Ignatius of Antioch’s View of the Trinity

September 30, 2010

It’s a bit anachronistic to speak of St. Ignatius of Antioch (died about 117 A.D.) and Trinitarian theology as the doctrine of the Trinity developed in the first centuries of Christianity and its associated terminology was finalized in the third and fourth centuries as a reflection of the realities it had experienced. J.N.D. Kelly explains that the monotheistic faith Christianity had inherited from Judaism had to be integrated with “the fresh data of the specifically Christian revelation. Reduced to their simplest, these were the convictions that God had made Himself known in the Person of Jesus, the Messiah, raising Him from the dead and offering salvation to men through Him, and that He had poured out His Holy Spirit on the Church” (Early Christian Doctrines, pp. 87-88). Kelly’s book is an excellent resource to see how the Church’s understanding of the relationship between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit developed in the early Church.

How did St. Ignatius of Antioch write about the Father, Son and Holy Spirit? Fr. Edmund Fortman gives this analysis which shows the high view St. Ignatius had of the Son and Holy Spirit:

Ignatius delves more deeply into some matters than do the other Apostolic Fathers and adds his personal reflections but without developing any systematic theology. 1

The core of his thought is the divine ‘economy’ in the universe. God wished to save the world and humanity from the despotism of the prince of this world. And so He ‘manifested Himself in Jesus Christ His Son, who is His Word proceeding from silence, and who in all things was pleasing to Him who sent Him’ (Magn. 8.2). ‘Our God, Jesus the Christ, was born of Mary . . . of the seed of David and of the Holy Spirit’ (Eph. 18.2). He ‘was truly crucified and died. . . and was truly raised from the dead when His Father raised Him’ (Trall. 9).

For Ignatius God is Father, and by ‘Father’ he means primarily ‘Father of Jesus Christ’ : ‘There is one God, who has manifested Himself by Jesus Christ His Son’ (Magn. 8.2). Jesus is called ‘God’ 14 times (Eph. inscr. 1.1, 7.2, 15.3, 17.2, 18.2, 19.3; Trall. 7.1; Rom. inscr. 3.3, 6.3; Smyrn. 1.1; Pdyc. 8.3). He is the Father’s Word (Magn. 8.2), ‘the mind of the Father’ (Eph. 3.3), and ‘the mouth through which the Father truly spoke’ (Rom. 8.2). He is ‘His only Son’ (Rom. inscr.), ‘generate and ingenerate, God in man . . . son of Mary and Son of God . . . Jesus Christ our Lord’ (Eph. 7.2). He is the one ‘who is beyond time the Eternal the Invisible who became visible for our sake, the Impalpable, the Impassible who suffered for our sake’ (Polyc. 3.2).

It has been said that for Ignatius Jesus’ ‘divine Sonship dates from the incarnation,’ 2 and that he ‘seems rather to ascribe the divine sonship of Jesus to the fact that Mary conceived by the operation of the Holy Spirit.’ 3 If he did date Jesus’ sonship from the incarnation he did not thereby deny His pre-existence. For he declared very definitely that Jesus Christ ‘from eternity was with the Father and at last appeared to us’ (Magn. 6.1) and that He ‘came forth from one Father in whom He is and to whom He has returned’ (Magn. 7.2). But just how He was distinct from the Father, since both are God, Ignatius does not say. Perhaps he hints at an answer when he says that Christ is the Father’s ‘thought’ (Eph. 3.2).

While Ignatius concentrated most of his thought on Christ, he did not ignore the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit was the principle of the Lord’s virginal conception (Eph. 18.2). Through the Holy Spirit Christ ‘confirmed . . . in stability the officers of the Church’ (Phil. inscr.). This Spirit spoke through Ignatius himself (Phil. 7.1). Ignatius does not cite the Matthean baptismal formula, but he does sometimes mention Father. Son, and Holy Spirit together. He urges the Magnesians to ‘be eager . . . to be confirmed in the commandments of our Lord and His apostles, so that “whatever you do may prosper” . . . in the Son and Father and Spirit’ (Magn. 13.2). And in one of his most famous passages he declares: ‘Like the stones of a temple, cut for a building of God the Father, you have been lifted up to the top by the crane of Jesus Christ, which is the Cross, and the rope of the Holy Spirit’ (Eph. 9.1). Thus although there is nothing remotely resembling a doctrine of the Trinity in Ignatius, the triadic pattern of thought is there, and two of its members, the Father and Jesus Christ, are clearly and often designated as God.

It has been urged 4 that for Ignatius there is no Trinity before the birth of Jesus, but that before the birth there was only God and a pre-existent Christ, who is called either Logos or Holy Spirit. There is, however, no solid evidence that Ignatius either in intention or in words made any such identification either in his letter to the Smyrnaeans (inscr.) or in that to the Magnesians (13.1,2). On the contrary. when Ignatius writes that ‘our God, Jesus Christ, was born of Mary . . . and of the Holy Spirit’ (Eph. 18.2), he seems to indicate that before this birth both ‘our God Jesus Christ’ and the Holy Spirit pre-existed distinctly and that thus there was a Trinity before His birth.


1. Quasten, Patrology, 1 : 63-76; Lawson, A Theological and Historical Introduction to the Apostolic Fathers, pp. 101-152.
2. J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (New York and London. 1965), p. 92.
3. J. Tixeront, History of Dogmas (3 vols. St. Louis, 1910) 1 : 123.
4. Wolfson, The Philosophy of the Church Fathers, pp. 184, 191.

Taken from The Triune God: A Historical Doctrine of the Doctrine of the Trinity by Edmund J. Fortman, pp.  38-40.

For further reading:

A Review of the Watchtower’s Comments Concerning the View of Ignatius of Antioch and the Deity of Christ

The Watchtower and the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers

Update on Catholic — Orthodox Talks in Vienna

September 28, 2010

H/T: Byzantine, TX

From the official website of the Russian Orthodox Church:

As has been stressed by the chairman of the Moscow Patriarchate’s department for external church relations, Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, the working document of the Joint International Commission for Orthodox-Catholic Dialogue, publicized so widely by some media, does not reflect the attitude of the Orthodox side to the problem of primacy of the bishop of Rome and can be viewed only as a purely auxiliary paper for further work.

Contrary to allegations in the press, the Orthodox-Catholic Commission meeting in Vienna has made no ‘breakthrough’ whatsoever. The entire meeting was devoted to a discussion on the role of the bishop of Rome in the first millennium. The Commission’s coordinating committee had drafted a document on this issue, which was discussed last year in Cyprus. A rough draft of this document ‘leaked’ into the mass media and was published.

It was planned to finalize the discussion on this draft in Vienna. However, something different happened as the discussion on the status of this draft took too much time. The Orthodox participants, from the very beginning of the meeting, insisted that ‘Crete Document’ could not be officially published on behalf of the Commission, nor could it be signed by its members. From our point of view, this draft has to be considerably revised, but even after the revision it only could have the status of ‘working document’, that is, auxiliary material (instrumentum laboris) which could be used in preparing subsequent documents and could have no official status.

‘The Crete Document’ is purely historical and, speaking of the role of the bishop of Rome, it makes almost no mention of bishops of other Local Churches in the first millennium, thus creating a wrong impression of how powers were distributed in the Early Church. Besides, the document is lacking any clear statement that the jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome did not extend to the East in the first millennium. It is hoped that these gaps and omissions will be made up in revising the text.

After a long discussion, the Commission agreed that this document should be improved and that a final decision on its status should be made at the next plenary session of the Commission, that is, presumably in two-year’s time. By this time a new draft document will have been elaborated to deal with the same problem but from the theological perspective.

For the Orthodox participants, it is clear that in the first millennium the jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome was exercised only in the West, while in the East, the territories were divided between four Patriarchs – those of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. The bishop of Rome did not exercise any direct jurisdiction in the East in spite of the fact that in some cases Eastern hierarchs appealed to him as arbiter in theological disputes. These appeals were not systematic and can in no way be interpreted in the sense that the bishop of Rome was seen in the East as the supreme authority in the whole Universal Church.

It is hoped that at the next meetings of the Commission, the Catholic side will agree with this position which is confirmed by numerous historical evidence.

What’s Wrong with the Witnesses

September 25, 2010

Every once in awhile I get an email from readers questioning why I write about Jehovah’s Witnesses. For example, one correspondent wrote:

Stop beating on the JW’s so much! Why the anti-JW propaganda?

Of course, part of why I write on themes relating to the Witnesses deals with my own spiritual journey. Additionally, as an Orthodox Christian, I have disagreements with the Jehovah’s Witnesses on several doctrinal issues which I feel are important and directly relate to the meaning of Christianity.

However, often when I’m asked what’s wrong with the Witnesses I focus on some rather significant problems that membership in the religion poses for their members. These issues are not so much theological but demonstrate how being a Jehovah’s Witness can negatively impact one’s life in three areas. This criticism of the Witnesses, I believe, is not just comparing one religion to another or the result of an embittered experience. In this piece, I am trying to move beyond theological controversy and show how the Witness movement fails its members on a human level. The three areas I have chosen to critique are:

1) Youths being discouraged from seeking a university education or making career plans

2) The ban on blood transfusions

3) Shunning of ex-member family and friends

Discouraging a college education

For many years young members of Jehovah’s Witnesses were discouraged from seeking higher education. I remember reading this advice given in the May 22, 1969 Awake! magazine while in my first year of high school:

“If you are a young person, you also need to face the fact that you will never grow old in this present system of things. Why not? Because all the evidence in fulfillment of Bible prophecy indicates that this corrupt system is due to end in a few years. Of the generation that observed the beginning of the ‘last days’ in 1914, Jesus foretold: ‘This generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur.’ Therefore, as a young person, you will never fulfill any career that this system offers. If you are in high school and thinking about a college education, it means at least four, perhaps even six or eight more years to graduate into a specialized career. But where will this system of things be by that time? It will be well on the way towards its finish, if not actually gone! This is why parents who base their lives on God’s prophetic Word find it much more practical to direct their young ones into trades that do not require such long periods of additional schooling… True, those who do not understand where we are in the stream of time from God’s viewpoint will call this impractical. But which is really practical: preparing yourself for a position in this world that soon will pass away? or working toward surviving this system’s end and enjoying eternal life in God’s righteous new order?” (page 15)

At the time this was written, the Watchtower Society was in the midst of emphasizing the date 1975 as the probable time for the Battle of Armageddon. It was also held that there would only be one generation of people from the year 1914 to the End. All this, of course, has been re-interpreted.

Of all the Witness youths I knew from that era, none went to college or university. Two of my best friends were valedictorians of their high school classes and both turned down offers of scholarships for higher education. Both became full-time “pioneers” (door-to-door evangelists) as this was held out as the most desirable course for young Witnesses to pursue. Both later went on to work at Watchtower headquarters in New York though they have now returned home to the area where they grew up and are now raising families. (What I know about them I have gleaned from others as they faithfully obey the shunning policies of the religion to ex-members like me.)

Jehovah's Witness youths are discouraged from seeking higher education. Instead of making normal career plans, Witness youths are encouraged to devote the majority of their time to door-to-door preaching.

Time has proven false what the Watchtower Society told my friends and I back in 1969:

Therefore, as a young person, you will never fulfill any career that this system [world] offers.

Nearly forty years later, many of our classmates are making retirement plans. Some of us who left the religion without any college later tried to do “catch up” by becoming non-traditional college students. In my own case, I started college classes for the first time back in the summer of 2007 at just over fifty years of age.

From 1992 until 2005 there was a liberalization of sorts on this issue of higher education for Jehovah’s Witness youths. A 1992 Watchtower article indicated it was up to the parents to decide what was best for their children in this regard. Full-time pioneering (volunteer door-to-door evangelism) was still suggested as a goal but higher education was viewed as a possible means for Witness youths to obtain employment that would permit them to do that:

If Christian parents responsibly decide to provide their children with further education after high school, that is their prerogative.  The period of these studies would vary according to the type of trade or occupation selected.  For financial reasons and in order to enable their children to get into the full time service as quickly as possible, many Christian parents have chosen for them short term study programs in vocational or technical schools.  In some cases youths have needed to be apprenticed to some trade but always with a full life of service to Jehovah as the goal.

… This magazine has placed emphasis on the dangers of higher learning, and justifiably so, for much higher education opposes the “healthful teaching” of the Bible.  Further, since the 1960’s, many schools of advanced learning have become hotbeds of lawlessness and immorality.  “The faithful and discreet slave” [Witness leaders at headquarters] has  strongly discouraged entering that kind of environment.  It must be admitted, however, that nowadays youngsters meet up with these same dangers in high schools and technical colleges and even in the workplace. (November 1, 1992 Watchtower, pp. 16, 20)

One Witness emailed me back in 2005 regarding this temporary liberalization in attitude towards higher education.

On the subject of higher education: the [Watchtower] Society has “loosened up” somewhat. A few years back there were some articles on taking a few years of college to enable one to spend less time working and more time in the ministry.

He continues to explain why Witness leaders returned to the anti-higher education stance in 2005:

Well, you know what happens when you crack a door open? The kids were signing up for four years or more. Many were forsaking the Truth for lucrative careers. Or staying “witnesses” only to be doing the bare minimum. Not alot of Pioneering [full time door-to-door evangelism] going on by our college bound brothers and sisters. Our Tower two weeks ago  [October 1, 2005 Watchtower] more or less reversed that thinking.

He further commented on the problems this sudden reversal in policy posed for some Witnesses and his own reflection on not having pursued higher education himself:

What’s ironic is my Presiding Overseer [now known as “Coordinator of the Body of Elders”] is halfway through an engineering course at XXX. He was not a happy camper with that study article. He and I are real close so he vents with me rather than someone that can do something about it.

Here’s a hard fact about this system [world]: you can pay now or you can pay later. Later costs more. A business course at XXX in XXXX would have cost me probably $10,000 back then. Learning to run a business the hard way probably cost me 10 times that. Not to mention the stress and pain along the way.

Basically, the pre-1992 discouragement of higher education for Jehovah’s Witness youths was re-instituted with that October 1, 2005 Watchtower. There are continual warnings against going to college or university given at Witness assemblies, such as this one by Governing Body member Gerrit Lösch at an assembly in Milan, Italy:

Being encouraged to seek higher education is viewed as a temptation like drugs or pornography.

The result is college education is regularly demonized in Watchtower publications. Instead of setting up a support system for Witness youths who might be attending a college or university, Witness youths hear testimonies from other members who have forsaken college so that they could devote their lives to preaching door-to-door. Audio lectures have been archived online from Witness conventions where higher education is portrayed as a “crafty act” of the Devil and Witness youths are encouraged not to pursue a university education but to devote themselves to the door-to-door preaching work.

This anti-higher education stance still continues. A 2008 Watchtower classified as a serious temptation to youth when:

A well-intentioned teacher urges you to pursue higher education at a university.

The May 2010 Our Kingdom Ministry (an internal newsletter issued from headquarters for members) asked this question of youths in high school:

4. What should youths nearing graduation consider?

The answer:

4 Youths: While you are finishing your basic education, have you given careful thought to your future? Until now, your schoolwork largely determined your schedule. How will you fill that vacuum after graduation? Instead of pursuing a secular career, why not prayerfully consider the goal of regular pioneering? The skills you will learn-witnessing to people of different backgrounds, overcoming personal obstacles, cultivating self-discipline, and developing teaching ability-will benefit you throughout life.

Normal life goals (education & career) are discouraged for Witness youths as well as many hobbies (sports, music, etc.)

Sadly, Witness youths today face the same sort of pressure against higher education and making career plans as did W.C. Stevenson, a Witness from the United Kingdom over fifty years ago. He initially went against the advice of both his father and the Watchtower Society and had enrolled at Cambridge. He tells how he conformed to the pressure:

Many young people in the movement with promising careers in front of them have in the past had such abruptly terminated by this insistent demand that they must pioneer [become a full-time evangelist]. The writer is a case in point. Despite the [Watchtower] Society’s insistence on withdrawing from the pursuit of further education, which was repeated with great emphasis by my father, I gained a place at Trinity Hall, Cambridge, where for a year I read English literature. However the pressure of ‘theocratic conscience’, the feeling that I was misusing dedicated time, enforced by a continuous flow of counsel from the publications of the Society and from the talks given at the Witnesses’ meetings, resulted in my leaving Trinity Hall after only a year of study. I could have had no peace of mind until the decision was made. I reasoned according to my theocratic training, that I was either for God or against Him. If I was lukewarm, God would spew me out of His mouth. I was a dedicated servant of God, and I felt that this could only be fulfilled by full-time preaching for the Society. And so, to ensure a complete severance of myself from Cambridge, when the examinations came round, I just sat through the several three-hourly sessions, writing nothing on the papers but simply passing them in blank. The last words of my tutor to me as I left Trinity Hall were, ‘Well, Stevenson, I hope you never regret what you have done’. I am quite sure now that this was the worst mistake of my life. But an even bigger mistake, of course, would be to allow myself to become embittered by the experience. However, I must say that I cannot deprecate too strongly the Society’s attitude towards further education. (The Inside Story of Jehovah’s Witnesses by W.C. Stevenson, pp. 102-103)

The Blood ban

Blood card carried by Jehovah's Witnesses (from the 1960s)

It is well known that Jehovah’s Witnesses refuse blood transfusions and that some have died in obedience to this belief. It is not as well known that Witness members have contributed to the growth of bloodless medicine. Many new procedures and treatments have arisen in the past couple of decades that do not use blood. In this regard, Witnesses have rendered a valuable service to others.

Still, there seems to be what could almost be termed a Witness “urban legend” that all medical procedures requiring blood can adequately be covered by these bloodless techniques, even in emergency situations. This has even been expressed in Witness publications. For example, the February 22, 1976 Awake! told of one Witness spokesman who responded to a student questioning the ban on blood transfusions during a question and answer period at a presentation made at a Canadian university:

People often question the refusal of Jehovah’s witnesses to accept blood transfusions. During the questioning, a student raised hypothetical emergency situations in an effort to bypass the Scriptural prohibition mentioned in Acts 15:20, 29.

Student: “Well, suppose somebody was just coming to the hospital. They’ve got a few seconds to live. The only possible way out is a blood transfusion. Well, what’s your answer to that? I mean, that’s murder if you don’t let them accept that.”

Witness: “That situation doesn’t exist. Wherever there are cases where a person . . . let’s say comes in off the highway here . . . and there is extreme loss of blood. Every emergency room, in every hospital, has a plasma volume expander which can . . . ”

Student: “Plasma doesn’t replace blood, though.”

Witness: “The need there is to keep the volume up in the system. It’s not the blood so much that’s needed then, but the volume that must be replaced. These expanders will do it. They are used in emergency situations; they are recommended by Civil Defense organizations when blood is not available. Obviously it works—it has worked on thousands of Jehovah’s witnesses.” (page 15)

[An audio of this exchange can be heard here at 30:14 minutes. The speaker is identified as Eugene Rosam, who at the time was a Circuit Overseer (a traveling representative of the Watchtower Society) and is now a director of one of the Watchtower Society legal corporations.]

This overconfidence in alternative treatments is also mentioned in an article by Kerry Louderback-Wood in the Journal of Church and State. She notes that the emphasis given on these new alternative treatments by Watchtower leaders give the wrong impression. Referring to a Watchtower publication on blood, she says:

It builds a case that other doctors wish all surgeons would become bloodless surgeons, when in fact those doctors recognize the benefits of blood transfusions for those who are in desperate need.

2006 worksheet to determine acceptable blood fractions

The situation where blood might be the only thing that will save a life certainly does exist. Despite the heightened concerns for safety with regards to blood management, there is no movement in the medical community to close blood banks. Sadly, however, many Witnesses who face critical care situations in hospital emergency rooms have a false confidence that their refusal to accept blood can be overcome with some form of alternative non-blood treatment. Sometimes it can; sometimes it can’t. While contemporary society recognizes the right of adults to make the choice to refuse potentially life-saving treatment and risk death, most countries take a different view when young children are involved.

An excellent refutation of the Witnesses’ biblical interpretation on blood by the late Raymond Franz also points out some of the contradictions in the Witness blood policy. Nowadays, Witnesses are permitted to use fractions made from blood but still are not permitted to use “red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets or plasma.” (November 2006 Our Kingdom Ministry) The amount of blood (as long as it has been fractioned from blood) allowed to the conscience of Jehovah’s Witnesses these days by their leaders is a major change from years ago. Witnesses now face a worksheet to note their choices regarding what blood fractions they will accept and what they will not. (One surprising allowance are products made from Hemoglobin such as Hemopure, made from blood from cattle. Additional “blood substitutes” are being prepared, all of which are permissible by the newly adopted “fractions” policy by Witness leaders, and all of them start by using blood–either from cattle or humans–as their base.) This is in stark contrast to the earlier identification cards that Witnesses carried (pictured above) which objected to “blood in any way, shape or form.” However, Witnesses who take the forbidden major components of blood are viewed as having voluntarily resigned from the religion and are shunned.

Despite the bloodless medicine advances and allowed fractions from blood, there are still times when Witnesses fly foul of doctors and courts. No doubt alternative treatments can be successful in many situations but it’s undeniable that sometimes blood is the only real treatment — especially in cases of extreme hemorrhaging as in this recent case in Britain.  In these cases, Witnesses are expected to still refuse blood and risk death.

Witness leaders make no exception for underage children and lead members to believe that the eternal destiny of their children requires the continued rejection of blood, even if it would be the only thing to prevent death. Witness youths are encouraged by their leaders to resist a court-ordered blood transfusion as if it were rape. Witness youths as young as 10 years old (as in this recent case in Australia) repeat objections to blood that they’ve been taught. A 1994 Awake! article quoted favorably a 12 year old Witness girl with leukemia as testifying that if a court ordered a blood transfusion she:

would fight and kick the IV pole down and rip out the IV no matter how much it would hurt, and poke holes in the blood. (May 22, 1994 Awake!, p. 13)

This type of attitude has led to cases where at times Witness children who receive a court-ordered blood transfusion have been whisked away into hiding to evade the order.

Former Witnesses Paul and Pat Blizard faced pressure from elders in his congregation to remove his daughter from a hospital after he and his wife were served with a court-ordered blood transfusion:

Then a group of elders arrived, took Paul off to one side, and asked, “Has your daughter gotten the blood yet?” When Paul replied that the hospital staff were still matching the blood, an elder said, “Great, we still have time to get her out of the hospital. We can sneak her out in the middle of the night. We can hire a helicopter. Just unhook the tubes and we’re gone.” Paul answered, “Wait a minute — you can’t do that. It’s against the law. I’m under court order. I would be charged with murder.” The elder said, “That’s a chance you’re going to have to take. You must obey God rather than men.” “Look, I just can’t let my child die in that way, ” Paul appealed. “We have made the decision that we would not give our permission for her to receive a transfusion. We are willing to let her die. But you can’t force me to take her out. That would kill her for sure. I just can’t do it.” (Witnesses of Jehovah by Leonard & Marjorie Chretien, pp. 196-197)

The Witnesses in the Blizards’ congregation viewed them as having compromised the faith because they had not resisted the court-ordered blood transfusion more than they had. Once they refused to sneak their daughter out of the hospital to evade the court-ordered blood transfusion they were left all alone by Witness friends and relatives.

As I said earlier, there are many situations (perhaps the greater majority these days) where alternative non-blood treatments work successfully even in some emergency situations. But, in those situations where only blood will save a life many Witnesses (both young and old) make the ultimate sacrifice in obedience to the current interpretation of their leaders as to what blood is permissible for medical science to use and what is not.


Witness leaders proudly quote court cases which have confirmed the right of their members to shun ex-member friends and family. For example, a Federal Court of Appeals ruled:

Shunning is a practice engaged in by Jehovah’s Witnesses pursuant to their interpretation of canonical text, and we are not free to reinterpret that text . . . The defendants are entitled to the free exercise of their religious beliefs.

Even though legal, such shunning can be traumatic for both the ones being shunned and the ones doing the shunning.

Wikipedia gives a succinct explanation of shunning among Jehovah’s Witnesses:

Jehovah’s Witnesses practice a form of shunning which they refer to as “disfellowshipping.”  A disfellowshipped person is not to be greeted either socially or at their meetings. Disfellowshipping follows a decision of a judicial committee established by a local congregation that a member is guilty of a “serious sin”, including “fornication, adultery, homosexuality, greed, extortion, thievery, lying, drunkenness, reviling, spiritism, murder, idolatry, apostasy, and the causing of divisions in the congregation.” Watch Tower publications cite sexual immorality as the most common reason.

The Watch Tower Society directs that those who voluntarily renounce membership of the religion are also to be shunned. The organization cites their interpretation of various passages in the Bible, such as 1 Corinthians 5:11-13, and 2 John 10-11 to support their practice of shunning. Total shunning is not enforced in the case of disfellowshipped members living in the same household, although in this case the remaining members will not usually discuss spiritual matters with the disfellowshipped person. Parents are still expected to give Bible instruction to a disfellowshipped minor. Contact with family members not living in the family home is to be kept to a minimum. Sociologist Andrew Holden claims his research indicated many Witnesses who would otherwise defect because of disillusionment with the organization and its teachings retain affiliation out of fear of being shunned and losing contact with friends and family members.

The list of offenses that can result in shunning further includes celebrating Christmas, accepting blood (but not blood fractions), smoking, worshipping with a non-Witness religious group, gambling, military service or saluting the flag. (A full list of “disfellowshipping offenses” can be read here, taken from an elders’ manual produced by headquarters. This list may be updated soon as a new manual entitled Shepherd the Flock of God — 1 Peter 5:2 is now being produced.)

But the clincher of “disfellowshipping offenses” is that if a Witness associates with an ex-member who has violated one of these rules or even has voluntarily left the religion then they themselves face congregational disciplinary action which would result in their own shunning. This helps to ensure individual compliance with the shunning policy.

The official Watchtower website explains how thoroughness of this “cutting off” in shunning.

…if the disfellowshipped or disassociated one is a relative living outside the immediate family circle and home. It might be possible to have almost no contact at all with the relative. Even if there were some family matters requiring contact, this certainly would be kept to a minimum, in line with the divine principle: “Quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator or a greedy person [or guilty of another gross sin], . . . not even eating with such a man.”—1 Corinthians 5:11. Understandably, this may be difficult because of emotions and family ties, such as grandparents’ love for their grandchildren. Yet, this is a test of loyalty to God…

Understandably, the fear of such shunning among the Witnesses is great. Witnesses are encouraged not to build friendships outside the religion so the loss of the friendship of the Witness community would be devastating.

The shunning cuts across family ties. Watchtower leaders juxtapose “loyalty to God” against the natural loyalty and love to one’s family.  However, outsiders would say that the Watchtower Society’s strict policy of shunning tears families apart. No doubt some Witnesses remain in the movement because they do not want to lose contact with their friends and family.

One active Witness posted this criticism of the shunning policy, albeit anonymously so as not to be disfellowshipped himself:

There is great social pressure to conform to the shunning policy by active Witnesses (especially because failure to shun results in one’s own shunning), but this is often accompanied by emotional turmoil. Shunning takes its toil on both Witnesses who obey the policy and on those who experience the silence and rejection. It is particularly traumatic in family situations: where children are forced to shun parents or parents their own children; brothers and sisters being separated; grandchildren not seeing grandparents because of the shunning rules. In the “further reading” section of this article are links to stories that show the poignancy of the Watchtower Society’s shunning policies.


These three areas (discouragement of higher education and seeking careers for their youth, forbidding blood transfusions in life-or-death situations, and shunning of ex-member friends and family) illustrate that Jehovah’s Witnesses are not just another religious group.

It needs to be emphasized that these policies are dictated by the Witness leadership–the Governing Body–currently a group of eight men in New York. Theoretically, a future Watchtower magazine could come out reversing some or all of these policies and Witnesses would dutifully comply. Such is not out of the question as the Watchtower Society has had a softer approach on disfellowshipping and shunning–from 1974 to 1981; a more open policy on higher education–from 1992 to 2005; and has already made many exceptions on their objections to blood used in medicine since the year 2000.

But, as it stands, Witnesses today live with these strict interpretations. These are what I would term distinguishing marks of a religion oppressive to its members.

For further reading:

Reading Recommendations re: Jehovah’s Witnesses

Jehovah’s Witnesses, Higher Education and Misrepresentation

Jehovah’s Witnesses and Blood Transfusions

Essay on Blood by Ray Franz (former member of the Governing Body)

Jehovah’s Witnesses and Disfellowshipping

Why Jehovah’s Witnesses Practice Religious Shunning

A House Divided

Open Letter to Jehovah’s Witnesses Regarding Shunning

Articles on Shunning at an ex-JW website

What is wrong with being a Jehovah’s Witness?

Orthodox — Catholic Dialogue on Papal Primacy in the First Millennium

September 22, 2010

In January, an Italian Catholic website leaked a draft of the Orthodox — Catholic dialogue on the papal primacy in the first millennium Church. While it was fascinating to see where the dialogue had gone, it was also clear this was not a text approved by both sides. It also gave an inaccurate picture of where the real consensus is in this dialogue. Right now in Vienna, Austria the Catholic — Orthodox dialogue continues. Here are two reports: the first from a Russian news agency and the second from a Catholic news agency:

Catholic, Orthodox Churches to try to overcome millennium-long disagreement

Moscow, September 22, Interfax – A joint international commission on dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church, which began in Vienna on Tuesday, will discuss the Pope’s primacy in the first millennium.

“This is the most complicated subject in the dialogue between the Orthodox and the Catholics, because the attitude toward the bishop of Rome’s ministering is key for the modern Catholic Church,” Hegumen Philipp (Ryabykh) representing the Russian Orthodox Church at the session told Interfax.

The presumption that the Pope has ecumenical jurisdiction goes against Orthodox ecclesiology, which teaches that, while the Orthodox Church preserves unity of faith and church governance, it still consists of several local churches, Father Philipp said, who is a deputy head of the Moscow Patriarchate Department for External Church Relations.

The Vienna session continues the discussion that was started in Cyprus in 2009.

“A draft document was drawn up for the commission’s session last year, and the commission started to consider it but did not finish this process, as the Orthodox had a lot of objections to this text. We expect that the discussion in Vienna on the text of this document will also be quite intensive,” he said.

“Our delegation’s goal is to make sure that this document reflects the Orthodox position and rules out any ambiguities, compromises and wrong interpretations of the patristic views on the bishop of Rome’s ministering,” the priest said.

While it is difficult to reach a consensus on this issue, “this theme should be discussed,” because “this is what separates the Catholics and the Orthodox above all,” he said.

“It needs to be said that the Catholics did not agree to discuss this issue with the Orthodox [Church] for a long time, knowing how radical differences in its interpretation are. The fact that the late Pope John Paul II and then Pope Benedict XVI agreed that this issue be discussed by the commission is quite a benevolent step on the part of the Catholics toward the Orthodox [Church],” he said.

Pontiff Asks Prayers for Catholic-Orthodox Meeting

Commission Again Looking at Papal Primacy in 1st Millennium

VATICAN CITY, SEPT. 22, 2010 (Zenit.org).- Obedience to Christ and today’s challenges to Christianity oblige Christians to be seriously committed to full unity, Benedict XVI says.

The Pope affirmed this today at the end of the general audience when he appealed for prayers for the work of the International Mixed Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.

The commission is meeting in Vienna, Austria, through Monday. In the three days of dialogue they have already shared, they’ve been examining the same theme that drew them together in 2009: “The Role of the Bishop of Rome in the Communion of the Church in the First Millennium.”

Noting this theme, the Holy Father said: “Obedience to the will of the Lord Jesus, and consideration of the great challenges that appear today before Christianity, oblige us to commit ourselves seriously in the cause of the re-establishment of full communion among the Churches.

“I exhort everyone to pray intensely for the efforts of the Commission and for a continuous development and consolidation of peace among the baptized, so that we can give the world an ever more authentic evangelical testimony.”

The Catholic co-leader of the meeting is for the first time Archbishop Kurt Koch, the new president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. He was appointed to that role in July.

The Orthodox co-leader is Metropolitan Ioannis Zizioulas of Pergamum.

When the commission concluded their meeting last October on this theme, Cardinal Walter Kasper, then-president of the Vatican’s unity council, characterized the dialogue as “little steps forward in the right direction.”

Iconographers Paint a New Dome

September 22, 2010

The dome of St. Andrew Orthodox Church in Riverside, California is written with icons last weekend:

BBC Documentary on the Fall of Constantinople

September 21, 2010

Even though this BBC documentary is over 40 years old, the script is superb and is quite well done.

H/T: Mystagogy

John Julius Norwich tells the dramatic story of the fall of Constantinople and the Byzantine Empire, followed by the rise of the Ottoman Turks in the 15th Century. Using monuments in Istanbul to show the formidable artistic and intellectual achievements of the Byzantines, Norwich vividly describes the last scenes of Greek Orthodox Christianity from within the Hagia Sophia.

FIRST BROADCAST: 25 October 1967
DURATION: 32 minutes 42 seconds

See the documentary here.

Why Isn’t Jesus Called “God” More Often in the New Testament?

September 20, 2010

H/T: The Divine Life

Blogger Eric Sammons answers a question that is often raised by those who do not accept the traditional understanding of the nature of Jesus Christ. The book he recommends by Murray J. Harris was very helpful in my wife’s coming to understand how the early Christians viewed Jesus and that the terminology they used actually reflected a high Christology (understanding of the nature of Christ).

Why Isn’t Jesus Called “God” More Often in the New Testament?

By Eric Sammons

"In answer Thomas said to him: 'My Lord and my God!'" (John 20:28)

Ever since I started studying the Bible seriously I have noticed a curious fact: in the New Testament, it is very rare that Jesus is explicitly referred to as “God” (Greek theos). In fact, there are only two cases in the whole of the New Testament that Jesus is unquestionably called God (John 1:1; 20:28), although there are a small number of other passages in which the author is probably using the term God to refer to Jesus (John 1:18, Romans 9:5, Titus 2:13, Hebrews 1:8, 2 Peter 1:1), although each of these other instances are questioned in some quarters.

What is particularly interesting is that just a few years after the writing of the New Testament books we find other Christians who have no such hesitation. St. Ignatius of Antioch, who was a disciple of John the Apostle and died in the early 2nd century, shows no reserve is calling Jesus God:

“For our God, Jesus the Christ, was conceived in the womb by Mary” (Ignatius Letter to the Ephesians 18:2);

“love towards Jesus Christ our God” (Ignatius Letter to the Romans Preface);

“I give glory to Jesus Christ the God who bestowed such wisdom upon you” (Ignatius Letter to the Smyrnaeans 1:1).

So why do the New Testament writers hesitate, or even refuse, to call Jesus God if they believed him to be divine?

Some, of course, would say that the N.T. authors did not, in fact, believe Jesus to be divine. But that ignores the overwhelming evidence of the N.T. writings. Even if Jesus were never called God in the N.T. it is still clear that the first Christians believed him to be divine. His authority to change the Law (Matthew 5) and to forgive sins (Matthew 9:1-3), as well as his exaltation as Lord of the Universe (Philippians 2:9-11, Colossians 1:15-20) are just a few examples showing that the N.T. authors believed him to be equal to God. So, again, why didn’t they just go around explicitly calling him God as later Christians would do?

The answer lies in the strictly monotheistic Jewish atmosphere in which the first Christians lived and breathed and the competing worldview of the ruling Roman Empire. To a first century Jew, there was only one God and that was the God of Israel. To apply the term God to another being would be to reject the strongest pillar of Judaism: monotheism. To the first century Roman pagan, on the other hand, there were many gods and applying the term theos to someone caused no more concern than calling him powerful or a ruler. So the first century Jewish Christians (and remember, all the first Christians were Jewish) had a dilemma: they understood and accepted that Jesus possessed divine attributes, yet they also held steadfast to Jewish monotheism, so how could they express this without being perceived as Roman polytheists? If they just blithely called Jesus God, most Jews (and pagans) would believe they were inventing yet another god in the pantheon of pagan gods – or they would have believed that the Christian equated Jesus with God the Father. In many ways, the revelation of the Trinity was the greatest linguistic challenge man ever faced.

So the New Testament authors closely guarded their use of the title God for Jesus, and used many other ways to express his divinity. No one reading the N.T. books in the first century would have questioned that their authors believed Jesus to be divine, but at the same time they would have also been clear that these authors did not believe Jesus to be the same person as God the Father. By being circumspect in their language, they were able to protect both their monotheistic beliefs as well as their conviction that Jesus was God.

Eventually, as Christianity grew it became more confident in its distinctive beliefs regarding the Godhead in contrast to both Judaism and paganism and so was able to more freely assign the title God to Jesus outright, as we see in the writing of St. Ignatius of Antioch. The belief didn’t change, but the language used to express it did develop.

For further reading: Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus by Murray J. Harris

Additional reading:

Jesus, Yahweh: The Name Above Every Name

Jesus of Nazareth — Who is He? by Arthur Wallis