The internal discipline now practiced by Jehovah’s Witnesses was practiced in most Protestant denominations until less than 100 years ago, based upon numerous scriptures throughout the New Testament. When it became unpopular, they gave it up. As a result, points out Christian author Ronald Sider, the morals and lifestyle of today’s evangelical church members are often indistinguishable from that of the general populace. That’s not the way it ought to be. The Bible is clear that the Christian congregation is not supposed be a mirror image of today’s morally wandering society. It is supposed to be an oasis.

I vividly recall circuit overseers pointing out that a few decades ago the difference between Jehovah’s Witnesses and churchgoers in general was doctrinal, not moral. Time was when there was little difference between the two groups with regard to conduct. Today the chasm is huge. Can internal discipline not be a factor?

“Church discipline used to be a significant, accepted part of most evangelical traditions, whether Reformed, Methodist, Baptist, or Anabaptist,” Sider writes. “In the second half of the twentieth century, however, it has largely disappeared.” He then quotes Haddon Robinson on the current church climate, a climate he calls ‘consumerism:’

“Too often now when people join a church, they do so as consumers. If they like the product, they stay. If they do not, they leave. They can no more imagine a church disciplining them than they could a store that sells goods disciplining them. It is not the place of the seller to discipline the consumer. In our churches, we have a consumer mentality.”

(the above four paragraphs taken from ‘Tom Irregardless and Me.’)

Jehovah’s Witnesses have withstood the trend. However, a world that increasingly advocates “inclusion” asserts that such discipline should be abandoned. Norway is the first country to so insist. A ruling from that land prompts an internal review. As a result, without abandoning core principles, a few modifications are made, and they were covered in congregation meetings during October of 2024.

***

Discipline policies, which ex-Witnesses seek to portray, with some success, as draconian, have gotten the attention of activist courts—the type that try to mandate inclusion, and look askance at Witnesses for their policies to stay ‘no part of the world.’ Higher courts, where the woke mindset has not yet permeated, overturn these rulings. But, seeing what’s on the horizon, Witnesses learn to adapt. As long as you can do this without abandoning core principles, you’re okay.

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 embraces conduct from which it once abstained 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 they 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 a 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. One would still think so.

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 improving themselves. It’s all good.

***

Q: Should the Norwegian government reverse course on Jehovah's Witnesses based on the changes they have made in their disfellowshipping practice?

Favorable government treatment of religion was originally based upon the premise that religion does the government’s legitimate work for them. It improves the calibre of the people, making them easier to govern and more of a national asset. Jehovah’s Witnesses are among the relative few still fulfilling this premise. As a people, they pay more than their share into the public till, since they are honest, hard-working, and not given to cheating on taxes. Yet they draw on that till less, by not abusing government programs and almost never requiring policing. They are a bargain for any country.

Witnesses think it well when this original “contract” is remembered and not superseded by the modern demand of inclusion. While they include races, ethnicities, classes, etc to a greater degree than most (in the US, according to Pew Research, they are comprised of almost exactly 1/3 white, 1/3 black, 1/3 Hispanic, with about 5% Asian added) they do not include within themselves persons refusing to live by Bible principles. They respect the right of people to live as they choose—reject Bible standards if one chooses—just so long as it is not within the congregation.

They have made some legitimate tweaks as of late (August 2024 Watchtower, covered at congregation meeting) to address what to do with minors veering from the Christian course—which treatment had become a matter of concern for the Norwegian government. And, as for those who, after help, manifestly refuse to abide by Bible principles, they have replaced a word that is not found in the Bible (disfellowshipping) with a phrase that is (remove from the congregation). A distracting term that is not found in the Bible has been dropped. Thus, it becomes a matter of whether a government recognizes a people’s right to live by the Bible.

Additionally, real changes have been made to address any perception that elders are quick to remove those straying from Bible values, but the basic thought expressed at 1 Corinthians 5 still holds:

“In my letter I wrote you to stop keeping company with sexually immoral people, not meaning entirely with the sexually immoral people of this world or the greedy people or extortioners or idolaters. Otherwise, you would actually have to get out of the world. 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 Cor 5:9–13)

“Do you not know that a little leaven ferments the whole batch of dough?” the apostle Paul says just prior, at 1 Corinthians 5:6.

When I was a boy, people watched cowboy shows on TV. The good guys wore white hats, the bad guys word black hats. You were not going to fall into a course of wrongdoing, unless it was deliberate. They were wearing black hats!  You could not miss them! Today, in a world where the batch has fermented, things are less straightforward. People stray, get tripped up, even hardened. It doesn’t mean they’re lost causes. Present adjustments are just updates for the times, while preserving the basic need to keep the congregation adhering to Bible standards. Norway may have been the last straw, a trigger for all that the time to relook at things was due. Look, if disfellowshipped ones accumulate to the point where even Norway starts to complain, maybe it is time for a reexamination. The leaven must still be removed, and is, but the new norm—is is overdue?—is to go back from time to time and reexamine specific policies of discipline. Some have been refashioned.

******  The bookstore

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 they 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)