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