Category: Apostates

  • Replace “Woke” with “Shipwreck of Faith”

    Out of nowhere comes a brand new definition of a very old word: woke. When applied to faith by someone who has left there’s, cannot one wonder why? There already is a fine phrase that means exactly the same thing: shipwreck of faith. “Woke” is not found in the Bible. “Shipwreck of faith” is. The two terms are synonymous. Plus, there are dozens of closely related terms—all permutations of the same thing. Some of them, from the Letter to the Hebrews alone, I dealt with in a post reminiscent of the song: “It’s Almost Like 50 Ways to Leave Your Lover.” You just walk out the back, Jack.

    Is “woke” really not a term found in the Bible? Actually, it is. But it means the exact opposite of today’s meaning! The biblical meaning is found at Romans 13:11

    “You know the season, that it is already the hour for you to awake from sleep, for now our salvation is nearer than at the time when we became believers.”

    It’s the overall world that needs waking from. Its goals and dominant thinking are writing its epitaph. How would you not need to wake from that? Instead, someone would choose to go back to that? Describe what the current crowd calls “woke” in the more graphic terms of 2 Peter 2:22: “The dog has returned to its own vomit, and the sow that was bathed to rolling in the mire.”

    Too harsh an assessment? “Wokism” today almost exclusively resides in the West. It’s a culture committing mass suicide! How can you spin it any different when collectively  it kills off the most basic instinct known to humankind: that of producing enough children to replace itself?

    Is it selfishness—people gots to pursue career and fun, don’t want to crimp their style? Is it inhospitality—people can’t afford to raise children? Is it fear—“I would never bring children into a world like this!” is a line heard all the time. Take your choice. Whatever the dominant reason be, put them all together and it amounts to mass suicide.

    Isn’t it like sawing off the limb upon which you once sat and whooping for joy as you come crashing down to earth? At last one is “liberated!” Though, to be sure, sometimes it’s not sawing off the limb. Sometimes it’s dropping down to a more conventional form of Christianity, the kind that allows that the kingdom of God is “within our hearts” and thus allows the overall world to call the shots. This arouses the ire of the anti-cultists far less than do the Witnesses, since the goals of such ones are pretty much the same as the world, absent only awaiting a final verdict from “the man upstairs.”

     

    a man cutting a tree
    Photo by Jacky on Pexels.com

    ******  The bookstore

  • Adapting to PIGS

    There is even some report that one of the apostle Paul’s brash assistants wanted to meet “cult” accusations head-on. He remembered how the college kids from the 60s taunted police, calling them “pigs,” doubling down when they saw it got under their skin. In time, however, one innovative officer rebranded the word as an acronym: PIGS—Pride, Integrity, Guts, Service.

    ‘Can’t we do the same, Paul?’ he asked. ‘Huh? Can’t we?’ He even ordered up a few hundred banners from the printer: “CULT—Courage, Unity, Love, Truth.” This definitely happened. But scholars are divided on whether Paul nixed the idea from prison or whether the delivery men were drowned in an aqueduct break. The banners were never used.

    It seems clear that the same type of accusations made against Witnesses today were made against Christians in the first century. “We have wronged no one, we have corrupted no one, we have taken advantage of no one,” wrote Paul at 2 Corinthians 7:2. Why would he have written this if not to counter charges that he and his colleagues were doing such things?* If you don’t want to be lukewarm, you must apply the faith in your life—even if this stirs up the ire of those who do like lukewarm:

    Says Jesus: “I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were cold or else hot. So because you are lukewarm and neither hot nor cold, I am going to vomit you out of my mouth.”(Revelation 3:15-16)

    Play it safe (lukewarm) and live only for the present. Be hot or cold (stimulatingly hot or refreshing cold is how Witnesses put it) and you choose life goals based on the future. You can’t ignore the present—but neither can you ignore the future. Join those ”safely treasuring up for themselves a fine foundation for the future, so that they may get a firm hold on the real life.”  (1 Timothy 6:19)

    Dicey to do it that way? Yes. “If in this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are to be pitied more than anyone,” Paul says at 1 Corinthians 15:19. He knew it going in. All must know it. Expect people to come along, the ones who live solely for the present, to claim it was “brainwashing” and “manipulation” that made you think outside of the box. Not to worry. Those who carry on the most vociferously about brainwashing are mostly upset at being deprived the opportunity to do it themselves.

    Why don’t these detractors just mind their own business? Because Witnesses and those first century Christians intrude themselves into their affairs, continually recommending their way of life. It separates people. It nettles some. Worse, some who once embraced the faith give it up. In some cases they turn against it. “How do you know this life is not really all there is?” they say as they renege of their former faith. “Shipwreck of the faith” is the term the Bible employs. Any criticism from that quarter should include that disclaimer. They still have the right to do it; their gripes are not necessarily invalid. But “shipwreck of faith” should be the term in the resume.

    A sunken ship partially submerged in the ocean near the Greek coast.
    Photo by Damien Wright on Pexels.com

    *Perhaps the same reasoning can be applied to this verse: “You know that we never used flattering speech or put on any false front with greedy motives; God is witness!: (1 Thessalonians 2:5)

    ******  The bookstore

     

  • Putting Lipstick on a Pig: Paul to the Philippians

    Nobody in Bible times was better than Paul at putting lipstick on a pig. Nowhere does he do it more than in his Letter to the Philippians. Here he is in the hoosegow, enough to discourage anyone, and those at ‘TheWaySucks*com’ and the liars at ‘WeLovetheWay*com’ are saying it’s his own fault. They’re hoohawing and making catcalls over his imprisonment, saying his brothers sold him out and so forth. They even say the Way is hemorrhaging members!

    But Paul says,

    “Now I want you to know, brothers, that my situation has actually turned out for the advancement of the good news, so that my prison bonds for the sake of Christ have become public knowledge among all the Praetorian Guard and all the rest. Now most of the brothers in the Lord have gained confidence because of my prison bonds, and they are showing all the more courage to speak the word of God fearlessly.” (Philippians 1:12-14)

    I mean, the guy wasn’t easy to discourage. But, was the Way “hemorrhaging members?” Apparently (allowing for the hyperbole), it was.

    “For there are many—I used to mention them often but now I mention them also with weeping—who are walking as enemies of the torture stake of the Christ,” he says at 3:18. He wasn’t happy about it. He mentioned them with “weeping.” But it didn’t change the big picture. Do you think some of these new “enemies” were included in 1:15-17?

    “True, some are preaching the Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. The latter are proclaiming the Christ out of love, for they know that I have been appointed to defend the good news; but the former do it out of contentiousness, not with a pure motive, for they are intending to create trouble for me in my prison bonds.”

    And so he pulls out some lipstick and applies it to the pig:

    white pig
    Photo by mali maeder on Pexels.com

    “With what result? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is being proclaimed, and I rejoice over this. In fact, I will also keep on rejoicing.” (1:18)

    Thus, one might think of the modern slogan that goes: “All publicity is good publicity.” A middle ground is evident in 1:15-17. Some were outright enemies, but others were only sort-of enemies. The sort-of were doing it, preaching the Christ. Only, not with “a pure motive.” What would have made the motive pure? Apparently, recognizing an organized arrangement, in this case centering on Paul and his companions and on who sent them. Rather than loyally support these ones, they were “intending to create trouble for [him] in [his] prison bonds.” 

    You don’t hide that you have enemies. You advertise it. They validate you.

     

    ******  The bookstore

  • The Two Ancient Web Forums

    So here is Paul visiting the synagogue in Rome and he says, ‘Anyone been talking trash about me?’ They hadn’t been, he was told, however this “sect” that he represented—wowwhee! were people ever saying nasty things about that!

    Specifically, “they said to him: “We have not received letters about you from Judea, nor have any of the brothers who came from there reported or spoken anything bad about you. But we think it proper to hear from you what your thoughts are, for truly as regards this sect, we know that it is spoken against everywhere.” (Acts 28:21-22)

    How seriously was it “spoken against everywhere?” To the point where first-century Roman historian Tacitus described Christians as “haters of the human race.” I mean, can you get any worse than that?

    Now, it occurs to me that if they were “spoken against everywhere” then, they should be “spoken against everywhere” now. Unless, all the world has swung around to the Christian message. That clearly has not happened has it?

    The following is still debated by scholars—especially the dumb ones—but it seems a slam-dunk to me: It turns out that Tacitus ran an anti-Way forum back then on Bunny*com where Christians were “spoken against.” But, they weren’t spoken against “everywhere,” so Jewish historian Josephus ran another anti-Way forum called ‘WeLovetheWay’ in which he posed as though he was of the Way instead of just being a liar. Between these two anti-Way Bunny forums the people of the Way hung suspended like Jesus between two thieves, taking shots from both sides. It was even worse in their case, since neither side repented.

    The constant attacks got so bad that those of the Way took it to the Lord. “Haters of the human race??” they said to him. “What did we ever do to deserve that?! They even call us a cult!!”

    ‘Don’t worry about it, the Lord said. In fact, you can almost be happy about it. Didn’t I used to tell you: “Happy are you when people reproach you and persecute you and lyingly say every sort of wicked thing against you for my sake?” It’s going to happen.’

    holi festival portait
    Photo by Samar Mourya on Pexels.com

     “The game is the same; it’s just up on a different level.” Bob Dylan

     

    ******  The bookstore

     

     

  • The Beginnings of Apostasy—Oppressive Wolves to Enter In

    At Paul’s final meeting with the elders in Ephesus, he told them.

    “Pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed you overseers, to shepherd the congregation of God, which he purchased with the blood of his own Son. I know that after my going away oppressive wolves will enter in among you and will not treat the flock with tenderness, and from among you yourselves men will rise and speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves.” (Acts 20:28-30)

    Despite their paying attention (or did they not do it enough?) it did happen with the “oppressive wolves” who would “draw away the disciples.” How did matters go from elders shepherding the congregation of God, a group in which all were evangelizers, to a paid clergy preaching to a non-evangelizing audience in pews?

    One can only speculate—but it makes sense—that, in time, evangelizers tired of preaching to the public, many of whom didn’t want to hear it. It’s hard. Everyone wants something easier. An arrangement gradually arose, as a win-win, in which the “wolves” who did not want to preach to one-and-all wrangled instead to just preach to the congregation. Preaching to the choir is always easier than to the non-choir. Why would the “choir” go along with the “deal,” effectively demoting themselves to “laypeople?” Because they too were tiring of evangelizing. Easier to go along with this arrangement of showing up once a week and agreeing to “hire” this clergyman to preach to them.

    It was probably to counter this gradual development that the Letter to the Hebrews was written. Time had passed since the early explosion of interest in Jerusalem described in Acts 2. People took sides. Positions hardened. Those who didn’t want to hear it had dug in. The determination to preach to all was fading. Paul starts the letter with discussion of the Jewish forefathers—God speaking to them through angels—and then said those Hebrew Christians had something better: God speaking through a Son. “That is why it is necessary for us to pay more than the usual attention to the things we have heard, so that we never drift away.” (Hebrews 2:1) Not only they shouldn’t “drift away,” but “Beware, brothers, for fear there should ever develop in any one of you a wicked heart lacking faith by ‘drawing away’ from the living.” (3:12)

    “For we actually become partakers of the Christ only if we hold firmly down to the end the confidence we had at the beginning.” (3:14)

    and

    “Therefore, since we have a great high priest [foreshadowed by the Jewish arrangement] who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold on to our public declaration of him.” (4:14)

    They put in a fine fight, but such is the power of “oppressive wolves” amidst increasing apathy born of opposition. In time, the dominant model became clergy and laypeople. It is part of the great apostasy that took form in the early centuries and it would take many more centuries to undo it. Adding to the problem is that the wolves would bring in slick teachings unknown to Jews or Christians but popular with the Greek philosophers, such as the immortality of the soul, which makes bodily resurrection nonsensical.

    At the end of the Paul’s meeting with the elders in Ephesus, “quite a bit of weeping broke out among them all, and they embraced Paul and affectionately kissed him, for they were especially pained at the word he had spoken that they would not see his face anymore.” (Acts 20:37-38) So it was that, many decades ago, just before the circuit overseer was to have his final meeting with the elders before moving on, I asked him if this was the occasion where they all break down weeping because they won’t see him anymore. But he told me that if any weeping took place it would not be for that reason.

    ***

    Q: Why do you say the distinction between clerics and laymen is the beginning of Apostasy? 2 Thessalonians says the cause is a loss of love for the truth. Laymen are capable of loving the truth and studying the Scriptures as well as clerics. In the Lord’s message to Ephesus in Revelation, he says they’ve done a good job keeping the true doctrine, but lack in charity (fervor?).

    A: Not necessarily the beginning of apostasy, but just a part of it. Agreed that layman can love the scriptures as well as clerics. Witnesses just do their best to organize themselves as that Ephesian congregation—with ‘overseers’ paying attention to the flock of God, and still with all members recognizing a need to evangelize. Good point raised about Ephesus as one of the seven congregations of Revelation.

    “I know your deeds, and your labor and endurance, and that you cannot tolerate bad men, and that you put to the test those who say they are apostles, but they are not, and you found them to be liars.” (Rev 2:2) It would seem to indicate they DID take Paul’s remarks to heart and stayed vigilant at screening out “bad men” who “say they are apostles,” the “oppressive wolves” that Paul warned of.

    It’s healthy to focus on evangelizing. It is keeping the focus on the real hope for solving earth’s woes. It is accordingly unhealthy not to do it. In our view, the clergy/laity division cements in place inertia on both sides. In JW-land, overseers take the lead in evangelizing. In clergy/laity, the clergy tend not to, nor does the laity. The clergy focuses on teaching their congregation and usually start pushing human solutions, often becoming intensely political. It is not always the case. I don’t want to diss every group that has a pastor. But it an inherent spiritual weakness of organizing oneself along clergy/laity lines.

    Q: Is there a scripture that says apostasy was total? Or has there always been a remnant?

    ***

    A: No scripture that I know of says apostasy was total. The parable Jehovah’s Witnesses apply is that of the sower who plants wheat but the weeds grow up to almost choke it out. Sown by “an enemy,”, those weeds were. The course decided upon is to let both grow “until the harvest,” when separation will take place. That is why (to answer a prior question of yours that inspired this post) it does indeed take until the time of the harvest for the work of separation to begin. So, yes, apparently there has always been a “remnant” but one unidentifiable, thoroughly obscured by the “weeds.”

    “He presented another illustration to them, saying: “The Kingdom of the heavens may be likened to a man who sowed fine seed in his field. 25 While men were sleeping, his enemy came and oversowed weeds in among the wheat and left. When the stalk sprouted and produced fruit, then the weeds also appeared. So the slaves of the master of the house came and said to him, ‘Master, did you not sow fine seed in your field? How, then, does it have weeds?’ He said to them, ‘An enemy, a man, did this.’ The slaves said to him, ‘Do you want us, then, to go out and collect them?’ He said, ‘No, for fear that while collecting the weeds, you uproot the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest, and in the harvest season, I will tell the reapers: First collect the weeds and bind them in bundles to burn them up; then gather the wheat into my storehouse.’” (Matthew 13: 24-30)

     

     

    ******  The bookstore

  • Psalm 73: Nothing so Corrosive as Envy: Asaph Escapes

    Here is someone who gets right to the point. After a quick little genuflect to show he  still had the overall picture—“God is truly good to Israel, to those pure in heart,”  (Psalm 73:1) he relates how he almost lost it.

    As for me, my feet had almost strayed; My steps had nearly slipped.” (vs 2)

    The problem? He became envious! Few things are as corrosive as envy.

     â€œFor I became envious of the arrogant When I would see the peace of the wicked.  For they have no pain in their death; Their bodies are healthy. They are not troubled like other humans, Nor do they suffer like other men. Therefore, haughtiness is their necklace; Violence clothes them as a garment. Their prosperity makes their eyes bulge; They have exceeded the imaginations of the heart. They scoff and say evil things. They arrogantly threaten oppression. They speak as if they were as high as heaven, And their tongues swagger about in the earth. . . Yes, these are the wicked, who always have it easy. They just keep increasing their wealth.” (3-12)

    And just how do these ones feel about God? They tell him to take a hike!

    “They say: “How does God know? Does the Most High really have knowledge?” (vs 11) And it goes well for them! The game never gets old. The deck never gets cold.

    They don’t all hit the party scene upon forgetting God! They don’t all turn to drugs and sex and the bottle! Someone at the meeting cited 2 Timothy 3:2-5, with its laundry list of bad traits typifying the last days:

    “For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, betrayers, headstrong, puffed up with pride, lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God, having an appearance of godliness but proving false to its power; and from these turn away.” 

    It works for some. Some dance with the tune and they make out just fine! It was enough to make Asaph pull his hair out! If he were living in modern times, he’d be whining about being misled, about being brainwashed, about the Levites lying to him! In fact, when a recent Watchtower study incorporated Psalm 73 for the benefit of any feeling what Asaph did, virulent ex-Witnesses were all over it, but spinning it without reference to Asaph or the psalm. Instead, they spun it in terms of politics and cult manipulation; you know, further manipulation to keep the deluded in line. I mean, sheesh—if you’re going to carry on about Jehovah’s Witnesses, you must also carry on about what motivates them, not change that motivation to something else. It’s as though the grousers have forgotten that there are such things as scriptures.

    The ones who forsake God (from vs 11) don’t actually say they no longer believe in him. They just act as though they don’t. They have their religion but they have learned to keep it in its place—last place. Here Asaph is exerting himself every day, keeping God in first place, crossing Ts and dotting Is, while “the arrogant,” and “the wicked” are “not troubled” over anything!  Their “bodies are healthy.” When they die—at least they have not escaped that bit of unpleasantness—there is “no pain in their death.” It’s as though they say, “Well, it’s been a fine run. Remind me to do it again sometime,” as they reach to switch off the light.

    It’s driving Asaph mad! â€œSurely in vain I have kept my heart pure And washed my hands in innocence. And I was troubled all day long; Every morning I was chastised.” (13-14) Every morning he asked himself! “Why am I still doing this, striving so hard to measure up for God? Where is it getting me?” It’s a little like when we left our snowy clime to visit friends down south and they said, “Yeah, why are you still up there?” (And, in fact, why are we? Probably because it’s not so bad a test as Asaph’s.)

    “But if I had said these things, I would have betrayed your people.” (15)

    Great! So, he can’t even complain about it! It wouldn’t be “upbuilding.” You don’t want to rain on everyone else’s parade at the Kingdom Hall. You want to say, “Attaboy! Keep it up!” But it’s getting harder for him to do. “When I tried to understand it, It was troubling to me.” (16)

    Sorry to those who hoped for something a little more dramatic, but the solution appears to have been to “hit the books.”

    “Until I entered the grand sanctuary of God, And I discerned their future. Surely you place them on slippery ground. You make them fall to their ruin. How suddenly they are devastated! How sudden is their finish as they come to a terrible end!”

    A terrible end? Like in the Braveheart movie, where William Wallace’s chum confides, as both are under heavy arrow bombardment, that he had prayed to the good Lord, and the good Lord was pretty sure he could get him out of this spot. “But you’re finished!”      (*He used a cruder synonym, not ‘finished.’)

    There is an Act II! How could Asaph have forgotten that? The opening act is not also the closing act! If it was, the naysayers would be right. He is knocking himself out for nothing. But it’s not! It’s as though Asaph awakens from a bad dream: “Like a dream when one wakes up, O Jehovah, When you rouse yourself, you will dismiss their image.” (Vs 20)

     â€œI was unreasoning and lacked understanding” he says, once he has corrected himself. “I was like a senseless beast before you.” (vs 22)

    Whoa! There it is! A reference to those who quickly settle that this life is all there is, to those who imagine nothing beyond the present 70-90 years.  They are like ‘senseless beasts!’ And Asaph had almost become one of them! No more!

    “But now I am continually with you; You have taken hold of my right hand. You guide me with your advice, And afterward you will lead me to glory.

    Whom do I have in the heavens? And besides you I desire nothing on earth. My body and my heart may fail, But God is the rock of my heart and my portion forever.

    Truly, those keeping far from you will perish. You will put an end to everyone who immorally leaves you. But as for me, drawing near to God is good for me. I have made the Sovereign Lord Jehovah my refuge, To declare all your works.” (vs 23-28)

    Back on track, he is. The opening act is not also the closing act. He’s setting himself out to weather the entire play, not just the first act.

    ***Sorry, that Psalm 73 reference to the people who have it made recalled for me when my new bride and I went to a gala hi-brow affair where everyone was dressed to the nines. Tuxes and gowns! When intermission came and all were out in the foyer sipping drinks, each one of which cost more than the antifreeze in my car, I whispered to my wife, “Here are people we don’t usually hang out with—the wicked!”

    Yes, I know, I know. Completely unfair. No doubt, most were nice. My new wife looked at me oddly—but I couldn’t resist.

    ******  The bookstore

     

  • An Insular People: No Part of the World: Part 4

    See Part 1, Part 2, Part 3

    In this age of fierce independence, it will not be surprising to find that the sheepfold model described by Jesus is unp0pular. Many don’t want the shepherds to be shepherds. They want them to be guidance counselors encouraging the sheep to ‘be all that you can be.’ Such is not the shepherd’s job. His job is to shepherd.

    It is not that the sheepfold model does not frustrate me sometimes. It does. But I do my best to work with it because it is Jesus’ model. The present GB are just doing their best to fulfill their role as the human shepherd. When the sheep start shaking at the wires and the shepherd nudges them back, I say, “Well, that is what you would expect the shepherd to do.”  When a sheep starts to act in a way that you would not expect a sheep to act and refuses to be tamed, I say, when the shepherd ejects it from the pen, ‘Well, that is what you would expect the shepherd to do.’ If the shepherd even reads a false positive of rebellion into a sheep, I say, ‘Well, doctors read false positives all the time. Let the sheep sit in the penalty box for a time and then it can get back in the game.’ Tough love is no more of a crime than is unconditional love.

    Since the sheepfold model is Jesus model, and I accept that, it is not for me even to say what I sometimes find ‘frustrating’ about it. It is enough to sing the song, ‘You can’t always get what you want.’ However, sometimes Newton’s law enforces itself that an object in motion tends to stay in motion. At this point, I have been in motion for a few paragraphs. Probably the grumblers cited would not disagree with their remarks being rephrased as ‘The shepherd sure does nanny a lot.’ Can it backfire?

    We all know that a great way to get someone to do something is to tell them they should not. It is just human nature. Are we “at war” with a certain element? Usually, the first thing done in war is reconnaissance of the enemy. Ought we not help out a brother when he’s gotten himself into a spot because “he shouldn’t be there?” We don’t say the same when our bull has fallen into a pit, nor when our child is playing in the street, nor when we are reading up on Elihu helping Job out of a jam. I get it that David wants to stay mum as all day long his enemies speak against him. I get it that Jesus says ‘wisdom will prove righteous by its works.’  But perusing any policy to the nth degree has its drawbacks, too. Analyzing enemy action in order to devise a response is a significant part of any war. It never seems to occur to anyone that doing so might benefit a soldier and not be like drinking poison.

    Every virus wants to hijack the cell so as to spit out copies of itself. I do get the doctor trying to make those cell walls ironclad. But the body has an immune system too. That immune system may even be weakened if it does not have a thorough workout from time to time. It is all very well to avoid the toxic climate where harsh criticism prevails and forgiveness is unheard of—the very attributes that have ground the overall world to a standstill. It is all very well to cancel your subscription to the Sinai Gazette over its feature series (that they seem to have made into their mission statement) on Moses’ foreign wives. But the one who reads it through, getting madder and madder, and is forming a rebuttal on account of the Gibeonites who may read the story, might be doing something useful indeed.

    If I get into nice chatty sessions with some lout who is intent on working ill, then I think I would be transgressing that Bible counsel to avoid those who stir up dissension: “Now I urge you, brothers, to keep your eye on those who create divisions and causes for stumbling contrary to the teaching that you have learned, and avoid them.” (Romans 16:17) But if the person says something derogatory and I know 100 new people will read it and possibly take it to heart, I do not feel in violation for once, succinctly, and with respect, pointing out what is wrong about the comment. To do otherwise just strikes me as cowardly, a violation of ‘always be ready to make a defense to anyone who demands a reason for your hope.’ I don’t do it for him but for whoever might be reading him. If the answer is nobody, or even just his buddies, I won’t do it. To avoid contact under any circumstances just strikes me as though the Witness attorney in court declining to cross-examine an apostate, for fear he will be saying a greeting to such a one.

    It saps my desire to engage in the ministry if I can’t address what makes people resistant to it. It is like “withhold[ing] good from those to whom you should give it if it is within your power to help.” (Prov 3:27) It is almost a parallel to not speaking for fear your remark will bring reproach, whereas the abuser has already brought the reproach, and your speaking may do some good to readers who don’t know the truth of the matter. Often, it is not a matter of correcting a flat-out lie, but of supplying the context that changes everything. I do get it, though, that one ought do it with discretion and sparingly. It can get toxic, hypercritical on the one hand, juvenile on the other, as though adolescents mocking out teachers. Forgiveness is unheard of. As these are the very qualities that have made the overall world cease to function, nobody should be encouraged to do it, just not all but forbidden. Every virus seeks to hijack the cell and force it to spit out copies of itself. If apostates had their druthers, every JW would be hashing out their beefs 24/7.

    to be continued: here

    ******  The bookstore

  • An Insular People—No Part of the World: Part 1

    There is a fine reality check in Deuteronomy to guard against Israel of old getting too big for its pants: “It was not because you were the most numerous of all the peoples that Jehovah showed affection for you and chose you, for you were the smallest of all the peoples.” (7:7)

    Got it. They weren’t a big deal on the world stage. So, when you read up on ancient history, as presented by anyone other than the believers, don’t be surprised that they are still not a big deal. You might be wowed, for example, by Jean-Pierre Isbouts relating the history of the ancient biblical world, and then say, ‘Whoa! Those Bible writers were so insular in their outlook! They saw everything in terms of their worship of God. They touch on secular events only insofar as it furthers their religious narrative.’

    Frankly, it reminds me of my own faith, also said to be ‘insular.’ Most Witnesses would not agree to the label ‘insular’, but that is primarily because they are unfamiliar with it and unsure just what attachments might come with it. They will instantly, even proudly, acknowledge two closely related phrases: they are ‘separate from the world’ and ‘no part of’ it.' It is a scriptural imperative, they will say, because if you want to lend a helping hand, you must be in a place of safety yourself.

    This is exactly what the stalwart ones of Israel did: they stayed ‘separate from the world,’ from that position later to benefit ones within it. “Jehovah your God I am, who has set you apart from the peoples. . . . You must be holy to me, because I, Jehovah, am holy, and I am setting you apart from the peoples to become mine.” (Leviticus 20: 24-26) They were separate, ‘set apart.’ They were not to mingle with those making no effort to be ‘holy’ or, with regard to God, to be ‘mine.’ Thus, it is not surprising that their writings (the Old Testament) might read as ‘insular,’ just as do the writings of the modern Christian congregation. What is insulation if not material to keep one substance ‘no part’ of another? Surely, that determination will be reflected in the writing. Compare the Bible writings with those of ancient secular history and you may say, ‘They barely know that an outside world exists!’

    Separation is resented by ‘the world,’ however. In this modern age of ‘inclusion,’ the very opposite of separateness, activists even try to make it illegal. Thus, within the Witness congregations, disfellowshipping, a last ditch effort, after all else has failed, to ensure that, either members stay true to the Christian way of life they have voluntarily chosen or else separate, is under ferocious legal attack today. It is an escalation of the scenario described at 1 Peter 4:3-4, where the apostle describes the world he and his separated from in not flattering ways:

    “For the time that has passed by is sufficient for you to have worked out the will of the nations when you proceeded in deeds of loose conduct, lusts, excesses with wine, revelries, drinking matches, and illegal idolatries. Because you do not continue running with them in this course to the same low sink of debauchery, they are puzzled and go on speaking abusively of you.” They speak no less abusively today, and are even inclined to add, “Water’s fine here in the low sink! Who are you to judge?”

    After the Holocaust, Jews discarded a lot of baggage that they deemed had caused them nothing but trouble. Belief in a coming messiah was among those items carted away. Maintaining separateness as a nation was another, even though the legal establishment of a homeland might suggest otherwise. From that homeland in the original ‘Promised Land,’ Jewish descendants operate in the arena of political nations, with no particular reliance upon God. God himself is a baggage that many left behind, as a direct consequence of that Holocaust. It is enough for them to keep alive Jewish tradition.

    Even that is enough to rile some non-Jews. But, since Jews make no special effort to pull people from the ‘low sink,’ they do not arouse the furor of those who wish to swim in it—or even return to it. Jehovah’s Witnesses do make that effort, however, and thus encounter pushback. Where do you think the name of my ‘house apostate,’ Vic Vomodog, comes from if not from the writings of Peter? “The dog has returned to its own vomit, and the sow that was bathed to rolling in the mire.” (2 Peter 2:22) In fact, he used to be ‘Vomidog,’ but several people said the name was disgusting, so I softened it to ‘Vomodog.’ It makes it easier to present him as a ‘Wily E Coyote’ type of fellow, eternally scheming against the Road Runner and eternally frustrated. So far, there is no Larry Lowsink, but I am thinking of introducing him as a companion. I might even make it a she—Loretta Lowsink, and have them married. Or I might just marry them gender-unchanged, in keeping with the spirit of the times.

    In real life, however, Vic and possibly Larry makes considerable trouble for those who are yet determined to stay separate from the world. They have had a few court cases go their way. For now, such outcomes tend to be reversed by higher, less activist courts, the kind that are quicker to spot ‘mischief by decree.’ But they press on, in accord with the greater agenda to make separation from the world illegal, in mandated ‘inclusion.’

    The reason I think this is the greater agenda is that today’s reality so closely conforms to Jesus’ words: “If you were part of the world, the world would be fond of what is its own. Now because you are no part of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, for this reason the world hates you.” (John 15:19) Therefore, all these efforts to frame mischief by degree are a facade. That is not to say they are nothing, but they mask the real reason Jesus gave. 

    The CSA court cases, not so much the cases themselves, but the brouhaha over them, for example, are largely a facade. They are like saying “Jehovah’s Witnesses have zits!” Everyone has zits. CSA is the Gross Planetary Product. Whatever ‘records’ Witnesses may or may not have that opponents say should become police property exist only because they attempted to police themselves, in accord with Romans 2:21-23: “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?" Even that is spun as an abuse of personal freedom by opponents. Only the police can police. If overall society comes to feel that adultery is not a biggie, for example, then you’re on thin ice trying to discipline people over it, even if it is in the bylaws that all agreed to.

    Continued in Part 2.

    ******  The bookstore

  • “The Future’s so Bright I Gotta Wear Shades”—Why?

    “Let us hold firmly the public declaration of our hope without wavering, for the one who promised is faithful,” says Hebrews 10.

    Some have wavered to such an extent that they all but sing of this world, ‘The future’s so bright I gotta wear shades!’—even though the songwriters themselves meant it’s so bright as to require shades on account of likely nukes!

    Wikipedia: “Contrary to popular belief, [the song intended] a "grim" outlook. While not saying so directly, he hinted at the idea that the bright future was in fact due to impending nuclear holocaust. The "job waiting" after graduation signified the demand for nuclear scientists to facilitate such events.“

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Future's_So_Bright,_I_Gotta_Wear_Shades

    Everywhere people are dismayed at the basket case that is today’s world. Everywhere they have a sense of waiting for the other shoe to drop. Only some ‘escapees’ from the faith say in all seriousness, ‘the future’s so bright I gotta wear shades.’ So strong is the urge to kick over the traces. So strong is their newfound confidence in human rule apart from God. Sheesh.

    ‘Why do you Jehovah’s Witnesses always have to believe things are getting worse?’ one wiseacre said to me. ‘What is it about that view that does it for you?’

    ‘It helps me to explain why the Doomsday Clock reads 90 seconds to midnight and not 10:30 AM,’ I answered.

    ‘It’s like a bad accident,’ a neighbor said about the news. ‘You know you should look away but you can’t.’

    ******  The bookstore

  • The Playbook of the Enemy

     

    An early 2023 Watchtower Study dealt with those who say ill things about Jehovah’s Witnesses in general and responsible brothers in particular. Quite a few articles do that these days.

    One sis commented on how, after the meeting, many of us would be watching football. I knew her comment to be true because I was going to be one of them. Not that I am a football fanatic—I’m not—but the recent resurgence of the Bills after decades in the basement has piqued the interest of many. She further said that each team prepared for the game by studying the playbook of the other so that they could catch every little trick to be used against them.  â€˜We do that too,’ she said. We have the playbook of the adversary. So we can know we are well-prepared and need not unduly fret no matter how much grief comes from those who oppose, even should they be apostates.

    It’s not really true. In a sense it is, but only ‘in a sense.’ What we have is the ‘NFL Compendium Grand Strategic Play History Including Coach Commentary and Famous Player Roster.’ From there maybe you can deduce the opposing team’s playbook, but it is not easy to do. You never get more than an approximation. 

    In this particular game, the opposing team’s playbook incorporated several Bengals A67D1CE1-4471-455D-9D97-717BD02D283A
    making snow angels in the accumulating precip just after one of them intercepted a pass that once and for all put an end to any Bills threat. Think you’re going to get that from the NFL Compendium Grand History? Snow Angels! Those punks made snow angels! Like little kids! And when another one of them slapped down a would-be touchdown pass, he ran half the length of the field to rejoin his teammates, shaking his finger as though to say, ‘No, no, no! Not this time!’ I mean, the home team took a thorough drubbing and at the next-day news conference the talk was all of which heads would roll—as if nothing bad can happen without a few heads offered up in sacrifice!

    If we really had the opposing spiritual team’s playbook we would be familiar with the current specific doings of apostates. But this we are strongly exhorted to be as clueless about as possible—in the spirit of ‘innocent as doves.’ Just listen to Brother Losch listing 100 metaphors for truth, and consider that your defense. It’s not nothing, but how much of a defense is it really?

    These days the young are not especially religious. We might (and do) carry on about how they are leaving the churches in the West, but they are leaving the Kingdom Hall setting too. Some will say they are yet ‘spiritual’ but the word is so redefined that simply ‘looking deep within oneself’ may trigger it.

    A good number of those young people who leave the Hall, it seems, are over at a former member forum. Is it not more than ridiculous that the only one who should know about this in the congregation is me? And that I should be looked at askance because of it—not that specifically but just a known interest in ‘the other team’s playbook.’  I thrive despite the stigma because I am otherwise considered a pretty good guy. But don’t think you can hold any privilege in the congregation, maybe to the point of carrying a mic, with such a stigma. I don’t mind. It’s discipline. If you want to represent any group you must ‘toe the line’ more than if you only wish to be among it. I don’t try to explain to shepherds what can be done properly on social media and what cannot be done. Since their own use of it is minimal at best and often non-existent, all you can do is provide grist for the mill of misunderstanding.

    In that forum of malcontents where some are out, others are physically in but mentally out (PIMO), the majority of comments take the tone of high school students mocking out their teachers for bloopers that are sometimes real, sometimes imagined, and always exaggerated. A minority of comments, however, will have a more mature tone. These ones ‘promise the younger ones freedom’ without regard to who may or may not be  â€˜slaves to corruption.’ Any familial division revealed? These ones will seek to widen it, thus ensuring there will never be healing. They present the general world as an oyster promising unbounded fulfillment—whereas anyone with a lick of sense knows it to be in dire straits, if not going down the tubes. 

    They might not be able to do that were Witnesses not so ‘insular.’ That statement is one to make with caution, because ‘insularity’ and ‘no part of the world’ are flip sides of the same coin, similar to the relationship between ‘obstinate’ and ‘tenacious.’ You don’t want to be seen as discouraging ‘no part of the world.’ Jesus demands his people be that way. And even with being ‘insular’—try removing the insulation on your house wiring if you think ‘insular’ is so horrible. But anything Witnesses do, they do to the nth degree. Sometimes you wish things were more nuanced.

    You can’t do the following with just anyone and I don’t do it routinely, but every so often as a joke I propose we go into what I call the ‘pickpocket ministry.’ I don’t propose it as much as I do street work on the thruway—slap a tract under the wiper as the cars roar by. No. But once in a while, before someone known to have a sense of humor, I do.

    In the pickpocket ministry, you work in twos. Your deft partners lifts a person’s wallet as they walk by and lets it fall to the ground. Then you pick it up and return it to the person, explaining that you would never ever ever do so were it not for the Bible principles you learned as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

    It’s a joke. I’ve never heard of anyone besides myself referring to the ‘pickpocket ministry.’ Yet some of our people view the greater world that way. You wish things would be more nuanced. At the music festival I attended, a ‘long-haired hippy type,’ the kind in the song who ‘need not apply,’ tapped me on the should to return the wallet that had slipped out of my pocket. I thanked him. Then I turned around to thank him more proper. He gave a gesture as if to say, ‘But of course—it’s not a big deal.’ Even the wallet I dropped on an excursion in Canada (Just try getting back into the country without one—it is doable but it’s anything but a cakewalk.) was returned to me. Someone called to say he had found it and asked how it could be returned. (Though, when I asked about the money inside, he said, ‘What money?’)

    The point is that there are plenty of people who will do the right thing, often even when the stakes are high. Yet that bit of nuance is something our kids have not picked up on. Put them in the ex forum where they discover that the risks of the world are not guarantees and many of them carry on as though there are no risks—it was all scaremongering on the Witness organizations part! a result of ‘overplaying their hand.’

    We Witnesses live in black-and-whites. This is to be expected of people who respond to Jesus’ ‘You will know the truth and the truth will set you free.’ (John 8:32) Christianity that adheres to the Bible does not primarily attract ‘nuanced’ people. ‘Gray area’ people don’t apply. ‘What is truth?’ people like Pilate don’t apply. Dogmatic people, on the other hand, apply in droves. It’s because the Bible presents a basic sense of right and wrong. But you would hope people would not stay dogmatic, as many of our people seem to do.

    Ida Brexit once related how she didn’t want to be caught flat-footed in case her then-teenager was stumbled by apostasy. She made it her business to unpackage the stuff so that she could provide assistance should that happen. It made perfect sense to me. Our young people succumb to the oldest trick in the book, that of ‘curiosity killed the cat.’ They come across something that stumbles them. Thereafter no one is able to help them, even parents, because nobody has any idea of what it is they have come across. We speak, as did another sister at that above Watchtower Study, about the ‘lies’ of apostates without knowledge beyond the vaguest generalities of just what those lies are. Moreover, the youngster just mentioned must contend with the onus of being supposed ‘disloyal’ for even looking there—even if his or her initial motive was to defend the faith. Even if he/she would like to get parental insight, he won’t dare ask for fear an explosion might result. And the ‘mature’ parent who might otherwise give corrective guidance does not go there either so as not to be similarly ‘disloyal.’

    Of course, it’s easy to understand why the stance is what it is. Essentially, it is ‘The Bible says so.’ ‘What harmony is there between Christ as Belial?’ ‘Keep your eye on those causing division and avoid them.’ ‘Don’t be a sharer of wicked works by even saying a greeting,’ and so forth. I get it where it comes from: the Bible, and Witnesses are a Bible people. However, it sure makes for some downsides both ludicrous and tragic. Alas, I ran Ida’s seemingly practical course through the site where ‘never is heard a discouraging word’ and I was roundly chastised over it.

    Now, if there is a downside to following current counsel, there is also a downside to not following it. Do I know that such downside is not worse? I have in the past expressed worry for Ida because she puts under the tooth comb of suspicion any piddly little statement that others blow off as a nothingburger. But she is a ‘why? why? why’ person and I suppose such persons must be satisfied. Her devotion to Jehovah is solid, she assures us. I just hope we don’t get a ‘flee to the mountains’ someday and she says, ‘You’re joking!’ [Not to worry—she says she likes mountains and it won’t happen.]

    It’s all very well for me to float ‘alternative counsel’ as trial balloons, but I’m not “keeping watch over you as those who will render an account.” (Hebrews 13:17) The earthly shepherds are. I don’t have to render an account (hopefully) when people heed my incautious words and some fall flat on their face. They do. How much skin you have in the game makes a big difference in how you play it.

    On the other hand, hoards of Westerners are falling flat on their face now. The spirit of young people is bold. It is not given to continual warnings of ‘Danger, Will Robinson, Danger!’ The spirit of the young is not given to be continually ‘protected.’ Same as with a party, if there’s a brawl going on somewhere, it wants to be part of it. Why not do a ‘avoid toxic people’ not as a matter of ‘loyalty,’ but just because they are toxic? Any psychologist will back you up on that one—and man, o man—are the malcontents ever toxic on the internet!

    Back when we homeschooled—it is a move I have never regretted, even though there is a non-educational downside of not knowing where the agencies are (some of those agencies can be helpful), because my son entering community college, the first classroom he had ever seen save for the 6th grade, said in all innocence, “I had no idea there were so many stupid people”—back in those days we subscribed to a newsletter called, ‘Growth Without Schooling.’ It’s founder, John Holt, was of the opinion that much juvenile delinquency stemmed from teens being barred from the adult world under the guise of protecting them. Thus, a local family who ran a grocery store got into serious trouble with Child Protective Services when their teen took her turn behind the cash register upon returning from school.

    Let youths join in the adult world as their maturity allows. Will some fall? No doubt some will, along with some of the Ida-like parents who go there to help them. But it may be a like when I ran by Jim Whitepebble the local attrition rate for those who go to college and he says it much resembled the attrition rate for those who didn’t go.

    The organizational goal is to protect. It is that of the scriptural sheepfold with the shepherd eyes peeled in watch for the wolves. Since it is scripture, and scripture is what drives the Witnesses, it will not readily yield to adaptation. This is true even though some come to feel this protection is to the point of smothering and that it sells them short, as if completely disregarding any possibility that a person might confront apostasy and, not only remain loyal, but become stronger for it, indignant and thereafter become a stalwart for staring into the abyss and when it started staring back at him kicking its butt.

    Even with adults it works this way. Thus, there is that convention video of the one with decades of faithful service to God who quit serving Him after reading material ‘critical of the organization.’ No possibility is offered that he might have become livid and spurred himself on to a greater defense or even counterattack of that ‘yellow journalism.’ How can even adults not become all but superstitious over the A-word? It is no more than ‘Demas has forsaken me because he loved the present system of things’ in 100 different variations. Knowing what those variations are one might equate with ‘knowing the playbook of the opposing team.’

    I would never recommend someone go traipsing through these ex-sites. The hostility there is breathtaking. Do not think you are going to persuade anyone to ‘Return to Jehovah.’ What you’ll find is that when parents send wayward youths a ‘Return to Jehovah’ message, they post it online for ridicule. But the all-but-forbidding it on pain of being thought disloyal approach isn’t working especially well either. Plus, it is so easily portrayed as sticking one’s head in the sand and submitting oneself to be fitted with blinders as though an animal as to give a push to the slide of any deviating youths.  And then we come along with our all-or-nothing reasoning and say, ‘Would you drink even a little bit of poison?’ In fact, we ingest ‘a little bit of poison’ all the time and our immune system is strengthened for it—assuming we haven’t ruined it. In fact again, the great controversy of our time, which HQ came to enthusiastically weigh in on after an initial stance of ‘neutrality,’ was that of, ‘To take the Covid vaccine or not to take the Covid vaccine?’ What is a vaccine if not ‘a little bit of poison’ that stimulates the body to mount a defense?

     

    ***  The bookstore