Juan Rivera

@Srecko Sostar I'm really trying to understand where are you coming from and what is the point of all your post. Maybe @JW Insider or @Anna can help you on this topic because I'm speaking for myself in hopes that it might give you some help or insight. As I see it, the gospels indicate that Jesus was intent upon choosing 12 followers in imitation of and continuity with the ethnic structure of the Hebrew nation. Hence, he is seen to be launching a new Israel. He is portrayed in the historical texts as investing these officers with his own divine power, commissioning them to teach in his name, and promising to send them divine help to carry out this task. Nowhere does he tell any of the twelve to write, nor does he write anything himself. In fact only 3 or 5 of the 12 actually do write anything (depending on scholarly debates). Instead the one and only earthly program he seems to have set in motion is the establishment of a Congregation. Following the divine teaching method of embedding revelation within a cohesive historical community (the sheltered environment of Hebrew society and culture), he reshapes ancient Israel. Instead of initiating a religion solely based on scriptures, he establishes a global community that allows divine messages to spread worldwide while preserving their essence. As I already mentioned to you, a large part(not all) of those who claim to be Christians, including JWs, and the lady of the video you shared (JW Research Rose) all work under the same principle. The principle is that the Christian religion is to be learned by interpreting the sources independently of the claims of any particular church/congregation, so that one must pick or find a church/congregation on the basis of that interpretation. The differences arise from differences about what the relevant sources are, and about how they are to be interpreted. But the principle is the same. The point is, that a large part of those who consider themselves Christian whether they are part of a church or not, have a perpetual openness to discovering new biblical and theological arguments to take us back to what the first century congregation itself actually thought. (Restorationism) So to claim that something can be settled by biblical and theological arguments seems to be incompatible with that interpretative framework itself. Here's an excerpt from a JW historian that traces the Watchtower roots, taken from his introductory chapter from Separate Identity: Organizational Identity Among Readers of Zion's Watch Tower: 1870-1887. Volume 2. Culture and Organization. I think @JW Insider disagrees with some minor points but generally agrees with the summary: The Roots of Watch Tower Belief I do not have space to fully examine the millenarian antecedents of Russell's belief system. So what follows doesn't even qualify as a survey; it is the briefest of 'tastes' - a short essay on millennial thought up to the Russell era. I will take you no further back than the 16th Century. I will focus on British and American millenarianism. There were similar systems in Europe, but Russell's acquaintance with them was slight. He came to German millenarianism through Seiss, whose references to it are few and indistinct. There were French, Swiss, Polish, Bohemian and Italian believers, but we think Russell knew next to nothing about them. Before I proceed I should note that Russell's prophetic views are not the only part of his doctrinal set with roots in the colonial era. His rejection of the Trinity connects directly to the Colonial Era and early Republic Era belief of non-Trinitarian Congregational churches in New England and anti-Trinitarian agitation among British clergy. The latter was common enough that William Lyford [c. 1598-1653], a Puritan clergyman, wrote The Plain Man's Senses Exercised to Discern Both Good and Evil primarily to refute prevalent non-Trinitarian belief. Anti-Trinitarian thought persisted despite attempts to quell it. Watchtower writers suggest that, among others, Thomas Emlyn stands in the history of their faith. Emlyn was republished in America. There is no proof that Russell read any of his work, though he may have come to Emlyn through reading Gibbon's Decline and Fall. Samuel Clarke's Boyle lecture on the Trinity found a place in American libraries; Priestley's multivolume work on the Trinity was circulated in America and extracts from it and his catechism were summarized in tracts and the catechism was published entire in 1810. William Jones The Catholic Doctrine of a Trinity, written to counter anti-Trinitarian agitation in Britain, was republished in 1816. In America, in the aftermath of the Great Awakening, many of those influenced by it rejected Trinitarian doctrine, some becoming Socinian and others adopted Sabellianism or Arianism. New Light rejection of Trinitarianism was still an issue in the 1820s, and the issue persisted into the 1840s. Grew and Storrs both rejected the Trinity. We cannot suggest that Russell derived his Subordination doctrine [a non-Trinitarian belief system similar to Arianism] from Adventism. When some Adventists entered the discussion, they did so as part of a far larger trend. The belief, characteristic of Watch Tower adherents, that Bible reading was obligatory and that it was meant to be understood by the average reader extends backward to 17 Century Separatist and Puritan England. So too does Russell-era Watch Tower belief that the proper form of church governance is congregationalism. Conditional Immortality doctrine, the belief that immortality is a gift from God not an inherent right, finds its origins in an ancient past, and, as it came Russell, in the reformation era. The belief that God directly intervenes in the life of Christians came to Russell, in America with the earliest European settlers. It was as strongly-held in Russell's as it was among the Jamestown colonists (1607), the Pilgrim Separatists (1620) and the Puritans who followed. We see it in Russell's supposition that his meeting with Wendell was only seemingly an accident. We see it in the pages of Zion's Watch Tower when new adherents believe Watch Tower tract or an issue of the paper falling into their hands was an act of divine providence. Both in Britain and in the American colonies that 'marvels' portended divine messages was a strongly held belief. In the pre-scientific era, a strayed horse, a comet, a cloud's shape, were all messages from God. Tall tales of marvels were persuasive political and religious arguments. The Gospels say that Jesus predicted a proliferation of earthquakes as a peculiar sign of the last days. In the pre-scientific era this Biblical statement was combined with lack of knowledge, resulting in all earthquakes being seen as the impending apocalyptic judgment or as God's warning to a wayward people. Charles and John Wesley saw the London, Lisbon and Boston, Massachusetts, earthquakes of the 1750s in this light, writing hymns and preaching sermons to that effect. Rationalism started to prevail in the last third of the Seventeenth Century, but the belief in divine providence persisted and persists still. We see it in the pages of modern Watchtower publications when an adherent is convinced that God guided them into the light of truth. (And in fact, we cannot gainsay God's guidance or his answers to prayers without repudiating the New Testament.) In Russell's experience we see this in his narration of a fall on the snow which he attached to a moral lesson, and we see it in his belief that all Christians received guidance through divinely inspired dreams. Colonial era almanacs were willing to credit astrology even while promoting religion. These found their counterpart in A. D. Jones and Russell's willingness to credit astrology even while - in Russell's case - seeing it as a tool of Satan. The tension between Separatist and Puritan seeking holiness and the Church of England's expectation that all submit to its ritual dedicated to Christ or not, spilled into the 19 Century. Puritan insistence that the church was for the holy only -committed, obedient Christians- is the background to Russell's criticism of morally compromised churches. Ultimately this derived from New Testament doctrine. Christians are to be holy as God is holy. (I Peter 1:16) There is, Paul writes, no room within Christian ecclesias for unrepentant, unregenerate sinners. This tension expressed itself in Watch Tower and Plymouth Brethren belief and in that of conservative American churches and non-conformist chapels in the United Kingdom. While Russell's connection to his Anglo-American heritage is largely ignored by writers, these connections are as important as the millennial heritage from which his belief system truly came. Russell-era meeting format derives from colonial-era structure, sometimes modified to accommodate groups who lacked leadership. The Russellite Prayer, Praise and Testimony meetings come from non-conformist belief systems. Opportunities, sometimes rare and occasionally more frequent, to testify to one's faith and to an incident of Divine Providence, gave colonial-era believers a sense of unity, of belonging to the Body of Christ. Russell's persistent condemnation of creeds and sectarianism derives from the same source. It can be traced to the Reformation Era and its aftermath. Writers and surviving sermons from that era often condemn divisions and false teachings, frequently focusing on the identity of the prophetic Babylon the Great and identifying her daughters as sects infected with false belief and false practice. For instance Benjamin Keach [1687] identified Babylon the Great as the Catholic Church and her harlot daughters as in a "spiritual sense ... unclean Communities". In America after the French and Indian War [Seven Years' War], sectarian divisions were seen as harmful to the cause of Christ. This did not lead to unity or suspension of creedal belief but to a semblance of peace between denominations. Post-Revolution commentators continued this. The Catholic Church retained its status as mystic Babylon; denominational Protestant churches were Babylon's harlot-daughters. Radical Pietists immigrated to America from Britain, Germany and Switzerland, settling in Pennsylvania, New England and South Carolina. They were distinguished by a rejection of sectarianism. In Britain the Village Itinerancy Society was founded in 1796 by laymen who believed that the Millennium impended and that "what the nation needed was an undenominational, and by implication, unordained army of itinerants charged with the awesome responsibility of bringing God's pure word, undefiled by party or sect to a 'perishing multitude." Closer to Russell's day Philip Schaff and John Williamson Nevin, then both instructors at the German Reformed seminary at Mercersburg, Pennsylvania, developed a 'manifesto that included "the evil of sectarianism, and the imperative of unity within the church." They saw "rationalism and sectarianism" as the greatest dangers to the church. Claude Welch suggested that the movement derived from Nevin and Schaff's manifesto died out after the Civil War. It did not, and we find it expressed in various ways. Russellite rejection of sectarianism with its dependence on creeds derives from this long heritage. This is true of other small fellowships who described themselves as nonsectarian and of those independent congregations who fellowshipped on the basis of faith alone and not on the basis of creedal doctrine."

@Srecko Sostar Here's an excerpt from a book I read a few years ago that deals with this question from a broader perspective, or say a more specific perspective (Catholic Tradition). It's by moral theologian Richard A. McCormick's Notes on Moral Theology: 1965 through 1980) "I believe it is correct to say that the notion of the assistance of the Holy Spirit needs a good deal of theological attention… Any who undertake to speak about the action of the Spirit, especially if they try to explain how the Spirit works, realizes in advance that they are more than ever likely to end up with a theological foot in their mouth and make an utter fool of themselves; for the operations of the Spirit are above all ineffable. Yet the possibility of gaining some understanding and the anticipation of charitable correction by others minimizes the arrogance of the attempt. With this in mind I should like to offer a possible approach. In facing this question two extremes must be avoided. The first would explain the assistance of the Spirit to the magisterium in a way which dispenses with the human processes. The second would simply reduce this assistance to human process. The first is the notion of a special assistance by the Spirit which represents a new source of hierarchical knowledge, arcane and impervious to any criticism developed out of Christian experience, evidence, and reasoning. Such a notion of assistance results in a form of fideism which makes it difficult, if not impossible, to see how any authoritative utterance is not thereby practically infallible. Furthermore, this notion of assistance is a summary edict of dissolution for the scholarly and theological fraternity. The second extreme is such an emphasis on analysis and reasons that the action of the Spirit is simply identified with the shrewdest thinkers in the community and ultimately imprisoned in the best reasons they can unravel. This is an extreme for many reasons, not the least of which is that it is a form of neorationalism which overlooks the complexity and developmental character of moral cognition, especially by bypassing the real significance of the communitarian aspect of moral knowledge, and especially of the sensus fidelium. If the action of the Spirit is primarily directed to the Church as a whole, and secondarily and in subordination to the needs of the Church, to its pastors as pastors, then surely this fact must influence the emergence of moral knowledge, the operations of the magisterium, and the notion of the special assistance of the Holy Spirit to the magisterium. It would seem that any explanation of the assistance of the Holy Spirit to the magisterium (noninfallible) must be adequate to four factors: (1) the judgmental competence of the hierarchy within the whole teaching process, (2) the activity of the Spirit in the formation of such judgment, (3) the possibility and fact of error in these judgments, and (4) the relevance of the experience and reflection of the whole Church in forming these judgments. I should like to suggest that the middle course we seek is one which would associate the activity of the Spirit with human processes without identifying it with them. The nature of this association can perhaps be illumined by a reflection on error. When error occurs in human judgments, it would seem to occur in either of two ways: in the gathering of evidence or in the assessment of the evidence. Obviously there can be many reasons why either of these processes would function inadequately, but it is the breakdown of one of them to which judgmental error can be traced. If this is true, then is it not reasonable to think that at least the proper implementation of these processes is generally required to avoid error in complex decisions? When this is applied to the magisterium, we might say that error could occur either through evidence-gathering or evidence-assessing. Hence at least adequate evidence-gathering or evidence-assessing are required if error is to be avoided. Evidence-gathering is inadequate when consultation is not broad enough to allow the full wisdom stimulated by the Spirit's activity in the whole Church to emerge. Evidence-assessing breaks down when consideration of the evidence is insufficient to allow the Spirit to aid in the emergence of its meaning. In the contemporary world these inadequacies would seem to be traceable to a failure in the fullness of the collegial process at all levels. Now the magisterium of the Church has special advantages to overcome these handicaps in arriving at moral truth. First of all, bishops as pastors are in a unique position to be in contact with the convictions, problems, beliefs, joys, sufferings, and reflections of all groups in the local Church. That is, they are positioned to consult the experience and convictions (the wisdom) of their flock. As collegial pastors they are in a position to pool this wisdom and weigh it through a process of dialogue and debate. In this sense the episcopal and papal magisterium have sources of information which exceed those available to anyone else. Summarily: negatively, the magisterium is in a wonderful position to reduce the barriers which bind the Spirit; positively, it is positioned to engage the total resources of the community and thus give the Spirit the fullest possible scope. Therefore, though we cannot capture in human categories the operations and assistance of the Holy Spirit, can we not identify the human processes within which the Spirit must be supposed to operate? And since the hierarchy is uniquely situated to implement these processes, is it not open to the assistance of the Spirit in a special way when it does so?" Here's a discussion by a Witness (Rotherham) in regards to this topic: https://michaeljfelker.com/2014/05/23/spirit-directed-and-spirit-inspired-is-there-a-difference/

@Srecko Sostar As I see it, a large part(not all) of those who claim to be Christians, including JWs, and the lady of the video you shared (JW Research Rose) all work under the same principle. The principle is that the Christian religion is to be learned by interpreting the sources independently of the claims of any particular church/congregation, so that one must pick or find a church/congregation on the basis of that interpretation. The differences arise from differences about what the relevant sources are, and about how they are to be interpreted. But the principle is the same. The point is, that a large part of those who consider themselves Christian whether they are part of a church or not, have a perpetual openness to discovering new biblical and theological arguments to take us back to what the first century congregation itself actually thought. So to claim that something can be settled by biblical and theological arguments seems to be incompatible with that interpretative framework itself. So it's not change for the sake of changing. I understand your concern, as we all should, since it's clear we will stand before the Judgment seat and give an account for those whom we have aided in truth or misled. But this concern applies to everyone (not just JWs), especially those who are interested in knowing, loving, and serving God, according to the First Commandment (making every effort to seek out and embrace the religion God has revealed). Here's the issue I think we all have to face: If we as individuals and the Congregation are fallible, and thus could always be wrong, then the assent we give to doctrinal statements is always tentative and subject to substantive revision. If we and the Congregation could get it really, really wrong when we define a doctrine, then it would follow that we know next to nothing with any certainty. Statements of doctrine from a fallible authority of this kind cannot be clearly distinguished from human opinions, at least in theology, as distinct from, say mathematics or natural science. If this is so, then we don't know when what we're assenting to is a true expression of divine revelation, as opposed to a merely human way of interpreting the sources. Everything remains up in the air, up for grabs, an open question yet to be settled and possibly false. I think is important to distinguish between the type of teachings and pronouncements that are being discussed : Do the teachings have to do with faith, with morals? Are they prudential judgments, policies, disciplines, practices, admonitions, worship? Prophecies, symbolic language, parables, prophetic passages? The issue you are trying to point out. if I'm right, is if JWs have a system where some teachings don't change by contradiction, but develop/change in continuity, as opposed to other provisional teachings that can come and go, and even contradict previous decisions, because they are temporally conditioned, and the leadership is fallible with respect to them. There are two points to keep in mind though. First, a doctrine that develops is not corruption, though both involve change. Not all change is corruption. On the other end of that same conversation: Fallibilism is not fallibility. Just because not everyone reasons well (although some people are better at avoiding error than others),our fallibility doesn’t prevent us from having more certainty about x than y. We can perceive the truth of some things to a greater degree than we do other things. So we have to distinguish between being susceptible to error, and the possible falsehood of any beliefs we hold or state. The fact that we are susceptible to error doesn’t mean that we cannot know with certainty that any of our beliefs are true. Nor does it mean that every proposition we believe or state might be false. Being fallible does not mean being skeptical about knowledge or truth. The text(Scripture) does possess meaning and can be accessed by ordinary people by their own reading of Scripture without the instruction of others . But accessing that meaning requires bringing the proper interpretative framework to the text. So what we need is to have intellectual humility and recognize that no one is well enough to avoid error absolutely. We have to recognize where and when and how we are fallible (noticing that we have gotten things wrong in the past, in these sorts of circumstances, in these sorts of ways, etc.) But this issue is hardly new. You have Christians already in the 5th Century like Vincent of Lerins wrestling with John 17:3 and the idea of growth and development of understanding like Russell's "A new view of truth never can contradict a former truth. "New light" never extinguishes older "light" but adds to it." The propositional content of our faith is crucial, but it is crucial with respect to its end, which is to safely direct persons to the living reality of God Himself, not merely to insist upon propositions about God.

I had a discussion with a Witness in regards to your point and this is what he said: When I first came into the truth, I believed that the organization would likely follow the pattern of Jehovah's people in the past and eventually apostatize, but through my study of and familiarity with the Bible, I came to understand that the modern congregation will not, in fact, apostatize. The modern Christian congregation has been prophesied to exist at the time of Armageddon, thus, the organization will not apostatize. (Revelation 7:9, 10, 14, 15; 21:1-4) The organization may cease to exist as a legal body by decree of the nations, but as a people, we will not apostatize. When the anointed are taken from the Earth, those of us who remain will have the publications that have already been printed to rely upon so that we may continue to hold our faith united. Then, in the thousand years, we will have the 144,000 kings and priests to help keep us in check. Though that is not to say that many will not be turned aside by their own bellies, (Romans 16:17, 18) but, for the most part, Jehovah's people will remain faithful, enough so that a great crowd survive Armageddon into the 1000 year reign. So we can be confident that the organization will never apostatize. This is also in line with the prophecy about the modern organization which states, "Instead of the copper I will bring in gold, and instead of the iron I will bring in silver, instead of the wood, copper, and instead of the stones, iron; and I will appoint peace as your overseers and righteousness as your task assigners." (Isaiah 60:17) That seems pretty clear that we become more refined rather than apostatize. The apostasy in the second century was foretold by Paul. (Acts 20:29, 30; 2 Thessalonians 2:6-8) There has been no such apostasy foretold regarding the last days. In fact, Jesus himself is to "do away with him at the manifestation of his presence." (2 Thessalonians 2:8) That is, he will completely annihilate all apostate religion at the tribulation. (Revelation 18:1-8) As I mentioned the legal entity of the organization may also be done away with at that time, but Jehovah's people as a whole will not be done away with as with all the other religions. We will endure the tribulation, but they will not.

I know. You've got to blame someone right? @JW Insider I'm going thru all the comments on this thread but it will take me a while. My preliminary judgment is that I don't think "practical" covers the role and office of those taking the lead. We all agree Jehovah , being omnipotent, could have done it in any way he saw fitting. He could have set up His Congregation such that it had no hierarchy (brothers taking the lead), and each man was guided entirely by the holy spirit through his own reading of the Bible. But that seems entirely unfitting to human nature. As @TrueTomHarleyhas commented in some of his writings. We are social/political beings by nature, and our nature is expressed in societies, as Aristotle explains in his Politics. From the family, to the local community, to the state. Just as marriage has a head of the home, and a company has one CEO, and our country has one president, it seems quite strange that for any other community hierarchy it's a necessity, but not when it comes to Jehovah's family (the congregation). @Anna In regards to the suspicions @Witness mentions, the Scriptures teach and speak of the importance of the strong helping the weak. That is the purpose of the hierarchy, that those who have God given authority, might serve those entrusted to them. The worldly (fallen) notion of authority is one of domination and tyranny, but that's not the way Jehovah has created hierarchy in the family, and in the Congregation. Of course a tyrant does not serve those whom he rules. But tyranny is an abuse of government, not it's proper use. The true ruler of any society serves that society through his leadership. Hence, when Jesus says that the Apostles should not “lord it over” them, as the Gentiles do, Jesus is not contrasting leadership in the Kingdom with the way leadership in the state should be (as though civic leaders should not serve those whom they lead). Jesus is instead contrasting leadership in the Kingdom with the way leadership in the state often is, tyrannical. Also, I don't see a contradiction between Christ being the head of the Congregation, and the Governing Body being the head of the Congregation, so long as we are very clear that the word ‘head’ is being used in two distinct senses. Christ or ultimately Jehovah, is the head of the Congregation, because He is the Congregation’s source, life, highest authority, and end. But the Governing Body is the representative of Christ, under His authority but acting in His authority as steward of the Congregation until Christ returns. So the Governing Body is the head of the Congregation in a different sense than Christ is the head of the Congregation. The Governing Body is subordinate to Christ. But Witnesses are subordinate to Christ by being subordinate to the Governing Body, as Jesus said, “Whoever listens to you listens to me. And whoever disregards you disregards me also. Moreover, whoever disregards me disregards also Him who sent me.”(Luke 10:16) If it were true that no one could speak for Christ without undermining Christ’s unique authority, this verse could not be in the Bible. This verse (along with others) shows how Christ’s delegation of authority in His Congregation does not undermine His unique authority, but allows others to participate in it, in a subordinate way.

Hey JW insider, thank you for the response. I'm interested in this topic(ecumenical dialogue, proselytism vs evangelism) because I don't really fully understand what is our position as Jehovah's Witnesses(officially) based on what we do on the ministry and our current framework in regards to our dialogue with other religions. I see a few articles on the JW library that bring it up, more specifically Catholic ecumenical dialogue, but I wonder if perhaps those articles are based on a misunderstanding of the Catholic position or of what we do as Jehovah's witnesses in the ministry. I can't figure it out. Perhaps you and others can shed some light on it. Most likely is a misunderstanding on my part. Here's an explanation given by a catholic that clarifies somewhat your point about talking with both sides of their mouth. Two Ecumenicisms By Bryan Cross https://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/03/two-ecumenicisms/ "Proselytism connotes coercion, manipulation, a notches-in-one’s-belt approach that fails to respect persons as persons, and fails to affirm their freedom in love and authentic person-to-person friendship. It is, for example, inviting a person to an event portrayed in one way (e.g. a meal, or entertainment), but then springing a sermon on them trying to get them to make a decision for Christ, such that they feel tricked, deceived, coerced, or manipulated. By contrast, evangelism is by attraction, to the truth in love, not by pressure, which is contrary to freedom, and contrary to love. Pope Francis talked about this in his address to catechists in September, saying, “Remember what Benedict XVI said: “The Church does not grow by proselytizing; she grows by attracting others”. And what attracts is our witness.” He said something similar in May in his Message for World Mission Day, “The Church’s missionary spirit is not about proselytizing ….” He described it again in his address in Assisi in October, and also in his Scalfari interview in that same month. And Pope Francis quoted Pope Benedict XVI on this subject, in Evangelii Gaudium, paragraph 15. If a person does not know the difference between proselytism and evangelism, then Pope Francis’s rejection of proselytism will seem like a rejection of evangelism. But nothing could be further from what he is saying, as is made clear by the fact that his rejections of proselytism are typically in the context of talking about evangelism, and the importance of evangelism." In the Protestant paradigm there is very little conceptual distinction drawn between evangelism and proselytism. But in the Catholic paradigm, this distinction is prominent and explicit; the Church explicitly distinguishes, and does not confuse, proselytism on the one hand, and evangelism and conversion on the other. The Church condemns the former, but affirms the latter as a command of Christ. All persons, all Catholics included (and myself included) are called to daily conversion. Pope Francis speaks often of the need for all of us to undergo daily conversion. So when he responds to people asking him if he wants to ‘convert’ them, he is (from the Catholic paradigm) understanding that they are (whether they themselves are aware of it or not) talking about proselytism, and he responds accordingly. He is not saying that he wants them to remain without the Eucharist, or to remain in a state of schism from the Church. Rather, he is saying that he wants them to draw near to Christ, and that he will not proselytize them. From a Catholic point of view, to draw near to Christ means necessarily, as an intrinsic theological implication, to draw near to the Church Christ founded (and thereby draw nearer to this Church those around oneself), because all the elements of salvation (including our shared baptism) come from the Church, have their fullness in the Church, and point back to the Church. So Pope Francis is simply focusing on the telos of ecumenism: union with Christ, as the shared goal, and warding off the worry that he will instrumentalize his conversation and relationship with these Protestants into a means of converting them. I agree that for some, the gospel is best shared wordlessly. But I think (at least in my experience) in general what these persons find offensive is proselytism (as the sense defined above), not authentic, respectful, and mutually free communication of the truth about Christ and His Church. The call to repent requires that the hearers recognize both the authority, charity, and trustworthiness of the speaker. Apart from divine miracles, it takes time to establish one’s authority, charity, and credibility. The call to repent requires that the hearers recognize that there is such a thing as sin, and that they have sinned against God, and that the evangelist has the authority to speak on God’s behalf in calling them to repent. It requires that they see in this person God’s love, which leads us to repentance. Otherwise, it *is* offensive, because in such a case the person is presuming to speak on God’s behalf regarding our violation of divine commands, without even taking the time to learn what the other person knows or does not know about these things, whether he is sorry for his sin, etc., and thus he both elevate himself above the hearer, and engages in hortatory coercion. The natural response is the same given to Moses: Who made you ruler and judge over us? Regarding proselytism, Pope Francis recently said, “The Lord does not proselytize; He gives love. And this love seeks you and waits for you, you who at this moment do not believe or are far away. And this is the love of God.” (source) On our being called to daily conversion, according to Pope Francis, see here. He spoke again about proselytism on November 7, 2014. At end of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, in 2015, Pope Francis spoke again about proselytism, saying: What Pope Francis is saying here has to do with the necessary personal dimension of authentic ecumenism, apart from which apologetics reduces to competitive debate. He’s not rejecting authentic apologetics, or the sort of dialogue in which we come together in personal respect and charity, having already recognized and affirmed our common ground, to evaluate evidence and argumentation by which to overcome what still divides us. In saying that we should “put aside all polemical or apologetic approaches,” he is speaking of an approach that is fundamentally defensive and polemical, rather than first and primarily relational. Catholic apologetics takes its rightful place only in a context of personal dialogue and the intersection of persons meeting as persons, not in the impersonal combat of ideologies. When we approach Pope Francis’s comments with charity and in the hermeneutic of continuity, we can see clearly that it is impossible for Pope Francis to be prohibiting apologetics, or evangelization, especially given that he wrote an entire encyclical on evangelization. Instead, he is talking about “approaches.” And he is criticizing approaches that start from the combative or defensive stance, rather than by meeting first as persons, finding common ground, and building on that common ground. I have described this approach as one of “debate” (in contrast to that of dialogue) in my post titled “Virtue and Dialogue.” By contrast, Pope Francis is here teaching that the practice of Catholic apologetics takes place rightly in the context of the meeting of persons in the second-person (I-Thou) dimension, bonded by charity, and authentic dialogue. Combative approaches are uncharitable, and are in this way contrary to the gospel we are called to defend. In my experience, Catholic priests and bishops, whatever else their weaknesses and flaws, are keenly aware of the distinction between proselytism and evangelism, and are very cautious to avoid proselytism, as something contrary to the Gospel itself. Protestant pastors (and Protestantism in general) tend to be less aware of this distinction. Without that distinction, however, some Protestants mistakenly attribute a Catholic leader’s rejection of proselytism, and public decision not to proselytize, as if it is a rejection of evangelism and conversion. But that’s often a misinterpretation of the situation, because of the paradigm difference. Pope Francis sees his every daily action (apart from his sins) as the work of the indwelling Holy Spirit and thus as living evangelism, as an incarnate call to union with Christ, and with His Church. Some priests seek to make sure a person isn’t being coerced, and try to put on the brakes, to make sure a person really knows what he is doing. (Having worked in RCIA a number of years, there are people who show up claiming to be ready to become Catholic at that moment, and you have to slow them down, in order to make sure they know what they’re doing and have counted the costs. A good priest isn’t interested in “sheep-stealing,'” or adding notches to his belt. He is aware of his ecumenical relationships with the Protestant pastors in his community, and wants a person to become Catholic only for the right reasons, and only when properly understanding what he is doing. Sometimes the “active discouragement” is just to see how serious the person is. And sometimes it could be because of a faulty understanding of ecumenism, in which ecumenism leaves no legitimate place or role for evangelism, in large part because since Vatican II, the Catholic stance toward Protestants is consciously and explicitly distinct from the Catholic stance toward pagans, on account of our shared baptism. And possibly some priests have not yet figured out how that distinction works in practice, because since VII the performative stance toward inquiring Protestants has not yet been become standard, universal practice, balancing between the increased respect and rightly acknowledged elements of salvation existing in these communities on the one hand, and their continuing state of separation from full communion and from the fullness of the truth of the gospel and the full means of salvation deposited in the Catholic Church. In my opinion, Pope Francis’s exhortation (EG) is exactly what the Church needed regarding evangelism, because it elevates in the mind of the whole Church the importance of evangelism, the essence of evangelism, and the compatibility of evangelism and ecumenism. That’s something we’ve needed for some time, I think. It would be easy to become focused on the economic sections, and miss the message of evangelization contained throughout the whole document." -Juan

Nicole, the term ‘proselytism’ is not the same in meaning as the term ‘evangelism.' For an overview of the Catholic framework in regards to this topic, see Eduardo J. Echeverria’s article titled “Proselytism vs. Evangelization, November 3, 2016.” https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2016/11/03/proselytism-vs-evangelization/ Also see footnote below #49 in the CDF’s Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization: [49] "The term proselytism originated in the context of Judaism, in which the term proselyte referred to someone who, coming from the gentiles, had passed into the Chosen People. So too, in the Christian context, the term proselytism was often used as a synonym for missionary activity. More recently, however, the term has taken on a negative connotation, to mean the promotion of a religion by using means, and for motives, contrary to the spirit of the Gospel; that is, which do not safeguard the freedom and dignity of the human person. It is in this sense that the term proselytism is understood in the context of the ecumenical movement: cf. The Joint Working Group between the Catholic Church and the World Council of Churches, “The Challenge of Proselytism and the Calling to Common Witness” (1995). https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20071203_nota-evangelizzazione_en.html#_ftn49 If anyone has input on this topic or would like to dialogue, let me know. -Juan