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

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

Q:  “With all of these changes that have happened so fast, are Jehovah's witnesses slowly morphing into mainstream religion?”

No, but they are learning to adapt to a changing world. As long as you can do this without abandoning core principles, you’re okay.

All changes from Part 1 and Part 2 are relatively trivial things. One that is not has to do with discipline policies, which ex-Witnesses seek to portray, with some success, as draconian. For the time being, ‘activist’ woke courts, the type that try to mandate ‘inclusion,’ rule against the Witnesses for their policies to stay ‘no part of the world.’ Higher courts, where the woke mindset has not yet permeated, overturn those rulings.

Already, Jehovah’s Witnesses were, from a review of Joel Engardio’s documentary Knocking, “an excellent example, perhaps our last hope, of how groups with strongly polarized ideas can yet coexist peacefully.” Despite their public visits, Jehovah's Witnesses are a "live and let live" religion. Their "weapons" are ideas only. Tell them "no" and they go away. Sure, they try to be persuasive, but it's still only words. They don't afterward attempt to legislate their beliefs into law, so as to force people to live their way, much less resort to violence.

But now, a world that increasing stresses ‘inclusion,’ the very opposite of the scriptural directive to remain ‘no part of the world’ presents new challenges. JWs must revisit their policies of discipline, as these are now under attack. Can they be tweaked without being gutted? Turns out they can. The result is somethng that both improves the Witnesses and permits them to navigate the greater world’s changing standards.

The judge that ruled against Witnesses in Norway observed that he found it perfectly reasonable that teenage boyfriends and girlfriends are going to have sex with one another. You can be sure his ruling would have been different if he did not find such ‘perfectly reasonable.’ He may still have thought the Witnesses’ discipline policies harsh, but he would not likely have found them illegal. It was once commonplace for parents to be greatly concerned that their teens might be sleeping around. It no longer is. These are the shoals the Witness organization must navigate. Temporarily, with new policies on how to deal with teens veering from the family values, they have found a way to do so.

I like that Knocking quote because it presents Jehovah’s Witnesses as the most progressive of organizations, a description we don’t ordinarily enjoy. They are “perhaps our last hope, of how groups with strongly polarized ideas can yet coexist peacefully.” It is axiomatic in this world that ‘strongly polarized views’ in time results in violence. JWs have disproved this ‘axiom.’ Are they given credit for it? No. But they should be. With recent reports of ISIS taking credit for the horrific attack on that Moscow collosium, I posted that several times in ‘I Don’t Know Why We Persecute Jehovah’s Witnesses; Searching for the Why’ I had observed that one would think ISIS would have taught the Russian government what extremism is.

Far from JWs being the intolerant people who finally received comeuppance in a Norwegian court, as opposers try to present it, they are already bastions of peaceful coexistence who encounter problems with their discipline policies amidst a world that increasingly despises discipline. In the process of adapting, they end up making themselves better.

*******  The bookstore

Could you liken disfellowshipping to time in the penalty box? It depends on your criteria.

It is time spent out of the game. It is also not forever. After a stint of cooling one’s heels, you get readmitted to the game; an outcome never in doubt—assuming a player wants that outcome, of course, and they all do in hockey.

In disfellowshipping, they may not. They may even decide the spiritual game sucks and they’re not going to play anymore. You do have to believe in God to be happy as a Witness. Occasionally, a DFed one even goes into full vengeful Haman mode, plotting revenge upon the ousting congregation. But I like the ones who view it the hockey way. At any rate, it is possible to do so, and say, ‘Ah, rats! Here I am in the penalty box. But not to worry. Do my time and out I come.”

Meantime, there you are watching the game. Same thing in the case of disfellowshipping. No one excludes you from the Hall. There you are watching the game. You just don’t take part for a time until you get your act together.

Of course, another main difference is that the refs in hockey don’t try to gauge repentance. They hold no conference to judge whether a player feels bad about slamming another into the boards (even spearing them with the stick!) or is apt to do it again. To the penalty box they go—whether they feel bad or not. But in the congregation, repentance will cut you slack every time. If you have it, you’ll avoid the box entirely, though you still may have your skates restricted for a time. Of course, if you slam them against the boards, apologize, and then go off to do it again, congregation refs start to wonder just how repentant you are.

Playing with the notion a bit, here I notice that Wikipedia calls that penalty box the ‘sin bin’ or the ‘bad box’—a point on viewing in my way, isn’t it? See how repentant this fellow looks.

[[Photo:Richard Gynge going to penalty box.JPG|Richard_Gynge_going_to_penalty_box . . . No, this post has nothing to do with him personally.  He’s just here for the pic.]]

******  The bookstore

Now, TrueTom sailed off from the Theopenisian Wars with his shipgroup. How he missed his home! Would his loyal mutt Rookin—how old must he be now?—still recognize him? TrueTom pictured him on the dungheap, same as when he was a pup, perhaps reading Dilbert and wearing his cowboy hat.

More wrenchingly, Truetom longed for his noble wife, fending for herself these many years. Probably the malcontents were making plenty of trouble for her, trying to draw her into their wicked beds. He’d kick their rear ends sure enough.

“Gather around, men!” Truetom hollered to his shipmates. “We all long for our homes but there are yet perilous seas ahead. Like this island coming up where voluptuous sirens descend and sing so tantalizingly that it is said no man can hear them and not go mad! I’m half there already, so what’s another exposure? But I want to protect you from these femme fatales, even as I check them out for myself.”

TrueTom’s men hearkened to this new light but mused whether their peerless leader could really withstand the wiles of these knock-out babes. Tom announced his plan of action. “I want you guys to put blinders on and stuff your ears with this tincture of molasses and tar. But me—bind me securely to the masthead. And—this is important, men—no matter how much I plead, DO NOT release my bonds!”

Now, you know how guys like to improvise—improve on a good idea. The men responded that the most effective bond of all would be for them to threaten shunning if their captain misbehaved—shunning to continue until he resumed behaving! At first, Tom was aghast that they could propose anything so cruel as shunning. However, in view of the dire risks he agreed to this harshest of all bonds.

“Are you ready, men?” Truetom shouted as they neared the dangerous island. The men, their ears oozing with molasses and tar, made no reply. Truetom praised them inwardly for their obedience. With blinders on and ears plugged, they pulled ahead lustfully, Tom bonded to the mast under threat of shunning.

Women curvaceous beyond anyone’s wildest dreams soon descended upon the boat. They swirled around the masthead, singing their maddenly sweet songs. “Go to college—make a great name for yourself!” one of them cooed. “Do your own thing! be happy,” another crooned, followed by such tantalizing lyrics as “Take it easy,” “have this here cigarette—live it up!, Here, let me pour you some strong drink.” “Why so serious?” cried another. “It’s not so baaaaad.”

Shucks, said TrueTom to himself. This is nothing! It’s like when you click on that cautionary Twitter link expecting a real zinger ahead and it turns out to be pure dullsville. I stopped up the guys’ ears for this?

However, a second wave approached. The first had been but a decoy! Those first hussies headed back to their island, discouraged that their songs had so little impact, but now the ‘bad cop’ floozies swooped down en masse!

“You guys are a cult!” sang one. “Your CSA policy stinks,” bellowed another. “What about that guy in Colorado who shot his wife?” wailed a third.

Suddenly Truetom was overcome. “Get me out of here!” he pleaded to his men. “Release me—I can’t take it!” But his men rowed on as though passing Giligan’s Island, blinders in place, molasses and tar doing their evil work. They could not hear his impassioned cry! Tom struggled in vain to escape his cruel bonds but was held fast in place. He didn’t want to be shunned!

(Photo: Ulysses and the Sirens by H.J. Draper—Wikimedia) 

The magical women gave no letup. “Tony bought some booze!” shrieked another siren! “Rolf says you suck—and he’s been to university!” tormented yet another. On and on the unspeakable torture went. Truetom gnashed his teeth, his heart ablaze as though he had taken 1000 Covid boosters. He tore in vain against his bonds but there was no escape. At last he collapsed, exhausted. The women, seeing they had not swayed him—no force is more powerful than fear of shunning—went off to search for some other sucker.

Far from the island, Tom’s men released him, promising not to shun him even if he did misbehave. Thereafter, Truetom’s stature became legendary, as the man who had withstood and lived to tell all the brazen spiritual hussies had to dish out.

******  The bookstore

When the elders met with me after the meeting, I had no thought at all of putting the experience online. That occurred to me later. 

I just came to think I’d let it stand as a real time example of responding to counsel even if I don’t agree with every aspect of it. The only examples of meeting with the elders that ever appear online are those written by unruly persons already on the edge, like Dathan and those rebellious louts, who rail at the attempt at “mind control” and cry ad nauseum over their right to free speech, missing every spiritual point in the process of making their dominant fleshy one: “No one’s telling me what to do!”

I don’t resent the counsel at all. I take it for just what it is—loving oversight.  I both accept and appreciate that Jehovah leads his people via a human agency, and I am grateful that there is something that corresponds to verses such as Hebrews 13:17, to “be obedient to those who are taking the lead among you and be submissive, for they are keeping watch over you as those who will render an account, so that they may do this with joy and not with sighing, for this would be damaging to you.”

As such, I accept they have the responsibility to counsel in line with scripture, and I don’t carry on as though my toes are being stepped on or my rights infringed upon. They represent the human link in the divine/human interface, and they do not demand lockstep walking even as they give pointed counsel. I don’t consider myself above them. They are above me as regards authority.

I appreciate their efforts to check me, and as stated, I would be far worse in the absence of godly counsel to not engage with those who show by word or deed that acquiescence to Jehovah’s standards and all that is entailed is repugnant to them. It does me good to be checked by them, for I do believe that we become who we hang out with. We may not become it instantly, but we do so eventually—if not in point of argument then in forfeiting the Christlike manner—and often even in point of argument, as they are almost always based on following the trends of the day.

I would like it if there was a little more organizational pushback on some of the charges leveled against us—you know, take these guys on. I’ve said it many times before. But you can’t always get what you want. You can’t always get what you want. You can’t always get what you want. But if you try sometime, you just might find, you get what you need. 

And I have. I can’t go charging around like an enraged bull. But that kind of conduct can get a guy skewered anyway. It does me well to do what I do under the discipline of conforming to theocratic counsel. Even if in one aspect I am not a stellar example of it. I am in most other aspects.

Guys my age watch Perry Mason so they can see the old cars. They also like the courtroom drama of Counselor Mason zeroing in to finger just who is the scoundrel. As often as not, it is someone in the audience who jumps  to his or her feet and confesses, even with tears, but sometimes just with hostility:

“I did it! But I didn’t mean to hurt him. I just wanted to change his mind, but he wouldn’t take....I didn’t (sob) mean to hurt him!”

or

”I did it! That rotter had it coming! Yes, I did it! And I’d do it again!”

That doesn’t actually happen in a real courtroom. Nor does it happen that the witness himself confesses under Mason’s relentless questioning.

”I checked you story, and it’s a lot of hot air! Didn’t you just make it up to hide the fact that you killed Mr. So-and-So yourself?”

”Yes! Yes, I killed him! (sob) But I never meant to hurt him! (or: “He was a good-for-nothing rotter! He needed killing! I did what was necessary!”)

No. Doesn’t happen in a real courtroom. The defense lawyer (which Perry Mason is) just works to get his client off. It’s not his problem who did the deed. Still, we forgive the show these excesses. It makes for good drama—not gripping by today’s standards—but acceptable entertainment to have running in the background.

It takes itself seriously, though. Check out this statement:

“When both sides properly prepare a case, the adversary system can effectively guarantee the revelation of all the facts bearing on an issue. The more experience you have with it, the more you’ll find it a surprisingly scientific method of trial preparation.” — Perry Mason.  (Season 5, Ep 13 The Case of the Renegade Refugee)

One young woman at the congregation meeting last night identified with the “missing drachma” parable of Jesus, saying: “When I put my hand in my back pocket and find some money there....Whoa! it is a big deal!” (“Betty Davis style” is how Bob Dylan said it.) I must admit that it inspired me to do the same, slipping a dollar into my back pocket, pulling it out and exclaiming: “Whoa! Look at this!”

It was this illustration at Luke 15 that got her going: “What woman who has ten drachma coins, if she loses one of the drachmas, does not light a lamp and sweep her house and search carefully until she finds it? And when she has found it, she calls her friends and neighbors together, saying, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found the drachma coin that I had lost.’”

There is a not-so-hidden rebuke in Jesus’ words summarizing a similar parable: “I tell you that in the same way, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over 99 righteous ones who have no need of repentance.”​ Well, they did—have need of repentance that is. Otherwise they would have been out searching for the missing sheep themselves:

“What man among you with 100 sheep, on losing one of them, will not leave the 99 behind in the wilderness and go after the lost one until he finds it? And when he has found it, he puts it on his shoulders and rejoices. And when he gets home, he calls his friends and his neighbors together, saying to them, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep that was lost.’”​

The context was that of the Pharisees sneering at the common people that they should have been tending to, even employing the pejorative term “amhaarets”—“people of the dirt.” Straying a little off-topic, but still fair game, the conductor of that Bible-study portion explored how you wouldn’t want to come across that way in your own ministry:

Bible principles are good and with them people mess up their lives much less than they would otherwise. Sometimes it works at the other end, and they succeed much more than they would otherwise. It depends upon one’s starting point. At any rate, come across someone in the ministry with a host of problems, and realize it could well be you in the absence of Bible principles—I mean, it is no basis for ever feeling superior, as those Pharisees did without even mastering the godly ways.

Again, not part of this particular study, but certainly in the same vein, was Jesus’ rebuke to those same religious leaders on another occasion: “But when the scribes of the Pharisees saw that he was eating with the sinners and tax collectors, they began saying to his disciples: “Does he eat with tax collectors* and sinners?”  On hearing this, Jesus said to them: “Those who are strong do not need a physician, but those who are ill do. I came to call, not righteous people, but sinners.”

Sometimes those who dislike Jehovah’s Witnesses try to paint it that they have a higher proportion of ones mentally ill. I have no idea whether this is true or not, for mental illness defines the times that we live in, but I don’t even kick back at this anymore. Instead, I say that, if true, it is exactly what one would expect. I quote Jesus’ words that he came to call, not on those who do not need a physician, but on those who do. “Spiritually sick” is what he is talking about, but if spiritually sick, then maybe emotionally or mentally sick as well—sickness tends to overflow its banks. The people you have to wonder about, in my view, are not those who experience emotional difficulties in the face of the present world, but those who do not—those who sail past atrocities on every side and remain undisturbed.

The two Bible chapters up for review in that mid-week meeting were Hebrews 12 and 13. Discipline was a theme, in view of 12:7. “You need to endure as part of your discipline,” the verse says. There was a video of a circuit overseer taking counsel from his wife as discipline. He was upset over someone he thought had treated him badly, and his wife said: “Well, that’s because he is a yo-yo. But so are you. Get over it.” [precise words mine, not hers] He told of how he had received a letter from the branch telling how he had botched something or other, and he counted that, too, as discipline. Sometimes we get counseled over various things.

Still, the overall sense of Hebrews 12:7 is that even if no one ever says a word to you about anything, simply to pursue the Christian course in a world that either wants to change that course or have nothing to do with it is a “discipline.” The lives of Jehovah’s Witnesses might be described as ones of delayed gratification; they go light or even abstain from certain aspects of life that they would otherwise engage in for the sake of laying hold to a greater prize. That takes self-discipline. Delayed gratification is usually seen as a responsible thing, even by Witness opposers, just not in this case.

That just pursuing the Christian course in the face of an indifferent or even hostile world is in itself a form of discipline is plain from surrounding verses, as well as the overall context of the Book of Hebrews itself. Those members of the Jerusalem congregation were tiring of holding the line. They “ought to be teachers in view of the time but they again need someone to teach [them] from the beginning the elementary things.” (5:12) Hopefully, they would be encouraged by the “great cloud of witnesses” surrounding them—not to mention Christ’s own example, so as to “not get tired and give up.” (12:1-3)

“In your struggle against that sin, you have never yet resisted to the point of having your blood shed.  And you have entirely forgotten the exhortation that addresses you as sons: “My son, do not belittle the discipline from Jehovah, nor give up when you are corrected by him;  for those whom Jehovah loves he disciplines, in fact, he scourges everyone whom he receives as a son.” You need to endure as part of your discipline. God is treating you as sons. For what son is not disciplined by his father?  But if you have not all shared in receiving this discipline, you are really illegitimate children, and not sons. Furthermore, our human fathers used to discipline us, and we gave them respect. Should we not more readily submit ourselves to the Father of our spiritual life and live?  For they disciplined us for a short time according to what seemed good to them, but he does so for our benefit so that we may partake of his holiness.  True, no discipline seems for the present to be joyous, but it is painful; yet afterward, it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it. Therefore, strengthen the hands that hang down and the feeble knees.” (12:4-12)

Don’t be a lout and don’t miss the point of God’s undeserved kindness [“grace,” many transactions say, but the New World Translation says “undeserved kindness,” since the former term just conveys to the modern man that God is not clumsy and doesn’t topple over things]: “Carefully watch that no one fails to obtain the undeserved kindness of God, so that no poisonous root springs up to cause trouble and many are defiled by it; and watch that among you there is no one who is sexually immoral nor anyone who does not appreciate sacred things, like Eʹsau, who gave up his rights as firstborn in exchange for one meal. (12:15-16)

He is shaking the very heaven and the earth. He is not shaking the congregation directly, but it is sure to feel the aftershocks—hence the heightened need for the discipline of endurance: “Now the expression “yet once more” indicates the removal of the things that are shaken, things that have been made, in order that the things not shaken may remain.  Therefore, seeing that we are to receive a Kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us continue to receive undeserved kindness, through which we may acceptably offer God sacred service with godly fear and awe.  (12:27-28)

(thoughts gleaned from the midweek meeting of September 23-29, 2019)

*Tax collectors were the lowest of the low in popular esteem back then because they were not unknown to shake people down for, not just the required tax, but whatever they could get in addition.