See Part 1, Part 2,

‘Insular,’ a charge that is leveled against Jehovah’s Witnesses, bears a relationship to ‘no part of the world.’ Alas, the name of that relationship might be ‘identity.’ What is insulation if not material to keep one substance ‘no part’ of another?

To stay ‘no part of  the world’ is part of the mission statement of Jehovah’s Witnesses today. From that position of safety, they attempt to extend a helping hand to others. They must first stay ‘safe’ themselves. It’s biblical.  “They are no part of the world, just as I am no part of the world,” Jesus said of his followers. (John 16:17) Paul said: “I personally promised you in marriage to one husband that I might present you as a chaste virgin to the Christ.” He didn’t say: “I personally promised to expose you to all the new moralities in the world so you can decide if you want to marry this Guy or not.”

While the shepherd does ‘fear’ displeasing Norway and any other nation taking umbrage at their discipline policies reflecting lack of inclusion, he fears much more displeasing God by allowing admittance into the sheepfold of ones who may spread sickness among the sheep. Does anyone think God is disciplining his people over too securely fastening the gate of the sheepfold? We ain’t seen nothing next to how he would discipline them for leaving the gate open. That’s probably what the shepherd is thinking these days.

Policies can be tweaked without compromising core principles. Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t disfellowship anymore. (August 2024 Watchtower) However, they do “remove from the congregation” those who refuse to abide by the biblical norms that all have agreed to. Is it but a shell game with words? Partly yes and partly no. The word ‘disfellowshipping’ is not actually found in the Bible. The term ‘removal from the congregation’ is:

“But now I am writing you to stop keeping company with anyone called a brother who is sexually immoral or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man. For what do I have to do with judging those outside? Do you not judge those inside, while God judges those outside? “Remove the wicked person from among yourselves.” (1 Corinthians 5:11-13)

But . . . but . . . is that not what Witnesses call disfellowshipping? Yes. Exactly. And, in a world that seeks to mandate ‘inclusion,’ that’s the problem: Witnesses call it that. Thus, people not overly paying attention can be manipulated into thinking it is a policy of a human organization. Call it “removal” and then it becomes clear that it is a biblical policy.  

Too, there is the disturbance over the Witness organization supposedly telling individual members how they should interact with disfellowshipped ones. Strike the term disfellowship, substitute remove, and then the problem of telling ones how to treat disfellowshipped persons vanishes because there are no disfellowshipped persons. Instead, individual members will be guided by how the Bible says to treat ones who have been removed. Since, they belong to an organization that takes the Bible seriously, they will probably be impressed by the phrase ‘not even eating with such a man,’ from that 1 Corinthians passage.

Not much has changed, some will say, but actually it is an important change. Ones who are critical of the Witness discipline policy called disfellowshipping must now redirect their criticism toward the Bible. Some will be more than ready to do it. If so, let them say it. Let them say, ‘The problem is the Bible itself, not the Witnesses who do no more than follow it.’ Let them say it. The Bible is a much harder target to censure than is a group of people patterned after it.

Maybe, they’ll do what a Russian court did. Object to the “hate speech” in the Witness-produced Bible, the New World Translation, at Genesis 19:24. “God rained fire and brimstone on Sodom and the nearby city of Gomorrah. All their wicked inhabitants perished,” and use that verse as a pretext to ban it, notwithstanding that all Bibles say the same thing. In the previous post of this series, another instance was mentioned, by another Russian court—Psalm 37:29: “The righteous will inherit the earth and will live forever.” This verse from the New World Translation was also deemed exclusionary to those who live otherwise. Again, it didn’t matter that all Bibles say the same thing. The New World Translation was banned in Russia. This was too much even for Alexander Dvorkin, FECRIS vice president, and one of the prime instigators of the Witness organization being banned in Russia. It is obviously a Bible, he pointed out. Banning it just makes our people look like ignorant goons. To which I said, ‘Ban it for exactly that reason.’ See if Russian scholars will thank Alex for it the next time they are laughed off some academic stage. The tactic of banning an organization but not the religion of that organization is so duplicitous that ordinary people can’t get their heads around it. The lower courts just figured it was their job to declare everything Witnesses touch illegal.

Meanwhile, Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia, whose lives have been severely impacted, at least are not impacted by this ban of the New World Translation. They just switch to another Bible. They all work. 

Same thing here in the 1 Corinthians 5  ‘remove the wicked man from among yourselves.’ Will Witness opponents seek to outlaw the New World Translation, despite all other Bibles saying the same thing? No, you might say, that would be a very stupid thing to do. But since that is exactly what was done in Russia over different verses, one cannot rule anything out. If so, Jehovah’s Witnesses will have to switch to a different Bible that also says it—but one to which its readers up to now have paid no attention to, so it arouses no ire. I mean, you could have instructions on how to assemble a nuclear bomb in most Bible translations. Since the book is never read by most who call themselves Christian, no harm done.

To be continued: here 

******  The bookstore