Restorationism, imitating the first Christians, and org today

[indagator]

New here and I'm still learning the ropes, reading various one's posts and so on. I guess I should try my hand at a "Controversial Post" that might rile some readers. That's not really my motive. Rather it is to stimulate some thought. It is certainly not to damage anyone's faith.

On the OP by JWI here (https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/56691-i-am-the-christ/?tab=comments#comment-95352) Space Merchant brought up the matter of JWs being Restorationists. There is much truth to that, whether the org has always wanted to admit it or not. The question to deal with in such a case is how far any group is willing to go in that regard. For example, if a group today really wanted to go full bore in imitating the first Christians, would not those already in authority literally lay their hands upon newly appointed men? That’s what the earliest Christians did.

That's a relatively minor issue, but a larger one is my focus. Let's grant that the brothers today pretty much do try and imitate the first Christians. They have a history, however, of not always wanting to do so. For example, in Ray Franz's first book he relates that when he was working on the Aid book and went to his uncle about what he was discovering regarding how the first Christians governed themselves, he got a response that basically showed Fred Franz knew all along that the way the org had governed itself up to that point was not the way the earliest Christians did. His uncle stated that changes from the way the first Christians did things were acceptable, specifically, "since Christ had taken Kingdom power in 1914, there could rightly be changes in the way things were administered on earth" (CofC pp. 24-5, 1st ed.; p. 28, 4th ed.). This was over the institution of the bodies of elders arrangement, something that, to the org's credit they adopted so as to become more in harmony with the biblical view. It is worthy of note, however, that FF knew the earlier cong. servant system was unbiblical, for years felt that was okay, and only agreed to change it when others put pressure on him to do so.

So what about today? In spite of many criticisms by outsiders and grumpy people who leave for whatever reasons (and a few are surely legit, though most are probably not), the basic structure of a governing committee/board/body is in imitation of the Jerusalem group of original living apostles and other leading figures there. But is everything today like it was in the first century? Did that early GB never openly criticize each other before the flock as today's GB is so careful to avoid doing? The incident at Antioch shows otherwise (Gal. 2:11-14). Here we have one member of the GB, Paul, calling on the carpet quite openly, "before them all," Peter and other GB men from James. Not only did he do this publicly in Antioch but he then sent out a letter to the congregations in Galatia declaring what he did. Furthermore, he did this knowing that copies of that letter would be made and circulated elsewhere.

Just how does the GB's practice of governing God's people today imitate that model? Could you imagine today’s GB imitating the first Christians in this regard? If one tries to make an exception here and say that in this area, it's OK to depart from the biblical model, then is it not hypocritical to criticize other professed Christians for not following the earliest Christians' practice and celebrating holidays like Christmas and Easter, or failing to preach the Kingdom of God as a real government?

That should be something to think about that will qualify as a controversial topic! Remember, please, this is not posted to harm anyone's faith but to cause individuals to think.

[Evacuated]

5 hours ago, indagator said:

Did that early GB never openly criticize each other before the flock as today's GB is so careful to avoid doing? The incident at Antioch shows otherwise (Gal. 2:11-14)

Isn't this an exceptional case? Apart from obvious censuring of apostatates within the Christian congregation at that time, am I overlooking another similar example in Scripture? 

[indagator]

GA asks, "Isn't this an exceptional case? Apart from obvious censuring of [apostates] within the Christian congregation at that time, am I overlooking another similar example in Scripture?"

Well, if so, then it's quite an “exception,” don't you think? If we want to look at "Scripture" in an overall sense, we have the prophets openly chastising the Israelite and Judean kings repeatedly, even a faithful one like David, right? Elihu castigating the “righteous man” Job, eh? Then there are those letters in Rev. 2-3. Only two congs there come up looking well, and again the accounts are public condemnations since they were written in Revelation and circulated widely.

But I think the book of Acts itself may be the greatest example. Before entering into that matter, a bit of background is necessary. I partake of biblical scholarship in the wide meaning of the term. By that I mean not just stale 19^th-century commentaries that predate critical scholarship but real, current biblical scholarship, not foolishly accepting whatever such ones say (impossible to do anyway since such scholars are in frequent disagreement) but finding what is useful and true, separating the wheat from the chaff—all from the perspective of a faithful believer but also a genuinely critical thinker.

That said, there is much truth to the common contention among critical NT scholars about the book of Acts having a candy-coated bias that glosses over the tension between Paul and the Jerusalem heavies who preceded him in Christianity. In fact, for a faithful person this view has huge implications for why Jehovah did not have Jesus in contact with Paul while Jesus walked the earth—but then that is a separate matter.

Do you find it odd that nowhere in Acts is the Antioch incident ever mentioned? Or even Peter’s trip to Antioch? And then further “reinforcements” from James arriving there? Do you find it odd that Luke has a record at Acts 21:25 of James and the older men in Jerusalem telling Paul: “As for the believers among the nations, we have sent out, rendering our decision that they should keep themselves from what is sacrificed to idols as well as from blood and what is strangled and from fornication” when according to Acts Paul not only knew all this but was an active participant in forming such a decision? Wouldn’t that be like Fred Franz telling JFR in 1939 that not all had the heavenly hope but that there was a great crowd who would live on earth? (Sorry the parallel is not exact but it’s off the cuff.) My point here is that the book of Acts is quite odd in multiple ways, and one of them is that the work really is an attempt to gloss over the heavy disagreements that existed within early Christianity among its leaders. Luke was a peacemaker who reduced the real tensions that existed to a spat between Paul and Barnabas over Mark—though even here we see the Jerusalem group (Barnabas and Mark) vs. Paul—and presented the early Christian leadership in an idealized manner. In reality it was regularly contentious, like BOE meetings frequently are today and like Ray Franz reports GB meetings often were in his day.

That’s all I have time for, but hopefully there are some things for you to think about here in response to your query.

[Evacuated]

1 hour ago, indagator said:

there are some things for you to think about here

Actually, I was hoping for something akin to what you mentioned earlier:

1 hour ago, indagator said:

biblical scholarship in the wide meaning of the term. By that I mean not just stale 19^th-century commentaries that predate critical scholarship but real, current biblical scholarship, not foolishly accepting whatever such ones say (impossible to do anyway since such scholars are in frequent disagreement) but finding what is useful and true, separating the wheat from the chaff—all from the perspective of a faithful believer but also a genuinely critical thinker.

But, as you state, you are under a time constraint.

Very interesting speculations on the book of Acts and the events recorded/not recorded nevertheless, and thanks for that, although there is nothing here that hasn't been said elsewhere by others is there?

Expanding the time frame for the activity of faithful ones castigating those not conforming to Jehovah's revealed requirements is certainly valid, but given the nature and degree of unfaithfulnesss dealt with by the prophets of old, and indeed the time span of their activity, I don't see a great deal to compare overall with 1st Century or more modern events (20/21stCent.) amongst Jehovah's people, although there certainly are some comparsons in terms of parallel of principle in the experience by individuals..

(Naturally, I am leaving out the record of that apostate imitation, the usurper, so-called Christendom, who's blatent record of behaviour puts unfaithful Israel into the very kindergarten of wickedness.)

Anyway, looking forward to something more substantial when you have time.