|
Q u i c k Q u e s t i o n s
|
This Rock
Volume 9, Number 11
 November 1998 
|
|
|
"Adjusting" Prophecies
Q: The Jehovah’s Witnesses stress the importance of the "generation of 1914" in their teachings, but I heard that they have made changes regarding their understanding of this "generation." Is this true?
A: Yes. As with many Watch Tower Society (WTS) doctrines, it is crucial to know the history behind a given teaching, as the WTS is notorious for changing doctrines. Consequently, what was "true" for a Jehovah’s Witness (JW) fifty or even twenty years ago may no longer be true for today’s JW.
The WTS previously taught that the generation of people alive in 1914 would not pass away before Armageddon (i.e., God’s final conquest of evil) occurred. The WTS based this belief on its interpretation of Matthew 24:34, where Jesus, when speaking of his coming and the tribulation, says that "this generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur." The 1914 date is pivotal for JWs because they believe it to be the time when Jesus returned invisibly to establish his rule from heaven, so the timing of Armageddon is inexorably linked to this year.
As the years passed and Armageddon seemed nowhere in sight, the WTS made a series of changes in its interpretation of this 1914 "generation" to cover up what would prove to be yet another false prophecy. An overview of the WTS teaching shows that the "generation" went from those old enough to understand events in 1914 (The Watchtower, May 1, 1967, 262) to those who merely witnessed events in 1914 (Our Incoming World Government—God’s Kingdom, 1977, 156) to those who were alive in 1914 (The Watchtower, May 1, 1985, 4). Keep in mind that for years the WTS steadfastly maintained that this generation was a literal one with a determinate life span.
As time began to "stretch" that life span beyond a reasonable point, the WTS was faced with a problem which it solved by re-interpreting what was meant by a "generation." In more recent WTS literature one notices that a generation "is really related to people and events, rather than to a fixed number of years" (The Watchtower, May 15, 1984, 5) or that "Rather than provide a rule for measuring time, the term ‘generation’ as used by Jesus refers principally to contemporary people of a certain historical period, with their identifying characteristics" (The Watchtower, Nov. 1, 1995, 17).
In other words, the "generation of 1914" is yet another glaring example of how the WTS has made a false prediction and consequently had to change its teaching in order to hide the fact.
Joel S. Peters
Q: I saw a book in a bookstore by this feminist theologian who says that "if God is male, then the male is God." She said that the doctrine that God came to earth as a male made women less important than men and justified the oppression of women. The book had an illustration of the crucified Christ as a woman. How do you argue against this without sounding like you’re in favor of women being oppressed?
A: Point out that this feminist writer has reversed the truth: The Incarnation of God as a male is actually profoundly liberating to women; it is the portrayal of Christ as a woman that is susceptible to misogynistic interpretations. What her argument leaves out is the whole nature of Christ’s mission, which was not that of a domineering master but of a humble servant and suffering victim. When God came as a male, he did not proceed to oppress or abuse anybody; on the contrary, he himself submitted to oppression and abuse, making himself the servant of all.
Had God come as a woman to serve and submit, it might seem plausible to argue that women ought to be subordinate to men. If crucifixes in Catholic churches showed us the image from this writer’s book--a woman tortured, stripped, mutilated, and executed—one might maintain that Catholic Christology was misogynistic. Far from being "liberating" to oppressed women, this "feminist Christology" only reinforces the misogynistic attitudes of some.
As it is, Christ has left men a model of masculine submission and service, of gentleness and non-oppression to the downtrodden: "He will not break a bruised reed or quench a smoldering wick" (Matt. 12:20, Is. 42:3). In those cases where women have been oppressed, it is not because men are taking their cues from the male Christ Jesus, but because they are failing to do so.
Steven D. Greydanus
Q: My brother was married outside the Church, then later he had the marriage blessed by a priest. He has since divorced and now he has stopped going to Mass. He tells me that there is no point in going to Mass if he can’t go to Communion, and he can’t go to Communion since he is divorced. What should I say?
A: Tell him he’s wrong. The Sunday obligation for Catholics is a requirement to go to Mass, not to go to Communion (canon 1247). Naturally, every Catholic wants to go Communion at Mass, but the only obligation that applies is to attend Mass. Indeed, Catholics might have any number of reasons for not going to Communion: Perhaps they have not observed the one-hour fast or they feel they are in the state of grave sin and they need to go to confession first. But those factors do not affect the fact that all Catholics are obliged to attend Mass on Sunday in accord, of course, with the usual rules governing such obligations.
Moreover, the mere fact that your brother is divorced, even following his having the marriage "blessed" (technically, convalidated) in the Church, does not prevent him from going to Communion. It is remarriage subsequent to divorce, not divorce itself, which places one in "objective manifest grave sin" (canon 915), which in turn prevents one from receiving Communion. From what you say, it is not apparent that your brother has attempted another marriage, so he is not prohibited from going to Communion on that point.
There is a silver lining in all of this, as I believe there is in most people who bother to give a reason, however wrong it might be, for falling away from the Church: Your brother’s reasoning shows at least that he is still thinking about his faith. He recognizes, even if in a misplaced way, the central importance of the Eucharist in Mass and in the life of a Catholic. Such comments are signs of hope. Keep talking to him, but don’t let him get away with incorrect or superficial reasons for ignoring more central issues in his life.
Edward Peters
Q: A deacon in our diocese is running for political office. I am concerned that this is a violation of the Constitutional separation of church and state. When I called the diocesan offices, they said they had no position on the matter. Is this all right?
A: Based only on what you’ve said, the diocesan position seems correct. Canon law prohibits clerics from assuming "public offices which entail participation on civil power" (canon 285), and what we in America refer to as "elected office" surely counts in this regard. Canon 288 makes an almost immediate exception to canon 285 in regard to permanent deacons, permitting them to hold such offices under most circumstances.
Similarly, clerics generally are forbidden to hold office in political parties or labor unions, whether such offices are subject to public election or otherwise (canon 287). I say "generally are forbidden," though, because canon 287 allows ecclesiastical superiors to approve of such activity in particular cases where it might be necessary "to protect the rights of the Church or to promote the common good." In any event, canon 288 again makes a specific exception regarding permanent deacons holding positions in political parties or labor unions, thereby requiring permanent deacons to receive no special permission before exercising authority in these posts.
Since a permanent deacon running for political office is not in violation of canon law by so running, it seems correct that the diocese would take no position on his candidacy, whether for or against. For that matter, since American dioceses enjoy a type of tax exemption in the United States which, among other things, prohibits them from endorsing or opposing specific candidates for elected office, their refusal to make a comment on this particular candidate makes additional sense from a civil law point of view.
None of this takes away, of course, from the right and duty of the Church to uphold moral principles in matters of political and governmental concern, a right and duty most clearly articulated in canon 747. The Church can and often will exercise this prerogative to speak out regardless of the ecclesiastical status of the particular candidate for office. Every Catholic, including permanent deacons running for elected office, should form his conscience in accord with the teaching of the Church and then act upon that well-formed conscience.
Finally, I always suggest caution in using the notion of "separation of Church and state" as a reason for thinking or doing anything in the political realm. The phrase originally appeared in a private letter written by Thomas Jefferson. It is not part the Constitution, and it has been used as a talisman against all sorts of completely licit appeals to religious and moral sense in the public arena. The notion that the United States should not create a state church makes sense to me; running to the opposite extreme or castigating religiously-based discourse on public matters, makes none.
Edward Peters
Q: From what I can see, God as described in the New Testament differs from God as described in the Old Testament. There, the Israelites are frequently directed by God to clear the Promised Land of its pagan inhabitants, to stone Sabbath-breakers, and to inflict punishments that we today would see as quite harsh. Why is this?
A: One of the most effective ways to view Old Testament salvation history is to see God serving as a Father his often-disobedient son, Israel. Ezekiel 20:21–25 explains that God allowed the Israelites to be given certain statutes that were not good, such as divorce and remarriage. Why, from a redemptive-historical perspective, would a good Father give his son what was not good? Well, if a son nagged his father each day to allow him to touch a hot stove, and never accepted the father’s reasons why he couldn’t, the best thing the father could do would be to let him learn the hard way: "You want to touch it, son . . . you got it."
Israel failed to live up to its status as firstborn among the nations, so God acted as a wise and prudent lawgiver, being willing to tolerate—and regulate—lesser evils in order to avoid greater ones. These laws and allowances came through Moses. None were commanded directly by God. God allowed them due to the hardness of the hearts that they might mature, and set the example that they were intended to be to the other nations.
God’s fatherly plans can be seen in the animal sacrifices commanded. Why would God take pleasure in the burning fat of a cow? God commanded the sacrifice of particular animals partly because these were ones that the Israelites had worshiped. Sacrificing them would remind Israelites of their sinfulness and call them to faithfulness, as an alcoholic would break a beer bottle to show his liberation from the addiction and reaffirm his decision to stay sober. God’s punishments, exiles, and regulations were given from a father’s heart, knowing what was best for his children.
His discipline is medicinal and temporary, that Israel might learn from it and return. Israel was not more holy than other nations, and so God set them apart from other nations, giving them their own land, which was to be made free from idol worshipers and which would give them to the opportunity to develop into a people specially and culturally consecrated to God.
Now, through Christ, God’s holiness is given more directly, such as through the gift of the Holy Spirit, who provides us with the moral strength needed to resist the evil culture around us. Consequently, such separation is not necessary for us.
Jason Evert
|
