of all knowledge. The clergy, with the emperor at their back, would endure no intellec-
tual competition. Thus came into prominence what were termed sacred and profane knowledge; thus came into presence of each other two oppos-
ing parties, one relying on human reason as its guide, the other on revelation. Paganism leaned for support on the learning of its philosophers,
Christianity on the inspiration of its Fathers The Church thus set herself forth as the depository and arbiter of knowledge; she was ever ready to
resort to the civil power to compel obedience to her decisions. She thus took a course which determined her whole future career: she became a
stumbling-block in the intellectual advancement of Europe for more than a thousand years.”

12
perstition, when the production of literature was monopolized by the clergy 62, when choice was
replaced with forced submission, when the joy of accurate knowledge gave way to generations of
unimaginable ignorance.

If Constantine’s conversion in the fourth century marked the beginning of Catholic dominion
over the world, the Protestant Reformation marked the beginning of its end. What followed was a
movement to regain mastery over the scriptures, to peal away hundreds of years of distortions in
an effort to understand what it originally meant to follow Christ. Martin Luther spearheaded the
movement out of sincere appreciation for biblical truth.63 However, history was destined to re-
peat itself as Catholic dogma eventually gave way to Protestant dogma.

This, as I see it, is the trouble with religion; what begins as something very basic and even noble
eventually grows into something complex and mind-bending and altogether different. Soon the
meaning of biblical laws are lost in a morass of congregational rules of conduct to the point
where you do not trust what you read with your own eyes. Tradition replaces reason while prin-
cipled conscience yields to strict organizational procedure. Divine scripture becomes some mys-
terious, strange thing that must be interpreted by someone else to be of any benefit. We lose the
ability to wield the “sword” as the piercing dagger of spiritual warfare it is. Intelligence and logi-
cal thinking are shelved in lieu of blind submission to human authority. The release of human
restriction Paul preached is now lost, and we find ourselves bound by the same chains we were
once freed from.

The Course of the Watchtower

The organization behind Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, experi-
enced an evolution quite similar to that of early Christianity. Its founder, Charles Taze Russell,
began his journey by leaving the denomination of his birth and conducted an extensive study of
the world’s religions. Ultimately, he found truth in all religions; only it was partial truth. From
their beliefs, he extracted teachings he felt were scriptural and disposed of those which weren’t
and began publishing literature that would be used to disseminate these truths.

62 History of Civilization in England, Volume 1, Part 1, 1913, Henry Thomas Buckle, p.222, 223: “The literature of Europe, shortly before the
dissolution of the Roman Empire, fell entirely into the hands of the clergy, who were long venerated as the sole instructors of mankind . . . Litera-
ture being thus monopolized by a single class, assumed the peculiarities natural to its new masters. And as the clergy, taken as a body, have al-
ways looked on it as their business to enforce belief, rather than encourage inquiry, it is no wonder if they displayed in their writings the spirit
incidental to the habits of their profession . . . Indeed the aptitude for falsehood became so great that there was nothing men were unwilling to
believe.”

63 The Catholic Encyclopedia, article “Martin Luther”: “Luther's theological attitude at this time, as far as a formulated cohesion can be deduced,
was as follows: The Bible is the only source of faith; it contains the plenary inspiration of God; its reading is invested with a quasi-sacramental
character . . . The hierarchy and priesthood are not Divinely instituted or necessary, and ceremonial or exterior worship is not essential or useful.
Ecclesiastical vestments, pilgrimages, mortifications, monastic vows, prayers for the dead, intercession of saints, avail the soul nothing. All sac-
raments, with the exception of baptism, Holy Eucharist, and penance, are rejected, but their absence may be supplied by faith. The priesthood is
universal; every Christian may assume it. A body of specially trained and ordained men to dispense the mysteries of God is needless and a usur-
pation. There is no visible Church or one specially established by God whereby men may work out their salvation.”

13
Russell understood that the “light” of Bible truth would get brighter for those who took pains to
dig for it. He also recognized that simply calling an idea or theory “new light” had the potential
for becoming problematic.64

His was a system of beliefs that had the Bible as its ultimate authority; not the whims of men.
Together, he and his beloved Bible Students, celebrated birthdays and Christmas, voted in elec-
tions, took up arms in defending their country, proudly bore the cross as a means of commemo-
rating what Jesus had done for mankind, and looked forward to eternal life in heaven following
the end of their earthly course.

Russell’s students didn’t look at their group as a religion, even going as far as proclaiming their
abhorrence of accepting the label of a denomination 65, as they understood the dangers inherent in
men laying down rules only to be viewed as law.66 Theirs was a course not taken up by later in-
carnations of what came to be viewed as God’s earthly organization of Witnesses. What began as
a movement founded in biblical simplicity eventually grew into an unwieldy beast, a global re-
ligion in its own right that took on a life and energy of its own.

Sadly, the history of the Watchtower Society is littered with proclamations of “new light” at
every turn; many of which were later reversed or altogether dropped. In their efforts to pinpoint
the moment Jehovah begins Armageddon, they have jumped from one year to the next, each time
citing Bible prophesy for support and tying it to the “critical times” in which we live. It is this
track record of inconsistency that erodes their credibility regarding their claim of acting as God’s
exclusive channel for dispensing spiritual food.

Regardless of their track record, they continued forward with statements like the following:
“This book [Light] within itself conclusively proves that God directed its presentation, and that
its human author was not employing his own judgement and wisdom in its preparation. No hu-
man creature could have written Light unless the holy spirit of God operated on his mind, actu-
ated his thoughts, and guided its utterances. It matters not whether Jehovah individually inspired
the volume or had his representative Jesus do it. The evidence is that the work is of the Lord…
The wisdom therein is beyond human. It is divine.”67

64 Zion's Watchtower, Feb 1881, pg. 3: "If we were following a man undoubtedly it would be different with us; undoubtedly one human idea
would contradict another and that which was light one or two or six years ago would be regarded as darkness now: But with God there is no vari-
ableness, neither shadow of turning, and so it is with truth; any knowledge or light coming from God must be like its author. A new view of truth
never can contradict a former truth. "New light" never extinguishes older "light," but adds to it. If you were lighting up a building containing
seven gas jets you would not extinguish one every time you lighted another, but would add one light to another and they would be in harmony
and thus give increase of light: So is it with the light of truth; the true increase is by adding to, not by substituting one for another."

65 April 1882 Watchtower: “We are strictly unsectarian, and consequently recognize no sectarian name”, that “We have no creed (fence) to bind
us together or to keep others out of our company. The Bible is our only standard, and its teachings our only creed . . . If all Christians were to thus
free themselves of prescribed creeds, and study the Word of God without denominational bias, truth and knowledge and real Christian fellowship
and unity, would result.”

66 July 1879 Watchtower: “It is revealed to us in His word. ‘Search the Scripture,’ as Paul says, ‘Compare Scripture with Scripture,’ for ‘God is
His own interpreter, And He will make it plain.’ We are too much inclined to ask What does my church say about any question, instead of What
saith the Scriptures? Too much theology studied, and the Bible not enough.”

67 February 1, 1931 Watchtower

14
The May 1, 1957 Watchtower further stated: “If we are to walk in the light of truth we must rec-
ognize not only Jehovah God as our Father but his organization as our mother.” The following
month, in the June 15 Watchtower, it was declared: “It is vital that we appreciate [Jehovah’s
channel of communication] and respond to the directions of the ‘slave’ as we would to the voice
of God.” Is there a danger in referring to published material as the “voice of God”, especially
when said material has consistently been revised and changed and even altogether tossed aside as
out-dated literature?

The October 1, 1967 Watchtower states that ‘through them alone spiritual instruction is to come.’
The July 1, 1973 Watchtower states: “Jehovah’s organization alone, in all the earth, is directed by
God’s holy spirit or active force. (Zach. 4:6) Only this organization functions for Jehovah’s pur-
pose and to his praise. To it alone God’s Sacred Word, the Bible, is not a sealed book.” The No-
vember 15, 1992 Watchtower stated: “We will be impelled to serve Jehovah loyally with his or-
ganization if we remember that there is nowhere else to go to for eternal life.” When a religion
sets itself up as the means of salvation, where does that leave Jesus Christ, whom the scriptures
repeatedly call the “only means of salvation”?

Conclusion

It is not solely that complexity replaced simplicity or that the longer religions are exposed to the
process of refinement the more rigid and judgmental they become that offends me. Personally, it
is the fact that these religions share something in common: each of them gravitate toward a posi-
tion which essentially replaces Jesus as our Mediator and the clear message of the Bible with
their own flawed philosophy. Simply put: When a group of human beings claim that their fol-
lowers must go through them before going through Jesus, I am forced to reconcile this with the
scriptures; which as it turns out is a claim utterly unsupported by the very book they aspire to
model themselves after. In positioning themselves as a Mediator they have overstepped their
bounds; they have set themselves up as a modern-day Messiah when no such group was ever
prophesied after Jesus.

Much has been written on the issue of papal infallibility in terms of its power over Catholics
worldwide.68 Yet, the Society’s unwritten, though divinely-inspired projection of its current
“light” is just as concrete to Witnesses. Both have been consistent in their warning that should a
follower question or doubt their place in God’s earthly organization, that person is putting their
own eternal future at grave risk. They contend that only they can properly interpret and under-
stand the message of the Bible, and that even if an organizational position seems at odds with the

68 M.J. Rhodes, author of His Holiness Pope Pius IX. and the Temporal Rights of the Holy See, as involving Religious, Social, and Political
Interests of the Whole World wrote that "our first duty is toward our most holy Pope Pius IX, who at present so nobly fills the chair of St. Peter.”

15
Bible the congregants should wait on them to change it.69 They do this in the face of scriptural
evidence to the contrary.70 The Catholic solution to the problem of their creed not always match-
ing up to the biblical canon was ‘unwritten tradition.’71

Even Peter stated that “God is not partial, but in every nation the man that fears him and works
righteousness is acceptable to him.” Introspection at this point seems paramount. Is it incumbent
on us as Christians, those who have accepted Jesus’ sacrifice and are fully aware of the personal
responsibility this entails, to allow human organizations not only to outline the details of our

69 August 15, 2000 Watchtower, article “Are You a Full-Grown Christian?”: “How inappropriate it would be to challenge or undermine the
authority of appointed elders! You should also feel a sense of loyalty to “the faithful and discreet slave” and the agencies that are used to dissemi-
nate spiritual “food at the proper time.”

October 5, 2008 Watchtower, study article: “With hearts full of gratitude, we stay close to "the faithful and discreet slave whom his master ap-
pointed over his domestics, to give them their food at the proper time." Christ has appointed this slave "over all his belongings." (Matt. 24:45-47)
Therefore, even if we as individuals do not fully understand a certain position taken by the slave class, that is no reason for us to reject it or return
to Satan's world. Instead, loyalty will move us to act humbly and wait on Jehovah to clarify matters.”

Catholic Encyclopedia, article “Tradition and Living Magisterium”: “The Council [of Trent], as is evident, held that there are Divine traditions
not contained in Holy Scripture, revelations made to the Apostles either orally by Jesus Christ or by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost and trans-
mitted by the Apostles to the Church. Holy Scripture is therefore not the only theological source of the Revelation made by God to His Church.
Side by side with Scripture there is tradition, side by side with the written revelation there is the oral revelation. This granted, it is impossible to
be satisfied with the Bible alone for the solution of all dogmatic questions . . . Experience proved that each man found in the Bible his own ideas .
. . One man found the Real Presence, another a purely symbolic presence, another some sort of efficacious presence. The exercise of free inquiry
with regard to Biblical texts led to endless disputes, to doctrinal anarchy, and eventually to the denial of all dogma. These disputes, anarchy, and
denial could not be according to the Divine intention. Hence the necessity of a competent authority to solve controversies and interpret the Bible.
To say that the Bible was perfectly clear and sufficient to all was obviously a retort born of desperation, a defiance of experience and common
sense . . . Christ preached, He did not write. In His preaching He appealed to the Bible, but He was not satisfied with the mere reading of it, He
explained and interpreted it, He made use of it in His teaching, but He did not substitute it for His teaching . . . And as He preached Himself so He
sent His Apostles to preach; He did not commission them to write but to teach, and it was by oral teaching and preaching that they instructed the
nations and brought them to the Faith. If some of them wrote and did so under Divine inspiration it is manifest that this was as it were inciden-
tally. They did not write for the sake of writing, but to supplement their oral teaching when they could not go themselves to recall or explain it, to
solve practical questions, etc. St. Paul, who of all the Apostles wrote the most, did not dream of writing everything nor of replacing his oral teach-
ing by his writings. Finally, the same texts which show us Christ instituting His Church and the Apostles founding Churches and spreading
Christ's doctrine throughout the world show us at the same time the Church instituted as a teaching authority; the Apostles claimed for themselves
this authority, sending others as they had been sent by Christ and as Christ had been sent by God, always with power to teach and to impose doc-
trine as well as to govern the Church and to baptize. Whoever believed them would be saved; whoever refused to believe them would be con-
demned.”

70 Acts 17:11: “Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and
examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.” (New International Version) 1 John 4:1: “Beloved, believe not every spirit,
but prove the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the world.” (American Standard Version) Mark
7:6-13: “He replied, "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: “ 'These people honor me with their lips, but their
hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.'[You have let go of the commands of God and are
holding on to the traditions of men." And he said to them: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your
own traditions! For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother,’ and, 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.' But you
say that if a man says to his father or mother: 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban' (that is, a gift devoted to
God), then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed
down. And you do many things like that.”

71 History of Dogma, Volume 3, Harnack, p. 211, 212: “Men began in the fourth century—not uninfluenced by Clement and Origen—to intro-
duce the notion of a παράδοσις ἄγαρφος (unwritten tradition), in whose wholly undefined contents were even included dogmatic theories which it
was not everyone’s business to understand; yet it dealt extremely seldom with the trinitarian and Christological catchwords. This idea of an ‘un-
written tradition’ crept in in a very real sense; for it conflicted with more than one main point in the fundamental positions of the Church. But it
attained high honour, and its existence absolutely became a dogma.”

p. 213: “All conceptions of the authority of tradition, of which many Fathers—e.g., Cyprian—described Scripture to be the main element, were
based ultimately on the conviction that the Church had been invested with authority through its connection with the Holy Spirit himself.”

p. 214: “From the sixth century there gradually ceased to be any doubt that the resolutions of Œcumenical Synods possessed an absolute author-
ity. Whoever rebelled against them refused to admit that the Synods in question were regular, but did not dispute the authority of regular Synods
in general. After the seventh Synod it was a settled principle in the orthodox Church of the East that Scripture and the decisions of the seven
Œcumenical Councils formed the sources of the knowledge of Christian truth.”

16
faith but to enforce a rigid set of unscriptural regulations on us as divine in origin? Should we
view the commands of men to be on the same footing as the commands of God?

Judge Rutherford, the second president of the Watchtower Society, wrote in his book Enemies
(1937): “[The Jewish leaders] practiced religion based upon the traditions of men, ignoring the
commandments of God.” (p. 114) “Those Jewish clergymen. . . were proud and sought the favor
of men and taught the doctrines which men had invented.” (p. 115) “The religious Pharisees. . .
were great sticklers for formalism.” (p. 116) Rutherford wrote this as a condemnation of their
actions and disposition.

Where Catholics began to revere buildings and even early leaders72, Witnesses eventually began
to hold a palpable reverence for their Kingdom Halls and certain traveling speakers. In both
cases, the followers, when exposed to such ‘unwritten tradition’ over time, generally take it as
divinely inspired information. Each time this happens, the ‘sword’ gets a little duller and tradi-
tion a little sharper, until subsequent generations no longer question tradition as it has become
thoroughly enmeshed with scripture. Does Jehovah’s Word warn us that those who fail to meet
regularly in certain buildings at certain times will die at Armageddon? The general Witness men-
tality consistently does. Does the Bible instruct us to view what we are told as scripture, without
debate or discussion or dissenting viewpoints? Hardly, yet the average Witness would find it un-
nerving to question what he hears from the stage at a weekly meeting, even if the words seemed
counter to what he reads in the Bible.

Catholics and Jehovah’s Witnesses are not the only groups who operate on the aforementioned
fundamentals of absolute authority, but they seem to stand out as two of the most rigidly dog-
matic. This is especially apparent in the manner they deal with issues toward which either the
scriptures are silent or are at least open to the leadings of personal conscience.

Paul’s letter to the Galatian congregation was a powerful one in his attempt to pry them from an
imbedded Jewish mindset no longer necessary. 73 He informed them that, even at such an early
date, the fundamentals of Christian living--many of which were at odds with Jewish Law--were
firmly established and not to be amended. (Gal. 1:8,9) He did not seek the approval of the apos-
tles, “with flesh and blood”, nor did he await their direction for his ministry. (Gal. 1:16,17) He
engaged in a three year preaching tour before journeying to Jerusalem, and thereafter, waited an-
other fourteen years before returning. (Gal. 1:18-2:1) In all his time as a dedicated servant of Je-
hovah, Paul refused to allow any man to “enslave him” with their traditions and hierarchical

72 History of Dogma, Volume 3, Harnack, p. 215: “A peculiar reverence was inherited from the past for Apostolic Churches or their bishops,
entwined with the evidence based on history and dogmatics.”

73 The Apostles, Ernest Renan, p. 113: “It must be remembered that [the period of the early Church] was a time of zealots, who considered it a
virtuous act to assassinate any who failed in obedience to the Law; nor must we forget that some of the Christians were, or had been, zealots.”

17
rules.74 He understood that to be a Christian was wholly different from being a Jew, the latter
which is constantly concerned with laws and regulations as a manner of proving one’s faith. “For
such freedom Christ set us free. Therefore stand fast, and do not let yourselves be confined again
in a yoke of slavery.” (Gal. 5:1)

From its founding, Christianity never intended to be a rigid religious order based on lists of unre-
lenting rules that controlled every aspect of life, and which emanated from a central governing
body.75 It was, instead, one bound by an individual’s faith in what Jesus had done for him per-
sonally and the subsequent reforming of his life to one imitating Christ.76 If the faith was present,
the works would be also.

A comparison of two much-maligned passages from Matthew will support my point. 16:18 is a
favorite of the Catholic hierarchy, while Jehovah’s Witnesses prefer 24:45. An examination of
each shows the danger of infusing dogma into theology. 16:18 no more definitively identifies
Peter as the “rock” upon which Jesus chose to build his church than 24:45 distinguishes the
Watchtower Society as the “faithful and discreet slave.” Both can be read a number of different
ways, with many varying viewpoints as to what the writer was referring to. An alternate view of
16:18 is that Jesus is the rock, not Peter. An alternate view of 24:45 is that it was simply an illus-
tration rather than a prophesy of a future class of Messiahs.

In the event that a scripture can be interpreted more than one way (which is largely the case),
why do we allow another human being to insist their interpretation is the right one? Could the
Bible, being a work of divine nature, not be capable of extraordinary flexibility in pertaining to
each of us individually and the situations we find ourselves in daily? If the Bible is God’s Word
to mankind, why do so many groups claim that only they can understand it?

When it comes to personal reflection on how a particular scripture should weigh in on a decision,
why are we taught that we must first follow our religion’s rule book before our own conscience?

74 Galatians 2:4,5: “But because of the false brothers brought in quietly, who sneaked in to spy upon our freedom which we have in union with
Christ Jesus, that they might completely enslave us— to these we did not yield by way of submission, no, not for an hour, in order that the truth
of the good news might continue with YOU.”

Galatians 2:16: “Knowing as we do that a man is declared righteous, not due to works of law, but only through faith toward Christ Jesus, even we
have put our faith in Christ Jesus, that we may be declared righteous due to faith toward Christ, and not due to works of law, because due to
works of law no flesh will be declared righteous.”

Galatians 3:10,11: “For all those who depend upon works of law are under a curse; for it is written: “Cursed is every one that does not continue in
all the things written in the scroll of the Law in order to do them.” Moreover, that by law no one is declared righteous with God is evident, be-
cause “the righteous one will live by reason of faith.””

Ephesians 2:8,9: “YOU have been saved through faith; and this not owing to YOU, it is God’s gift. No, it is not owing to works, in order that no
man should have ground for boasting.”

75 The Apostles, Ernest Renan, p. 111: “Scarcely were [the names of the original twelve] known out of Jerusalem, and about the year 70 or 80 the
catalogues which were published of these twelve primary elect ones only agreed in the principle names . . . ‘The brothers of the Lord’ [and the
twelve] together St. Paul called ‘pillars’ of the Church of Jerusalem. We see, moreover, that no distinctions of ecclesiastical hierarchy were yet in
existence. The title was nothing.”

76 The Apostles, Ernest Renan, p. 114: “Less anxious to organize and found a society, the faithful companions of Jesus were satisfied to love him
whom they had loved when alive . . . This little group had no speculative theology.”

18
As Charles Russell once wrote: “We are too much inclined to ask What does my church say
about any question, instead of What saith the Scriptures? Too much theology studied, and the
Bible not enough.”77 If we learn one thing from the Bible and another from our religion, and the
two are not in harmony, which should we support? If we first support our religious view, what
does that say about our appreciation for the Bible? Which is divinely inspired when there is con-
tradiction between the two?

The Watchtower Society currently views birthdays as something Christians have no part in.
Why? Their reasoning is three-fold: 1) birthdays are of pagan origin, 2) both scriptural instances
carry a negative connotation, and 3) the first century Christians didn’t celebrate them. They then
apply Romans 15:4, that “all things written aforetime were written for our instruction.” This is
the foundation of their position.

The first line of reasoning, I have dealt with in another paper; basically, everything we do today
is of pagan origin. The second line is equally unbalanced. Following this logic, Christians should
distance themselves from pigs, goats, or dogs, as these are only ever mentioned in the Bible in a
negative light as well. The third and final line of reasoning evaporates when you recognize the
Bible never indicates those same first century Christians ever formalized meeting at Kingdom
Halls three times weekly, enforced anti-beard grooming standards, attended the theater, cele-
brated wedding anniversaries and graduation parties, or performed a mandatory pre-baptismal
test of scriptural prowess. Is it logical to assume that simply because there is no record of the ear-
liest Christians engaging in something that it is wrong for us today? In my judgement, and even
that of the Society in numerous areas, it is not.

My contention, in closing, is that creedal complexity too often ends up as its own vice, its own
undoing. Change is not always beneficial.78 If we are expected to studiously follow the creed of
our religious faith in all its dizzying intricacies as an outward sign to Jehovah of our devotion to
Him, why did Jesus teach with such simplicity and lay such modest demands on us as his follow-
ers? Rather than loading down his yoke with an endless expansion of laws regulating every as-
pect of our person, he lightened it, condensing faith to its core; love of Jehovah and love of
neighbor. When these become a part of our nature, the rest follows. Love of Jehovah keeps us
focussed on pleasing Him while love of neighbor keeps us grounded and empathetic and charita-
ble; i.e. more like Jesus. Neither principle encourages or even makes allowance for judgmental-
ism, legalism, or fear of reprisal; all of which are concepts foreign to Jesus’ message and exam-
ple. If Jesus was disinclined to utilize these in his efforts to mold his disciples in the first century,
shouldn’t we be equally disinclined to use them today?

77 July 1879 Watchtower

78 History of Dogma, Volume 3, Harnack, p. 125: “The religion of pure reason and of the strictest morality, the Christianity which the ancient
apologists had once portrayed, had long changed into a religion of the most powerful rites, of mysterious means, and an external sanctity. The
historical tradition of Christ and the founding of Christianity was turned into a romance, and this historical romance, which was interwoven with
the religion, constantly received new chapters. The stream of the history of salvation ended in a waste swamp of countless and confused sacred
tales, and in its course took in heathen fictions and the stories of gods and heroes.”

19
DATE: January 29, 2009

20