Sheep and Goats

Category: Circuit Overseer

  • Be on Your Way

    “I knew it!” Jonah fumed. “I KNEW it! I knew you were going to cave at the last minute! You’re just so nice! That’s why I didn’t want to go in the first place!”

    Isn’t that the gist of Jonah 4:1-2, discussed at the mid-week meeting?

    “But this was highly displeasing to Jonah, and he became hot with anger. So he prayed to Jehovah: “Ah, now, Jehovah, was this not my concern when I was in my own land? That is why I tried to flee to Tarshish in the first place; for I knew that you are a compassionate and merciful God, slow to anger and abundant in loyal love, one who feels grieved over calamity.”

    Who cannot see his point? All that preaching from Jonah, at great inconvenience, and now it turns out that God is going to spare a ton of people that he said he wasn’t going to spare!

    And all God says in reply is (verse 4): “Is it right for you to be so angry?”

    Then he maneuvers a circumstance in which Jonah feels sorry for a dopey plant that flourishes one day and is struck down the next. After that, he follows up with: 

    “You felt sorry for the bottle-gourd plant, which you did not work for, nor did you make it grow; it grew in one night and perished in one night. Should I not also feel sorry for Nineveh the great city, in which there are more than 120,000 men who do not even know right from wrong, as well as their many animals?” (vs 10-11)

    We can overthink it. We can take ourselves too seriously. Jonah had reached the point where he wanted to see people die. God readjusted him. If it turns out that Jehovah will spare some thought to be unsparable—that they have a change of heart—that’s not a good thing?

    It’s a good thing to speak up for God, to be used as his mouthpiece. Those doing so ought not second-guess it. I am reminded of a circuit overseer from years ago, doubling down on what was apparently his favorite line, from God to Ananias: “Be on your way!” (Acts 9:15) It was a line that typified his life-course.

    Here was Ananias doing a ‘But . . . but . . . but’ as to all the reasons he shouldn’t go, primarily because the one he was being sent to was, at the time, a nasty piece of work, then God cuts him off with a “Be on your way!” 

    (“But Ananias answered: “Lord, I have heard from many about this man [Saul—later to be known as Paul the apostle], how many injurious things he did to your holy ones in Jerusalem. And here he has authority from the chief priests to put in bonds all those calling upon your name.” But the Lord said to him: “Be on your way, because this man is a chosen vessel to me to bear my name to the nations as well as to kings and the sons of Israel.” (9:13-15) It’s no good overthinking it, just like it wasn’t for Jonah. We don’t have to know everything.

    You go to people’s home because that’s where they are. If some get bent out of shape by this, learn to be pleasant and tactful. If they still get bent out of shape, realize the problem may have nothing to do with you but with the topic you are discussing. Add a few venues, if need be, in which people can approach you if they want, rather than you approach them.

    Alas, with the 2013 revision to the New World Translation, it is no longer “Be on your way!” but is instead a simple “Go!” One can picture that CO, if he were still alive, fuming over this, so that God would have to plant a translation tree over his head for him to feel sorry for.

    ******  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

  • The Circuit Overseer Visit: October 2024

    From one circuit overseer visit to the next, a period of about six months, new normals begin to develop in the congregation. Subtle ones, not bad, nothing for which anyone would have to say ‘Stop doing that!’ Things just reflecting the different personalities in the congregation. ‘Slight imbalances’ maybe is the phrase to use. Personal innovations, some which work pretty well, others not so much. The CO visit is like fine-tuning, serving to nudge ones into closer cooperation. Nudge—not shove—and people only partly do it. But they all take note and implement the improved focus, at least to a degree. Then other new normals begin to develop, or maybe the old ones begin to reassert themselves, and the pattern begins again.

    It is the advantage of organization. Without it, the new normals grow and magnify and innovate and butt heads with competing normals to the point where factions begin to develop. The CO is a feature so that the worldwide congregation pulls unitedly, he being a direct link to the Christian governing body. If you want to get anything done, you organize. It magnifies your ability. It is a latent power that humans have, to coordinate their efforts and thus get more done. Paul used the analogy of directing his blows, rather than striking the air. There is no need to quote the “power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely” line. If you do it right, it doesn’t.

    Doing it right involves everyone, from the top down, more notably at the top, since there is where the “power” lies, repeatedly putting on the Christian garment. It is repeated clothing oneself with the fruitage of the spirit, and continually monitoring that appearance in the mirror of James. No one can become too prickly over hearing counsel from another. The CO’s talk, one of them, referred to “the spirit that is now operating in the sons of disobedience,” the spirit that makes people “prickly.” A previous speaker gave the analogy of calling a soft tire to the attention of a brother—it is unsafe, he might be unawares, and it could cause him harm. “Oh, yeah?!” the hothead shoots back. “Well, your car has a dent in the fender!” It doesn’t hurt to develop a forgiving spirit, either, since the psalm says (130:3): “If errors were what you watch, O Jah, Then who, O Jehovah, could stand?” Errors are all people watch in the overall world today, and nobody stands. Don’t bring that niggling mindset into the congregation.

    The Watchtower Study for that week (July 2024 issue) contrasted kings of Israel, some of whom were bad, though they did some good things, and some of those who were good, though they did some bad things. Responding to correction was a major factor to determine who was who. David and Hezekiah, particularly David, blundered badly, but responded to correction. Amaziah, on the other hand, shot back at the prophet correcting him, “Did we appoint you as an adviser to the king?” (Para 10)

    Another talk during the COs visit touched upon Eve’s words to the Devil in Genesis 3, who is trying to draw her away and she is taking the bait. “Did God really say that you must not eat from every tree of the garden?” he says, knowing full well he did. Eve’s answer as to what God said: “You must not eat from it, no, you must not touch it; otherwise you will die.” It’s probably not a bad idea not to touch it, but it is a stipulation God never made. Does upping the requirement show her well on her way to discontent, as in complaining “Sheesh, we can’t even touch it!” even though God never said it? It makes me think of discontented ones today, exaggerating the inconveniences of serving with Jehovah’s people, which do exist, but they are not that bad, so that a third party later reads the complaint and says, ‘Whoa! They can’t even touch it! What an oppressive bunch!”

    Chatting with the CO in service, he said the latest brochure, now being used to train pioneers, ‘Love People—Make Disciples’ had changed, not only his interaction with people, but the nature of that interaction. It is a very subtle shift. Never has it been said not to love people.  Always, love has been understood as the motivating force behind what ministers of the good news do. But it is like the tiniest adjustment at the source of a stream that, many miles downstream, produces a torrent in an entirely different direction.

     

    ******  The bookstore

  • Cool Hand Luke: ‘He Beat You with Nothin!’ The Atheist Search for the Origin of Life, Part 5

    For best results, see Part 1 here

    This post is an aside. ‘Origin of Life’ science, as discussed in the lecture series, might easily strike a non-enthusiast as so speculative as to challenge the all-time king of speculation in the guise of science: evolutionary psychology. So it is that I diverge into that other cutting-edge field.

    ***

    The circuit overseer was visiting. It was a week of special activity. We reconvened to plan our afternoon. Nosmo Jones had unexpectedly cancelled his study to bail one of his kids out of jail, so I was open. “Does anyone have any calls?” the circuit overseer asked. “I have – Mr. Strawman out on Pretensia Pond Road,” I said. “You remember him from your last visit.”

    “Does anyone else have any calls?” Silence. I knew Bill Ding had several, and also Sally Shinspits, but they would likely not be home at this time of day. “Are you sure nobody else has any calls?” the circuit overseer repeated. I reminded him again about Bernard Strawman. “He’s told me since our last call that he could believe in God!” I said. “We could build on that foundation.” He’d also said something about climate change in hell, but I hadn’t understood what he had meant by that.

    “Check carefully. Nobody has any return visits?” the circuit overseer asked again, looking desperate. “Maybe we can do street work,” he pleaded. But Brother Bruno’s wife, Brunette, had done street work all morning and her feet were sore. She wanted to ride around for a while.

    Twenty minutes later we pulled into Mr. Strawman’s driveway. A Mercedes was already there, in addition to the Jaguar that Mr. Strawman drove. I rang the doorbell with the circuit overseer in tow. Mr. Strawman answered. He invited us in, told us to take off our shoes, and introduced us to his visitor, Dr. Adhominem. I’d never met Dr. Adhominem, but I’d heard Mr. Strawman speak of him glowingly.

    Mr. Strawman asked us to be seated. He asked us if we would like some orange juice. When we said yes, he explained that he didn’t have any. I settled in my chair for a stimulating discussion that was sure to come! The circuit overseer mentally reviewed his notes for the talk he would give that evening: “Are You Following the Lead of the Angel in Your Ministry?’

    Mr. Strawman and his visitor explained to me the research paper they were preparing to submit to Wonderful Scientist Magazine. It was to be their contribution to the exciting field of evolutionary psychology. “Much of the cutting-edge work in science is in this field,” Mr. Strawman told me. The paper he was co-authoring with Dr. Adhominem, he explained, was on the evolutionary origin of boisterous flatulence. “Back in the stone-age eat-or-be-eaten days,” Mr. Strawman explained, putting the concept in a nutshell, “you wanted to evolve everything you possibly could to scare off predators. And nothing would do the job like boisterous flatulence. It quickly cleared the area, the same as it does in modern times.”

    I was very impressed with this crock of insight. But the circuit overseer said: “Got any evidence of that?” He had heard of something called the Scientific Method. I was so embarrassed. Dr. Adhominem smiled and explained that to become obsessed with such matters was to chase a red herring. The very reason such rapid progress was being made in evolutionary psychology, he continued, was that researchers could work without that sort of distraction. He asserted the time for his breakthrough had come because similar research had been accepted by the scientific community. To tell the truth, I was becoming more than a little mortified by that circuit overseer. Clearly, the man doesn’t know much about science.

    For example, Dr. Adhominem told us about the evolutionary origin of faulty reasoning, something which had long puzzled scientists because it seemed to fly in the face of survival of the fittest. But the April 5, 2010 issue of Newsweek summarized the latest scientific thinking. “Faulty reasoning is really our friend! It enabled our ancestors to learn argumentation!” If there was no cockeyed reasoning, Dr. Adhominem explained, nobody would have anything to argue about. Throw any issue before the masses, and they’d all instantly agree! How could survival of the fittest take place? Smart people can only evolve if they have blockheads to stomp into submission with their clever argumentation. So stupidity has proven to be essential to our evolutionary advancement!

    The circuit overseer said: “That doesn’t make any sense to me at all.” Dr. Adhominem gently suggested the reason: evolution had selected people like the two of us to enable people like himself and Mr Strawman to become brilliant. I felt privileged to have such a role in science! The circuit overseer asked to use the bathroom. “Eighth door on the left,” Mr. Strawman said.

    The three of us remaining strolled out into the back yard. Next door, Mr. Strawman’s neighbor was drooling over his curvaceous girlfriend prancing about in a micro-bikini. I instantly turned away. “Interesting how evolutionary psychology accounts for this phenomenon,” Mr. Strawman remarked. “Indeed,” Dr. Adhominem said. I drew a blank, so he patiently enlightened me. “You’re not going to get far in the struggle for survival if your wife keeps dropping your babies and killing them, are you? Decidedly not!” Pleased with himself, he continued: “But that knockout bombshell of a competitive wife has convenient shelves upon which she can balance as many babies as you can give her. Thus, over the eons, our ancestors began to prefer curvy women and to think them beautiful.” How could I have been so stupid for so long?

    We seated ourselves again inside and the circuit overseer said something about God. Mortified, I slid down into my chair! Mr. Strawman had already explained to me the evolutionary origin of God: “See, any group of individuals will have some riffraff who must be kept in check so as not to disrupt the clan. The trouble is, the riffraff doesn’t like being kept in check. They fight back, and this spills the primordial soup of even the most peaceful clan, spewing evolutionary ripples everywhere. What you need is a superhuman cop, one with whom you can’t fight back! Then those ne’er-do-wells will behave. That’s how the concept of God evolved, with all its quaint notions of right and wrong.”

    “Homosexuality? Surely that has to be a fly in the ointment of your race to procreate,” the scientifically ignorant circuit overseer said, much to my dismay. “Not at all,” Bernard Strawman replied with a smile. “Homosexual men tend to be nurturing, and so they nurture everyone in the tribe, including themselves, giving the entire tribe a competitive advantage,” he said.

    We discussed other interesting things as well. Seeing that he was getting underneath the circuit overseer’s skin, Mr. Strawman asked us as we were leaving how we knew that we were there? “If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around, how do we know that it makes a noise?” What a fascinating question! “Because the squirrels go crazy!” the circuit overseer said. “I’ll be in the car, Tom.” He’s a fine brother but he really doesn’t know anything about science.

    “What a wonderful experience in the field ministry!” I exclaimed to all as we entered the Kingdom Hall after field service was over. I suggested that the circuit overseer might use it for his upcoming part in the circuit assembly, but he said he already had participants.

    [The boisterous flatulence hypothesis is (for now) made-up nonsense, but all the other ideas have found acceptance among evolutionary psychologists. I predict boisterous flatulence will also be embraced one day soon, since it is only slightly more ridiculous than what has already been accepted by these characters.]

    The circuit overseer said he would never ever EVER go back with me on this call and changed the title of his talk that evening from ‘Are You Following the Lead of the Angel in Your Ministry?’ to ‘Look, Sometimes You Have to Learn How to Take a Hint.’

    However, three years have just about elapsed. He is soon to depart for a new assignment; a new circuit overseer will soon arrive, hopefully one with better appreciation for science. He will thus be the ninth one to aid me in assisting Mr. Strawman in his progress.]

    “The first effect of not believing in God, is that you lose your common sense.” G K Chesterton

    To be continued: here

     

    ******  The bookstore