Sheep and Goats

Category: God’s Kingdom

“The Best Way to Respond to Injustice”-a Study

I found that return visit at home who had previously told me he cuts back on the news because it gets him all cranked up. So I decided to show him that paragraph from Sunday’s Watchtower study (1/23/25: The Best Way to Respond to Injustice) which recommended exactly that course. I even left it with him. Given the choice of digital or print, he said he preferred digital, so I used that transfer feature on the app to email the article to him.

I had commented on that paragraph during the study. There is a new Watchtower conductor now and I can’t lean into him so readily as I could with the old conductor, so I have to look comments over carefully before letting fly. For sure I won’t get in as many. But that’s not really a bad thing. It means other people do.

That paragraph (12) went: “What can help us to control our feelings of anger over an injustice? Many have found it helpful to be selective in what they read, listen to, and watch. Some forms of social media are full of posts that sensationalize injustices and that promote social reform movements. Often, news agencies report information in a biased way.”

Yeah. Anyone on social media knows that the political stuff encroaches like an invasive species. You have to keep pruning it back or it will take over. Some Witnesses just uproot it on sight, or more thorough yet, avoid social media altogether. I’m not one of them but I do understand the response. It gets you all worked up. One sis even recalled a visit to a U.S. city much in the news lately for a certain protest. A few Witnesses had been there, she said, and they got their faces on TV! Like that commercial, I told her afterward, where the guy helps himself to the cotton candy of the kid in the stadium row before him and it is captured by the Kiss Cam and displayed on the Jumbotron! Yeah, like that, she agreed.

Then, there was the sister cited in paragraph 9, recalling her former protest days, who the paragraph quoted: “When I was at protests, I would question whether I was on the correct side,” contrasting that with “Now that I support God’s Kingdom, I know that I’m on the right side. I know that Jehovah will fight for every victim of oppression better than I ever could.”

I commented on that paragraph too, ramming it past the new vigilant conductor. “Sure. Just once I would like to see a war in which one side or the other says, ‘We are the bad guys.’ But it never happens. Always, both sides fob themselves off as the good guys. Social reform is like that too. You can wonder if you’re on the correct side.” One person’s reform is another person’s pouring fuel to the fire.

Photo by Anton Bohlin on Pexels.com

2 Peter 3:13 was quoted in the final paragraph: “But there are new heavens and a new earth that we are awaiting according to his promise,and in these righteousness is to dwell.”

The “heavens” make an apt analogy for human government. In those Bible times, they would scorch you one minute, drench you the next, freeze you the moment thereafter—and there wasn’t a thing you could do about it. In most respects that is still true of human governments today, even participatory ones, in which your input is not exactly zero, but close to it. The “new heavens” is God’s just government to come and the “new earth” is those constituents who will benefit from it.

They even slipped in that verse about how Jesus so wowed the crowds that they wanted to appoint him king. (John 6:15) He couldn’t get away from that bunch quick enough—for the same reason that he later told Pilate: “My Kingdom is no part of this world. If my Kingdom were part of thisworld, my attendants would have fought that should not be handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my Kingdom is not from this source.” (John 18:36)

Exactly. They would have fought. Get yourself too cranked up fighting over the current “heavens” and it will be at the expense of looking to the “new heavens.” That was the overall thrust of the article.

****** The bookstore

November 26, 2025
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

Photo by Hans Martha on Pexels.com

October 20, 2025
The End of War—When?

Through ingenuity, humans overcome their natural limitations against flight and deep-sea diving. They can fly and they can submerge. But no amount of ingenuity can equip them to overcome their inability to self-rule, “man dominating man to his injury.” All such efforts devolve into some permutation of “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.>” Such were the takeaways from Sunday’s talk on End of War. Many time’s I’ve compared inability to fly to inability to rule, but I’ve never extended it that the first can be overcome but not the second.

“Come and witness the activities of Jehovah, How he has done astonishing things on the earth. He is bringing an end to wars throughout the earth.” (Psalm 46:8-9) Pretty good trick if he can pull that one off.

The solution advanced in that talk—all Bible promises—on how God would do that is:

1: bringing an end to human governments, replacing them by the rule of his Son

2: raising humankind to a state of perfection

3: removing the influence of Satan, the one right now “misleading the entire inhabited earth.” (Revelation 12:9)

So it was in the ministry that I answered the Muslim man who, in good faith, watered down the solution to war to that of all people sincerely living the tenets of their faith. Yes, it’s a good thing when they do that, I agreed, but make no mistake: that will not be sufficient to overcome man’s inability to rule and their resulting proclivity to war.

This was the fellow from Bangladesh who had escaped war there as a child and still had nightmares about it. He’d been in America for decades and was “living the American dream,” he and all his siblings having attained PhD status. He, not me, was the one who brought up, all on his own, his prime concern that ending war was mankind’s greatest need, along with his fear that humans are regressing in that goal.

But even after a return call, I couldn’t shake his equally prime concern that I had come to “change his religion.” “Look, if I come 200 times and we agree each time, on the 201st time I will say ‘Do you want to change your religion?’ but it’s not going to happen until that time. In the meantime, it’s just conversation. Nothing to worry about.” Nope. Didn’t fly with this fellow.

The trouble is, there’s really not too many faiths that point to the above solution of war. Most water it down to God somehow blessing human efforts to end it through political means. Or, to this man’s hoped-for outcome that each person will start sincerely living the tenets of their faith. “When the broken-hearted people living in the world agree,” is how McCartney put it. Good luck on that goal.

****** The bookstore

Q: If God really can bring an end to war that 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 flatten 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.” Probably you know that 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:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0F2HDS4Z1

October 1, 2025
The Muslim Man I Spoke With in the Ministry

The Muslim man I spoke with in the ministry was a retired college professor. He responded to the query of what ill would he fix had he the power to do so. Peace, he said. It was humankind’s greatest need; however he was quite sure the world was “regressing” in that department. He remembered warfare well from surviving it in his native Bangladesh before fleeing to the United States decades ago. He still had nightmares about it, he said. He could identify with the 120th Psalm, where it says at the end:

“I have been dwelling far too long with those who hate peace. I am for peace, but when I speak, they are for war.”

He had assured me at the outset that he was all set in the religion department, doubtless confusing us with churches who would call upon him to be “saved” that very day. I told him on the 200th time I called, I would ask him if he wanted to be a Jehovah’s Witness, but it wouldn’t happen until the 200th time—and what were the chances anything would go on for so long a time? In the meantime, it was just conversation. With that, I was able to introduce the above psalm about peace.

To his concern that mankind was regressing, I pointed out the reason: God did not create humans with the ability to govern themselves. No more than he created them to fly—it’s an ability they do not have. All efforts to rule invariably end in some variation of Ecclesiastes 8:9, in which “man has dominated man to his injury.” It is mankind’s entire history, through countless variations in government.

It’s why the Bible speaks of God fulfilling that need, of his ruling over the earth, rather than man-made governments. And that people tend to cringe when they hear such terms as “government by God” for fear that whoever tells them this also view themselves as the enforcers, a hair’s breadth away from pulling out guns to coerce anyone not on board. In the case of God’s kingdom, however, humans can do nothing to bring it about, I assured him. All they can do is advertise it and live according to its principles now. God has to bring it. If he doesn’t, we’re stranded out there on a limb. But we’re convinced he will.

He was fully involved in the discussion at this point. He observed how people must live their faith, it must be truly in their heart, rather than the carry-on baggage that amounts to ‘Say one thing but do another.’ It’s a noble thought, I agreed with him, and plainly true. However, even when people do this it does not negate “man dominating man to his injury.” Not all governments are mean. Some are nice. None—mean or nice—can overcome the inability of man to rule. It has to be a superior arrangement, not of men, but of God.

We’ll see where this goes. Possibly, nowhere. But it might. I handed him one of those cards with the QR code leading to the home Bible study offer—he could look it over if he wished. There was also written in my personal contact information, in case we don’t meet up again anytime soon (or at all). I also told him he must not be put off by how very simply it was written. He was a college professor and anyone taking his courses had a certain level of rigor they had to meet, but this way not true of people in general. He had no problem with this at all; he had lamented how hard it was to get his American students to work, many of them, as though they thought they were still in high school.

Often when I speak with college students, I will say the same. “Now, you’re in college. That means you’re smart. (It’s a good sign when people demur at this; if they puff out their chest and take it in stride, that’s a bad sign—but few do that.) But most people are not in college and they’re not especially smart. If they are, they’re consumed with the everyday affairs of life. If you write over everyone’s head, what have you accomplished? Think of the text simply as the glue that binds the Bible verses together—for they are the real sources of knowledge.

Oh, and back to that “man dominating man to his injury” downside of human self-rule? It’s in that context that the “new heavens and new earth” of 2nd Peter is best understood. Heavens are an apt analogy for human government in those Bible times. They might scorch you one minute, drench you the next, freeze you the moment thereafter—and there wasn’t a thing you could do about it. In most respects that is still true of human governments today, even participatory ones, in which your input is not exactly zero but close to it. The “new heavens” is God’s just government to come and the “new earth” is those constituents who will benefit from it.

****** The bookstore

July 18, 2025
A Review of Psalm 10: “This Guy Whines too Much?” Or Just the Right Amount?

“[The wicked one] waits in ambush near the settlements . . . His eyes are watching for an unfortunate victim. He waits in his hiding place like a lion in its lair. He waits to seize the helpless one. . . . The victim is crushed and brought down.” (Psalm 10:8-10)

I don’t really know anyone like this. Even of the sleazy mechanic who billed me for a new carburetor on my Tesla I wouldn’t go that far.

On and on the psalmist goes about how the wicked one shakes you like a dog with a rat. I begin to see why Rosie said when she first read the psalms as a young girl, “Man, this guy sure whines a lot!” Who in the world is he talking about?

They picked on him a lot back in the day, I suppose, but today, while the verse might not find fulfillment in your neighbor who plays his music too loud, you could apply it to machinations of humans, be they political parties, governments, or powers transcending governments who push schemes, sometimes will full knowledge they are making you trouble, doing so for their idea of the ‘greater good.’ That scenario fits the tone of the psalm. It’s not for nothing that the Bible likens governments to ‘the heavens.’ They drench you one moment, scorch you the next, freeze you after that, and there’s not a thing you can do about it.

Verses like #4 suggest it’s all the work of the atheists:

“In his haughtiness, the wicked man makes no investigation; All his thoughts are: “There is no God.’”

Sometimes it is that way but it is not necessarily so. Other verses allow that they may acknowledge there’s a God but count him as a non-factor.

“He says in his heart: “God has forgotten. He has turned away his face. He never notices.” (vs 11)

Besides, here’s a commentator (in connection with ‘the senseless one who says in his heart ‘there is no Jehovah’) who says there were no atheists back then, at least not enough to single out as a class: “It never occurred to any writer of the OT [Hebrew Scriptures] to prove or argue the existence of God. . . .It is not according to the spirit of the ancient world in general to deny the existence of God, or to use arguments to prove it. The belief was one natural to the human mind and common to all men.” Dr. James Hastings, A Dictionary of the Bible.

It matters little to say there is a God. What matters is what attributes you assign to him. As much as we think it dated that ancient peoples worship different gods, and say ‘Isn’t there just one God?’ if we hold to radically different views of God, is it not in effect different gods that we envision? Just like you mention Howie Horseradish and I say ‘I know that guy!’ But when further discussion reveals that the attributes and physical qualities don’t line up, I say, ‘Oh, I guess I don’t know him after all. We’re speaking of two persons who happen to share the same name.’

I’ll take God with the attributes he assigns himself. Who are these characters that assign him whatever attributes they find convenient? I’ll take the overall lesson of the psalm. They’re cocky as all get-out but God will eventually set matters straight. It’s an underlying theme of the Bible. Humans insist upon self-rule (the underlying Genesis message of knowing ‘good’ and ‘bad.’ God says, ‘Don’t try it—you’ll mess it all up.’ They do so anyway. God says, ‘Alright, I allot you such-and-such an amount of time to make good on your claim. When the time is up, we’ll see what kind of a world you’ve made.’

“[The wicked one] says in his heart: ‘I will never be shaken; For generation after generation I will never see calamity.’” (vs 6)

What says the psalmist of God? “Rise up, O Jehovah. O God, lift up your hand. . . . you do see trouble and distress. You look on and take matters in hand. To you the unfortunate victim turns. . . . Break the arm of the wicked and evil man, So that when you search for his wickedness, You will find it no more.” (vs 12-15)

****** The bookstore

October 5, 2022
An Unlikely People for Persecution—Part 1

Any advanced alien civilization worth its salt, stumbling upon earth, will note its warlike past and present and as a consequence, will set its blasters to ‘pulverize.’ But they will pause upon discovering there is a group of people who categorically reject war participation—under any circumstances, for any reason. ‘Maybe there is hope,’ they will think. But further intelligence will reveal that group has been declared extremist and they will pull the trigger.

Any advanced alien civilization worth its salt, stumbling upon earth, will note its past and present racial hatred and as a consequence, will set its blasters to ‘pulverize.’ But they will pause upon discovering there is a group of people who have no problem in this regard—Pew Research said of Jehovah’s Witnesses “the denomination is one of the most racially and ethnically diverse of any religious group in the US. . . .32% are Hispanic, 27% are Black, and 36% are white.” ‘Maybe there is hope,’ they will think. But further intelligence will reveal that group has been declared extremist and they will pull the trigger.

They are declared extremist in Russia, but considered extremist—or at least weird—by a ton of other nations despite their peace and racial harmony. These are people who do not retreat to some inward cult cave. Rather they go to people as they live, work, and school in the general community. One can appreciate Brother Glass, when criticized sharply over not voting, responding with: “Why should we? We have solved most of the problems that the world is yet grappling with. Why should I trade the superior for the inferior?”

BusinessInsider took up the fact that Jehovah’s Witnesses do not vote, and the article is—well, maybe not a hit piece, but imagine how it would be in its original form. “This article has been updated to include comment from the Jehovah's Witnesses US spokesman,” is the byline at end of page. Imagine how it would read without his comments:

“The Christian denomination instructs its followers not to take ‘any action to change governments,’ which includes voting, running for public office, serving in the military, and reciting the Pledge of Allegiance,” it says, not mentioning that it is really the Bible that instructs this; the Witnesses merely follow that Book, rather than issue arbitrary instructions. Happily, the spokesman, Robert Hendriks, adds meaningful context.

Without Hendriks, the article continues: “Witnesses believe they should only be loyal to and representatives of ‘God's kingdom’ and should take ‘no part of the world.’” “Only” is the key word here. Am I too sensitive in reading an implication by the writer that they are disloyal to present governments? They are “hostile to all kinds of patriotic exercises,” says Professor of Religion at Trinity College Mark Silk, and it takes Robert Hendriks to “insist that Jehovah’s Witnesses respect others' participation in government and the political process and ‘don’t pretend to believe that the world would be a better place without government,’ despite praying for God to ‘take over rulership’ eventually.” (italics mine)

BusinessInsider takes the ball again from Hendriks and instantly fumbles it. “He [Hendriks] also noted that the denomination condones participation in civil society, as long as it isn’t political,” the article follows up. What he probably said was that the Bible offers no reason to reject such participation and so neither does the denomination.

“If you were to imagine [Witnesses] could vote, there might be a kind of social conservatism combined with economic progressivism," says another quoted professor of religion, Mathew Schmalz. Am I wrong or too sensitive in reading between the lines: “Ah—what they could bring to the table if only they weren’t so backward in this regard?”

Nothing is flat-out wrong in what the professors say. But it’s a word here, a phrase there, that reveals their lack of feel for the subject, to say nothing of a lack of appreciation. “Schmalz said the social and political upheaval the US and the world are experiencing may confirm Witnesses’ belief that human institutions can’t solve human problems,” it goes on. Hendriks might have added “Duh!” to this remark but he doesn’t—he is not me—he is a spokeman who knows how to use winsome words, not wincing words.

Rather, Hendriks speaks to how politics divides people, not unites them, and unity is what Jehovah’s Witnesses are all about. “Politics today is so fractured, it’s breaking families up, it’s breaking marriages up … that is something Christians should have nothing to do with,” he said. “Even in our hearts, we need to love our neighbor—and it’s much more difficult to love your neighbor when you’re rabidly in the corner of one political candidate that is diametrically opposed to their political candidate.”

For once, BusinessInsider gets it right as it adds: “Witnesses, who are pacifists, believe humans were not made to rule over one another and reject the divisiveness of politics.” They’re not and they do.

They’re doing the best they can over there at BusinessInsider. When the original article reads too much like a hit piece they reach out to Hendriks—or did he reach out to them?—at any rate, they include his comments because they are trying present an accurate picture on something they don’t know much about. If you wanted to flatter, you could almost compare them to the philosophers of Athens who put Paul front and center onstage with the request: “Can we get to know what this new teaching is that you are speaking about? For you are introducing some things that are strange to our ears, and we want to know what these things mean,” (Acts 17:19-20) only this time it is Hendriks, not Paul. Still, I’d hate to read their article without Hendriks’s clarifications, and without his clarifications is how it originally stood.

“But when it comes to spreading their own beliefs, Jehovah's Witnesses aren’t shy about lobbying governments,” the article continues, and imagine how that sounds absent Hendriks’s stabilizing input, as though leveling an accusation: “They take, but they do not give.” “Next week, the denomination will launch its largest ever ‘campaign for God’s kingdom’ by sending tens of millions of magazines and emails to government officials and businesses all over the world.”

I’ve taken part in that work. Here is what I wrote to some fellow that runs a trucking company in my area:

Dear Mr. Trucker:

I needn’t tell you that government is a hot topic today. Accordingly, during November the community of Jehovah’s Witnesses that I belong to is calling attention to God’s kingdom, focusing on those in the business community who are not always easy to reach.

Few persons think of God’s kingdom being a government arrangement, but the Bible presents it that way. It is what is prayed for in the ‘Lord’s prayer,’ as when it “comes,” God’s will is to be “done on earth as it is in heaven.”

Your copy of a magazine devoted to the topic is enclosed. Hopefully you will find a few minutes to look it over. Items can also be downloaded at jw.org.

You will find ideas presented quite simply, and feel free to contact me for details or with any questions.

This is the kingdom that includes health in its platform, as opposed to just that of health care.

Sincerely,

Tom Harley

Another thing BusinessInsider gets right—all on their own and without any input from Robert Hendriks is: “If Jehovah’s Witnesses did engage in politics, experts say their political allegiances would likely reflect a cross-section of American society given the group's large size, diversity, and even spread across the country.” In other words, it would be a wash. Leave them alone to do what they do best.

November 21, 2020
It’s Like a Bad Accident—You Don’t Want to Watch but You Can’t Look Away

My non-JW neighbor said it best and she is not one known for metaphors. She’s not interested in politics, she says. She tries not to get worked up over it, but….

“It like a bad accident. You don’t want to watch, but you can’t look away,” she says. Ha! Isn’t it, though? Like this one:

Just try looking away from that one. And imagine—the image of human politics, “man dominating man to his harm,” says Ecclesiastes 8:9, likened to a bad accident. “I well know, O Jehovah, that man’s way does not belong to him.It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step,” says Jeremiah at 10:23. Jehovah’s Witnesses defer to that verse to show that human self-rule is not an ability God granted them. Invariably it reduces to some variant of “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely” to punctuate a highway of “solutions” not quite up to the job.

This is why one wonders what the #CultExpert has been smoking when he seeks to liberate people from “cults”—and he expands the word to include half the country, in the form of the political party he doesn’t like! Let’s face it—there are only so many Moonies, the “cult” that he “escaped” from (whether they are or not will be for them to argue, not me) and like the diminishing returns of a multilevel marketing scheme, he has to expand the C-word to far more than the Moonies if he is ever going to amount to anything. Still, when you maintain that half the country has fallen victim to a cult, is it not evidence that you’ve been drinking too much of the Kool-Aid yourself?

Somewhere on the road from the Moonies to the Republicans, Jehovah’s Witnesses got caught in his C-trap. When he turns his attention their way, he wants them to come out. Come out to what? To his version of normal, to his way of man ruling man, that my neighbor so aptly applies illustrates by metaphor? Moses led his people to the promised land, not the town dump.

JW HQ lately has ramped up attention to Bible verses of neutrality, doing so for JWs themselves, lest they get sucked into the morass. Brothers flirt around the edges as it is. They post jokes, even insults, of one contestant, and yet still imagine themselves neutral as they do it. Or they patiently explain the position of one pugilist, for fear the liars are distorting it, but are content to let the other fellow twist in the wind. Even Geoffrey Jackson, when he illustrates the challenge of maintaining absolute neutrality with combatting the thought: “I hope that idiot doesn’t get into power!”—is it only me who wonders what “idiot” does he have in mind?

Climbing to the pinnacle of what divides humans, the politics of any given nation, he first encounters the lesser side-taking of the sports world. He tells how he recorded a game for a friend, and it was a really exiting game! But when he offered to show the match to others, they said, “No thanks. It might be different if we had won.”

I had a lot of fun with the Olympics while writing No Fake News but Plenty of Hogwash. Were it not that the Olympics has been canceled this time around due to Covid-19, I would be having it some more. There I wrote of telling Tom Pearlsandswine that I had seen Trump tie his shoe, only to earn the instant rebuke: “We are no part of the world!” The next day I told him that Hillary had worn a nice bright pants-suit, and his retort was: “We must keep our eyes on the Jerusalem above!” The next day I stopped by his house as he was watching the Olympics, to hear him say: “Look at that medal count, Tommy! We’re cleaning up!!!”

Meanwhile, at the virtual meetings, JWs are testing on each other just how they will explain their neutral stance in a politically volatile world, and some of the results come off as a bit clunky. Listen, it ain’t easy to do, because most of them involve presenting God’s kingdom as an actual government—which it is, but not that many look upon it that way, and people don’t turn on a dime. I did like (which wasn’t one of the suggestions—it was simply something that some old-timer recalled) Brother Glass responding to queries as to why he is not voting with: “Why should I? Jehovah’s Witnesses have solved most of the problems that your world is yet grappling with. Why should I trade the superior for the inferior?” But the neighbor said it best—it’s like watching a bad accident.

It is a special month of activity for we Witnesses. There is a campaign to distribute to business, government, and professional people our vote, that of recommending God’s kingdom. I admit I was a little worried I might be called upon to explain how the stone not cut by human hands smashes the toes of the idol, but so far there is none of it—not in the magazine, which is inviting, and so certainly not in any missive of mine. Rocky Nash in Las Vegas has picked up on it and spread it around via her news feed, and many outlets have latched onto it. I don’t really know who Rocky is—at first I thought it was a guy, like Rocky Balboa, but it is a woman—or just where she is coming from, but then, I don’t really have to. You don’t have to know everything.

Here is the kingdom envisioned in Revelation, descending from heaven:

“I also saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God…. I heard a loud voice from the throne say: “Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his people. …And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.” (21:2-4)

Jerusalem was (and is) the capital of Israel, so New Jerusalem is a suitable symbol for God’s kingdom ruling over all humans and not just one country. It is not good people going to heaven as angels when they die—rather it is God “coming down” to “mankind”—they are his “peoples”—and from there he removes “mourning, outcry, and pain.”

And the present system of “man’s rule over man to his harm?” What of these dark rumblings one may hear from time to time that Jehovah’s Witnesses say human government is from the Devil? (!) That comes, most pointedly for my money, from Luke 4–the second of the three temptations thrown at Jesus in the wilderness.

“[The Devil] showed him all the kingdoms of the inhabited earth in an instant of time. Then the Devil said to him: “I will give you all this authority and their glory, because it has been handed over to me, and I give it to whomever I wish. If you, therefore, do an act of worship before me, it will all be yours.” In reply Jesus said to him: “It is written, ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.’” (vs 5-8)

He turned down the offer but he didn’t deny the premise—that the kingdoms are for the Devil to offer since they have been handed to him, a handoff that commenced way back there with human rebellion in Eden.

I am looking forward to God’s kingdom “coming”—as the Lord’s prayer [Our Father Prayer] says. I’ve built my life around it, as anyone can. No accident scene then. Nothing but fine Packards for all:

November 6, 2020
“I came to start a fire on the earth, and what more is there for me to wish if it has already been lighted?”

“I came to start a fire on the earth, and what more is there for me to wish if it has already been lighted?”—Luke 12:49

What fire? How did it get lit?

Doesn’t it refer to God’s ways versus the ways of a world estranged from him? That fire was lit long ago. Jesus fans it into fever pitch, introducing a preaching activity that will ultimately put the choice in everyone’s face—is it the kingdom that they want to rule over them, or the present human system of 200 squabbling nations? Jehovah’s Witnesses who speak for him today do nothing to bring that future kingdom about, but they do publicize it:

“And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite.”—Daniel 2:44

Moreover, those who want and expect that kingdom rule versus those who do not want or expect it assume different priorities in their lives that reflect their desires and expectations. It makes for significant conflicts, even within families. That must be what Jesus meant as he went on to say:

Do you imagine I came to give peace on the earth? No, indeed, I tell you, but rather division. For from now on there will be five in one house divided, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against [her] mother, mother-in-law against [her] daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against [her] mother-in-law.”—Luke 12:51-53

It manifests itself today in people changing sides—for the allure of both sides are as strong as the are different. In the case of a Witness family that some members depart from, it takes the form of the latter charging that they were misled, manipulated, and so forth. No wonder the apostle seems to anticipate the charge:

“We have wronged no one, we have corrupted no one, we have taken advantage of no one.”—2 Corinthians 7:2

and

“Nevertheless, you say, I was “crafty” and I caught you “by trickery.”—2 Corinthians 12:16.

Jesus doesn’t buy it, either, about being obtuse regarding the end of this system of things approaching:

“Then he went on to say also to the crowds: “When see a cloud rising in western parts, at once you say, ‘A storm is coming,’ and it turns out so. And when you see that a south wind is blowing, you say, ‘There will be a heat wave,’ and it occurs. Hypocrites, you know how to examine the outward appearance of earth and sky, but how is it you do not know how to examine this particular time?—Luke 12:54-56

The trick may be to check your “critical thinking” skills at the door, so as to focus on what he next says: “Why do you not judge also for yourselves what is righteous?”—vs 57 God’s kingdom is “righteous.” Human governments, whatever their intent, whatever their ideals, whatever their sporadic successes, are not.

That being the case with God’s kingdom approaching, why make oneself an “adversary of him?”

“For example, when you are going with your adversary at law to a ruler, get to work, while on the way, to rid yourself of the dispute with him, that he may never hale you before the judge, and the judge deliver you to the court officer, and the court officer throw you into prison.”—vs 58

I liked this point as well (most of these verses were considered at the Kingdom Hall meeting this past week, and the ones not will be considered next week):

“But if ever that slave should say in his heart, ‘My master delays coming,’ and should start to beat the menservants and the maidservants, and to eat and drink and get drunk, the master of that slave will come on a day that he is not expecting [him] and in an hour that he does not know, and he will punish him with the greatest severity and assign him a part with the unfaithful ones.”—vs 45-46

Practically speaking, the “slave” that doubts that the master is coming anytime soon (or at all) begins to reappraise all the effort he has put into publicizing that event. What once seemed as natural as breathing air now comes to seem wasted time, in fact, worse than wasted time, since it served to put he/she behind the curve as regards the goals of the greater world. In no time at all, such persons have joined “the unfaithful ones.” They are deriding what they once embraced—in effect, “beating their fellow slaves.” They are almost forced to carry on about how they were misled and manipulated, because the alternative is to explain how they could have been so stupid to go along for so many years with what they now reject. So they frame matters as a “sinister religious corporation” taking advantage of the minions. They are nuts—the only reason members incorporate is so that they can do things legally, such as owning land or publishing, that will not all fall apart with the death of the founders.

Let us visit the parallel verses in the Book of Matthew, noting that the slaves doing business have always been associated with the preaching and disciple-making work. Let us consider it in the satirical Sheepngoats Translation, which is not accepted by all scholars—in fact, most of them assume that the translators must have been smoking something:

“After a long time the master of those slaves came and settled accounts with them. So the one that had received five talents came forward and brought five additional talents, saying, ‘Master, you committed five talents to me; see, I gained five talents more.’ His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful slave! You were faithful over a few things. I will appoint you over many things. Enter into the joy of your master.’

“Next the one that had received the two talents came forward and said, ‘Master, you committed to me two talents; see, I gained two talents more.’ His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful slave! You were faithful over a few things. I will appoint you over many things. Enter into the joy of your master.’

“Finally the one that had received the one talent came forward and said, ‘Master, I didn’t do squat. I thought about it, but you see, to do business, I would have had to work with the others, and they are all jerks. I also would have had to work with the bankers, and it is all about money with them. And I for sure didn’t want to work with any non-profit organizations who might lean on me to do something I didn’t want to do. I shouldn’t have to put up with that—I have rights. After all, we all know that you reap where you did not sow, and gather where you do not winnow. You want disciples? Then get off your rear end and make them yourself! Don’t foist your corporate agenda on me!’

“In reply his master said to him, ‘Wicked and sluggish slave, you knew, did you, that I reaped where I did not sow and gathered where I did not winnow? Well, then, you ought to have deposited my silver monies with the bankers, and on my arrival I would be receiving what is mine with interest.’”—Matthew 25:19-25

The master could have worked with that attitude, it appears! Just take it to the bank if you feel that way, he says. Instead, the loutish slave dug in the ground and hid the silver money, (vs 25) working up a sweat so as to thwart the master’s will. it is as opposers do today. They go to considerable effort to thwart the work that they once took part it.

August 9, 2019
Are There Any So Intolerant as the Anti-Cultists?

Few are unaware that the Bible climax depicts the epic battle between good and evil, even if they know it in but inkling form. It is the subject of the final Book of Revelation. Foreglimmers of it appear in several other places.

The contest, to zero in, involves the choice between human rulership and divine rulership of the planet. The former is expressed in the present reality of two hundred eternally squabbling nations. The latter is expressed in the ‘Lord’s prayer,’ as God’s kingdom, which, when it “comes,” results in God’s “will be[ing] done on earth, as it is in heaven.” Human rulership of the earth has not been such a stellar success that those who point to God’s government as the one true hope should be run off the road.

As with the Don McLean song, “the marching band refuses to yield.” Though it involves no human agency, God’s kingdom forcibly is to replace human rulership. It does not wait for “the broken-hearted people living in the world to agree,” for they never will. Daniel 2:44 says it succinctly: “The God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite.”

This can be dicey to express in literature. Still, it has been expressed as long as there have been persons longing to see a final end of evil. One recent offering is from the book Pure Worship of Jehovah Restored at Last, produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses. The writing gets downright heavy toward the end. For example:

“During the war of Armageddon, Jehovah will execute people, not in a cold, clinical manner, but in a “great rage.” (Read Ezekiel 38:18.) He will direct the explosive force of his anger, not against one army or one nation, but against countless individuals living across the globe. On that day, those slain by Jehovah “will be from one end of the earth clear to the other end of the earth.”—Jer. 25:29, 33.”

The Bible verses cited are, from Ezekiel:

On that day, the day when Gog invades the land of Israel,’ declares the Sovereign Lord Jehovah, ‘my great rage will flare up. In my zeal, in the fire of my fury, I will speak…all humans on the surface of the earth will tremble, and the mountains will be thrown down, and the cliffs will fall, and every wall will collapse to the ground.’ “‘I will call for a sword against him on all my mountains,’ declares the Sovereign Lord Jehovah. ‘Every man’s sword will be against his own brother. I will bring my judgment against him…”

and from Jeremiah:

“‘You will not go unpunished, for I am calling for a sword against all the inhabitants of the earth,’ declares Jehovah of armies. …“‘And those slain by Jehovah in that day will be from one end of the earth clear to the other end of the earth. They will not be mourned, nor will they be gathered up or buried. They will become like manure on the surface of the ground.’

That’s not very pleasant, is it? Let no one accuse the Bible writers of beating around the bush.

Is it too much? Should the Bible be banned, as it is clearly the fiery source material for such paragraphs as in the Watchtower publication? Ought one side in this epic struggle be allowed a preemptive strike so that the view of the other side be muzzled? Is it the sign of a “cult” not to interpret such passages away?

Should the view that God might be displeased, even outraged, at the present state of the planet be outlawed? Should the only view allowable be that he cheerleads for the present world, having his feelings hurt with each new atrocity, to be sure, but quickly rebounding with the chipper hope that if his creatures but elect the right set of leaders, all will be well? Should only that neutered view of God be allowed to stand, and any view that God might actually do something about the state of the world be consigned to the state of fanaticism, even if ones reprioritize their lives based upon such views?

Taking their place among the most intolerant people on the planet are the “anti-cultists.” Religion they will allow so long as it does not forget that its place is to reinforce the status quo. ‘If religion helps you to be kinder and gentler, so be it,’ they seem to say, ‘but don’t go rocking the boat. Human leadership is where it’s at—if your god can come on board with that, he’s welcome, but only if. There may daily be discouraging checks, but they are not checkmates, and don’t go bringing any nutty religion into it saying that final checkmate looms ahead.’

What’s it to them, anyway? If the verses are to become reality, then Jehovah’s Witnesses offer a fine head’s up and an opportunity to sidestep the trouble. If they are not to become reality, then there is no harm done other than egg on the faces of those announcing it. Jehovah’s Witnesses will take that chance. The Bible is still the most widely distributed book on earth, by a huge margin. Not all will consign it to the dumpster when they hear of such fiery passages. Some will be more like the Hebrew king Josiah of long ago:

“As soon as [Josiah] heard the words of the book of the Law, he ripped his garments apart. Then the king gave this order…. “Go, inquire of Jehovah in my behalf, in behalf of the people, and in behalf of all Judah concerning the words of this book that has been found; for Jehovah’s rage that has been set ablaze against us is great, because our forefathers did not obey the words of this book by observing all that is written concerning us.”

It will ever be the minority view. But only the anti-cultists seek to banish it, so as to keep everyone on the same page of human rulership. For Jehovah’s Witnesses, who unapologetically choose God’s rulership over human rulership, “the wicked” will primarily be those who clearly see both sides and decisively choose human rulership—abysmal track record and all. It will not be those with only a hazy concept of one or both. It will be those who know what they are choosing.

November 12, 2018
No Direct Mention of the 144,000

The new online Bible study lessons on JW.org does not directly mention the 144,000. Instead, it says of God’s kingdom with Christ as King: "God also selects others to be associate rulers with Jesus" and adds that "anyone who obeys its laws can be a citizen."

Good. The 144,000 is a yawner. Nobody cares. I never go there.

To clarify a little, some care, but it is analogous to the wonks on media absolutely obsessed over the doings of government and all its machinations, imagining that they reflect the interest of the ordinary people whose greatest hope towards government is that it will pave the roads, jail the bad guys, keep a few of its promises, and otherwise stay out of their hair.

A handful throughout history go on to rule with Christ in heaven. Good. It means the heavenly government has more of a feel for humanity than it would otherwise, first indicated by the fact that the King himself did time as a human.

That's all anyone really cares about, as they envision how God's Kingdom will bring relief from the incessant woes and travesties they suffer on earth. I barely go further with the 144,000 unless someone insists on it.

It is even now as one might explain ‘the Lord’s prayer’: “Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.” ‘Sure, God’s will is done in heaven,’ one might point out. ‘I mean, I assume he’s got everything running smoothly up there. But it is ‘on earth’ where we hope to see God’s will be done, as it will be when his Kingdom comes.’

August 23, 2018