The Old Testament tells some very strange tales and one of them is told at 2 Samuel. David, the Israelite king, under duress because he is facing an armed insurrection from his own son, enters a town where loyalty is not assured. He and his men are received hospitably, but there is one man decidedly not hospitable. The account reads:
“…a man…came out shouting curses as he approached. He was throwing stones at David and at all the servants of King David, as well as at all the people and the mighty men on his right and on his left. Shimei said as he cursed: “Get out, get out, you bloodguilty man! You worthless man!”
“…Then Abishai the son of Zeruiahm said to the king: “Why should this dead dog curse my lord the king? Let me go over, please, and take off his head.” But the king said: “…Let him curse me, for Jehovah has said to him, ‘Curse David!’ …Here my own son, who came from my own body, is seeking my life… Leave him alone so that he may curse me, for Jehovah told him to! …With that David and his men kept going down the road while Shimei was walking alongside the mountain abreast of him, shouting curses and throwing stones and a lot of dust.” (16:5-19)
Imagine! David is not too hung up on himself, is he? The fellow curses him, throws stones at him, shouting he is bloodguilty and worthless. And David as much as says: “Well, maybe he has a point. I mean, if God is letting it happen, who am I to smash in his head?”
The passage is included in the midweek meeting study material for October 15, 2018. That program also incorporated a passage at Matthew chapter 11, in which Jesus said of his detractors that they criticize you no matter what you do, so the best recourse is to go full speed ahead and let “wisdom be proved righteous by its works.” Meetings of Jehovah’s Witnesses are essentially Bible studies that one can prepare for, organized around themes suggested by current needs and the pre-determined schedule of Bible reading that members have observed for 100 years—work your way through Revelation and start in again at Genesis.
Nothing gets in the program without the okay, if not the direct insertion, of Witness governing members, who serve on various supervisory committees. The Matthew verse demonstrates how they respond to public criticism. They like Psalm 38:13 as well, another verse of David, about how he determined to muzzle his mouth as his adversaries kept “muttering all day long” unsavory things about him. Luke 9:62 is also a favorite. That one records Jesus saying: “No man that has put his hand to a plow and looks at the things behind is well fitted for the Kingdom of God.” They press ever forward. They content themselves with a Newsroom tab on their public website that does not get into specific complaints, much as one would not expect to find a citing from the building inspector on the restaurant menu.
It was a program that October week on how Jesus set the pattern for those who would follow him, not specifically concerned with how to answer criticism, but also not avoiding the topic, particularly in the final half-hour segment. And Shimei’s tirade was right in there, with David conscious of the abuse he is receiving, and acquiescing to receiving it, as though it were discipline of sorts, as though he says “Well, maybe I had it coming,” even as he expresses hope that perhaps “Jehovah will see…and will actually restore me to goodness instead of his malediction this day.” (vs 12)
Do not think that the Witness Governing Body, as they are teaching others by means of the scriptures, do not also teach themselves. “If David was subjected to it, I guess we will be too,” they seem to say. One should not think that they will not reflect on just how they got into this predicament in the first place, as David surely must have, with stones bouncing off his helmet. They will remedy it to the extent they can, but it will not be at the expense of betraying their prime directive of leading through Bible principles. They have been loath to pull rank on family heads, reporting abuse which is sometimes entirely within a family, usually a step-family as was the case in Montana, and assume their responsibility or prerogative.
Likely they will say of these courtroom battles, as they did of Russia banning the entire organization within its borders, that it is an area of “concern” but not “worry.” They don’t get overly attached to things, even things of their own construction. They put it all on the line routinely as they do their best to advance kingdom interests, not cowering before their enemies. They plow where they plow as they apply their view of the Bible, unconcerned, sometimes unaware, of the quicksand that may get them into, confident that, should that happen, God will somehow get them out of it.
They do not deliberately court opposition, but they do expect it. The king makes a law and Daniel is thrown into the lion’s den. He makes another law and his friends are thrown into the furnace. Another king makes another law and the entire nation of Jews faces extermination until Esther the queen opens his eyes to the murderous scheme he has been maneuvered into. It happens to their spiritual descendants to this day. The modern Witness organization expects no less. They are “insular,” separate from the world, and the latter finds no end of reasons to oppose them for it.
They have really stepped in it this time, or at least it has been painted that way. It is not like last year, when Russia banned them, declared the Bible they favor illegal, and confiscated their property, doing so for completely separate reasons that never even mentioned child sexual abuse. It is not like Jehovah’s Witnesses of decades past, trying issue before first amendment issue before the U.S. Supreme Court, nobody engaging more frequently other than the government itself, so that Justice Harlan Fiske Stone wrote: “The Jehovah’s Witnesses ought to have an endowment in view of the aid which they give in solving the legal problems of civil liberties.” No. This time it is the unsavory subject of child sexual abuse, and the question that cannot be answered: If they did not go “beyond the law,” why didn’t they?
Is it to be included as among the “wicked things that they will lyingly say against you” that Jesus speaks of? (Matthew 5:11) Nobody can ever say that the charge is not wicked, on the same level as first-century charges that Christians practiced cannibalism and that they burned down Rome. Just possibly it takes their breath away, as it is a legitimate bad that they never saw coming. Just possibly they are dumbfounded at enemy attempts to negate the clergy-penitent clause on the basis that elders are unpaid volunteers. The insistence that Witness elders can count as “clergy” only if paid is an attack on the purest form of religion. One could even uncharitably call those of the paid variety “mercenary ministers,” whose motives are ever clouded. “You received free, give free,” Jesus said. The world has swung to recognition of only the mercenary model.
With Shimei’s stones knocking on their helmet, just possibly they drop to their knees like Hezekiah besieged by an enraged enemy. Just possibly they appear to outsiders as deer caught in the headlights while they are doing so. Just possibly they are like Adrian Monk, insular among his many hang-ups, who finds himself both outside of his normal element and in a pickle because he cannot choose which chair in which to sit until Natalie gently pushes him down on whatever one he hovers over at the moment.
At a supposedly confidential 2017 meeting of elders, leaked for Internet perusal by a self-styled freedom fighter—a meeting dealing with the ramifications of child sexual abuse litigation, a Witness representative stated: “Well, we know that the scene of this world is changing, and we know Satan’s coming after us, and he’s going to go for us legally. We can see by the way things are shaping up.” It is not hard to imagine what certain ones are doing with the explanation that “Satan’s coming after us.”
How could he say it? With religion in general, it is the misconduct of leaders that has come home to haunt them. With Jehovah’s Witnesses, it is misconduct of members whose cases allegedly were mishandled. God help us if the members of other faiths are put under the magnifying glass, as with Jehovah’s Witnesses. On the other side of the world, Jehovah’s Witness are banned in Russia for reasons having nothing to do with child sexual abuse—the topic was entirely absent, as government and media partnered to whip the public into a froth, hurling many virulent accusations against the faith—but never that one.
There, it is “professing the superiority of one’s religion.” There it is being Western spies disguised as a religion. There it is blood transfusions, and should a Witness refuse one and thereafter die, the death is invariably attributed to the refusal, with leaders of the faith likened to murderers. Surely, somewhere along the line it should be acknowledged that Jehovah’s Witnesses have absolutely no deaths at all attributed to illicit drug abuse, overdrinking, and tobacco use, save only for when someone is slipping into old habits. All things considered, they are, far and away, the ‘safest’ religion out there. Yet they are said to be the murderers.
Keep in mind that we are speaking of the faith whose members are universally recognized as ‘pacifist,’ who will on no account resort to violence or support war efforts. It is highly unusual for a large group of people to have absolutely no blood on their hands in this regard, but they do not. Is it so crazy for the Witness spokesman to say: “Satan is coming after us?” Given the foregoing, it would be crazy for him not to. One thing that we know about opposers: they will always overplay their hand.
Drive this matter of child sexual abuse to the Supreme Court, if need be. If they decide to hear it, it will be case number 50-something that Witnesses have tried before that body. Let it be resolved once and for all when the time is right. Many groups are driven to the edge these days over child sexual abuse, as it becomes almost the only issue that matters to some. Over such matters, the Boy Scouts are exploring bankruptcy proceedings. The Boy Scouts! who have long fought the evil but did not succeed in eliminating it. The Boy Scouts! who taught generations of boys to be responsible. The Boy Scouts! who I can’t walk the area trails without coming across historical kiosks or other amenities constructed as someone’s Eagle Scout project. The Boy Scouts! who when they were successfully sued on behalf of a single plaintiff in 2010 for $18.5 million, one of that person’s legal team stated his belief that they “have undertaken a truly noble and important task in mentoring young boys, for which they are to be commended,” and it was his sincere hope that the $18 million judgment “will impress upon them the need to do it better.” Now that he has driven them clear to insolvency, it will be a little hard for his dream to come true. Though groups as the Boy Scouts manifestly benefit children in ways not readily duplicated, their deep pockets permit a pummeling such as cannot be visited on unorganized segments of society, though it be every bit as accommodating to child sexual abuse—and without providing any benefit. It will be so with groups that instill religious values into youth as well.
Don’t be put off by the sordid backdrop. The world wallows in sordidness these days. It is accustomed to everyone being accused of everything. The Week Magazine reports (September 3, 2018) that referrals of child abuse online images have increased seven-fold over five years. On average, one child in every primary school classroom has received nude or semi-nude pictures from an adult. They quickly adjust to this new normal: “A girl from my primary [was] sending half-naked pictures because it’s what everyone does,” said one. Don’t let this be painted as a Witness pandemic or even a pandemic of any religion. What! It is only where there are deep pockets that child sexual abuse occurs? It is only taxpayer-funded schools, scouting organizations, or faith groups that suffer child sexual abuse? In any such lawsuit, it is actually the customers, the members, or the taxpayers, who pay out the award, as massive transfers of wealth occur in every direction, with barristers netting a third.
The roots of the evil fail to line up. Christianity, where it remains true to its roots, is an offshoot of Judaism, where pedophilia in Bible times was exceedingly uncommon, and even now one seldom hears of it. A verse from the ancient Sibylline oracles, a collection of oracular utterances written in Greek hexameters, ascribed to the prophetesses Sibyls, claims that only the Jews were free from this impurity. They were “mindful of holy wedlock, and they do not engage in impious intercourse with male children, as do Phoenicians, Egyptians and Romans, spacious Greece and many nations of other, Persians and Galatians and all Asia, transgressing the holy law of immortal God, which they transgressed.”
In contrast, where does the mainstream educated world of today find its underpinnings? Is it not the world of ancient Greece, known as the cradle of democracy? It is also the cradle of accustomed pedophilia, a societally accepted practice nowhere condemned in that society. The only condemnation to be found is from Christians who withdrew and became “insular” as regards that world. It is found at 1 Corinthians 6:9: “Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.” (NABRE) A footnote to the New American Bible – Revised Edition on ‘boy prostitutes’ and ‘sodomites’ reads: “The Greek word translated as boy prostitutes may refer to catamites, i.e., boys or young men who were kept for purposes of prostitution, a practice not uncommon in the Greco-Roman world. In Greek mythology this was the function of Ganymede, the “cupbearer of the gods,” whose Latin name was Catamitus. The term translated sodomites refers to adult males who indulged in homosexual practices with such boys.” They even had a god for it!
Montana law being what it appears to be, it is hard to imagine that the present case could not be appealed successfully. The Court’s greatest mistake may have been the excessive punitive damages imposed, clearing indicating that they felt the Witness organization was trying to violate law. If it can be shown that they made every conscientious effort to follow law, everything might reverse. Whether they are insular or not should not factor in. Separateness from the overall world is not yet a crime. It may factor into public opinion, but not yet that of law.
What would be the repercussions in the event of a higher court reversal? They would be not necessarily favorable for Jehovah’s Witnesses, who always sought, perhaps to a fault, not to “sully God’s name.” It’s a little late to worry about that now. Or maybe it is not. A higher court reversal of the Montana verdict could cause the average person who learns of it, particularly as spun by opponents, to say: “It’s unbelievable! The Court says it’s okay for Jehovah’s Witnesses to abuse children!” There is no question that their vociferous opponents would spin matters that way. But if there was a sincere expression of regret in the interim—for children truly have been harmed—they might say, “Oh. I understand. They did bollox things up but now I see how it happened.”
People, by and large, are fair, even when they don’t especially care for Witnesses. They don’t buy for a minute that Jehovah’s Witnesses, Latter Day Saints, Methodists, Boy Scouts, and taxpayer-backed institutions are the only settings in which child sexual abuse occurs. They understand that these parties have deep pockets, and there is no sense in going after anyone who does not. Vary the facts to be prioritized before all others and there is nobody that cannot be damned. A higher court victory giving opportunity to ‘come clean’ as to how the whole mess began may well clean up that Name that Witnesses are so concerned about.
Any movement suffers when the haters get on board to misrepresent things, capitalizing on complaints to go for the jugular. It is acknowledged here that children did suffer sexual abuse on the watch of the Witness governing organization. It is acknowledged that some of the abusers came to the attention of outside authorities later than they would have otherwise, and some likely not at all, exacerbated by a concern over reputation. What is not acknowledged is that laws were broken, for Jehovah’s Witnesses are very good at ferreting them out and obeying them. It is also acknowledged, however, that laws are being reinterpreted after the fact to make it appear that they were violated, Witnesses being unpopular and the subject being hot. These are general observations. In any group numbering several million, there will be countless contrasting examples of anything, and it is the task of the court system to ferret out what is valid and what is invalid.
Let it be framed as it is. It is an attack on separate religion, in which child abuse matters are employed as a righteous smokescreen. It is not merely Jehovah’s Witnesses under the gun. It is religion in general, and the more determined a given religion is to resist mainstream thinking the more of a target it becomes. Prejudice against the Jehovah’s Witness faith runs deeper than most and it is a very real child abuse tragedy that enables it to be disguised as justifiable outrage. Nonetheless, the attack on the right to worship undefined by the State ought to be the subject of focus.
From the book TrueTom vs the Apostates!
Leave a Reply