I was sent this interview from May of this year. Notice how the brother used the analogy of a child molester to describe DF. The thought would carry if the person appeared to be repentant what would be the action then? Read the following comment.
silentlambs
________________________________________________________________
B.TV Talk – Focus: Jehovah’s Witnesses
Broadcast of May 03, 2001 – B.TV – 8:35 P.M. – broadcasting time 26 minutes
Presenter: Axel Dürr
Guests: Dr. Jan Badewin, Prof. Gerhard Besier, Bernd Klar – spokesman of Jehovah’s Witnesses
Dürr: Welcome to a new broadcast of B.TV talk. I’m glad that you at home have got time for us. Today we want to talk about Jehovah’s Witnesses. You all know those ladies and gentlemen who preferably stand in the pedestrian areas and hold up magazines: The Watchtower, Awake! . Today we’d like to deal with Jehovah’s Witnesses. What is the idea behind them, what is their world-view? There are competent guests here in the studio. I welcome Professor Gerhard Besier. You are a theologian at the Heidelberg university, fine that you are here. Then there is Bernd Klar, spokesman of Jehovah’s Witnesses, fine that you are here. Next to me is Dr. Jan Badewin, representative for sect affairs of the Protestant Church in Baden, fine that you are here. Well, perhaps a short definition of your position at the beginning? Would you please begin? What are Jehovah’s Witnesses?
Klar: It really pleases me that you said in your introducing that Jehovah’s Witnesses are generally known. We are known for our standing in the streets and speaking to people. But especially for our going from door to door and speaking about God’s kingdom.
Dürr: That means mission … ?
Klar: Although there are relatively few of us. Few Witnesses here in Germany. We count some 190,000 who feel close to us, we are known through our magazines, Watchtower and Awake!. We endeavour to bring the message of the bible to the people. Worldwide, there are some 6,000,000 of us, somewhat more than 6,000,000 Jehovah’s Witnesses, and we are represented in nearly every country.
Dürr: What are Jehovah’s Witnesses?
Besier: A religion. There are great and small, older and newer religions, and Jehovah’s Witnesses are a late product of an awakening in the 19th century. Compared with other great religions, Jehovah’s Witnesses are rather a small religion.
Dürr: What are Jehovah’s Witnesses?
Badewin: Jehovah’s Witnesses are a classical sect, originated at the end of the 19th century, with quite special characteristics. They consider only themselves as true Christians, they think that no one except themselves can be saved, can survive the Final Judgement. They speak about the coming end times in a way that many people feel to be very threatening. And there are many problems in the Jehovah’s Witness milieu, and problems with those who try or have tried to leave the group.
Dürr: Now we have got a problem: Religion, sect, we already notice that there a differences as to the assessment. Now, the Christian churches – Protestants, Catholics – unite many different groups under the roof of these churches. Jehovah’s Witnesses do not belong. Why not?
Besier: There are many groups that do not belong. We must imagine that there are indeed many religions. There are Free Churches that are not included in the Land churches, and there are many small denominations. The term sect is negative in itself, and the whole description is negative. When speaking about this subject, we must consider the differences. In the mainstream churches there are many liberal people who are absolutely no devout Christians, and when they leave it does not pain anyone. The more intensive a religion is, and the more people invest into such a religion, the more painful is it if people are disappointed and leave. And that may be one of the phenomena that appear so amazing to the liberal mainstream church member. Not that anyone says: For heaven’s sake, why does it grieve him if he leaves? There are hundred thousands who leave the mainstream churches, and most of them do it without regret.
Dürr: Mr. Badewin has listed some characteristics as to why he tends to say ‘sect’, and says: This is a sect. Why do you tend to say: ‘religion’? Do you emphasize what Mr. Badewin just said, or do you say: What he says is not correct?
Besier: In my opinion most of it is not correct, and there exist no empirical data. There is always a tendency that majorities project something into minorities, that they say: such a minority is dangerous, those people are different. In most cases this is not true. It is a classical example of forming a prejudice, and it is quite amazing here in Germany: We have got a problem with right-wing radicalism, and everyone says: Why does such a thing exist? They say there is a hierachization in the religious sphere, at the top there are the great mainstream religions, then it goes to the bottom, and there are the worst, Scientology in our case. Presumably all of this is not very truthful. It serves the great religions. But if we look at America, things are quite different there. In America, religions are listed according to their size, not according to a hierarchy. For who is he who determines a hierarchy? In our Federal Republic there is a constitutionally established separation of state and church, and it cannot be that the great churches are fed up on the quiet, and the small ones are defamed as minorities. In my view that is the real problem.
Dürr: Does that mean that tolerance is lacking? Or do you have some questions I’d like to ask you to put them to the representative of Jehovah’s Witnesses? That you say: This is a sect, and he must give me an answer to my questions?
Badewin: I have been asked to give a very short assessment, and I have just answered very pithily. I do know that the word ‘sect’ is a term that is not used by any denomination to depict themselves, that it is a problematic term. That is quite clear to me. You asked why Jehovah’s Witnesses are not united under the roof of the other churches. The roof of no church does matter. Nobody expects that Jehovah’s Witnesses become Protestants or Catholics, but there are ecumenical unions. There are the Association of Christian Churches, the Evangelical Alliance, the Ecumenical Council of Churches. Jehovah’s Witnesses, however, are not able to relate to these unions, since they are of the opinion – you can read that in their literature, it is no wickedness – that they alone are the true religion, that anyone else is on an erroneous way.
Dürr: Is that true? Do you say about yourselves that you are the only true religion?
Klar: Well, you do not expect something different from a representative of the Protestant Church, do you? We often hear in the media that we are depicted as a sect. I think that we have quite a different perception. We speak very intensely with people we visit in our service from door to door or in the streets. I think this is absolutely not the opinion of the majority. We are very much interested in having a dialogue with people.
Dürr: Any other denomination says this, too …
Klar: When I speak about my faith – and as a Jehovah’s Witness I do speak about my faith and explain it actively – I am convinced, of course, that this is the true faith. But you will never read in our literature that Jehovah’s Witnesses believe, for example, that they alone will be saved. It is God who determines this, not Jehovah’s Witnesses. The apostle Paul, for example, says this quite clearly at Romans – I’ve got my bible – it is made quite clear that God alone determines who will be saved.
Dürr: Well, we must ... so that the viewers know (drowns out Mr. Klar who is going on speaking) – what this is about. Jehovah’s Witnesses say that there are first of all 144,000 people, and then some others too, who will enter the kingdom of heavens, that means who are saved. And all the other ones will not be saved. There are some criteria.
Klar: I’d like to interrupt you. At the beginning I said that there are more than 6 million Jehovah’s Witnesses worldwide, so this is a miscalculation. It is a problem with this kind of discussions that things are simplified, and as you said yourself, it was said quite pithily. But then there remains only little substance. The bible clearly speaks – and now we have reached the stage of a theological consideration – about two hopes for men: a heavenly government made of kings and priests who are responsible for creating a paradise here on earth, and here on earth people who live here, the number of which is not named, a great crowd living here on earth under good conditions. We are awaiting this paradise which had already existed at the beginning of mankind, and we point out to the people that this kingdom, as we depict it, will exist here on earth. And this has nothing to do with a threatening message or so. We are enthusiastic that this kingdom will constantly exist here on earth, and we go to the people and point out to this wonderful hope. And from the reaction of the people we see that they regard this hope highly.
Dürr: So, great consent for Jehovah’s Witnesses? Mr. Badewin?
Badewin: On the other hand the battle of Armageddon plays a great role in your literature, and this is anything else than a positive description. Here, very brutal things come into play. To me, the problem lies in your statement – you say that other people can be saved, too. In your literature I can read: Long before Jehovah’s Witnesses existed, millions of other people could be saved. But can you really accept Protestants, Catholics, Methodists, New Apostolics as Christians who likewise get full salvation?
Besier: Sorry now, but our discussion is distorted. The Roman-Catholic Church does not recognize our Land church as a church – we are both in the same, the Protestant, Land church – but as an ecclesiastical community only. And on the verge of the Protestant Church there are evangelical groupings that believe similarly intensely, and that is the problem. He who finds such a complete fulfilment in his religion has it hard to perceive elements of truth in other religions. Only if religions become liberal – if you can compare them – then you are able to speak with another, in liberal surroundings – oh, you think this way, well, I think differently. On the other side it is clear that the great mainstream churches join forces if it goes against Jehovah’s Witnesses or the New Apostolic Church. And it would be a completely confused and incorrect picture if you said that all the Christian Churches get on well together, and that there are only some wicked sects that believe complete nonsense. We must accept that part of the doctrines that are teachings generally accepted by Jehovah’s Witnesses, can well be found in the history of the Christian churches. We come across something, and we say: We know this, we know this. The blood issue or similar subjects – these are things which already played a role with Bengel and in Pietism. And we shall not classify; we shall not present things as criminal; we shall not psychologize and say, those people are sick, etc. – that is nowhere proven. That is the classical – I repeat that – example of forming a prejudice.
Klar: Perhaps I may add: If you mention the battle of Armageddon, for example, you must of course decide whether you move away from what the bible says – I have got my bible with me, and I could read out the story of ...
Badewin: No, we don’t need that ... Well, yes ...
Klar: Here we have a theological conflict. If you say that what the bible says has no value to you, and we are therefore worth condemning, we can live with it. If we, however, refer to the bible, and as Jehovah’s Witnesses we do that, then we must accept what the bible says.
Dürr: Could the real problem be that you do not only refer to the bible, but that you take it in a literal sense?
Klar: We do not take everything from the bible in a literal sense, for the bible has many visions, prophecies – only one example: bringing up children. People reproach us with using rigid methods in rearing children, but it is clear to every Jehovah’s Witness that rearing children is the focal point, and love is the principle underlying the bringing up of children. If we took a look into the Catechism we would find the very same scripture quoted there: ‘The one holding back his rod is hating his son.’ This is a statement from the bible, and now it is the responsibility of the parents to educate their children according to the principle of love.
Dürr: ‘If you love your son you will be prompt to chastise him.’ And that’s saying a lot.
Klar: Yes, that is even contained in the Catechism, you can read it there. This is something taken from the bible. And now parents, who are responsible for educating their children, bear the responsibility to educate their children according to its standards and principles.
Dürr: We shall immediately go on speaking about the bible; we must just make a pause, then we shall be back again.
ADVERTISING
Dürr: Now we continue to speak about Jehovah’s Witnesses, and we just spoke about the bible and whether it is to be taken in a literal sense. How must we take it, how must we interpret it in our time? Mr. Badewin please...
Badewin: Well, I think that there are, of course, many methods of bible interpretation and many different ways to read the bible, even within the Protestant Church, within the Catholic Church, which, as you rightly say, Mr. Besier, are no monoliths – and this is even true for the Catholic Church – but have many wings. But all those who live and believe there together, know that they are not alone, that they are not the only Christians, that there is a spectrum of different forms of belief, and that there is a certain spectrum as to the responsibility to live as Christians. And that is not a question of comparability, Mr. Besier, but a question of tolerance, and a question as to how far tolerance is a chance of religions. It is our task to introduce this tolerance and this rule of tolerance into religion again and again, for that is the very essence of the constitutional freedom of worship. And here, at this point, I’d like to ask you again: What can you say to a Protestant or a Catholic Christian? Must he become a Jehovah’s Witnesses in order to be saved?
Klar: May I answer in short? Look, the willingness of Jehovah’s Witnesses to have a dialogue with people is, I think, as clearly to discern as in no other denomination. We are those – and this was Mr. Dürr’s introducing – who speak at the doors, who stand in the streets, who hold up the Watchtower magazines. And these are no monologues; instead, we seek to speak with people. And if anyone says at the door that he is a Protestant Christian and takes his faith seriously, then I will reply that I value that I have met a faithful person. And I mean that honestly, this is no farce. This is our attitude towards people who practise their faith, and you will read nowhere in our literature that we make a joke out of their faith. Instead, we try of course to read the bible, we study it, not only now and then, but daily. I for myself read in the bible daily and then try, of course, to live according to my faith.
Dürr: Now we’re on the religious level. I’d like to go to the social level, for man is not only a religious but a social creature, too, who lives in certain groups within the society. And now it is the case that with Jehovah’s Witnesses in normal social life, the one or other thing is prescribed or banned. I do not believe that the children of Jehovah’s Witnesses are allowed to go to rock concerts; or at least there are great events of Jehovah’s Witnesses in stadiums where stage plays are performed, and a mother says: “You must not be sad, dear son, if you are excluded at school. You have the true faith, and rock music is wicked. Rather listen to other music, to Christian songs.” This is the case, isn’t it?
Klar: Of course we try to live according to the bible. And it is true that the denomination of Jehovah’s Witnesses accepts advice from the bible and tries to translate it into modern life …
Dürr: This means that you say to children who go to school: Give pop music or rock music a wide berth!
Klar: No, any parents that have children decide for themselves what is appropriate for their children or not. I have experienced this for myself, for I was reared as a Jehovah’s Witness, and according to the guidelines of the parents certain things were possible and certain things not.
Dürr: On the one hand you organize these big events, in the great stadiums you perform those amateur plays where you say: This is good, we can live according to it and we do want it that way; on the other hand you leave it to people and say that they may do it this way, but somehow you prescribe it …
Besier: I am sorry, but I must interfere...
Dürr: I’m talking about the social...
Besier: Indeed, this is the very problem. We must differentiate the dogmatic teachings from the behaviour, from the actual behaviour, there is a big gap between the Protestant and the Catholic Church, as it is here, too. One example: We have just analysed an empirical survey, and it shows that it is perfectly usual to have children’s parties. And look, if a Jew were your guest you would certainly not serve him an escalope of pork. That’s just the way it is, and we must … – this belongs to tolerance – we must respect that Jehovah’s Witnesses just do not have birthday parties. But there are other children’s parties.
Dürr: But no disco? Disco, what about disco?
Klar: That rests with the parents. We cannot reduce this to one single case, since it is the responsibility of the parents. This becomes clear when you read our literature, Mr. Badewin, and I hope you have done this – then you will see that it is not the denomination that is responsible for the education of the children. It is not Jehovah’s Witnesses who say this or that – the parents are responsible. But of course Jehovah’s Witnesses want parents to educate their children according to their standards.
Dürr: Everybody does that!
Klar: Every Protestant or Catholic person does that ...
Dürr: In the bible we do not find the word disco.
Klar: No, but we can find there a standard, and we try to let our behaviour be governed by standards. For example, there is a biblical standard: ‘Bad associations spoil useful habits.’
Dürr: Disco...
Klar: That may be the case with some parents. Precisely, yes!
Badewin: But I think this involves not only discos, it already begins in the kindergarten that children are not allowed to have a birthday party, and they cannot expect the whole kindergarten group to cancel any birthday party just for the reason that there is a Witness child present that is not allowed to celebrate. They are not allowed to participate in dramas, they are not allowed to be elected as class spokesmen in school administration.
Besier: ... this is not true ...
Badewin: ... but of course ...
Besier: ... no ...
Badewin: But that are prejudices, Mr. Besier, you constantly speak about prejudices. Day after day we have to do with people who suffer from these points, who call us for this very reason, who want to speak with us from this very reason because they are not able to cope with these things from their personal experience.
Besier: Precisely, because there is no tolerance – the tolerance you just upheld.
Badewin: That has nothing to do with tolerance. These are people who suffer from these things.
Besier: You really do not suffer if you cannot have a birthday party, do you?
Badewin: But children suffer.
Besier: If there is no Christmas.
Klar: Perhaps I may refer to this issue. My parents were dedicated Jehovah’s Witnesses when I was a child. I experienced this myself. Well, even as a boy I was able to explain my personal beliefs to my school-fellows, they accepted it. I just said that I did not want to participate from this or that reason, but I was nevertheless part of the class. In no way I was an outsider. As I just mentioned I was part of the class through sports; we had much fun, and I had real friends in the class. It is not correct to latch on to birthday parties and say that our children are outsiders, and ... There are many denominations that do not know birthday, and their children have no birthday parties and yet are in no way outsiders. I even think that it is a task of the society to integrate such things and make the children no outsiders – we are really not interested to become outsiders. It’s a pity that this happens sometimes if it becomes a problem.
Besier: In other societies like in the United States this is quite natural. There are Jews and Christians together. Of course you cannot celebrate Christmas as a Jew, can you? They are not willing to do this. And then you have to explain that only one group will celebrate Christmas, and the other group will have another feast. And then you can live together quite well. Tolerance which is always demanded, is a one-sided thing. It is demanded from the minorities, but instead it is a task of society as a whole. And we are just speaking about this issue: society. And this open society can take ... – that distinguishes it from dictatorships – it can quite well take this juxtaposition, a tolerance that is practised in daily life. That is the special thing about it. Just talk about tolerance is something anyone can do.
Badewin: But this children’s birthday is only a sign of exclusion, and I know that many persons experienced that as an exclusion, and you cannot simply argue away this fact.
Dürr: What is your experience as a representative of the church for sect affairs? Just now you described it as exclusion, even as pressure. Is there any pressure? Can you generally say that all the members of Jehovah’s Witnesses are under that pressure, or how does this become manifest?
Badewin: Probably it is varying. Certainly there are people that feel quite well there and are absolutely socialized. But on the other hand all those, who get into conflict with the rules, experience the severity of that denomination. They experience to be disfellowshipped from that group, they experience no longer to be admitted. They experience what it means not to be treated as a normal ex-, but as an apostate. They experience what it means if all social contacts are called off.
Dürr: How simple is it then to leave the Protestant or Catholic church, how simple is it to leave Jehovah’s Witnesses?
Besier: There is an essential difference. It is difficult to become a Jehovah’s Witness, and it is very simple to leave. With the Protestant church it is the opposite: As it were, you have ever belonged, and when you leave you have to undergo some administrative acts to get out, and ... I’d merely like to point out to the formulation of your question: there are many representatives for sect affairs but no representatives for church affairs. We do indeed know that there are persons who suffer from the mainstream churches. There is something like ecclesiastically generated neuroses. Religion simply has two sides, that’s the point. There is one side that sustains, builds up, and there is that dark side. And the weaker a religion is ... – and the mainstream religions are weak religions, in the Protestant church there are only 5% participants in the services – I do not know the precise number for the Catholic church – only 5 % regularly participate in ecclesiastical life. Those are weak religions, they do not bind, they do not sustain, but of course they cause only little suffering. That is clear. And if we understand this correlation it becomes clear that it causes great pain when Jehovah’s Witnesses are expelled because they misbehaved morally and did not repent. Here Mr. Klar can certainly say some words. Or when they leave because they say: I had put my hope in that religion and became disappointed. Such things happen, but: If you do not put your hope in any religion you can, of course, not become disappointed.
Badewin: We do not speak about hope merely, it matters that contacts are called off, it matters that people can no longer be the friends of persons they formerly associated with. Here it comes to loneliness and isolation, and unfortunately there are suicides of persons who left Jehovah’s Witnesses and were not able to cope with the problem of isolation.
Besier: Such cases must be controlled very accurately!
Badewin: Precisely!
Besier: And there happen suicides in the mainstream churches too!
Badewin: But of course.
Besier: We must keep this in mind, too, this is the problem, and therefore I always come back to that subject. If you devote yourself to one particular group and have a particular prejudice in mind, you will always find reinforcing arguments. We know that very well from German history.
Klar: Perhaps I may add something? Well, Mr. Badewin, I think we do absolutely agree that any suicide is one suicide too much. I think we need not speak about this. But of course, if a person is no longer a Jehovah’s Witness – as Mr. Besier just said; we made a survey, and it showed that it takes some 3 ½ years until someone can be a Jehovah’s Witness. It is preceded by an intense bible study, we take it seriously. A simple registration is not enough. It takes some 3 ½ years before someone is baptized as a Jehovah’s Witness, before he can call himself a Jehovah’s Witness. And now, if we considered the matter logically it would not be very logical to say that we are interested in disfellowshipping persons. But of course, Mr. Badewin, I must be quite blunt: if, for example, a child molester showed up in a congregation and did not change his habit and showed no works of repentance, then we would no longer call him a Jehovah’s Witness. Then the person will be disfellowshipped, for we’d like to dissociate ourselves from such actions.
Badewin: Critics matter, not child molesters, we must really make a clear difference here.
Klar: Yes, but the bible determines the span of points why someone can no longer be a Jehovah’s Witness. But, Mr. Badewin, I myself am an elder in a congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses. We really do not make it easy for ourselves to disfellowship a person. For we have intense feelings towards that person. We regard ourselves as a worldwide brotherhood, and so we fight for every single person, that he may keep his faith and we can continue to regard him as a Jehovah’s Witness. As a rule: If I were saying today that I do no longer want to be a Witness, that I want to leave the Kingdom Hall, nothing would happen to me. My brothers would speak to me, they would visit me and ask why I do no longer want to be a Witness ...
Badewin: The ex-Witnesses do see this differently ... the ex-Witnesses do see this differently!
Klar: If I were actively working against the denomination and not keeping critical thoughts for myself but were making statements in the public, then this would have a different dimension.
Badewin: Do you have it out with your critics?
Klar: Yes, of course!
Badewin: Why, then, don’t you want to have critics in this discussion?
Klar: The bible says this quite clearly ...
Badewin: Oh, really?
Klar: ... that anyone who leaves us ... take, for example, the Letter of Peter, it says that we don’t have contact with those people.
Badewin: That’s precisely what I wanted to hear.
Klar: But before this happens, Mr. Badewin, there is an intense discussion and treatment of the problem with the concerned person. We do not take it easy to disfellowship persons, that must be said.
Besier: I know that from other denominations. You should better not ask a runaway priest about the Catholic Church.
Dürr: Unfortunately our time is up, we shall go on discussing, perhaps you at home will go on too, but what has been said was clear. We had invited a critic, too, and he was not permitted to come. You say this is in the bible. What a pity, for to me that is a form of democracy to discuss with critics, too. Thank you. This was B.TV talk, have a nice time at home.