Good Lord! Yet another dumb German author snookered by the JWs (certain authors writing on the JWs and the Holocaust come to mind). It's telling, though, that Hartman does not seem to have been suckered all the way into becoming a JW. At least, nothing is said that he has. I wonder why?
Hartman has gotten a lot of things flat out wrong. It looks like he is posing these questions and answers. What he says shows that, despite his some 217 meetings with JWs, he still has little idea what they're really all about.
: Question: Who is accusing Jehovah`s Witnesses of psychological terror?
: Answer: Those people are no friends of Jehovah`s Witnesses. Quite often they are apostates but also church institutions.
Well duh. It goes without saying that anyone who accuses someone of psychological terror is no friend of the accused. Hartman is following the Watchtower Society's ridiculous line of argument that anyone who criticizes JWs cannot do so objectively and, most importantly, cannot possibly have valid criticisms by virtue of the fact that they are critics.
: Question: What is meant by the expression "apostates"?[1]
Hartman's reference is to the Insight book, which he quotes as follows:
Excerpt from the book Insight on the Scriptures, Vol. 1, p. 126: "Apostasy. This term in Greek (apostasia) comes from the verb aphistemi, literally meaning "stand away from". The noun has the sense of "desertion, abandonment or rebellion". (Acts 21:21, ftn) In classical Greek the noun was used to refer to political defection, and the verb is evidently employed in this sense at Acts 5:37, concerning Judas the Galilean who "drew off" (apestese, form of aphistemi) followers. The Greek Septuagint uses the term at Genesis 14:4 with reference to such a rebellion. However, in the Christian Greek Scriptures it is used primarily with regard to religious defection; a withdrawal or abandonment of the true cause, worship, and service of God, and hence an abandonment of what one has previously professed and a total desertion of principles or faith.
Of course, this definition is by no means a complete one for Jehovah's Witnesses. It is clear from Hartman's "answer" below that he has no idea what he is talking about.
: Answer: As defined by Jehovah`s Witnesses, an "apostate" is a baptized supporter of the religious association who had an intensive Bible study recognizing the Bible as God`s Word and the truth. Consequently, of his own accord he professed himself towards God as his witness and subsequently got baptized in public. At some point the person concerned ended up forgetting his devotion to God and consciously and without repentance disregarded God`s laws for personal reasons that contradict Bible principles (smoking, adultery and the like).
Hartman's notion actually refers to someone who was disfellowshipped or disassociated for conduct other than "apostasy". What he describes is not the definition that JWs use for "apostasy". Their actual definition is given in the elders manual known as "Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock" (1991; pp. 94-95):
Apostasy.
Apostasy is a standing away from, a falling away, defection, rebellion, abandonment; it involves teaching false doctrines, supporting or promoting false religion and its holidays or interfaith activities. (Deut. 13:13, 15; Josh. 22:22, ftn.; Acts 21:21, ftn.; 2 Cor. 6:14, 15, 17, 18; 2 John 7, 9, 10; Rev. 18:4)
Those with sincere doubts should be helped, dealt with mercifully. (Jude 22, 23; w82 9/1 pp. 20-1; w80 8/1 pp. 21-2)
Apostasy includes action taken against true worship of Jehovah or his established order among his dedicated people. (Jer. 17:13; 23:15; 28:15, 16; 2 Thess. 2:9, 10)
Persons who deliberately spread (stubbornly hold to and speak about) teachings contrary to Bible truth as taught by Jehovah's Witnesses are apostates.
If it is learned that a person has taken up association with another religious organization, the matter should be investigated, and if verified, a committee should be formed.
If it is clearly established that the person has joined another religion and intends to remain with it, the elders would make a brief announcement to the congregation that such one has disassociated himself. (w86 10/15 p. 31)
Working secularly for a false religious organization could put one in a position similar to that of one preaching false doctrine. (2 Cor. 6:14-16)
Celebrating a false religious holiday would be similar to performing any other act of false worship. (Jer. 7:16-19)
The Bible condemns the following:
Causing divisions and promoting sects.
This would be deliberate action disrupting the unity of the congregation or undermining the confidence of the brothers in Jehovah's arrangement.
It may involve or lead to apostasy. (Rom. 16:17, 18; Titus 3:10, 11)
The practice of spiritism. (Deut. 18:9-13; 1 Cor. 10:21, 22; Gal. 5:20)
Idolatry. (1 Cor. 6:9, 10; 10:14)
Idolatry includes the possession and use of images and pictures that are employed in false religion.
The definition used by JWs is actually much broader than this. The Watchtower Society has consistently stated that "Christendom" is really "apostate Christianity", which makes all non-JW Christians apostates. This is proved by the blanket statement above, "Persons who deliberately spread (stubbornly hold to and speak about) teachings contrary to Bible truth as taught by Jehovah's Witnesses are apostates." Clearly, that refers to anyone, whether having been a baptized JW or not. This is also proved by statements like the following from the December 15, 1997 Watchtower (p. 4)
In the first century, the apostle Paul warned Timothy that "wicked men and impostors" would slip into the Christian congregation and mislead many. (2 Timothy 3:13) This great apostasy began after the death of the apostles. (Acts 20:29, 30) Following the so-called conversion of Constantine in the fourth century, vast numbers of pagans flocked to the form of Christianity that then prevailed.
Anyone who frequents Internet discussion boards where JWs are involved quickly learns that most JWs think of all critics as apostates, not just people who were once JWs.
Hartman's poor research ability is shown by the fact that the very article he quotes from the Insight book shows that his interpretation of the material he quoted is wrong. He stated concerning baptized persons: "At some point the person concerned ended up forgetting his devotion to God and consciously and without repentance disregarded God`s laws for personal reasons that contradict Bible principles (smoking, adultery and the like)." But the Insight article later states: "It is evident that there is a distinction between a ‘falling’ due to weakness and the ‘falling away’ that constitutes apostasy. The latter implies a definite and willful withdrawal from the path of righteousness. (1Jo 3:4-8; 5:16, 17) Whatever its apparent basis, whether intellectual, moral, or spiritual, it constitutes a rebellion against God and a rejection of his Word of truth." Hartman has mistaken "a ‘falling’ due to weakness" for "the ‘falling away’ that constitutes apostasy" in the eyes of the Watchtower Society.
With this gross misinterpretation of JW teaching -- after 217 personal sessions! -- it is obvious that Hartman is a poor researcher and his conclusions must be viewed with extreme suspicion.
Note how Hartman has fallen completely in line with standard Watchtower teaching:
: Quite often the former religious association gets blamed for this - frequently even in public - without revealing the true reasons that led to excommunication. Biblical prohibitions are then presented as prohibitions by the religious association.
Hartman neglects the fact that JWs plaster a great many Pharisaic rules on top of the Bible, and that it is those -- not the clear proscriptions on conduct such as adultery -- that rouse the ire of critics and cause them to accuse the Watchtower of grossly unchristian conduct.
: Question: According to Jehovah`s Witnesses, what are the reasons for apostasy and the accusation that the elders as well as members of the congregation exercise "psychological terror" on brothers who doubt the respectability of the Watchtower Society?
: Answer: We have recognized "hurt pride" and/or a "bad conscience" as the main reason.
Here is another fine example of how Hartman has allowed himself to be misled by self-serving JWs. While it is certainly true that some people commit offenses against Watchtower rules, and make accusations of psychological terror for such reasons, there are many other reasons. As noted above, some people become "weak" and commit some infraction against Biblical rules, and they may justify themselves by the reasons Hartman has stated. But plenty of others have committed no such infractions and reject Watchtower teaching for other reasons. Such reasons include gross dishonesty on the part of Watchtower writers, the support that Watchtower gives to pedophiles, the fact that Watchtower equates itself with God and convinces JWs to think of them as God's voice on earth, and so forth. These are all valid, moral reasons to reject JW leaders as Christians.
Hartman has committed the same fallacy as do Watchtower writers: Taking a subset of a diverse community (i.e., those who criticize JWs) and claiming that it is a complete representation of the entire community.
: The moral and ethical standards of the Bible are very high and it takes strong faith as well as complete devotion to God`s will to merely endeavor to observe them. Even Adam and Eve surrendered to Satan`s temptation and so mankind lost Paradise.
Here Hartman has bought into the Fundamental Doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses: that the Governing Body is God's mouthpiece on earth. He continues in this vein:
: However, in the Bible God prophesied a restoration of paradise conditions and proclaimed great hope for those believing in him and the ransom sacrifice of his son Jesus Christ which led them to live a Christian life. Doubts and the realization of shortcomings can present a great strain. Being or remaining a non-smoker can be or become a strain. Avoiding extramarital or premarital intercourse could be considered an unreasonable demand. Devoting oneself to political neutrality meets with little understanding in society and honesty in paying taxes is often considered to be tomfoolery.
Again we see a myopic view of JW critics.
: ... Apostasy does not develop from mere doubt, not even from a sinful act but from a conscious persistence in sin that the Bible warns of as well as a conscious rejection of the idea of turning back.. No person will be disfellowshipped because of a sin. That will only happen if this person proves to reject advice and continues to practice sin unrepentantly.
Here Hartman almost manages to understand the larger picture -- but no cigar. But he immediately lapses into his myopic view again:
: The attitude of Jehovah`s Witnesses is supported by the Bible, according to 2John 6-11; Romans 16:17; 1Corinthians 5:11-13 and Titus 3:9-11; see also Hebrews 10:26,27. Godly, Biblical repentance means turning around (Acts 3:19).
Next Hartman engages in a classic example of JW strawman argumentation:
: Would you call it psychological terror if a partner in marriage refused the other one his/her consent to a "ménage à trois"? If the internal revenue service mobilized its bureau for an investigation of tax offenses or if the body`s reaction to smoking was illness - is that psychological terror? On the other hand, however, do you not find the reference made by the Catholic Church to eternal torture in hell fire as a result of sin to be psychological terror?
Hartman's examples are strawmen because they fail to address the criticisms actually made against the Watchtower Society. I know of no critics who accuse JWs of psychological terror because they cannot convince Watchtower leaders to accept conduct such as "ménage à trois". Few disfellowshipped persons accuse them of terror activities because they were disfellowshipped for sins clearly described in the Bible. The accusations of psychological terror arise from the demonstrated fact that JWs who begin to have doubts that JW leaders are what they claim and begin to speak about it are threatened into silence by elders who enforce the rules as written in the above excerpt from the Flock book. How threatened? Threatened with disfellowshipping merely for expressing sincere disagreement with the JW Governing Body. In contrast with sins such as adultery, this threatening for dissenting opinions is never clearly explained to prospective JWs during their initial indoctrination, and so when it comes up for the first time, a person is often astounded that the people he thought were such fine Christians, and so concerned with truth, are really concerned with upholding the ridiculous notion that JW leaders speak for God. Put another way, those who become critics are often morally outraged that the religion they joined is so wedded to a notion they roundly condemn in every other -- "my religion, right or wrong".
I think it would be interesting to write to Hartman with criticisms of his work such as the above, and see what he has to say about it. I suspect, though, that he is already so much into JW-think that he would reject criticism of his book as apostasy.
AlanF
