Sheep and Goats

Month: October 2025

  • Save Us from Critical Thinking: Part 4

    For complete results, start here

    It was irksome when atheists put up their ‘Let Reason Prevail’ billboard right next to that Illinois State Capitol Nativity Scene back in 2009; that much was immediately apparent. But putting my finger on just why it was irksome required more effort. Was it the presumption of the atheists that they held a monopoly on “reason?” Partly. Was it the crassness of plunking it next to the nativity scene, as though it, too, offered a message of hope? Closer.

    It took a while, but I at last came across an experiment that blew that nettlesome Let Reason Prevail slogan sky-high. Reason cannot prevail among humans. We are not capable of it. We can muster a fair effort when distractions are few. But add in any significant stress, and human reasoning ability goes right down the drain. It is hard to come to any other conclusion after pondering the cake-fruit experiment of several years back. Alas, it received only the publicity of light fluff news. It deserves more, as it holds unsettling implications for any future based on the veneration of reason.

    The cake-fruit experiment unfolded thus: In 1999, Stanford University professor Baba Shiv enrolled a few dozen undergraduates and gave each a number to memorize. Then, one at a time, they were to leave the room and walk down a corridor to another room, where someone would be waiting to take their number. On the way down, however, participants were approached by a friendly woman carrying a tray. “To show our thanks for taking part in our study,” she said, “we’d like to offer you a snack. You have a choice of two. A nice piece of chocolate cake. Or a delicious fruit salad. Which would you like?”

    Unbeknownst to each participant, some had been given two-digit numbers to memorize, and some had been given seven-digit numbers. When Shiv tallied up the choices made (for that was the object of the experiment) he found that those students with seven digits to remember were nearly twice as likely to choose the cake as those given two digits! Two digits—you choose fruit. Seven digits—you choose cake. What could possibly account for that?

    The reason, Shiv theorized, is that once you weed out the occasional oddball, we all like cake more than fruit; it tastes better. But we also know that fruit is better for us. This is a rational assessment that almost all of us would make. But if our minds are taxed with trying to retain seven digits instead of a no-brainer two, rationality goes right out the window, and the emotional, “Yummy, cake!” wins out! “The astounding thing here,” said the Wall Street Journal’s Jonah Lehrer, reviewing the experiment for NPR, “is not simply that sometimes emotion wins over reason. It’s how easily it wins.”

    Now, this experiment was not taken very seriously by anyone. When the media covered it at all, they treated it as fluff, as a transitional piece going in to or out of more serious news. But plainly, the experiment holds deeper significance. Aren’t world leaders also human, and thus susceptible to emotion trumping rationality? Daily they grapple to solve the woes afflicting us all. Meanwhile, opponents seek to undermine them, and media outlets try to dig up dirt on them. If it takes only five extra digits for emotion to overpower reason, do you really think there is the slightest chance that “reason will prevail” among the world’s policymakers, immersed in matters much more vexing and urgent than choosing between cake and fruit? Has it up till now?

    That is what was so irksome about the ‘Let Reason Prevail’ slogan. Reason cannot prevail among imperfect humans! It can occur, but it cannot prevail. Humans are not capable of it. Five digits is all it takes for our rational facade to crumble!

    Since that Baba Shiv experiment, the term “reason” has been upgraded to “critical thinking,” as though to impress with increased potency. It’s the same stuff. It’s just that the latter was not the buzzphrase then that it has come to be today.

    Now, if there is one thing that Jehovah’s Witnesses are known for, it is for their insistence that humans do not have the ability to govern themselves. Their reason (critical thinking) will not save them. It is too easily trumped by other factors. Anticipating and announcing the kingdom hope, in accord with Jesus’ prayer, while it does require faith, is seen to be more “reasonable” than the “reason” championed by men.

    to be continued here

    ******  The bookstore

  • Where a Tree Falls, That is Where it Will Lay

    Be honest, please. I understand why you might hold back, so as not to hurt my feelings. Please put that instinct aside. What do you think of the following verse?

    “If the clouds are filled with water, they will pour down rain on the earth; and if a tree falls to the south or to the north, the place where the tree falls is where it will lie.”

    My wife said “Duh.”

    I checked the Research Guide, that tool that comes with JWLibrary. Nothing. They didn’t touch it. Probably, some brother was assigned, he said “Duh” and the editors didn’t think the remark worthy of inclusion.

    So I went to some online commentaries that said, ‘It’s because you’re considering the verse separately, Tom. It’s part of a package.’ 

    The package is verses 1-6. In the main, they encourage one to work in the face of uncertainty, not hold back, not to stymie oneself with endless what-ifs, realize you only partially control the outcome, cover lots of bases because any given one may blow up in your face, and do it before factors intervene over which you have no control—don’t procrastinate. Verse 3 offers up two of those metaphorical factors: the cloud that lets loose, and the tree that falls. Act before those things happen:

    “Cast your bread on the waters, for after many days you will find it again.  Give a share to seven or even to eight, for you do not know what disaster will occur on the earth. If the clouds are filled with water, they will pour down rain on the earth; and if a tree falls to the south or to the north, the place where the tree falls is where it will lie. The one who watches the wind will not sow seed, and the one who looks at the clouds will not reap. Just as you do not know how the spirit operates in the bones of the child inside a pregnant woman, so you do not know the work of the true God, who does all things. Sow your seed in the morning and do not let your hand rest until the evening; for you do not know which will have success, whether this one or that one, or whether they will both do well.” (1-6)

    That settled, I turned my attention to another verse from the next chapter, also covered in this week’s Bible reading: 

    “As for anything besides these, my son, be warned: To the making of many books there is no end, and much devotion to them is wearisome to the flesh.” (12:12)

    Is this a discouragement from reading, I’ve long wondered. No, it’s not, the commentary said, it’s just encouragement to stay on matters of substance, such as the Proverbs themselves, and not the endless human philosophies which wear you out because they are endless, that offer no rest or final truth, that wear a person out without profit. It’s not anti-reading. It’s anti-rabbit-hole-ism.

    I was slow on the uptake, so it added a modern parallel: 

    “Imagine a student today:

    – Reads Proverbs → clear, godly wisdom.  

    – Then dives into 10,000 Reddit threads, TikTok philosophies, self-help gurus → endless, conflicting, exhausting.  

    **12:12 says: Stick to the Shepherd’s words. The rest is noise.”

    Oh. Okay. Got it.

    ******  The bookstore

  • Save Us from Critical Thinking: Part 3

    (for best results, start with Part 1:

    Confounding all the wannabe Spocks who think pure thought can one day drive the world, unhindered by emotion (and what a wonderful day that will be!!) is a 1994 book by Antonio Damasio on neurology showing the two are inseparable. ‘Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain’ demonstrates that when emotion is knocked out in humans, ‘reason’ doesn’t work either. It still exists, but it can’t be harnessed for anything. It reduces to a nebulous force that critical thinkers worship but that always remains outside their grasp, especially so when they imagine that they have a lock on the stuff.

    Starting with a textbook case in history, then the author doctor’s own test patient, the book describes how who have suffered brain injury, so that that they cannot experience emotion, thereafter are unable to make even simple decisions in matters supposedly having nothing to do with emotion. Decisions as to what to wear, what to eat, what to buy—they cannot make them. Plainly, it is too simplistic to view emotion as the enemy of rationality, a contamination that must be ferreted out, lest it interfere with the quest for truth. 

    ***

    The authors of the scriptures were reasonable. They put serious thought into their writings. But the holy writings consistently put ever so many qualities ahead of critical thinking, or for that matter, thinking of any sort, beyond the barebones intelligence to comprehend the words.

    The Galatians 5:21 fruitage of the spirit that empowers people, for instance: “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith, mildness, self-control.” Nowhere is critical thinking on the list. Or take such passages as Proverbs 29:19, which are far more numerous than ones encouraging academic rigor:

    “A servant will not let himself be corrected by words, For though he understands, he does not obey.” 

    Is the problem here is lack of critical thinking? Or does the problem lie elsewhere?

    For this reason, social media is of limited value when it comes to expressing Christianity. Jehovah is making an estimate of hearts whereas the internet displays only the head. Of course, many express their Christianity online, because it is easy. Many Witnesses do it too, but they are not so deluded as to imagine it supersedes the physical ministry. The latter is hard, as opposed to the easy online ministry, but it more readily accesses and reveals the heart. 

    It becomes that common saying that “People do not care how much you know. Rather, they want to know how much you care.” The physical-contact ministry demonstrates the latter. People so contacted, even when they do not appreciate it, know that you’ve gone to some trouble to visit them. It has cost you something. 

    The internet ministry, one the other hand, is dominated by those who like to hear themselves talk and who like to show off how much they know. Hopefully, the hearts of some have moved them also to be doers of the word (James 1:22) and not hearers only. But you can never tell it from their online personas, which reveal only the head.

    The head is not the deciding component, nor can it be among humans. One doesn’t want to be run on emotion. Instead, one wants to be in touch with one’s emotions. The notion one can divorce oneself from them is unattainable.

    ***

    “I promise to give your suggestion all the attention it deserves,” said the emotionless Mr. Spock to that hothead Dr. McCoy. He paused for just the tiniest split-second and then resumed his work. 

    to be continued here:

    ******  The bookstore

    …

  • Save Us from Critical Thinking: Part 2

    Luke Timothy Johnson, lecturer of the Great Courses series, ‘The Story of the Bible,’ likened the historical critical method (higher criticism) to a Trojan Horse. It is dazzling in appearance. Therefore, you let it right into your camp. Once inside, however, it releases the seeds of your own destruction. This is because the historical critical method is based entirely on ‘critical thinking,’ which is all the rage today.

    black and white photography of a wooden trojan horse
    Photo by Ayşe İpek on Pexels.com

    Probably, the phrase ‘critical thinking’ should be struck from the Christian vocabulary, since it defines the thought process of those who put all their trust in human science. Nothing against science here, but it is not something that should not be elevated over all else. It is also unsettling to hear modern calls to “believe the science,” since science is not a system of belief. Jehovah’s Witness published literature has never used the expression “critical thinking.” (nor any faith tradition, to my knowledge) Instead, it opts for biblical counsel to “let your reasonableness be known to all.” There’s no need to let narrow people define what it means to be “reasonable.”

    Plenty of Witnesses use the expression innocuously and good conscience, but it is technically a tool of the “enemy.” It is the exact opposite of the apostle’s directive that “we are walking by faith, not by sight.” Not only is “critical thinking” the epitome of “walking by sight,” but it is walking by provable sight, specifically scientifically-provable sight. It is not simply the opposite of being gullible. It is a too-narrow definition of what it means to be smart. It ensures that you will miss a lot.

    It has the effect of decimating faith because it examines only what is scientifically provable, and no tenet of faith is. Those who are trained this way in theology end up taking all spiritual beliefs off the table for consideration. They figure they have the tools to examine only the effects of faith on a person: that is, does a given belief system help or harm a person? Shelving the fundamental aspects of faith, it is left to examine only the secondary. The effect is to make religion an expression of human rights.

    Just as higher criticism rules out examination of the resurrection or the virgin birth of Christ as being scientifically unprovable, so it rules out any consideration of an afterlife, or (for Witnesses) the notion of living forever on a future paradise earth. Not scientifically provable. Can’t go there. Passages like 1 Timothy 6:19 (instructions to the young man on how to shepherd the congregations) become meaningless:

    “Tell them to work at good, to be rich in fine works, to be generous, ready to share, safely treasuring up for themselves a fine foundation for the future, so that they may get a firm hold on the real life.”

    Since the “real life” is unprovable to the higher critics, and the present life is the only one they acknowledge, the Bible verse, at best, makes no sense, and at worst, becomes a harmful distraction from the present. Higher criticism vs traditional biblical reading are opposites. The “real life” to the higher critics is the present. The “real life” to the traditional Bible reader is the future. To the higher critic, pursuing the “real life” of 1 Timothy has relevance ONLY in how if affects a person in the present.

    This insistence on examining only the immediate aspects of faith puts it at the mercy of changing human values. For the longest time, Witnesses received a green light as to benefiting in the present. Witness beliefs enabled them to break free of addictions and enjoy stable marriages, for example. But now, these benefits are being overshadowed by modern demands for “inclusion,” as well as an added savoring of “independence.” Even breaking free of debasing addictions doesn’t count if “someone told you to do it.” Plainly, Jehovah’s Witnesses put themselves under the relative authority of congregation headship. The fact that Christians did it in the first century as well is irrelevant. Plainly, Jehovah’s Witnesses do not practice “inclusion” for some increasing popular lifestyles. The fact that they beat everyone for inclusion towards races, ethnicities, economic and educational differences doesn’t cut it.

    To be continued—here

    ******  The bookstore

  • Save us from Critical Thinking: Part 1

    Here in the U.S, when the media wishes to discredit someone, they say that he or she stated such-and-such “without evidence,” as if it were a god that they failed to bow down to. It is a relatively new expression, not more than 10 years old.

    In fact, meaningful “evidence” is extremely hard to obtain. Just distinguishing causal from correlated can spur endless studies and be squabbled over without resolution. Then, assuming people successfully obtain “evidence,” they come to polar opposite concussions regarding it, as determined by their preexisting backgrounds, experiences, education, culture, dispositions, etc.

    Then, in this country (U.S.), at least half of all people are on some sort of medication, many of which are said to alter mood and overall thinking ability. 

    It is enough to make one bridle at the expression “critical thinking,” as though humans are capable of it beyond a light seasoning. When applied to theology, it is a major detriment to faith, since it allows for discussion only that which can be scientifically proven. Fundamentals upon which faith depends, such as the resurrection of Christ or his virgin birth cannot be so proven. Therefore, they are off the table, as are most tenets of faith. All that remains for examination is the effects of faith upon a person, which is often in the eye of the beholder.

    With the beliefs of faith removed from discussion, critical thinking theology largely demotes religion to a forum for human rights. Everything else is taken off the table. That is all that remains. Nothing against human rights here, other than to point out that our own bodies do not respect them, failing us when we need them the most. But, surely faith in God must be more than such strictly human matters.

    Historian Allen Guelzo examines the modern-day emphasis on “critical thinking” in interpreting history. Does it make it better? If anything, he suspects it makes it worse, by “cloaking human bias in a veneer of science.”

    When it comes to politics, how are we to account for people aligning themselves in opposite camps, both of which claim critical thinking as their friend? I like to view it as “all human governments drop the ball. Usually it is a bowling ball. As people ponder the vulnerabilities of toes on their right or left feet, such is determined their politics.” The influence of critical thinking is not what seals the deal. It is mostly bias, formed through preexisting experience and training.

    The Bible stands in contrast. It doesn’t pretend that critical thinking is any significant component of meeting God’s approval. Jesus “draws” people. The “children” (not known for their critical thinking skills) are more likely than the “wise” (who are known for it) to get the sense of it. “Taste and see that Jehovah is good” says the psalm. Suppose someone thinks that beets taste bad. Will you prove to him through critical thinking that he is wrong?

    Covid 19 and worldwide response to it has proved the absolute inadequacy of critical thinking. It is not that the stuff is bad. It is that humans are incapable of it to any degree that would make a significant dent in life.

    (To be continued—here)

    ******  The bookstore

  • Save Us from the Trolley Problem

    The trolley problem: it’s a great philosophical puzzle to occupy the musings of that bunch and keep them off the street where they might do harm. Maybe you’ve seen the drawing. By pulling a lever, you divert the trolley to the track on which one person is lying, killing him. By doing nothing, the trolley rolls ahead and kills 5 on the main track. What should you do? Kill 1 by action ? Or by inaction, suffer 5 to be killed?

    In the end, doesn’t every political assassin rationalize his deed as one of saving the greater number? Didn’t the guy who started WWI by plugging the archduke think that? Could be he was acting out the trolley problem in his own head, assuring himself that, while hard, he had made the morally necessary choice which would benefit the greater number. How did that work out?

    The trolley problem works as a practical exercise when you are operating a trolley. For anything more complex, figure that you may be wrong. You just may be overestimating your power to save the 5. They also might be nowhere near in the danger you think they are. Whereas, if you pull the lever, beyond all question and ambiguity, you have made yourself a murderer. In real life, people apply their ‘trolley problem’ analysis to situations far more complex than trolleys, into areas where it is certain to break down. In real life, one may find those 5 were never in danger to begin with; it was just your cockeyed view of the world that made you think so. Perhaps their lives will even be improved if you let your dreaded “trolley” hit them.

    ….

    To those who would hesitate to pull the lever, one critic writes:

    …..”You now having all the facts or info only excuses you from consequences you couldn’t foresee.”

    Doesn’t this statement mean that you don’t have all the facts?

    ….”Even if there were unexpected consequences then you would be forgiven for not knowing about them beforehand if you had no information to guide your actions.”

    Forgiven by who?

    …..”Choosing not to act is still to act.”

    Of course it is not. People freeze in real life. If someone suffers paralysis, for whatever reason, how are they making a choice? The thought of directly and purposefully taking a life would be enough to freeze many a person in his tracks. He or she might thereafter torment themselves about those that “could have been saved.” But they never got to that point on account of freezing before the act of deliberately killing.

    Save us from the lawyerly “knew or should have known” game. (a game which lawyers do not play unless big money is involved) We never really know what another person “knew,” much less what they “should have known.” If someone’s emotion (moral revulsion) freezes them from deliberately taking a life, who is anyone else to say what they “should have known?”

    Maybe this entire “trolley problem” suffers from the philosopher’s curse that we are all thought and no emotion, or even that we can separate the two. It is the curse from which unlimited hubris arises, and unbounded pretension that our role is to judge other people.

    In fact, emotion and thought are not separable. Medical research has shown that when portions of the brain associated with emotion are destroyed, people become incapable of even the most fundamental of logical choices. The 1994 book ‘Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain’ presented, as one example, a man who underwent an operation that resulted in such brain damage. He continued to excel in memory and logic tests, his 130+ IQ unimpaired. “However, he couldn’t decide trivial matters—e.g., selecting lunch from a menu took hours, or choosing a shirt led to endless pros/cons analysis without conclusion. His life unraveled: he lost jobs, went bankrupt, and divorced due to chronic indecision.” (Grok)

    And if we’re going to ask for “any suspension of disbelief since it is only a hypothetical,” why limit ourselves to the hypotheticals the critic quoted above has spelled out? What are those 5 people doing on the tracks to begin with? What faulty assumption put them there? I know enough not to sit on railroad tracks. Why don’t they? Surely, one consideration of the fellow called upon to decide (assuming it IS decision unimpeded by emotion) will be if it is his job to save the world from self-imposed blinders? Maybe he’ll “save” those five, committing certain murder to do so, and they will immediately sit on another set of train tracks.

    “The trolley problem is just one more depressing example of academic philosophers’ obsession with concentrating on selected, artificial examples so as to dodge the stress of looking at real issues.” – Mary Midgley

    I mean, if it were Mary on the spur, and all the philosophers on the main line, no way would you not let that train keep on rolling and take take our all of that air-headed bunch.

    ******  The bookstore

    museum exhibition of ancient bust statues
    Photo by Michael Noel on Pexels.com

  • When the King is a Boy and the Princes Start Their Feasting in the Morning

    In government, when people enter office with modest means and a few years later have amassed wealth far beyond what the paycheck would account for, is that an example of the following?

    “How terrible for a land when the king is a boy and the princes start their feasting in the morning!” Ecclesiastes 10:16. [The king is a relative “boy” who allows them to get away with it.]

    Bad “for a land” when that happens. Ideally, instead it will be: 

    “How happy for the land when the king is the son of nobles and the princes eat at the proper time for strength, not for drunkenness!” (10:17)

    The king has some nobility about himself and runs a tight ship, selecting princes inclined the same way.

    Regardless of whether they did or did not, you had zero say about it. Often, biblical writings present “heavens” as a metaphor for ruling kings over the people (the earth). Like the actual heavens, the ruling king could storm on you one day, shine on you the next, freeze you out thereafter, and there was not a thing you could do about.  For all the hoopla about participatory government, it is pretty much the same today, in which your input is not exactly zero, but close to it.

    In the meantime, as to governments in the here and now: All human governments will drop the ball. Usually it is a bowling ball. As people ponder the vulnerabilities of their toes on their right and left feet, such is decided their politics. Jehovah’s Witnesses do their best to stay away from that stuff, recognizing that it is all a manifestation of “rulership by man,” subject to “man dominating man to his injury.” (Ecclesiastes 8:9) Invariably, it becomes some permutation of “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

    It is not just corruption, though it is that. Even in a perfected state, humans would still be subject to that described just a few Ecclesiastes verses later: 

    “I considered all the work of the true God, and I realized that mankind cannot comprehend what happens under the sun. No matter how hard men try, they cannot comprehend it. Even if they claim that they are wise enough to know, they cannot really comprehend it.” (8:17)

    They don’t really know how it works. Even with “critical thinking” they can’t figure it out, and so there are non-ending fights on the very basics of life, on “what makes us tick,” as well as over stewardship regarding the earth itself. (One speaker at the last circuit assembly quipped that you cannot even bring up cheese without people squabbling over it.) Then, too, men “cannot comprehend,” “no matter how hard” they may try, simply because they are finite. Attentions close at hand, that they can reach out and touch, will always take precedence over ones far away that have to be envisioned in the mind’s eye.

    It is why humans need God’s kingdom, and it really has to be God’s kingdom, not just some ‘nicer’ form of human rule. It has to be as when Jesus said, “the kingdom of God is in your midst,” as opposed to “the kingdom of God is within you.” Both renderings of Luke 21:11 are grammatically permissible. But only one is permissible by context. If “the kingdom of God is within you,” then it is a very weak force indeed, since Jesus was speaking to religious opponents who would later plot for his execution—no last minute change of heart for them.

    Meanwhile, to get back to the kings Solomon speaks of, his book is like laying out a welcome mat for that kingdom of God, in that it highlights failure after failure of the present. Chapter 10 of Ecclesiastes ends with a corker: 

    “Even in your thoughts, do not curse the king, and do not curse the rich in your bedroom; for a bird may convey the sound, or a creature with wings may repeat what was said.”  (Ecclesiastes 10:20)

    Yeah. Like that time the king’s henchmen came calling and the householder hastened to point out that his parrot’s political views were not his own.

    ******  The bookstore

    close up photo of parakeet
    Photo by Hans Martha on Pexels.com

  • Conduct Matters if the Goal is Not to Blaspheme God

    Obedience is a tough sell today. How can it not be when the backdrop is one of “the sons of disobedience” as Paul calls them at Ephesians 2:2? In such a climate, even the Bible is reframed as though it were the Declaration of Independence. From there arises a horror of any religious human counsel that would direct people on what to do.

    Nonetheless, Ephesians is clear on the need for “shepherds” and “teachers” among Christians. It is clear on the reason for them. (4:11-13) Faith cannot be just “Jesus and me.”

    “And he gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelizers, some as shepherds and teachers, with a view to the readjustment of the holy ones, for ministerial work, to build up the body of the Christ.” (4:11)

    The apostle Paul calls them “gifts in men.” How long are they necessary? The passage continues: “until we all attain to the oneness of the faith and of the accurate knowledge of the Son of God, to being a full-grown man, attaining the measure of stature that belongs to the fullness of the Christ.” (4:11-13) 

    That hasn’t happened yet. It will, once obedience humankind is perfected under Christ’s reign. But it hasn’t happened yet. 

    It is hard to imagine anything more Christ-dishonoring than “the name of God being blasphemed among the nations.” Yet, this routinely happens in the absence of “shepherds” and “teachers.” Says Romans:

    “You, the one preaching, “Do not steal,” do you steal? You, the one saying, “Do not commit adultery,” do you commit adultery? You, the one abhorring idols, do you rob temples? You who take pride in law, do you dishonor God by your transgressing of the Law? For “the name of God is being blasphemed among the nations because of you,” just as it is written.” (Romans 2:21-24) Conduct matters if the goal is not to blaspheme God.

    The last thing a Christian should want is for “the truth to be spoken of abusively.” (2 Peter 2:2) Yet, falling prey to “brazen conduct” ensures that will happen.

    Also, Paul’s letter to Titus, observes that some “publicly declare that they know God, but they disown him by their works, because they are detestable and disobedient and not approved for good work of any sort.” (Titus 1:12) What can be worse than people publicly declaring they know God but disowning him by their works? That is what unbelievers see, rather than the self-contained feel-good society such ”Christians” have constructed for themselves.

    So it was that evangelical author Ron Sider examined his own people and was aghast at their disobedient lifestyle. He found it not worse than that of nonbelievers, but not any better either….and he was mortified. It drove him to his knees, even though, like Daniel praying for his fellow Jews, he was not personally culpable. Then, as any repentant person should do, he sought ways to make it right. He came up with several fixes, apparently without realizing that Jehovah’s Witnesses have successfully implemented these fixes for years.

    First, says Mr. Sider in his 2005 book, ‘The Scandal of the Evangelcal Conscience: : Why are Christians Living Just Like the Rest of the World?’ the Western world’s “obsession with independence must end, to be replaced with recognition that Christians are a community belonging to, and having responsibility for, each other. Paul goes so far as to say Christians ought to be slaves to one another.  Galatians 5:13 literally reads “be slaves to each other,” yet most popular translations, Mr. Sider notes, dilute the verse to a more independence-savoring “serve one another in love.” 

    Many churches today trumpet that they are “independent Bible believing,” yet the very notion is “heretical,” says Mr. Sider. To be part of the body of Christ, a church must align itself with a larger structure to give “guidance, supervision, direction, and accountability.” 

    Jehovah’s Witnesses have exactly such a structure in their governing body. Malcontents rail against such organization as “mind control.”

    Second, Mr. Sider suggests, any congregation with over fifty members ought to arrange its people into small groups, where oversight and encouragement can more effectively be offered. 

    They’re called service groups. Since as long as anyone can remember, perhaps from their outset, Witness congregations have made use of such small groups.

    Make it harder to join, is a third suggestion. Evangelical Conscience points to early Anabaptists and Wesleyans, as if no modern examples existed. These groups took their time in admitting new members, ensuring that their conduct as well as words lined up with Christ’s teachings. They did not just settle for the silly and surface “confess the Lord and be saved.” Jehovah’s Witnesses are well known for requiring an extensive period of Bible study and dry run as a prerequisite to baptism..

    Lastly, “parachurch” organizations, groups like Youth for Christ that transcend the larger church structure, have, by definition, no accountability to anybody. “Many of the worst, most disgraceful actions that embarrass and discredit the evangelical world come from this radical autonomy,” says Evangelical Conscience. Somehow such groups have to be brought into tow, though the author admits that he has no clue as to how to accomplish this. 

    Jehovah’s Witnesses do. They strongly discourage any such activity not under the oversight of the central governing body. You should hear critics rail about such “strong-arm” methods! But one can’t help feeling Mr. Sider would approve.      

    To be sure, Mr. Sider and Jehovah’s Witnesses are poles apart doctrinally, yet organizationally JWs are his dream come true – a peculiar irony, if ever there was one.

    ******  The bookstore

  • An End of War: What is God Waiting For?

    Q: If God really can bring an end to war so easily, then what is he waiting for? After all, the longer he delays, the more generations live and die in suffering.

    Yes, they do, but it is reversible through the provision of resurrection. In time, former distresses will be forgotten, as though a bad dream.

    One must not rush a trial. One must allow it to play out, distressing as it may be to those under the gun. For Witnesses, the question to be determined arose at the very beginning of human creation, with Adam rejecting God’s right to rule for his own. God could eliminate them and start again, but who’s to say the next pair won’t raise the same point? Better to let it play out.

    The overall Bible tale is that, starting with this rebellion, God allows humans to make good on their claim of independence from him. He allows them to devise their own governments down through the ages, their own economies, justice, ethics, inventions—organize or disorganize any way they will. Only when the results become the absolute trainwreck that human rule is today does the question begin to be answered. Questions answered and precedent supplied, then God can forcibly bring about the rule by his Son.

    It’s the theme of a book I wrote not too long ago, entitled “A Workman’s Theodicy: Why Bad Things Happen.” A theodicy is a theological term referring to the attempts to answer how a God of love would coexist with evil and suffering. It is among the oldest questions of time, and likely the most important:

    ​

    This ‘Workman’s Theodicy’ is centered in free will. Is such a vital component of life or not? Free will does make a bad course possible, but it also makes a good course so much more meaningful. How meaningful is someone’s love if you know they have been programmed so that they cannot respond in any other way? The trial has to play out. The consequences of human independence from God must become manifest.

    God has chosen not to be an enabler, allowing human rebellion but making sure nothing REALLY bad happens. Those who deal with harmful and/or addictive behaviors know that enabling is a dead end. Enablers allow, and even encourage, destructive behavior, charging someone else to prevent the mess that inevitably results. Such ones don’t actually hate what is bad. They just hate the symptoms of what is bad and want someone else to clean those up. There are critics of the Witnesses who complain about “manipulation” and “control,” but appear to want manipulation and control to be woven into the very fabric of life, so that humans never have to face the consequences of their destructive conduct.

    There are no end of negative consequences from going independent of God. Were their wish to come true, that the really bad consequences of independence from God were wiped away, complaints would soon coalesce about the next worst things on the list—why doesn’t God prevent those, too? No. This is just recommending that God be an enabler. It is something he will not do, for our sakes as well as his own.

    “A cat that sits on a hot stove will never sit on a hot stove again”—attributed to Mark Twain. “Nor will it set on a cold stove, because they all look hot.” That is the goal: to keep humans away from the “stove” of self-rule, cold that can so easily turn to hot, with all its inherent hobbling consequences.

    A million years into everlasting life, when people have been unshackled from sin to be all that they can be, the intense suffering some underwent during a few of their 70 or 80 years will not be something they hold a grudge over. It is as that illustration goes that Witnesses sometimes use: parents will submit a child to a painful operation if they know that it is necessary to future happy and healthy life.

    ******  The bookstore

  • A Gilead Instructor Speaks About Job

    In a group, one Witness said. “I really like Brother Noumair’s talks. He’s a good speaker.” My friend waited . . . and waited . . . and waited . . .and then burst out laughing. She was waiting for a B part—an example, a qualification, a contrast. Nope. That was it, the complete comment. “*Everybody* likes Brother Noumair’s talks,” she told me. She had just assumed there would be a B part.

    I thought of that exchange with regard to a short talk he gave recently about Job. “He’s a digger,” my wife says. I mean, the guy conducts the Gilead school, so of course they are going to select someone who has a gift for “digging.”

    My latest book, ‘A Workman’s Theodicy: Why Bad Things Happen’ opens with a verse-by-verse discussion of Job. It takes up 30% of the book. For the most part, it departs from whatever the Witness organization has said. In fact, it has to. A review of the JW Library app reveals large swaths of Job untouched by Watchtower publications, and some of the verses that are touched just lead to some type of ‘Bible trivia,’ like what the “skin of your teeth” means. My book instead considers a wide range of commentators. Since some regard the Book of Job as the greatest literary work of all time, it is not hard to find commentators

    I would have squeezed Noumair’s remarks in there, somehow, had the book not already been released. They are that unique. He highlights the confrontation between Jehovah and Satan that results in a permitted test on Job’s integrity. He reviews verses to show that every inch of the way, Jehovah is in complete control, as he reveals what is in the Devil’s heart and allows an issue to be settled. As soon as it is settled, “the gavel goes down” and Job’s state of captivity, which likely lasted less than a year, is reversed. The lesson? Confidence in God’s power, which in turn leads to confidence on the part of those who trust him. And the assurance that trials, once they are endured, come to an end.

    ‘A Workman’s Theodicy’ goes on to cover a wide range of theologians, some of whom have asserted things nearly unrecognizable to those of any traditional Bible community. Scholars widely regard Job as a product of two books fused together. The first two and the final chapter are part of a “fable.” The poetry in between represents the “theology” of maybe one, maybe multiple authors. (Opinions differ) “Is the intellectual appeal of this approach that by so dividing Job into two portions, you are in position to understand neither?” I explore the question.

    The book also looks at the theology of a popular Jewish rabbi, Harold Kushner, who has written much on Job and the light it sheds on God’s coexistence with evil. Guided by modern critical techniques, he all but presents Satan as God’s hit man, assigned to do his dirty work. He does not sense any particular enmity between the two parties—they work as a team, in his view. He also resolves the question of evil by deciding that God is not all-powerful. He means well, but he is at time outmaneuvered by “Leviathan,” to whom he assigns a new meaning.

    It is too bad I couldn’t have squeezed Noumair in the book. Maybe I will in case I revise it later. He would have made a fine addition. See: “We Can Endure Like Job,” a talk searchable at JW*org.

    ******’available here:  https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0F2HDS4Z1