

### Dear Mr. Putin – Jehovah's Witnesses Write Russia: Russian Edition

By

Tom Harley

Smashwords edition

Copyright © 2018 Tom Harley

2nd edition - 2020

All rights reserved

Smashwords Edition, License Notes

Thank you for downloading this Ebook. This book remains the copyrighted property of the author, and may not be redistributed to others for commercial or non-commercial purposes. If you enjoyed this book, please encourage your friends to download their own copy from their favorite authorized retailer. Thank you for your support.

Table of Contents

Introduction

Part I

Chapter 1 – The Soviets

Chapter 2 – Campaign and Trial

Chapter 3 – Appeal

Chapter 4 – Aftermath

Chapter 5 – Endurance

Part II

Chapter 6 – Statecraft

Chapter 7 – Education

Chapter 8 – Brainwashing

Chapter 9 – Discipline

Chapter 10 – A Governing Body

Chapter 11 – Apostasy

Chapter 12 – Money

Part III

Chapter 13 – Earth

Chapter 14 – Fake News

Chapter 15 – Life
Part IV

Chapter 16 – Prison and a President With Questions

Chapter 17 – Mistreatment and an Enemy Revealed

Chapter 18 – Sticking Up For the Unrighteous

Final Acknowledgements

Endnotes

Other Books by the Author

Contact the Author

# Introduction

In March of 2017, Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide were invited just once by their coordinating organization to write Vladimir Putin. Within two months, up to 49 million letters had been sent. They weren't all to Putin—several other officials were identified—but his was the most recognizable name.

On the surface, the campaign was a failure. Opposition, which would ultimately lead to an April 20th Supreme Court ban of the religious organization, continued unabated. It has only intensified since. Still, Witnesses felt the heat on their Russian brothers and sisters as though it were on them. They longed to do something and here was something tangible that they could do. By taking part, they demonstrated to all that there is one nation on earth in which every citizen cares deeply for every other. They fortified their Russian counterparts who are now in the eye of the storm.

Throughout Soviet times, from the eradication of the czar to 1991, Jehovah's Witnesses had been banned in Russia. Witnesses who survived the tribulation of Nazi Germany found, if they happened to live in the wrong part of the country, that they had simply swapped one set of persecutors for another. Perestroika and Glasnost set them free in Russia during 1991, but their time of freedom has lasted only until 2017, and the present laws are harsher than those of Soviet days.

Books about Jehovah's Witnesses authored by Jehovah's Witnesses are not plentiful. This is a shame, for no outsider, even with the best of intentions, can do justice to the faith as can a Witness—they miss the nuances, and in some cases, even the facts. Three reasons account for this drought. Jehovah's Witnesses are primarily drawn from the ranks of working people, who are not inclined to write books. Pathways of publicizing their faith are already well established and few think to go beyond them—why write a book when you can and do look people in the eye and tell them what you have to say? Even blogs of Jehovah's Witnesses are relatively few. There is also a sense of not wanting to compete with an official channel.

What books Witnesses do author are usually of specialized subsets—say, of endurance under persecution, contributions to civil liberty through national supreme courts, or the topic of blood transfusion. What this writer attempts here he has seen no Witness do before. If they have, he is not aware of it. Non-Witnesses can write of the nuts and bolts of the movement to destroy the faith's infrastructure in Russia. But they will miss the subtleties of the motive for doing so. They will miss totally the atmosphere impelling every Witness in the world to write relevant Russian officials. They will miss what the rank and file felt as they followed the ups and downs of breaking events.

Enough of "this writer." Portions of this book are deeply personal statements which will resonate with all Witnesses, and I do not want to calcify them with references to "this writer." Though there are accepted rules of style and format, ultimately the only rule that counts is what you can get away with. Accordingly, I'll flip back and forth with the self-references—sometimes "this writer" and sometimes just "I."

As might be surmised, I am not impartial. This book will not be impartial. I am a 40-plus year member of the faith. While not ignoring other points of view, I will consistently present matters as Witnesses see them. Like most Witnesses, my year-long process of introduction to and eventual embrace of the faith I liken to assembling a jigsaw puzzle. Once you have put the pieces together and have reproduced the mountain vista on the box cover, you have a strong basis for faith not easily shaken.

You are not immune, however, to the discouragements of life that afflict everyone. Nor are you immune to your own shortcomings, or to trials your newfound faith brings you. Ultimately, you will lose the game, because the one of long ago that you strive to follow also lost the game—executed after preaching the gospel for just a few short years. But your loss is illusory. It will be transformed into a win, just as the master's loss was.

The life Jehovah's Witnesses have their eye upon they would call "the true life" of 1 Timothy 6:19. The true life is not the present reality of an earth carved up into endless squabbling factions, each demanding the allegiance of those within its jurisdiction. It is the life that commences after the end of that system. Contrary to popular view, the Bible does not present a world gradually transformed by Christian values. It presents a world increasingly opposed to them that is ultimately replaced by God for that reason. "Your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as in heaven," says the familiar prayer. No one would say that God's will is not done in heaven—surely things must run smoothly up there. But neither would anyone say that his will is done on earth today. There are glimmers of it here and there, to be sure, but no one would ever say that it predominates. It is a present tragedy that is remedied when his "kingdom comes."

A pitfall I had to face early on involved taking care that whatever I wrote would not be banned in Russia as extremist. Of course, it is possible that the whole book might be—the present federal list of writings designated extremist includes, at present, over 4000 works,1 but why ensure the fate by quoting from works already on the list? Most Watchtower-published material the Russian government has declared extremist. Even the children's books are so labeled. Even the Bible translation they use is so labeled. Even their website is extremist and off limits. If you are in Russia, you cannot read it. If you are anywhere else, you are okay.

I did not immediately realize the ramifications of this. In my early drafts I linked a few times to the website. Must I remove those links? Here and there I quoted some Watchtower publications. Must I rewrite those portions? It wasn't my only option. Early on, I imagined writing two versions: the first as I pleased and the second with offending passages redacted, highlighting the silliness of it all, for the passages are all innocuous. The cover of the public work would carry a caution at the bottom: "Warning – Do Not Read in Russia" and the cover of the redacted would be typewritten and without image, as one might expect of an underground work. In the end I settled upon a mix of both. There are two versions with identical covers, one warning in an orange circle to not read it in Russia, the other "safe" version with orange circle saying it is okay. Watch those orange circles. Make sure you are reading the right book. You do not want to be thrown into the hoosegow.2

I did realize from the onset that the New World Translation would have to go. Even a quote from it is enough to designate a book as extremist. Even, in theory, is Jesus's words about how one must love one's enemy. Such quoting might not actually draw the wrath of officials, but it is difficult to know for sure. Russia is a land of Kafkaesque contradictions in matters of religion. Jehovah's Witnesses are declared extremists in Russia and shortly thereafter Putin inducts one into the Order of Parental Glory as a fine family example. The mischievous mind envisions him awarding an ISIS family the next week, with grenades hanging from belts—for they and Jehovah's Witnesses are both declared extremists under the same law. A town official honors a Witness for cleaning up the public park. Shortly thereafter that Witness is carted off to jail for conducting a Bible study meeting. One envisions that same official next week honoring ISIS for cleaning the park and then being blown to bits by a mine left behind while strolling the grounds—for they are extremists.

The only safe assumption is that there are, at present, four approved faiths in the land of the bear—just four—that's more than enough, the government decrees. For the religiously inclined who favor the Christian brand, there is the Russian Orthodox Church. Going anywhere else is dicey. Church protodeacon Andrey Kuraev is no friend of Jehovah's Witnesses; he verbally savages them, "but blaming them for extremism is not even funny. This decision cannot be called anything other than glaringly idiotic: to accuse pacifists, uncompromisingly non-resisting Tolstoyans of extremism!"3

"Prohibiting is irrational," he continues. "And certainly not with the arguments that were given (or, on the contrary, not given). Especially since there haven't been any intelligible arguments quoted yet. By the way, there are a number of these forbidden books in my house, [uh oh] I did not notice anything extremist there. So, and now I have to arrest? Yes, they have harsh statements about other religions. It's true. But the same Supreme Court of the Russian Federation a few years ago decided that criticism of religions is not a crime." (brackets mine)

Does Kuraev really mean to suggest that prosecution presented no intelligible arguments at the Supreme Court trial? An observer of the trial might well think it. He might well wonder just what does the government have against Jehovah's Witnesses? There must be something, but it is not stated. At one point the judge asked the prosecution (the Ministry of Justice) whether it had prepared for the case. A decision had been plainly made somewhere from on high and it would fall upon the judge to rubber-stamp it. Of course, he did, perhaps because he wanted to remain a judge. The actual reasons behind anti-Witness hostility were never presented. So I have presented them in Part II, along with how they might be defended.

Some Witnesses, truth be told, will be uncomfortable with Part II, and might best be advised to skip over it. They will love the idea of defending the faith but may be unaware of the scope of the attacks made against it, some of which are intensely malicious. Deciding to sit out this or that controversy will earn them taunts of "sticking one's head in the sand" from detractors, but it is exactly what Jesus recommends, as will be seen. Not everyone must immerse themselves in every "fact," for many of them will turn out to be facts of Mark Twain's variety: facts that "ain't so." You can't do everything, and most persons choose to focus on matters most directly relevant to their lives. Part II thereafter rolls into Part III, which suggests an offense—not a legal offense, but an overall moral one.

Kuraev goes on to observe that "our Christian authors, including sacred, ancient, authoritative, have extremely negative statements [about other religions]." And he points to Jesus' own words about the founders of other religions: "All who [have] come before me are thieves and robbers."4 He continues: "The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation seriously compromised this decision. The belief that you can trust the judicial system of Russia, even at the highest level, is shattered." He fears lest "the ax once clamped against the Jehovah's Witnesses does not attack us with the same arguments." He worries the Court's decision "shakes the boat, represents power in an evil and unpredictable manner and thereby creates unnecessary distrust and fear in society."5

Since there are but four approved religious channels, Jehovah's Witnesses are plainly not the only minority faith to experience persecution in Russia. All of them do to some extent. Witnesses are in the vanguard; they are the first to have their organization outlawed, but many are shaking in their boots that they will be next. They watch things unfold. Had Witnesses prevailed in the Court, they would have claimed equal victory. They mostly held back, not challenging the government prosecutor's assertion that Jehovah's Witnesses are a cult. The definition of cult has changed greatly over the years. It once had a precise meaning. These days it has been expanded to include _people we don't like_ , just as news we don't like is _fake news_. Gone are the days when nefarious deeds and the withdrawal from life under the spell of a charismatic leader sufficed to be labeled a cult. Approaching are the days where simply standing against contemporary trends and mindsets is enough. The entire New Testament could be reinterpreted as the writings of a cult with this definition, for it is not warm and fuzzy toward the popular culture of its day, and those who embraced the new faith it espoused withdrew from that culture.

If they withdrew from it then, they withdraw from it now. This is a point of much concern to Witness detractors, as will be seen. After a period of investigation into the Bible, seldom lasting under a year, Jehovah's Witnesses come to feel they have found something better, and most immerse themselves in it, sometimes to the point of losing touch almost completely with the day-to-day political concerns that preoccupy others.

After the 911 terrorist attacks on New York City, which claimed the lives of 2,753 persons, teams of Jehovah's Witnesses, organized at the branch level, visited the scene. Branch member Gregory Bowman relates: "When we were ultimately granted access to ground zero, and we started encountering the first responders, we let them know how much we appreciated their hard work, and that they had a skill-set that we didn't have, but yet our skill-set was trying to offer comfort to them. We shared a scripture with them. Immediately we could tell that that was something that caused emotion to rise up in them right away. And they expressed great appreciation for that. One of the beautiful things about the scriptures is they're calming, soothing, comforting, and the scriptures did not let down the workers that were there at ground zero either."6

Likely, the representatives of many denominations took action to comfort people. But what could they say? "Out of evil, comes good"? "God works in mysterious ways"? "He (she) is in a better place, now"? Witnesses would never say any of these things. It is from such banal and insensitive remarks that atheists are born. I like the expression "skill-set," both applied to the first responders and then to the Witness volunteers themselves. The "skill-set" of Jehovah's Witnesses is an accurate understanding of the Scriptures and a cultivated desire and ability to share it. An accurate understanding of the Bible makes unnecessary the trite sayings above. In fact, it eviscerates them, and offers something far better, as will be seen.

This writer, too, regards himself as having a skill-set, and finds, to his surprise, that it is a somewhat unusual one. Newsmakers have little insight into the world of Jehovah's Witnesses. In turn, Jehovah's Witnesses have little insight into the political doings of this world. In a spiritual sense, they would say that they do have insight, but that is not the sense that that world itself is most familiar with. I am passably familiar with both and can build a bridge between them—not be a literal bridge, but a bridge of joint understanding, which can hardly be a bad thing. Even in the current climate of distrust bordering on hostility between the United States and Russia, it is generally conceded that understanding the other's point of view is an asset, not a liability.

Choice of a substitute Bible translation was not easy. Perhaps it should have been. Any of them will do. However, Jehovah's Witnesses are accustomed to the divine name appearing in the Bible. They are frustrated by its banishment. They think that if an author puts his name in his work 7,000 times, it implies strongly that he wants it there and may not be happy with any who would hide it. They choke when they watch "The Ten Commandments" movie, in which the Israelites are distraught early on because they do not even know their God's name but later they are as pleased as punch because they have finally learned it—it is "the LORD."

There are some translations that render the divine name whenever called for as "Jehovah" or the more Hebrew-flavored "Yahweh."7 But most of these translations are old and afflicted with archaic language. Many translations, even the Russian synodal one, employ "Jehovah" in a few token places. The newer ones, though, are apt to remove it completely, substituting LORD in all capitals to distinguish it from "Lord." The first verse of the 110th Psalm contains both LORD and Lord, and this writer, in his own house-to-house ministry, will sometimes ask the householder if he knows why that is.

The house Bible for this work shall be the New American Bible – Revised Edition, a Catholic translation. I'll just have to get used to reading The LORD everywhere. "Our father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name," Jesus begins. What is that name? The LORD. I'll just have to get used to it. The New American Bible came in second place in the Jason Beduhn book _Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament_. He liked that it was free of what he called the "Protestant's burden."8 The New World Translation is a relatively recent work, its first complete edition appearing in 1961. If it dictates something that is different from the Witnesses' current practice, the latter can simply change, as they did recently with the specifics of appointing elders.9 If the Catholics encounter the same problem, they don't have to change. They have long held that Scripture is not the final word; it can be superseded by saints or tradition. But the Protestants are in a tough spot. They insist that they follow the Bible in every detail, and yet it was written long ago. There is therefore always a powerful temptation to translate in a manner that accords with current practices, even if it means stretching it a bit to make that the case. Beduhn, for example, states such translators "all approached the text [of John 1:1] already believing certain things about the Word...and made sure that the translations came out in accordance with their beliefs."10

If the New American Bible is Beduhn's second choice, why do I here employ the revised edition of it? That was largely an accident. I had written some time before I noticed it and decided to let it slide, on the theory that a revised version of anything is usually an improvement over the original. I also decided not to place scriptural citations of that, or any translation, within the paragraphs, as though in a Watchtower article, but in the endnotes instead. First, this book is not a Watchtower publication, and I wished to avoid any confusion. Second, many readers will be non-religious—why should they think they are being preached to? Third, in these days of search engines, it is an easy matter to enter any passage and find its source.

I am a rank-and-file member of Jehovah's Witness and not an insider. I am a foot soldier. I am a good foot soldier, and loyal. I have been around for a while and have even served as a congregation elder, but otherwise I am nothing special. But I am a foot soldier who can write well, especially if one is not fussy. Foot soldiers can tell splendid history when they get around to it, but one must cut them some slack. This foot soldier looks at the established rules of scholarly writing and they seem burdensome to him, like Goliath's armor, so he sets them aside and hopes for the best with his sling. I will even accept the derisive title given the apostle Paul by the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers, who wanted to know: "What is this scavenger trying to say?" Literally the word means "seed-picker" and it denotes a bird that picks up a seed here and poops it out there.11 That is all I am doing. That is all most writers do.

I am not even a thinker, really, at least, not a rigorous one. I am like Pastor Inqvist's substitute preacher, specifically selected for his dullness—because the pastor does not want to return from vacation and read the disappointment in the eyes of his flock.12 So he chooses a substitute that they will listen to and say: "I'll bet he's good in the shepherding work." Then he will come to their house and they will note the lack of eye contact and say: "Maybe he's a scholar." I am not a scholar either. Leave the deep thinking to others—I don't trust it anyway—but I do have a certain knack for refocusing and crafting words in ways not typically crafted. It will have to do. Only a foot soldier can relate the emotions prevailing as every Witness in the world wrote Russia.

I know no "higher ups" and do not want to know any. As soon as you know some higher-ups you will know some who have erred because they are human. As soon as you know some who have erred because they are human, you have a media that wants to know what those errors are. As soon as the media knows what those errors are, they have but one solution: Fire them! Isn't that why nobody knows anything today? At the first misstep, the verdict is: "Off with his head!" Better not to know them and focus my writing as a foot soldier with 40 years of service. I'll present the facts as persuasively as I can and if readers don't believe me, they don't believe me. In matters of religion, as in most other matters, people decide up front anyway, and choose from the available facts afterwards that which will fit their viewpoint. It is a sign of the times we live in and is evident everywhere.

"There is nothing new under the sun," but perhaps it has not all been collected in one place. No non-Witness can write with the same passion as me on this topic. If they could they would become Jehovah's Witnesses themselves. The overall topic does not relegate itself to side dish status. It ever pushes to be the main course. "The word of God is living and effective, sharper than any two-edged sword, penetrating even between soul and spirit, joints and marrow, and able to discern reflections and thoughts of the heart," says Hebrews. Furthermore, "no creature is concealed from him, but everything is naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must render an account."13 One either embraces such news or runs away; it is very hard to be a neutral bystander. Strangely, in today's atmosphere of critical thinking, the moment people embrace a cause, they are considered biased, and their testimony is looked at askance. In the case of Jehovah's Witnesses, this effectively means that their detractors get to write the greater portion of the story, since strictly neutral persons are uncommon.

My rank-and-file qualifications are high enough to know the Witness organization well. It is the most transparent organization in the world; if you are a member who knows one Witness, you know a thousand. Jehovah's Witnesses have no clergy. Anyone doing anything was once an ordinary congregation member as yourself and you will have kept in touch with many of them and met many more. They all talk. Watchtower literature is extensive and easily accessible, especially to anyone who has collected it, as most Witnesses have, or did, until electronic formats made bulky bound volumes collections less desirable; they were cumbersome, never discarded, but seldom resorted to (at least in my case—doubtless there were better students). Online resources and computer CD's are just so much more compact and convenient.

All of the preceding makes for great transparency. Individual Witnesses go directly to doors to present their faith. What could be more transparent than that? But it is not necessarily the transparency that the world's media would like to see. The latter likes to send reporters to cross-examine those "at the top." The Watchtower declines such requests and contents itself with a "Newsroom Tab" on the web page. The way to find out about the Witnesses is to ask the next one who stops by. But news outlets often hesitate to do this for fear that those Witnesses may (gulp) witness to them. The lazier ones copy material about them off the Internet authored by those who don't like them. Even the expert witness that the Russian Supreme Court relied upon is known to have done this.

Jehovah's Witnesses are fundamentalists in some respects and quite liberal in others. They are not easy to pigeonhole. Zealous advocates for and dissenters against them serve to further confuse. Witnesses are Bible-believing, yet they acknowledge that the creative days of Genesis are "epochs," the time preceding them "aeons."14 They are socially conservative, yet they remain entirely apolitical—their standards are theirs alone and they do not attempt to force them through legislation upon others. Joel Engardio, a journalist and human rights advocate, who was raised a Witness, says that they provide an excellent example, perhaps our last hope, of how groups with strongly polarized ideas can yet coexist peacefully.15

They look to the Book for direction. If you grant that there is an interested God, there is no finer way for him to communicate with humans than through a widespread book, and no book is more widespread than the Bible. The more familiar you are with it, the better off you are. Is such-and-such in the Book or isn't it? The trouble with religion by revelation is that you invariably come across people who have also experienced revelation, but their revelation is different from yours, and then there is no way to ever get to the bottom of it. To be sure, endless people muddy the waters, offering this or that interpretation of verse. Some would paint the book as unreliable on that account, and others as outdated. But at least there is always something to go on with a book, and not just: "God told me so."

Knowledge of the Book may be quite surface with many of these ones, extending little beyond some formula texts to argue this or that doctrine. I once worked with an agnostic woman who knew that God's name was Jehovah because she had seen an Indiana Jones movie. She knew that God's original purpose was for the earth to be a paradise because she had seen the film _Dogma_. Though she had never been in a church, she knew more about God, from two movies, than do the majority of regular churchgoers.

Nonetheless, there will be little discussion of doctrine here—only so much as to set up the occasional punch line. Most of it must be read between the lines and may not reliably be found even there. Suffice it to say that Jehovah's Witnesses are generally credited with knowing their Bibles well and they think that most teachings of the traditional churches are wrong. Seeking to obscure the fact that President Eisenhower was raised a Witness, as though wistfully envisioning a standing tree without roots, a family member recalls that: "Mother and Father knew the Bible from one end to the other. In fact, Mother was her own concordance. Without using one, she could turn to the particular scriptural passage she wanted," since they "lived by the cardinal concepts of the Judaic-Christian religion."16 Yep. It is usually true of Jehovah's Witnesses. They usually know it "from one end to the other."

Almost all brands of religion respect Jesus. He is also a common denominator for the religious and non-religious. Mark Twain savaged religion. He savaged the Bible. "He was a preacher, too... and never charged nothing for his preaching, and it was worth it, too!" says Huck Finn, one of his fictional characters. But Twain never had an unkind word for Jesus. To the contrary, the problem in his eyes was that nobody followed him.17 This is among the reasons that the book _The 100_ , by Michael Hart, rates Mohammed before Jesus in importance. Both are founders of religions, but Mohammed's followers, by and large, follow their founder and Jesus' followers, by and large, do not.18 "There has been only one Christian. They caught and crucified him–early," writes Mark Twain.

Therefore, start with the words of Jesus and you are usually on firm ground. Immerse yourself in the gospels long enough and you begin to speak as he does. You begin to think the heart is much more important than the head, even though leadership in the greater world today is invariably presumed to be a matter for the head, and only the most educated need apply. Jesus addresses the heart, spinning parables not readily grasped by head alone, and therefore dismissed by ones of little heart as unworthy of their time. In elevating heart over head, you may trigger the scorn of those who would reverse the order. They might feign pity over how you must be suffering massive cognitive dissonance to be so intransigent in the face of their mighty arguments.

Don't let it bother you. If there was anything to cognitive dissonance, Americans would explode watching television pharmaceutical ads, with narrator insisting that you must have the stuff peddled and voiceover saying that it may kill you. One way to deal with cognitive dissonance is to acknowledge that you don't have to know everything. Another way is to acknowledge that you don't have to know it _now_. There will always be some cognitive dissonance in searching for the human/divine interface, as we will be doing. Some people derive energy from debating, like a hurricane gathering strength over warm water. Step aside and let them drown in it. Jesus relied upon heart and common sense. Sometimes common sense turns out to be wrong and should be rejected, but never for the sole reason that it is "common."

Some of my initial assumptions about Russia proved questionable. Others proved flat-out wrong. No matter. Jehovah's Witnesses are not political people—some of them barely know that politics exist. They are not experts on the issues that governments face, nor their underlying philosophies. They don't know much about the world of kings. If some initial assumptions prove inaccurate, they never said they knew about them in the first place. This book tells of our efforts to reach Russian officials as persons, not as government leaders. I like to think the best of people. Sometimes that turns out to be naïve. What I hope to do is capture the emotion, the hopes, and even the joys of those given an opportunity to identify with their "brothers" in a distant and unique part of the world. This will be a human story, not a political one. It will be an account not only of what happened, but of what people thought was happening.

What Witnesses know most about government is that they'd like for them to leave them be. "First of all, then, I ask that supplications, prayers, petitions, and thanksgivings be offered for everyone, for kings and for all in authority, that we may lead a quiet and tranquil life in all devotion and dignity," writes the apostle Paul to Timothy. "Do you wish to have no fear of authority? Then do what is good and you will receive approval from it, for it is a servant of God for your good. But if you do evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword without purpose." Okay. Got it. Jehovah's Witnesses will not make trouble as they lead their quiet, tranquil lives of devotion and dignity. But sometimes trouble searches them out.19

Several have thought me too charitable in my assessment of Russian officials, to which I acknowledge that my assessment is to some extent built upon wishful thinking and a distaste for imputing motive. How can anyone know for sure? I am halfway around the world, immersed in a completely different culture. Modern life molds us to ignore fundamental principles of getting along that once were as common as dirt. Always impute good motives. If it turns out you are wrong, drop a notch and see if you can get your head around how the villain became a villain; sometimes that allows you to snatch a measure of victory from defeat. But if you accuse every foe from the outset of ill motive you have lost before you have begun.

As far as I am concerned, Trump v Hillary is a godsend for the preacher of the gospel because it brings into stark relief 2 Timothy 3:1-5, that run-on list of negative traits: "There will be terrifying times in the last days. People will be self-centered and lovers of money, proud, haughty, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, irreligious, callous, implacable, slanderous, licentious, brutal, hating what is good, traitors, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, as they make a pretense of religion but deny its power." It used to be that if you cited the passage and your listener didn't agree it is fulfilled now more than ever, there was not much you could do about it; manifestly, it is subjective. These days its fulfillment is evident. It used to be that people would scream at each other till the cows come home over God/no God, medicine/alternative medicine, science/metaphysics or various other sideshows that could be ignored by the average person. But with Trump/hate Trump, almost everybody is drawn in and "Two Timothy 3"20 becomes the defining year text for this entire system of things.

Even "truth" and "lies" have become subjective. Everyone has their own. It is as the Bible Book of Isaiah says. People say: "What is bad is good and what is good is bad." It is not just true in spiritual matters. It is true in every aspect of life today—in politics, in philosophy, and in the general discussion of all things, whether slight or serious. Charles Manson's greatest contribution to humanity, perhaps his only contribution, was to say: "Once upon a time, being crazy meant something. Nowadays, everyone is crazy." This new normal adds a new relevance to Jesus words: "And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached throughout the world as a witness to all nations, and then the end will come," an utterance always on the list of favorite Witness scriptures. "As a witness" is the best one can consistently hope for, a witness to another way of life in which people actually get along with one another.21

Let us not be too maudlin in telling this tale. We could be forgiven for doing so. The 56-year-old Witness chatting with friends who suffered a liquor bottle smashed over her head by someone screaming: "You Jehovists are banned!" so that people nearby thought they had heard a shot—she may not laugh for a while.22 It may be some time before Dennis Christensen, the first modern Witness in Russia to be jailed for studying the Bible, will laugh. How funny can it be languishing in prison? though he actually did break into encouraging song at a video court appearance before the guards told him to shut up. But neither let us not sing the blues, much less: _Nobody Knows the Trouble I've Seen_ "23 In general, Jehovah's Witnesses are a happy people. Knock them down and they get back up. They laugh a lot. It should not be a great surprise since God himself is said to be happy. If he is, those who trust in him will also be.24

Christians are described as providing a theatrical spectacle to the world.25 It is theater enacted on countless front porches—which must suffice for the stage. Sometimes Witnesses get rave reviews. Sometimes they are booed off the stage. There is an element of comedy to it. "I can never get over a Christian's need' to save people," one atheist told me derisively. It _is_ a little funny, isn't it? I played along and told him that my psychiatrist had diagnosed in me just such a need, on the hunch that maybe he would play ball if he thought he was cooperating with science.

The verse that I was featuring that day, from Job, was one that can set the stage for many a discussion about suffering and why God permits it. "You that have understanding, hear me: far be it from God to do wickedness; far from the Almighty to do wrong!"26 I like that verse because some people think he _does_ do wickedness. Others look at all that is transpiring and say: "I don't think there _is_ a God." An ensuing conversation can veer in so many directions. This particular stage featured a new twist—the householder was in a wheelchair. I had noted walking up the driveway two bumper stickers, "Born Right the First Time," and "There are Death Squads in America – They Are Called Insurance Companies." Now, I am not one to read too much into bumper stickers, but sometimes they tell it all. " _You_ are here to tell _me_ about suffering?" he hurled in my face. "No," I answered. "I am here so that you can tell me." You never know what will happen. The porches are stages. The door to door ministry is the show. Best not to be rigid in what you plan to say or do.

Let us also avoid any "clash of the titans" tone. Leonid Bershidsky writes in Bloomberg about the turmoil in Russia. He is a fine writer. He gets everything right. He has read Emily Baran's book (more on that later), which everyone should read. He misses only the possible machinations of the rival church, which is not his specialty. But he cannot resist a dramatic flair at the end: "Russia has no more patience with openness and tolerance. Putin's regime doesn't care whether it passes any tests on that score. In a way, it's as defiant as the Witnesses, and so far, it's just as resilient. But the Jehovah's Witnesses have been resilient for longer."27 Such dramatization makes for more gripping a read. I do it myself. But Witnesses don't carry on in this way. They _are_ resilient, but they would not characterize themselves as defiant. They stay low-key. They are not the Hollywood version of _The Bible_ in which Moses pops Pharaoh in the nose and gets the girl. They are the Bible's own version of itself in which Moses squirms to avoid his commission because he is clumsy of speech, and he acquiesces only when told Aaron will be there to hold his hand.28

Neither will we demonize Russian President Putin. He is head of a different type of government—a different type of "human rulership." I am a product of the West and I like it here. But if I were a product of the East I would no doubt like it there, too. Russian Witnesses (absent the persecution) are perfectly content within their country of origin and go out of their way to behave there. Often, as one surveys news reports, one reads statements to the effect that they love the people and culture and would prefer not to leave. They set themselves up as neither cheerleaders nor resisters of any form of government. "Tell us your rules for maintaining public order," they say to the king, "and we will follow them." The temptation to demonize officials is strong. Outright confiscation of the Watchtower branch facilities in St. Petersburg, which essentially means picking the pockets of modest and poor people the world over who donated toward it, provides such temptation. But let us not go there. All human governments are a mix of virtue and villainy. Let us not attempt to sort it out here.

Though unapologetically a Witness, I promise, more or less, not to take any cheap shots at Witness detractors. Cheap shots are in the eye of the beholder and there are intransigent opponents of the faith to whom anything short of a complete renunciation of beliefs will be a cheap shot. There is little I can do about that and I won't try. But everyone else gets a fair shake. Even the opponents themselves are not deliberately antagonized. My audience will vary from non-Witness to current Witness to former Witness. Roll with it if you can. The task is all the more challenging because I have not renounced sarcasm, "the language of the Devil," as Thomas Carlyle called it. If Bershidsky cannot swear off the dramatic flourish, I cannot swear off the sarcasm. It may be the language of the Devil, but it is also the more stimulating, and ye (that is, me) of little willpower falls for it every time. But I do not want to be like the American celebrity who blurts out something blatantly partisan and thus antagonizes half his or her audience. I have endeavored to keep it under tight control. Expect nothing but joy and love around here, with minor caveats.

***~~~***

An earlier edition of this work included in Part II a chapter entitled "Pedophiles." In this edition, I have removed this chapter—naturally, some explanation is in order. When I wrote this present book dealing with the woes of Jehovah's Witnesses in the East, I did not then anticipate that I would write one later of their woes in the West. That latter work, _TrueTom vs the Apostates!_ deals at length with that controversy. It is a topic that never arose in any Russian connection. Therefore, save for a brief discussion at the end of chapter 18, I have decided to let the latter work handle it. It fits there. It doesn't here. For the same reason, I have pruned some paragraphs from Chapter 11 – Apostasy. They fit the latter work, but not so much the present.

Introduction endnotes

Return to Table of Contents

# PART I
# Chapter 1 – The Soviets

Emily Baran hatched a hagiography when she wrote _Dissent on the Margins_ , according to one reviewer. Perhaps I should not admit it, but I had to look up the word. Having done so, as with all new words, I afterwards spied it everywhere; it must have been there all along and I had till then relied upon context for sufficient definition. For less enlightened ones who are where I recently was, it essentially means that _these people are too good to be true,_ and therefore the critic does not believe that they _are_ true. He even heightened the "hag" to "gag." The word he actually used was "gagiography," perhaps revealing a personal distaste for the subject. Or was it just a typo? One mustn't give in to paranoia. Baran takes it as a typo1 but perhaps only to control her rage. She disagrees with either term due to their implication that she is not objective, the worst of all possible sins for a historian. She _is_ a historian of Witness persecution in Russia—the _only_ one that I am aware of. She covers exclusively the Russian government's campaign against the religion from Stalin times to her book's 2014 date of publication—and this writer picks up, more or less, where she left off..

In her forward, Baran thanks everyone under the sun who has helped her, as a writer should. Then she specifically thanks her university mentor for never asking: "Why Jehovah's Witnesses?" If he didn't do it, I won't do it. We don't have to know everything. She is probably glad she did choose the Witnesses, though, since the story for anyone else would be duller. All minority religion is bullied in Russia today, but only the Jehovah's Witnesses organization has been formally branded extremist. I will draw upon her book heavily for background. This particular chapter could not be written without it, and other chapters are spared many obtuse statements because of it.

Perhaps the hagiography criticism stems from the palpable impression Baran conveys that Jehovah's Witnesses walk the talk, and not just talk the talk, and the reviewer, having not seen it before, supposes it not possible. Baran mentions the Soviets' dismay when there appeared no difference between a Witness's private person and his or her public person.2 They had just assumed that the two would be different, as they always are, and that they could appeal to the private person in pursuit of their goal to undermine the faith. But with the Witnesses they discovered essentially no difference between public and private. The description of Ezekiel's countrymen that so universally applies seemed not to apply to them: "For them you are only a singer of love songs, with a pleasant voice and a clever touch. They listen to your words, but they do not obey them."3 Witnesses would agree with the words. They constitute a "love song" to many persons of religion. They are inspirational—the stuff of stirring song, moving poetry, rousing prose, but as to obeying them? No. Jehovah's Witnesses, however, to the best of their ability, obey them. Ham-fistedly they do it sometimes, for they are not diplomats, but they do strive to obey them.

_Dissent on the Margins_ is not a hagiography at all—what was that critic smoking? _This_ account one might label a hagiography, if one must, and I would dispute it only half-heartedly, but not hers. Would Baran's unflattering critic also label the Book of Acts a hagiography? During trialsome decades of unrelenting Soviet opposition, Baran relates that many Witnesses stumbled, failed, or even betrayed their own—nothing hagiographic about that. She relates that the churn rate of Jehovah's Witnesses was very high in Russia, higher than in the Western world, where it is also high.4 Witnesses there lived with the prospect that they might, at any time, be arrested, fired from employment, and even have their children taken from them, all threats that are being revisited today. Censure from their neighbors was likely, and censure from the press a near certainty. Many left—though they were replaced by new persons—and their departure is more than offset by the fact that enthusiasm and participation among Witnesses is high. After all, in many religions, persons may not formally leave, but how would you know if they did?

Perhaps the Witness history is called a hagiography because their core continued to grow overall despite concerted efforts to stamp it out, despite many who left—and that growth exploded after 1991. The Soviets had conveyed mixed messages through the years regarding Witnesses, never having figured out how to handle them. On the one hand, they were loyal Soviet citizens who had simply been misled by fanatics and needed patient rescue. On the other hand, with no clergy-laity division, it was difficult to know just who the fanatics were. Therefore, Soviet policy was that all should be considered potential fanatics until re-educated.5 The government maintained constant efforts to defame them, "uttering every kind of evil," against them.6 Through it all, overall membership rose.

Failing to eliminate the faith outright, communist officials continually sought to divide it, planting their own agents as "false brothers," a ploy that caused much damage.7 Nonetheless, at Witness headquarters, they considered that they had the playbook on how to deal with such methods. It is the Book of Acts, in fact, the entire New Testament, which details the spread of first-century Christianity despite continual, even violent, opposition. Under Joseph Stalin, there were mass deportations of Witnesses to Siberia. The Witnesses, however, readjusted, to regard these deportations as opportunities to continue proselytizing, just as is related in the eighth chapter of Acts.

Typically, Witnesses would meet secretly in private homes. They resisted the draft, withstood atheistic schooling, and avoided participation in government-sponsored activities. They believed all governments were controlled by Satan—that of the U.S, that of the U.S.S.R, and all the remaining ones. They saw the Cold War as a manifestation of the clash between the king of the north and the king of the south described in the Book of Daniel, a conflict which was to lead to Armageddon. Soviet authorities seem never to have fully understood the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses. Despite their pacifism, they were accused of war-mongering due to their expectation of Armageddon. Despite their conflicts with the U.S. government, they were branded as agents of American imperialism. This author well remembers working in New York State with the tract _Jehovah's Witnesses – Christians or Communists_ , a tract designed to counter just the opposite impression among Americans—that they were communists!

The Witness organization didn't help its own cause by designating Russia the "king of the north," who "floods into many lands," and puts trust in the "god of fortresses."8 It is an interpretation of the eleventh chapter of Daniel that others have shared—Witnesses are hardly the only ones to have put those verses under the magnifying glass. It does not necessarily sit well with persons not religious. Did Soviets export communism into other lands? The king of the south did no less with his brand of government. Even if the Soviets did parade around their weapons in public, did not the southern king also project military might, these days in countries more numerous than he? And what is to be made of a religion that opines about the United Nations, as the Witnesses have? For Russia, the United Nations has traditionally been an arena in which to get beaten up, since Western countries outnumber Eastern countries in the Security Council. Soviet officials perhaps checked in the Bible and didn't see the term: "United Nations." What sort of a "religion" is this? the atheistic Soviet government said, which could hardly be expected to pick up on religious nuances.

With the fall of communism in 1991, Jehovah's Witnesses were among the last faiths to be legally registered. After 26 years of legally operating, they are the first to be banned. The move did not come overnight; it had been building. Most Russian Witnesses of Jehovah in Soviet times were shipped via boxcar to long Siberian exile in 1949, with follow-up in 1951.9 The Soviet government never acknowledged those exiles.10 The media since 1991 has only rarely done so, opting instead to reinforce derogatory cult perceptions. No Witness member was caught flat-footed with the present ban; the Russian Witnesses always thought that efforts to belay it would come to naught—though one can always hope. Opposition to the Witnesses was not universal. Powerful factions worked against them, but there were also friendly factions to defend them, usually comprised of those who actually knew some individually, as happens everywhere.

Documents smuggled from KGB archives were published in the 2000 book: _The Sword and the Shield_. According to the FBI, they represented the "most complete and extensive intelligence ever received from any source." A tiny section of them reveals Soviet obsession over the "Jehovists," an obsession far out of proportion to their numbers. The documents reveal dismay that, once exiled, Jehovah's Witnesses did not give up. They "did not reject their hostile beliefs and in camp conditions continued to carry out their Jehovist work."11 Moreover, those not exiled persisted in aiding those that were, supplying them with money, food, and clothing. The KGB had thought it would be _out of sight, out of mind_. Jehovah's Witnesses proved that with them, it would be otherwise.

One Witness of the time stated: "The more I suffered, the more I preached."12 His course was not unique. Witnesses' refusal to cease religious activity challenged labor camp order and undermined the purported goal of reforming criminals into honest Soviet citizens. When broken up, Witnesses preached to new audiences. When isolated, they formed a "theological seminary" and worked to spread their Bible literature. During Soviet times, the Watchtower organization, though based in the United States, made persistent efforts to instruct members that they had rights under Russian law.13 Those rights were invariably trampled. Nonetheless, they knew that they had them and that they were not criminals.

Relatively few outside, or even inside, Russia, know of the intense persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses during Soviet times, though they will be familiar with religious persecution in general. Baran offers some reasons for this. Since Witnesses put no trust in human governments, whenever outside governments spotlighted religious persecution in the Soviet Union, they generally took no notice of Witnesses. The same characteristics that kept them on the KGB's watch list kept them off that of the outside media's—that of being "no part of the world." Excepting the Witnesses, most buy into the notion that God rules by working through the existing arrangement of nations. The Witnesses differing viewpoint is a circumstance too puzzling for media to deal with, and so they at times resort to the response mentioned by the apostle Peter—they turn hostile toward the unfamiliar.14 Jehovah's Witnesses were simply too far out there. They were too far off the grid of contemporary thought. It didn't help that they were often rural and uneducated persons, who never rank highly on the world's watch list. They were self-isolated from ecumenical movements—so that when the outside world became aware of Christian persecution, it stayed unaware of that aimed at Jehovah's Witnesses.15 The religion was as obscure as could be to outsiders. In many ways it is still, despite members continually knocking on people's doors.

No religious group in the Soviet Union was persecuted with more determination than Jehovah's Witnesses. Baran relates an account from Soviet dissident writer Vladimir Bukovky, then in London. He relates how he chanced to come across a nondescript building with a simple sign out front that read "Jehovah's Witnesses." The words inspired in him a sense of "shock" and "almost fright." It was as though he had seen a sign: "Cosa Nostra Limited: Mafia Headquarters." He thought, "So these are the same Jehovists, the same sectarian fanatics that the Soviet authorities used to scare children? This is that same underground, that most secret of all the 'sects' in the USSR?" The idea that this religion could operate in the open seemed almost inconceivable to him as a Soviet citizen. After all, he noted, "One only sees real live Jehovists in prisons and even there they are underground." Soviet Witnesses were the stuff of "legends." Folks used to say that even a Witness in a punishment cell in the strictest of camps could still manage to receive the latest Watchtower issues from Brooklyn. This sort of power inspired an "almost mystical horror" in the authorities, who hunted down every last Jehovist they could find and sentenced them to long terms in the camps.16

One Soviet official complained at his collective farm in 1957, "We have people belonging to the Jehovist sect. Those of you who do not know this sect, God help you never to know."17 The sheer tenacity of Witnesses vaulted them head and shoulders above all other groups, though they numbered far fewer. A survey Baran cites of atheist literature directed toward religious sects between 1955 and 1966 revealed that 17 percent was dedicated to Witnesses, 12 percent to Baptists, 9 percent to Pentecostals, 7 percent to Seventh Day Adventists, and about 50 percent to "sectarianism" in general.18

The pattern has reestablished itself. No group in Russia today is persecuted more than Jehovah's Witnesses. It is not that they take delight in leading a race to the bottom—but in a way, they do. They have inherited the mantle of the true followers of Christ, who could depend upon persecution. As the Bible states: "In fact, all who want to live religiously in Christ Jesus will be persecuted."19 It is a recognition of Jesus own words: "No slave is greater than his master. If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you."20 Baran points out that the full expectation of persecution served to solidify Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia even as they suffered it.21

Therefore, (let us admit it) Witnesses are gratified to take bottom prize, which they regard as top prize. If the world hates them, they reason that they must be doing something right. The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom awarded them just such a top prize among groups professing Christianity in its report on Russia in January of 2018. A chapter in the report is entitled: "Muslims," another: "Jehovah's Witnesses," and all that remains is: "Others." Protestants receive "honorable mention," but they do not get top prize. "Christian Protestants, Baptists, Pentecostals, and Seventh Day Adventists also regularly face harassment in the press and pressure from the Russian bureaucratic machine. They have difficulties in obtaining land plots for their liturgical buildings; they are visited with inspections, and so on. However, up to the present, besides the Witnesses, only Pentecostals have faced prosecution under anti-extremist legislation," says the Commission.22 Of Scientologists, who do not profess Christianity, the report says: "Adherents of the Church of Scientology have been less affected by anti-extremist measures than Jehovah's Witnesses, but the existence of their communities in Russia can hardly be called comfortable."23 Mormons also experience much resistance. Yet, when they sought to build a church in 2018 Moscow, the Supreme Court ruled in their favor, despite fierce local opposition—so fierce that local officials are prepared to defy the court. Possibly the Mormons' quest is aided by the circumstance that the current U.S. ambassador to Russia is a Mormon, from which a TV special concludes: "The round-up of our souls is continuing."24 Nonetheless, they do get to build their church at a time when existing properties of Jehovah's Witnesses are being confiscated.

So heavy was the cost one might be required to pay during Soviet years, it is little wonder Baran found that so many Witnesses left the faith, even as others joined. But the cost of being a Witness is significant everywhere, for theirs is a religion which does not suffer being kept "in its place." Or rather, it does suffer it, but insists that place is first place, not last place. Those who choose to become Witnesses do so for exactly that reason. They are like the biblical merchant who finds the pearl of great price and promptly sells all that he has to obtain it. Witnesses find answers in Bible verse that they find nowhere else, answers to questions generally deemed unanswerable. They think it proper to keep interests related to those answers in first place.25

The pearl that they find they regard as the true news, contrasting with what they find fake. _Yes, of course!_ they say: _The earth is to be our home, as it was originally intended to be. It is not merely a testing ground, to serve as a launching pad into heaven or a trap door into hell._ The sole sizable religion teaching this is surely not the one to eliminate. Baran relates that "one former gulag prisoner recalled how Witness prisoners offered one another spiritual encouragement. Noting with some admiration that Witnesses even sang in the camps, he commented: 'Truly only someone who has internal freedom can become a Jehovah's Witness.'"26

Chapter two of the Book of Acts covers a period with overtones more communist than democratic. The Catholic NABRE translators label the section: "Communal life."27 The Bible verses read: "They devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles and to the communal life...all who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their property and possessions and divide them among all according to each one's need. Every day they devoted themselves to meeting together in the temple area and to breaking bread in their homes. They ate their meals with exultation and sincerity of heart, praising God and enjoying favor with all the people. And every day the Lord added to their number those who were being saved."28 It is not communism—it is but a temporary arrangement—but clearly it is not the "rugged individualism" of American thinking.

All clergy handling the Word of God mangle it to some extent, say Jehovah's Witnesses, but the American clergy gives it an additional peculiar twist. The Bible does not celebrate fierce independence. More often it celebrates submitting to authority. The Bible does not celebrate free speech. Sometimes it celebrates shutting people up. The Bible does not celebrate standing for one's rights. More often it celebrates yielding to the greater good. Jesus, the founder, the Christ, leads the way in yielding to the greater good. It wasn't for insisting upon his rights that he was put to death.

During the 1970s, when Czechoslovakia was under communist rule, this writer studied the Bible with an elderly Czech woman, a refugee who fled to the U.S. with her son. In hindsight, she seemed to have adopted me as though a grandson. I used as a study guide the book _The Truth That Leads to Eternal Life_ in English, and she the same book in Czech. Several times she remarked that Jehovah's Witnesses in her country were the most crude and backward (she actually said "ignorant") of people. Several times she remarked that her book was a terrible translation. What is remarkable is that it was a translation at all. Witnesses at the time were denied education. The regime saw to it they that were fired from their jobs. They subsisted because they had picked up various work-a-day skills such as shoe repair.29 Others found it too inconvenient to be prohibited from buying or selling without the mark of the beast. Jehovah's Witnesses steadfastly refused the mark, but their refusal was not without cost.

Though they were persons uneducated, they encountered in prison intellectuals and educated ones who had balked at the communist regime. These had been made outcasts, and as a result many embraced the Witness beliefs as they were searching for answers to the meaning of life. There are many stories of Witness members starting studies with such individuals behind bars. Former president and playwright Vaclav Havel, once imprisoned for dissident views, received a witness. He is known to have said something to the effect of: "That all sounds very wonderful, but I don't think I can wait. I want change now." In later years, his library included several Witness publications.30

Jehovah's Witnesses were allowed to register with the Soviet authorities on February 28, 1991. Without direction from Bethel headquarters in the U.S, it would not have happened. Few Russian Witnesses could imagine it. Not all were keen on it. They and the authorities had been at loggerheads forever. How could they possibly register and maybe cede control to the government? Few could know that government officials had been rethinking their policy regarding Jehovah's Witnesses, a rethinking motivated in part by recognition that past policy had consumed massive reserves of energy to little avail.

A changing government during the time of "glasnost" (openness) had begun to think that the time had come for Russia to join the world community in accommodation of the Witness religion. Visiting the U.S. for other reasons, certain Soviet officials dropped in at Brooklyn Bethel in a quest to clarify points strange to them. As though they were Jehovah's Witnesses themselves, they came calling unannounced, and those they wanted to speak with were "not at home."31 Most likely it was during Regional Conventions time, when Governing Body members skirt around the globe to one stadium after another and their wives become "convention widows." Nonetheless, those who did receive the visitors from Russia were gracious, showed them around, and arrangements were made for a subsequent meeting.

One can only admire the Soviet officials of that time, who were noble-minded enough to investigate and conclude that the Witness's unorthodox beliefs constituted no threat to them. They struggled valiantly to grasp "some notions strange to our ears," just as the Athenians did long ago with the apostle Paul.32 They struggled to get their heads around biblical notions that flew in the face of their atheistic training, notions that even the mainline churches found strange. It was enough to crack open the door to "church" Christianity, but _this_! One can only admire these ones. Their course evokes the sentiments of a noble Gandhi counseling Lord Kelvin that if nations would actually apply Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, the world's problems would soon dissipate—an oft-repeated grapevine quote that the Watchtower has recently rejected, even though they love it, since there is no proof that the two ever met.33

The authors of _A Sword and A Shield_ note that "the Jehovist obsession of senior KGB officers was, perhaps, the supreme example of their lack of any sense of proportion when dealing with the most insignificant forms of dissent." But Baran doesn't buy the suggestion that all churches are the same and it is merely a question of _why pick disproportionately on the most insignificant?_ She understands the difference between Jehovah's Witnesses and the traditional churches. She gets the nuances and avoids the red herrings. It was not easy for Soviet officials in 1991 to clear up these matters. "Christians today can no more take sides in the cold war between the East and the West than Jesus and his disciples took sides in the political strife between the Romans and the Jews," stated a 1961 Awake article. Does that not clearly denote neutrality? Nonetheless, Witness publications originating from Brooklyn had at times used such expressions as "totalitarian" and "iron curtain," especially in the days of previous Watchtower Society presidents Rutherford and Knorr—expressions the Soviets would not have applied to themselves. Neutrality, too, is in the eye of the beholder.34

The Witnesses looked to God's kingdom to bestow peace and plenty upon all. But that is what the Communist government of Russia had also promised. Did not persons embracing the kingdom hope imply that they were rejecting the secular version—the "official" one? It had been a major stumbling block for years. The Russian visitors worked at those strange notions—that the one-day destruction of earthly governments was based upon Bible prophesy, and was not an invitation to revolt, for example. In fact, it was just the opposite, for Jesus tells Peter to put down his weapon, since "all who take the sword will perish by the sword." If Witnesses announce the coming end of human rulership, still they have no role in bringing it about. That is to be God's doing. Moreover, their God doesn't have a complaint with any present government in particular—it is human government itself that is the problem.35

If world media outlets ignored Jehovah's Witnesses back then, they would find it harder to do today, even were that their intent. Today, the Witness organization has become more visible. God has "beautified" it, as believers would say, taking a phrase from Isaiah. Doings of the Watchtower organization today are too big to ignore. Yearly it arranges well over a thousand annual summer gatherings, filling stadiums and arenas, to serve its entire membership. In some cases, facilities, in ill-repair beforehand are revitalized and left in spotless condition.

With any natural disaster, Jehovah's Witnesses are among the first upon the scene. Theirs is an organized response unequalled, quickly restoring the homes of their own, with spillover efforts benefiting the general community as time and volunteer efforts hold out. The website JW.org employs every advance of digital technology and releases content thoroughly professional. An experience related in the JW 2017 yearbook relates how an Italian information technology firm declared JW.org the best website in the world for general layout and recommended it as the premiere example for imitation.36 In these and other ways, the organizational visibility of Jehovah's Witnesses is much improved from what it was a few decades ago. Mark Sanderson, of the Witness's Governing Body, present during both the April 20th trial and its appeal, related how he was approached by diplomatic persons worldwide, all very aware of the true nature of the Witnesses' work, extending offers of assistance within their capabilities. They would hardly have been so aware absent the website and increased visibly.

No nation has succeeded in ridding itself of Jehovah's Witnesses once they appear, Baran observes in _Dissent on the Margins_. Soviets succeeded in removing Witness "fanatics" only to find that their non-fanatics rose to the occasion and became so themselves. Give them a good solid punch to the gut and they collapse like everyone else. But they regroup. They stumble seven times, as the Proverb says, but each time they get up. Some are like Peter, who caved under unexpected trial, and denied his Lord three times. Some of those are like Peter again, who beat himself up over it, and who, when extended the invitation to straighten up and fly right, did just that, in time serving more mightily than he had served while his Lord was walking about.

To be Russian Orthodox is part of what it means to be Russian. In a survey of the 1990s, 42 percent of self-identified atheists and 50 percent of self-identified nonbelievers identified themselves as Orthodox.37 It constitutes more than a religion. It is Russian culture and Russian national identity. Almost unanimously, Russians think it a positive institution. Even atheists do. A friend of this author who travels to Serbia, where there is also a national Orthodox church, reports that locals will say the most horrible things about clergy and proceedings38 – but that doesn't mean you can do so. The Church preserved national unity through perilous times, and for that a multitude of sins are overlooked. It is likely the same in Russia. There are certain patterns that play out everywhere.

The Russian Church did not take well to the onslaught of competition from, not just the Witnesses, but many other groups unleashed in the aftermath of Soviet collapse. In time, Aleksandr Dvorkin, a one-time priest of the Church, coined the term "totalitarian sect" to designate any organization which "violates the rights of [its] members and inflicts harm on them through the use of certain methods he termed 'mind control.'"39 The definition of mind control is so loose that it is essentially triggered by persuading anyone that the Russian Church is not the only game in town. Many minority faiths are charged with this offense, not just Jehovah's Witnesses.

The latest tightening of Russian anti-extremism law comes in the form of the two "Yarovaya laws" enacted in 2016, so named after their sponsor. The Russia Program Director of the Huffington Post, Tanya Lokshina, writes in that outlet that the laws were "rammed through" the State Duma legislature.40 She writes that because they were published in their revised form only on the day they were to be voted upon, which was the last day before summer recess, and thereby were "without any meaningful debate or scrutiny"—worrisome given the "draconian" limits they place upon free expression. It was her opinion that the most onerous provisions (stripping the most serious miscreants of citizenship), generating outcry and subsequently dropped at the last moment, served to distract from provisions only somewhat less onerous.

To the extent that the law involves religion (most of it does not), Lokshina says it bans proselytizing, preaching, praying, or disseminating religious materials outside of "specially designated places," the officially recognized religious institutions. In theory, if you discussed at home the sermon you just heard even at the Orthodox Church service, and it upset someone, that person might report you and you might find yourself in hot water. Let religion be dispensed only by the professionals, "mercenary ministers," as Witness lawyer Victor Blackwell (whom we shall hear from later) called them decades ago. Discuss it, and even _pray_ , outside of the designated places, and you are potentially in trouble, should someone complain. Moreover, they are _obligated_ to complain, per another provision of the law, and "failure to report" anything deemed extremist makes them liable to a possible prison term. Even children as young as 14 are subject to arrest for this "crime."

Share your religion without the "required paperwork?"41 No. "Virtually any religious practice, including rituals, sermons, reading of religious literature, and sharing religious views online" becomes the proper subject of police and public prosecutor investigation, as they are called upon to "clarify what is a worship service, a sermon, or a meeting of believers and what isn't."42

The terminology is new, but the pattern is old. Though there are new standards of regression, it has played out in most lands. The dominant church has a monopoly. Despite a captive audience, it has not seen fit to educate them with regard to the textbook most parishioners simply assume provides its underpinnings. Along comes Jehovah's Witnesses to do what they have declined to do, and they scream to high heaven. In her book, Baran states: "In contrast, however, to many of the Western Christian organizations setting up shop in the region, the Russian Orthodox Church was not well prepared to handle competition."43 Well, whose fault is that? Had they not neglected their main charge, they would have been prepared. Jehovah's Witnesses do nothing more underhanded than to show up and point to what the Bible says. Church loyalists cry that a huckster can misrepresent scripture, but even that concern is remedied where persons have been taught to be fluent in the scriptures so that they can spot the hucksters themselves.

It played out this way in the United States even before the modern manifestation of Jehovah's Witnesses there. The dominant Catholic church kept people in the dark about the Bible, declaring that it was for the priests to teach it—and the priests declined to do so. With a certain amount of Bible knowledge, leaders of the strengthening Protestant communities made Bible reading a part of public school curriculum, to the displeasure of many priests. The book: _A Separate Identity_ tells of one such campaign in Pennsylvania during the mid-1800s: "The Pittsburgh Catholics protested, saying that Bible reading and teaching caused 'irreverence.' They believed Bible reading undermined church authority. For many Catholics, public school Bible reading was their first exposure to the book, and some asked questions the priests found uncomfortable."44

The Protestant Reformation retained the main doctrines of the much-older Catholics, so much so that the movement could be called more a rebellion than a reformation. What it did dispense with were certain clerical abuses plainly seen by merely reading the Bible. Verses so simple as: "Call no one on earth your father"45 caused consternation for priests who insisted upon being called just that. Later, Catholics and Protestants alike closed ranks upon Jehovah's Witnesses who demonstrated with ease from the Bible that even their agreed-upon common doctrines were unsupported in Scripture. Nikolai Gordienko, of the Herzen Russian State University in St. Petersburg, has stated: "When the experts accuse Jehovah's Witnesses for their teachings, they do not realize that they are actually making accusations against the Bible."46

Most church teachings are not explicitly found in the Bible. It is the attempt to read them in that makes the book incomprehensible. One cannot assemble the puzzle with damaged pieces. Everyone knows the experience of giving up on a puzzle whose assembly has proven impossible, as it surely will if pieces are missing or damaged. Such frustration is where many atheists are born. It is where many agnostics are born. It is not _solely_ where they are born, but they would birth in numbers far fewer if they understood that the Bible is logically coherent. One doesn't have to believe to take in knowledge of it—but take in knowledge is what should be done. Only upon seeing that the book makes internal sense can one begin to assess whether it is to be believed or not.

The mainstay beliefs of immortality of the soul and the triune nature of God are part and parcel of church tradition, be it Protestant, Roman Catholic, or Orthodox. Jehovah's Witnesses will tweak minor things right down to this day; it is "the light getting brighter," they say. Yet their rejection of those major doctrines has been firmly in place for over a century. The triune doctrine, to them, makes god incomprehensible, and thus, unknowable. The torment-in-hell doctrine makes him fearsome and cruel, someone whom you would not want to know. The doctrines Witnesses discarded 100 years ago were popular with various intellectuals and philosophers of Christ's time. Later church leaders, wanting to curry favor with such ones, and possibly secure their conversion, incorporated their ideas, even if they made God unknowable. Some people like God unknowable. Some people even like him cruel, so long as he reserves his cruelty for their enemies.

Baran's book cites occasions of the Russian Church warning when Jehovah's Witnesses were active in an area.47 You cannot read them without being reminded of warnings from the first-century Jewish leaders who expressed alarm over rapidly spreading Christianity back then. In L'viv [Moldavia] flyers proclaimed: "Warning!!! The totalitarian sect, the Jehovah's Witnesses is very active in your district!!" From the Book of Acts: "These people who have been creating a disturbance all over the world have now come here." From a Russian priest: "Caution: Life Threatening Sect!" From Acts: "Fellow Israelites, help us. This is the man [Paul] who is teaching everyone everywhere against the people and the law."48 The same warnings have been raised in many countries.

In 2000, with just nine years of free operation under their belts, and with opposition already moving in for the repeat kill, Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia distributed twelve million tracts entitled: _Could it Happen Again?_ recalling the exiles of 1949 and 1951, defending against certain charges, and pointing out that the Russian Constitution guarantees religious freedom. It also pointed out that 40 human rights experts in Russia and Eastern Europe had appealed for an end to the harassment and repression that Witnesses were increasingly being subjected to. A Witness from the Russian branch said: "Sixty years ago in the Soviet Union, Jehovah's Witnesses experienced an unprecedented wave of persecution and repression. Lately, a new wave, a systematic campaign of harassment is being carried out against Jehovah's Witnesses; this time, some want to classify our literature and activity as extremist. Our meetings for worship are raided; worshippers are illegally detained, questioned, and searched. Their personal possessions are confiscated. In view of the seriousness of this situation, we, Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia, consider it necessary to provide our fellow citizens, not excluding government officials, with accurate information about ourselves, as well as about cases of the religious intolerance that we have encountered."

Similar campaigns to expose persecution (perpetrators usually wish to avoid public scrutiny) have proven effective elsewhere. But Baran opines that the campaign fell flat in Russia, both for reasons unique to the country and for reasons not.49 Jehovah's Witnesses there triggered little public sympathy, she observes, but that is true almost anywhere; the crux of the matter lies elsewhere. Outrage over the prospect of religious repression didn't occur in Russia on any significant scale, as they were used to little else. Moreover, the sudden wave of religious openness in the 90s was associated with other Western ideas, such as sudden democracy, which has not worked well in the eyes of many. It has opened the country up to charlatans and manipulators. Notions of freedom that the West think as natural as breathing air, Russians view with less enthusiasm.50 Like the Israelites of old, they like the idea of a strong king, and most think restraining him is not a fine idea.51 Perceiving that the West woefully mishandles freedom, perceiving it has proven only a mixed bag at best for them, few cared when Western ideals of religious freedom were cast aside. Overall, they like the Orthodox Church, if not for religious doctrine, then for culture and national identity.

Russia is repentant of past Stalinist repressions, but not necessarily those against Jehovah's Witnesses. "Putin says nothing can justify political persecution as Russia commemorates Stalin victims," runs an RT.com headline on October 30, 2017.52 The accompanying photo is that of Putin, Patriarch Kirill, and a human rights spokesman standing before the newly unveiled Wall of Grief in Moscow. The wall includes stone fragments collected throughout Russia, from sites where prison camps of the infamous GULAG system once operated. It was co-funded by the government and the general public.

During Stalin's reign, Putin remarked, "any person could face made-up and absolutely absurd charges...Millions of people [an estimated 39 million] were branded as enemies of the people, were executed or crippled, underwent torture in prisons and forced deportations. This terrible past cannot be erased from the national memory [nor] justified by whatever imaginary greater good of the people." Some episodes of Russia's past were debatable but not this one, the president said. "The persecution campaign was a tragedy for our people, our society, a ruthless blow to our culture, roots and identity. We can feel the consequences now and our duty is not to allow it to be forgotten."

Stalin's persecution of general transgressors continued throughout his rule, peaking in the so-called Great Purge of 1936-1938. His exiling of Russian Witnesses came toward the end of his tenure, and constitutes but a tiny part of the whole, just as Witness persecution in Nazi Germany constitutes but a tiny part of the whole Holocaust. Putin says that those days are over. However, for those bound by conscience toward God, those days are manifestly less "over" than he indicates.

Chapter 1 Endnotes

Return to Table of Contents

# Chapter 2 – Campaign and Trial

This chapter alone is written for Jehovah's Witnesses. Or rather, it was. It is culled from various posts written in real time as events unfolded. It is the only entire chapter of its sort. The general reader is invited to follow along, but if he thinks he is not primarily being addressed, he is right. He can skip the chapter with but salvageable damage to the overall storyline.

From this author's point of view, it is the first chapter. It is my first stab at the topic. Some of the posts, in hindsight, seem overdramatic or betray naiveite. No matter. The object is to convey the emotion of the time. Search elsewhere for a Joe Friday "Just-the-facts-ma'am" narrative.1 Jehovah's Witnesses are often naïve as to events with political overtones. "For the children of this world are more prudent in dealing with their own generation than are the children of light," says Jesus.2 To entitle this chapter: "A Novice Comes Up to Speed" would not be far amiss.

At the present time (January 2017) a situation is unfolding in Russia that has unfolded many times in many parts of the world. The enemies of Jehovah's Witnesses seek to ban the faith in that country. It may remind one of General Bell's WWI threat to Joseph Rutherford regarding a bill specifically designed to eliminate Jehovah's Witnesses in the United States: [redacted]

In general, the military will not do such a thing. A patriot will not do it. Certainly, a civil libertarian will not do it. Those who grouse that Jehovah's Witnesses have woken them up from a sound sleep will not do it. Even Richard Dawkins, the atheist advocate who thinks all religion is a cancer and would snuff them out in a heartbeat, will not do it to Jehovah's Witnesses _specifically_. It is almost always powerful ones with strong Church connections who will do it.

Note who does not do it: Wilson. He [redacted] Thereafter, as the opponents stirred up major trouble for the Witnesses back then, was he even aware of it? It is not as though his mind was not occupied with other matters. Likely it is that way in Russia. It doesn't go to the top. Likely, the one at the top will "prevent it" to a degree. But the one at the top is also like Pilate, as are all national leaders—he has a country to run. "Look, this is not my cause," Pilate thought. "I'll give the scoundrels what they want. That way, I'll get them out of my hair."

Countries like Russia favor the "house" church. They don't necessarily believe it, they likely don't—Russia was long a country officially atheist—but leaders have found that worship of God simply cannot be extinguished, so it is channeled into a single main church as a concession. The main church, they find, is a strong force for national unity. They like that. It is a win-win. "What can we do for you?" they ask the main church. "Take out the competition," is the reply.

It is that way with the dominant Russian Orthodox church. One needn't believe in God to embrace it. One needn't believe in God to resent criticism of it. 42% of self-proclaimed atheists and 50% of self-proclaimed nonbelievers identify with the Church, says Baran from the previous chapter. Vladimir Putin, a former high-ranking Communist, is likely of the atheist or agnostic camp. Perhaps he finds himself in a similar bind as did Pilate, who knew very well that Jesus was innocent, and tried to free him, but in the end gave in to those demanding his death in order to keep the overall peace.

Are the publications of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia, or anywhere, truly extremist? Dr. Ekaterina Elbakyan says that charges of extremism are nonsense. [redacted]4

Even the Bible translation used by Jehovah's Witnesses has been branded "extremist," though Dr. Gerhard Besier, director of the Sigmund Neumann Institute for the Research on Freedom and Democracy, observes: "The New World Translation has received high praise worldwide from Bible scholars representing diverse religious communities."5 As to the experts relied upon by the state to eliminate Jehovah's Witnesses, Dr. George D. Chryssides states: "I have personally never heard of the Center for Sociocultural Expert Studies, and the fact that Internet search engines can find no information on it speaks for itself...Since the so-called experts whose opinion has been sought in Russia identify innocuous books such as _My Book of Bible Stories_ and _The Greatest Man Who Ever Lived_ as examples of subversive literature, this must call their expertise, as well as their motivation, into question."6

If _My Book of Bible Stories_ and _The Greatest Man Who Ever Lived_ , and even the _New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures_ are banned as extremist, that means you had better not have them in your house of worship. Therefore, Jehovah's Witnesses removed them; they're nice, but not essential. There are other Bible translations available—they all work. But determined enemies planted the banned literature and their cohorts promptly came along to "discover" it.7 They have been caught red-handed doing this several times. It is searchable on the Witness website and is entitled [extremist material: redacted for reader safety]8

How could any Witness in Russia not think it a remarkable coincidence that their greatest trial in decades erupts just as the 37th chapter of Isaiah is being considered in congregations worldwide through the scheduled weekly Bible reading? That schedule was determined 100 years ago, as it is simply reading through the Bible a few chapters at a time—reach the end and start over. The enemies of Jehovah's Witnesses, as of January, are fully empowered to close Bethel, the Administrative Center at St. Petersburg. (All branch headquarters, as well as main facilities in New York, are called "Bethel," a Hebrew word that means "house of God.") The final legal appeal has been lost. And because of the scheduled Isaiah 37, Witness meetings around the world discussed the one-hour video "Oh Jehovah, I Trust in You." The video dramatizes the Assyrian siege of Jerusalem during King Hezekiah's reign, and relates how a single angel eliminated 185,000 of the enemy army in a single night. It was first shown at the hundreds of Regional Conventions of Jehovah's Witnesses, and is now found on their website.

" _Hey, remember that angel we dispatched to Jerusalem? I'm impressed with his portfolio. Check on his availability, won't you?"_ Is there that sort of discussion somewhere? Probably not. Witnesses take in on the chin these days. That angel is the _hit man_ angel and he is reserved for extraordinary occasions. Even Hezekiah, the Israelite King, was not smug about his back-up. He didn't assume that God was going to send the hit man; maybe he would and maybe he would not. He just knew that his role was to trust fully in Jehovah and remain faithful. And that's what our Russian brothers must do right now. Look, it will all turn against them one day. When Jesus was hauled before Pilate, he didn't sweet-talk his way out of it, did he? Similar is the hostility of this world today toward those who would follow Christ.

How will it play out this time? Will world opinion prevail upon leaders there to carry on as every other nation does, Russia now being the only nation on earth to ban JW.org? Our brothers bear up under persecution when they must, and it often brings honest-hearted, to say nothing of courageous, people into the fold. People say: "Why are they making trouble for the Jehovahs? They're nice people." Time will tell.

Congregations worldwide have seen recorded interviews of ordinary Witnesses in Taganrog, Russia, whose lives have been turned upside down by years of legal trials. They have heard them speak of their hardships—emotional, physical, and financial—and how they have been drained of every resource they had simply for following Christ. They saw a child who thinks perhaps both parents will be sent to prison for worshipping God. They saw a grandparent who thinks he will be sent there yet again—"at 59, it is too much," he says. They saw a young man who cannot hold a job, as his employer cannot accommodate his frequent absences for court. If they can endure as they have endured, they will completely pour themselves out, just as the early Christians did, just as the Apostle Paul did, and just as Jesus did. All Witnesses pray for them to be given strength. "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul," says Jesus.9

Witnesses realize who is their real enemy. They know that not all in government oppose them—they have been targeted by a vociferous minority with special interests. They recognize that their persecution does not come from ordinary people unless these have been stirred up by agitators, or the media under the influence of agitators. There was a barn fire in Russia in the dead of winter and firefighters saved 150 pigs. Find it and watch the firefighters joyously tossing piglets to each other in a bucket pig brigade.10 See? They rescue piglets over there just like we would rescue them here. People are people. Focus on the people, not the kings, nor their officials.

Do persons suffer in such countries as Russia? Without a doubt, they do. But people suffer here in the U.S, too. They are just _different_ people. "Authoritarian" countries are much concerned with maintaining order. Many here suffer due to the lack of such concern. Some persons hearing of the Russian persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses are sympathetic. But others are exuberant. "Yeah! And not only there, but everywhere!" they shout. Is it people making themselves readily identifiable for the separating of the sheep and the goats, a separation based upon how they have treated "Christ's brothers?"11

Jesus said to his followers: "Behold, I am sending you like sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and simple as doves. But beware of people, for they will hand you over to courts and scourge you in their synagogues, you will be led before governors and kings for my sake." Why would that occur? So as to be commended for fine work? No. It would be so that accusations could be hurled, necessitating a defense. The more vile the accusation, the better it will play for those who would malign Christ's followers.12

"I was just a boy when Stalin exiled my family to Siberia merely because we were Jehovah's Witnesses. It is sad and reprehensible that my children and grandchildren should be facing a similar fate. Never did I expect that we would again face the threat of religious persecution in modern Russia," says Vasiliy Kalin, as Russia petitions the Supreme Court to ban Jehovah's Witnesses.13 Jesus said his followers would be hailed before courts. Was it so that they could receive "Good Citizenship" plaques? "What are they saying about me, here?" said the Christian Apostle Paul to the Jewish leaders in Rome. "Are they digging up any dirt on me?" "They answered him [this time literally]: "We have received no letters from Judea about you, nor has any of the brothers arrived with a damaging report or rumor about you. But we should like to hear you present your views, for we know that this sect is denounced everywhere."14

Mr. Kalin was to testify at the trial, where he showed the Court his certificate of rehabilitation awarded him during the 1990s. It was presumably of him that one of the Witness attorneys said: "There is present a person who was born in prison. Because his mama, five months pregnant, was sentenced as an enemy of the people to eight years in prison merely because she was a Jehovah's Witness. She gave birth in prison, and for two years the baby lived in the prison's children's home. His father could not take him, because he had been exiled to Siberia. In 1991 the state acknowledged the mother as a victim of political repressions, apologized to her, and allocated a pension. And now here in the court, this man, born in prison, came up to me and asked: 'Does the Ministry of Justice really want to repeat this horrible history?' And I did not know what to answer." At any rate, Kalin himself said at the trial that he was experiencing "memories of the future."15

Persecution is a mark of true religion today. Depend upon it that those who truly follow Christ will be "denounced everywhere" and even called extremist. One would think that the terrorist attacks that have become a staple of life would have taught the Russians what extremism is. Instead, for them it is as their opponent states:16 "In their literature, there are some very harsh statements and very insulting statements about other faiths," says Alexander Dvorkin, the former Russian Orthodox priest who now teaches the history of religion and cult studies at St. Tikhon University in Moscow, whom we will hear from again. "Of course, every religion has the right to criticize other faiths, but that should be done in a non-insulting manner, especially if you are talking about [my faith] the faith of the majority." (brackets mine)

The reason you can and should criticize other faiths is that, as any non-religious person knows, religion has historically served as cheerleader for war and killing. Thus, a growing number of persons would like to ban them all, not just Jehovah's Witnesses. It is ironic that Russia should start with one of the few religions totally innocent in that regard, as Witnesses are universally known to refuse military service.

Trying to seduce the guileless ones, which is not necessarily difficult, for they _are_ guileless, one opponent poses as a Governing Body member on social media. C'mon! You don't say: _"Brother Jackson is on Facebook! I know it's him because he liked the Jumping Jehovah's Witnesses picture!"_ There _is_ such a thing as discernment. If he has actually opened a social media account (what are the chances?) it is a major change in method of communication. He would give plenty of notice beforehand on trusted channels. Here is explained why the Governing Body is unenthusiastic about Witnesses taking to the Internet: it is the land of the liars. It is the land in which a truly insightful remark is followed by that of a complete moron, who nonetheless has equal weight. One's opening assumption online must always be: "Everyone here is a liar." Sort them out later, but open with that assumption. How can anyone possibly know who's who? Anyone can pretend to be anyone. Anyone can use anyone's photo. You must be "social network smart."

Some in the faith carry on as though they can assemble their own congregation on the Internet. They can't. There is no way to gauge spirituality. There is no way to tell if you are speaking to a liar or a saint. There is no channel to dispense spiritual food. Nobody knows if I am a circuit overseer when I venture online or if I am disfellowshipped. It is an uncontrollable place, this land. Our people are inherently trusting—guileless, and sometimes that blows up in their faces.

The masquerading fellow said: "Pray for our brothers in Russia." A noble sentiment, for they are going through difficult times. In time, though, it became clear that he didn't give a hoot in hell for "our brothers in Russia"—jail them all as far as he is concerned. It was all a ruse so as to gain the confidence of trusting ones and redirect their attention to unflattering reports elsewhere. There wouldn't _be_ any brothers in Russia were it not for the organization he maligns. They would be all captive to the dominant church, whose daily text every day is: "Take out the competition." They would know little of the Bible. It appears that he would like it that way, for it is not as though _he_ represents anyone following the Christian commission to spread the kingdom message. Once his tweet had served its purpose, he deleted it, and it is preserved only in screenshots.

A Governing Body member appears on social media? Be "shrewd as serpents," if you please. "We ask you...not to be shaken out of your minds suddenly, or to be alarmed either by a "spirit," or by an oral statement, or by a letter allegedly from us," writes the apostle to the Thessalonian congregation. "A thief comes only to steal and slaughter and destroy," says the gospel. Depend upon it. They are up to no good when they come under false pretenses.16

I don't even say that I am a Witness regarding my own web presence. Obviously, it can be read between the lines, but it is not plainly stated. I do get emails asking if I am or not. I don't link to the JW.org website either, because I imagine it imputes my idiosyncrasies (we all have some) upon them. Generally speaking, the Internet is a terrible place to witness. Yet our people do it all the time. A brother will say online: "Do you wonder about the origin of the cross?" The answer is NO! Secular people do not care, and religious people do not wonder. The only people who come along, 99 times out of 100, are ideologues who live to argue.

Once before in my memory have all Witnesses been invited to write officials of a nation's government over persecution. This was during Malawi's period of intense persecution that saw thousands of Witness homes and places of business torched, members robbed, beaten, raped, and in some cases, killed. The period is best captured by Enelesi Mzanga, an active Witness throughout that time, the wife of a circuit overseer and a mother of nine, who experienced all of it. Her life account can be found in print and online.17 The ban on Jehovah's Witnesses in Malawi lasted for 26 years (1967–1993), the identical length of time that Witnesses operated legally in Russia (1991–2017).

Time Magazine then wrote: "By all accounts, a virtual pogrom is in progress against the 22,000 Jehovah's Witnesses in the African nation of Malawi." The article even supplied evidence that with the Witnesses' chief opponent, it was personal: Malawi President-for-Life Dr. H. Kamuzu Banda, an elder in that country's Presbyterian Church of Central Africa, "has become increasingly angered by the 'devil's Witnesses,' their unwillingness to join his ruling Congress Party, their refusal to take loyalty oaths, and their exclusivist claims to religious truth."18

Despite Time's report, three years later the World Council of Churches still wasn't sure that there was anything to it, and if there was, it was probably the Witnesses own fault. An African churchman of the Council, quoted in the New York Times,19 stated that "there has been a problem regarding Jehovah's Witnesses in many African countries. There are accusations and counteraccusations of one kind or another that come out of unsettled situations." Matters were obscure, his peers opined, and they didn't appear to be in any hurry to figure it out. Why—"according to some sources, they were accused of collaborating with antirevolutionary forces." Is not _any_ person is a source? The situation may have been "obscure" and "confusing" to the churchman, but it certainly wasn't to Enelesi Mzanga. Jehovah's Witnesses neither salute flags or pledge allegiance to any government on the ground, and from this circumstance are realized many opportunities to make trouble for them.

## Video Vignettes Taylor-made for Current Persecution in Russia—February 24

The grandparents and great grandparents of many Witnesses in Russia will identify with the Apostle John, writer of the Book of Revelation, the book that concludes the Bible. He wrote it while exiled for his faith on the island of Patmos. It was an exile that serves to foreshadow that of the Russian Witnesses into Siberia, absent only the snow. It was for the same reason. The apostle's predicament came about "because I proclaimed God's word and gave testimony to Jesus." One way to handle that problem is to pack the perpetrator off to Patmos or Siberia.20

In late-night raids, with only minutes to grab whatever they could carry, Witnesses were rounded up, herded into boxcars, and shipped into exiles that were meant to be long. Those who were missed in 1949 were rounded up two years later. For many, Siberia would become their permanent home, because when their sentences had been served many would choose to remain where they had set down roots.21

Video vignettes first shown at the 2016 worldwide Regional Conventions, and later on JW Broadcasting, seem tailor-made for the persecution that is building in Russia. The extreme situations depicted in the videos are not now reality, but they have been reality in prior Soviet times and they show signs of becoming so again. Russian Witnesses, and Witnesses everywhere, are being fortified with spiritual "food at the proper time." If shaming does any good, the current authorities are being shamed before the world for backing or permitting what transpires. The clips have been nicknamed "the bunker videos" of the great tribulation,22 and they climax with police discovering the basement hideout into which a small Christian group has retreated. All that remains is to supply participants with Russian accents.

They actually do have Russian accents in another series of clips that deal specifically with persecution: 1) The friends jump when there is pounding at the door, only to find that, this time, it is not the police, 2) Sergei arrives home to find the police have beaten up his father, and he is threatened himself. 3) Sergei is sentenced to five years in prison, which he can avoid if he renounces his faith. These are all themes that have played out in various places at various times among Jehovah's people. Alone of those groups incarcerated during the Nazi Germany reign, Jehovah's Witnesses were given opportunity to write their ticket out if they would but abandon their worship.23 Only a handful complied. In faint echo, after the ban in Russia imposed by their Supreme Court, there were reports of Witnesses being exempted from military service only on condition that they discontinue their religion. When the Military Commissioner of Khabarovsk was asked how he would handle such a problem, he answered: "There is no sect—there are no problems! If a conscript declares his desire to perform alternative service, citing his membership in this organization that is forbidden in Russia, we will not even consider such a request."24

These video vignettes are a new touch in Regional Convention programming, once restricted to talks supplemented by interviews or enacted demonstrations. Now it is talks supplemented by sequential videos. Presently it dawns upon one that the _videos_ are the main story and the _talks_ are supplemental. Let no one say that Jehovah's Witnesses are behind the curve in their use of technology.

## An Invitation to Write

The United Nations doesn't buy the contention that Jehovah's Witnesses are extremist. Only a day before the April 5th hearing began, it declared: "The use of counter-extremism legislation in this way to confine freedom of opinion, including religious belief, expression and association to that which is state-approved is unlawful and dangerous, and signals a dark future for all religious freedom in Russia," and thereby expressed hope Russia would drop its prosecution of the religious organization.25 "The fate of the Jehovah's Witnesses is the fate of any religious group that does not pledge its allegiance to the Russian government," Kristina Arriaga de Bucholz, a U.S. commissioner for International Religious Freedom, says.26 "April 5 will definitely mark a new chapter of religious persecution in post-Soviet Russia."27

Roman Lunkin, a human rights fellow at the Wilson Center and an expert on church-state relations in Russia, doesn't buy the argument that Jehovah's Witnesses are extremist, either. The government is just cozying up to the Russian Orthodox Church, he says. Though many groups are feeling the heat, he identifies another reason that Jehovah's Witnesses are the actual target. Other minority Christian groups in Russia, such as the evangelicals, have not yet faced the same level of scrutiny. It is impossible to accuse evangelicals of extremist activity because their literature and Bible translation matches that of the Russian Orthodox Church...Evangelicals also have closer relationships with government officials, Lunkin says.28

"I cannot imagine that anyone really thinks they are a threat," said Alexander Verkhovsky, director of the SOVA Center for Information and Analysis, which monitors extremism in Russia. "But they are seen as a good target. They are pacifists, so they cannot be radicalized, no matter what you do to them. They can be used to send a message." Andre Sivak, a Witness who lost his job as a teacher, tell what it feels like to be so targeted. Security officials secretly filmed his local meeting and accused him of "inciting hatred and disparaging the human dignity of citizens." It's a Bible study meeting. Anyone who has ever attended a meeting of Jehovah's Witnesses knows that. "They say I am a terrorist," he said. "But all I ever wanted to do was to get people to pay attention to the Bible."29

"Anyone who would have our publications could be criminalized. It is of great concern," says David Semonian, Jehovah's Witness spokesperson. "The constitution guarantees freedom of worship, and that is all we are asking, to have the same rights as other religious groups have so we can go about our ministry in a peaceful way." To that end, Jehovah's Witness leadership reached out to the U.S. State Department's Office of International Religious Freedom, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, and the U.S. Helsinki Commission for aid. "We will do everything within our legal means to have the judgment reversed," Semonian says. "Jehovah's Witnesses are known worldwide for our peaceful activities, and under no circumstances would we ever resort to violence or any other activity that could be misunderstood or considered extremist."30

Time Magazine also confirmed: "Jehovah's Witness leaders have also asked their eight million members worldwide to write letters to Russia officials, including President Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, to ask them to intervene. Instructions tell writers to be candid but respectful, and to mention how the faith has benefited their families. Keep in mind that 'a mild answer turns away rage,' and 'a gentle tongue can break a bone,' the instructions say, quoting the Biblical Book of Proverbs."

That invitation came on March 21st via post on JW.org:31 [redacted]

Six officials were listed to whom one might write, and their addresses were supplied. Additional instructions were included. It was okay to send more than one letter to the same official. It was okay to use a business letterhead, if you had one. Pay attention to grammar and spelling. Neatness counts. No need to have it translated into Russian. Sign it. Do not include literature. Don't email. Use sufficient postage. (In the U.S, that meant the Global Stamp. It cost a dollar, is round, and features a picture of the moon, perhaps symbolic of Jehovah's Witnesses shooting for the moon. Many Post Offices ran out of the stamp.) A page will do, no more. Don't send copies to the branch. Don't mention by name any Witnesses in Russia. Be candid but respectful. Pray about it.

## Tell Them Something They Don't Know—March 23

When you are writing to the Russians about their proposal to ban Jehovah's Witnesses, there may be a temptation to speak of legal and constitutional issues, since their recent conduct flies in the face of most of them. There may be temptation to observe that ISIS or the Taliban provides the template of what extremism is. Surely Russian leaders know what their own constitution says and for whatever reason, they are choosing to ignore it.

Tell them something they don't know. Tell them about eight million people, from every nation, who don't know their Russian brothers personally, but care about them anyway. Let them ponder the significance of what if the whole world was like that. When they look to the outside world of international relations, all they see is bickering, belligerence and bellyaching. Let them see another world.

Convey that we are ordinary, decent people, the sort who appreciate government's role to preserve social order and improve the moral fabric of persons within its borders, and that we everywhere cooperate with governments as they pursue such goals. I like the suggestion at JW.org to relate some practical way in which Bible truth has helped us personally. Imagine! An invitation from Bethel to write to high Russian officials about the proposed ban on Jehovah's Witnesses. It is a fine way for individual Christians, most of whom feel quite helpless, to "bring their gift to the altar."32

"I am speaking words of truth and reason" said the apostle Paul before King Agrippa. "The king knows about these matters and to him I speak boldly, for I cannot believe that [any] of this has escaped his notice; this was not done in a corner." Paul pressed: "King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know you believe." Then Agrippa said to Paul, "You will soon persuade me to play the Christian." Paul replied, "I would pray to God that sooner or later not only you but all who listen to me today might become as I am except for these chains."33 The chains were a downer. There is no nice way to spin that. Best to acknowledge it and move on, for such reversals of what should be are common in life.

Just as Paul said to Agrippa, the persecution of Witnesses in Russia has also not been done in a corner. The Witness central organization has not allowed that to happen. Not only does it adroitly coordinate a letter-writing campaign, stimulating front page coverage from the New York Times and Time Magazine on "Day of Delivery," but it has succeeded in strengthening an already unified people. All they had to do at Bethel is to invite once for individual Witnesses to write—they did nothing else—and the response is a deluge. Clearly, organization is not an impotent thing. It serves here as a magnifying lens for Christianity, and for this reason some attack it.

It makes the Russian government uncomfortable that Witnesses can be mobilized through an agency that lies outside national borders. They ought not be uncomfortable, for the Witness agency goes out of its way to make clear it poses no threat to it, nor any other government. Still, with a century of East/West distrust as a backdrop, it is very hard to convince them of that. If only world leaders would stop squabbling! Look, Jehovah's Witnesses in the United States rely upon the Bible. They do not rely upon Western media for their worldview.

The best letters I have seen are from children, who have a knack for going straight to the heart. Putin is tired of being lectured about human rights. That issue, like all others, comes laden with political overtones. Yet he is in danger of being made to look very foolish due to the machinations of the main religious body. Witnesses would spare him. They do not share the common Western sentiment of maligning him. Nor is he their buddy. He is the leader of another form of government, that is all. All human governments will drop the ball—this fact explains why many of Jehovah's Witnesses become Jehovah's Witnesses in the first place. Usually it is a bowling ball that they drop, and as people ponder the vulnerability of their right or left feet, thus is decided their politics. But Witnesses strive not to bring such matters into the congregation, thus disturbing its peace. They opt instead to focus on the fact that human governments of all stripes will drop the ball, unlike God's kingdom, which does not.

## What sort of letters have emerged from the campaign?

March 23, 2017

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Forgive this intrusion into your affairs. I am writing to ask you to reconsider facts in view of the upcoming Supreme Court consideration to ban Jehovah's Witnesses. I am an American JW and have been so for 35+ years.

We are a community of eight million who are deeply concerned about the welfare of our Russian brothers and sisters, though we have not met them. True Christians are united. If you know one, you know them all. I implore you to take a good look at their organization before acting. Do not let others decide for you, for they would have Russia look like fools on the world stage. Nobody can visit JW.org and think for one moment that it is extremist.

Jehovah's Witnesses are ordinary, decent people, the sort who appreciate government's role to preserve social order and improve the moral fabric of persons within its borders, and we everywhere cooperate with governments as they pursue such goals. We make it our aim to live quietly and to be a force for good in the communities in which we reside.

This is an opportunity for the leaders of Russia to stand up in behalf of the little people who comprise most of any country's citizens. We pray that you will rise to this occasion. If any of our people should appear tactless, kindly forgive them for that. We are not accustomed to addressing high officials.

Sincerely,

John Q. Witness [actual name withheld]

###

March 23, 2017

Dear Mr. Minister:

I am writing with regard to the future of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia. I am a Witness in the United States, a member of an international community of 8 million persons who deeply care for each other.

In the Bible I have found answers to age-old questions such as: "why do we grow old and die?" and "why does God permit suffering?" We value the answers to those questions, for everyone has such questions. It accounts for our public ministry—if you know something valuable, you don't just sit on it. Sure, it's possible to travel through life without a clue to these answers, but why would anyone choose to do it? They add meaning to life.

We add only good to the Russian (or any) people, and not bad. We ask that when the time comes to render judgment upon lowly people whose only desire is to serve God, you strike a blow for fairness.

Sincerely,

James Q. Witness

###

March 23, 2017

Dear Mr. Prime Minister:

I am writing with regard to the future of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia. I am a Witness in the United States, a member of an international community of 8 million persons who deeply care for each other.

If need be, Russian Witnesses will follow the course of first-century Christians. They will, like those the apostle Paul wrote of at Hebrews 10:36, allow themselves to be tried by "mockings," by "beatings," by "prisons," before a world [that] "was not worthy of them." The practice of Christianity is that important to them.

Not every last one of them will do this, of course. But the vast majority of them will. It has played out many times before in many parts of the world. "If the world hates you, you know that it has hated me before it hated you," says the Bible at John 15:18. Christians worldwide don't like persecution one bit. But they expect it because Christ told them to. Sometimes it even adds members to the faith, as some will realize Christians are told to expect persecution.

Why should this be? I would plead for them. Jehovah's Witnesses everywhere are decent, law-abiding people. They are not ones who meddle in government affairs. Instead, they are of strong moral character and thereby assist any government in encouraging good qualities in its people.

The Bible says that true Christianity to be "spoken against everywhere," says Acts 28:22. However, also depend upon the supposed reasons to evaporate as frivolous upon inspection. I hope you will not be swayed by some giving you bad advice when the future of Russian Witnesses is decided.

Sincerely,

Peter Q. Witness

###

March 23, 2017

Dear Mr. Prosecutor General:

I have been told that Russia is thinking of placing a ban on my brothers and sisters. I hope this will not happen! Jehovah's Witnesses wish to worship freely as Russian law says it will allow their citizens to do.

Unfortunately, there has been a false accusation made stating that Jehovah's witness are extremists. In no way could we be called revolutionists or rebels. For over 40 years I have associated with the Witnesses and have never heard any encouragement to act against any government. To the contrary, we are told to be respectful and obey the laws. We pay our taxes.

My personal experience speaks to the wonderful way Jehovah's witnesses are taught at their Christian meetings. Before I began to study the Bible, I was a drunkard and lived an immoral life. Now I can say I am a better mother, wife, and citizen. I know I am not alone in my experience.

_On April 5_ th _, 2017, I request that you choose to see the truth about us and allow Jehovah's Witnesses to continue their peaceful meetings and worship. We are eagerly awaiting the time when the world will be united, and we will all be at peace as brothers and sisters._

Sincerely,

Mary Q. Witness

###

March 23, 2017

Dear Mr. President:

Please excuse this direct contact, but the situation is desperate for us and so we feel need to resort to unusual methods.

News reports here indicate that Russia has its hands full battling protestors. That is the reality in many lands. Please do not devote your energy to harassing the one people who do not protest.

Sincerely,

Andrew Q. Witness

## Fear the King do not treat him with disrespect—March 27

In most countries, if you taunt the king too much, you risk your neck. But if you make it your aim to live quietly, as Jehovah's Witnesses do, won't he leave you alone? Russia has a different form of government. It is nothing more threatening than that. "What! You think we're so righteous here?" Trump shot back at his critics.34 If they tolerate interference less than is done here, there is still no reason to think that they are not genuine in their desire to provide stability and good government. At the drop of a pin, Western media and politicians will describe Russian leaders in the most insulting of terms. We need not play that game. Our perception of the king there need not be formed by the king here.

We should not chuckle at the spectacle of these people not being able to move because we have flooded their mail. If anything, we should apologize for it, with the caveat that when you feel backed into a corner, you resort to unusual tactics. With our very existence under assault, we felt we had to get their attention somehow. Fear the king. Do not treat him with disrespect.

To the extent that anyone is indiscreet, making taunting comments like: "You think you're powerful in Russia? Well, wait till you see what OUR God can do," it explains why not everyone at Bethel is enthused about social media. I haven't seen many of these remarks, but I have seen some. Hopefully they died on the cutting-room floor and were never sent. If there is one thing we know about Russian police, it is that they like to be respected. And our brothers in Russia _do_ respect them, to be sure. It is just that they respect and fear and love Jehovah more. Before we make any comment, it seems well to ask ourselves whether a Russian brother would say it.

Here, Putin is routinely reviled by politicians and media. Respectful letters from ones who have every reason to gripe may make more impression than we realize. Sometimes a mild tongue can break a bone. Sometimes the heart of a king is like streams of water that God turns this way or that. Sometimes the king is prevailed upon to do things not of his own originality, just like Cyrus of history.35 Other times he just carries on the way he always does. We cannot foreknow. But as our brothers in Russia brace for their greatest trial, Mark Sanderson speaks to them on JW Broadcasting _in Russian_.36 Who knew that he spoke Russian?

There was a report that our brothers in Russia have withdrawn all appeals and have instead requested the largest possible courtroom for the April 5th hearing, the "overflow" courtroom. It is exactly what they would do—play this out before the largest possible audience. It is just how Jehovah is having it play out on the world stage today. The Governing Body invites us to write. Our people respond to such an enthusiastic degree that national Post Offices are being crushed. Of course, this leads to publicity everywhere as to just why that is. I'd be surprised if every Witness in the world does not write to Putin or one of his co-officials. Surely, the world takes notice of a faith in which each member takes such an interest in each other. Putin may just load the letters on supertankers and sink them at sea. Just how _do_ you cope with millions of unexpected letters anyhow? but he cannot fail to know that they exist. It has to register somewhere, somehow.

Those who hate Jehovah's Witnesses join in the fray, writing letters _in support_ of the ban, like the Edomites of old who screamed: "Lay it bare!" when Jerusalem was under attack.37 This almost makes it better, for it adds to the tonnage. It is as the Apostle Paul wrote to the Philippians: "Of course, some preach Christ from envy and rivalry, others from good will. The latter act out of love...the former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition, not from pure motives, thinking that they will cause me trouble in my imprisonment. What difference does it make, as long as in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is being proclaimed? And in that I rejoice."38 Let everyone take their place on the world stage. Let the people firmly and publicly separate themselves into the sheep or goat column. Perhaps God is luring them all, as with hooks in their jaws.

Meanwhile, note how our people conduct themselves. Note how extraordinarily respectful they are, as is evident on JW Broadcasting, toward government authorities. Note the September 2016 Study Edition Watchtower article, "Defending the Good News" before courts, which is being used today as a template. Note how the Witnesses' respect for authority is so contrary to what anyone would expect that it only adds to the witness. Let every person in the world become aware and take a stand on this issue. If it is to be, let Russian officials look themselves in the mirror and publicly declare: "I believe, what with all the villains and scoundrels on the loose today in our country and world, that taking out Jehovah's Witnesses is the most important thing we can do."

The campaign may fail in its goal of swaying the minds of Russian officials. But it will not fall short in its goal of giving a massive witness. It will not fall short in stepping up the preaching work worldwide, as it presents fresh evidence that "the time is running out." It will not fall short in giving our Russian brothers tremendous reinforcement. For the rest of their lives, persons will approach them and say: "You crushed our Post Office. Just what kind of people are you, anyway?"

The trick will be to generate such worldwide publicity—so as to make every person aware—that for Putin to snuff out Jehovah's Witnesses would be comparable to his strangling a cat on live TV. He may decide not to do it. He wants to be regarded as wise, as firm where necessary, but certainly not as an unhinged despot. To be sure, he plays hardball when he has to, but he may come to realize that here he does not have to. Due to a massive campaign of publicity, everyone except the most disconnected should become aware of the situation soon to be decided by him. Will he want to be an international pariah? All our letters will be respectful, except for some seeded in by religious enemies eager for the ban to proceed, in sharp contrast to how he is usually portrayed in the West.

He may get fed up, not with us, but with the national Church that is trying to feed him the line that JW.org is extremist, doing so for the purpose of taking out the competition. He may, on a night that he cannot sleep, become like King Ahasuerus of long ago,39 peruse JW.org (surely _he's_ allowed to see it), recognize that it plainly is benign, as every other nation in the world recognizes that it is, and come to resent the national Church that would have him look like a total donkey on the world stage. He may come to realize that, what with all the very real concerns facing his country, Jehovah's Witnesses are not one of them.

## I apologize to Mr. Putin—April 3

When Putin opens my letter, he will be disheartened. He will see several paragraphs. He will want with all his heart to read it, but he has several million other letters to get through. He will toss the letter.

He will then open the next letter and discover, as he suspected from the envelope, that it is from a child. It includes drawings, one of a sad little girl because Putin is being mean to her nice friends, and one from a happy little girl, because he has had a change of heart. Putin will smile faintly, for everyone loves children. He will put this letter aside. Possibly he will show it to his grandchildren someday.

He will open the next letter. It will also be from me—not the same letter, but one worded and reasoned anew. He will roll his eyes. "Another letter from that windbag Harley," he will mutter, and toss it in the trash.

How many letters will he receive? Eight million, at a minimum, as every Witness in the world will write him. They were invited just once. They all thought it a good idea. Putin has never seen anything like it and he will not forget it. It will not necessarily melt his heart. It may make him mad.40 He has a country to run. He has a world infested with scoundrels he must stay abreast of, and one of them succeeded in taking out his favorite limousine driver, a no-doubt decent man who I would have hung out with, had I visited, before any government official. He may not like it that Jehovah's Witnesses try to paralyze him and his Kremlin with paper, like the Dr. Seuss king mired in oobleck.41 Perhaps he will ship all letters to the North Pole, like ones to Santa Claus.

I apologize to him. I really do. Unfortunately, the well-being of my brothers is at stake, and we feel we must get his attention somehow. He is being given bad advice by religionists. If he takes it, he will look like an utter fool before the world, because nobody can read JW materials, online or in print, and think them extremist. Perhaps he should vent his anger at those who would maneuver him into such a ridiculous position.

Most likely, the eight million is just for starters. Six addresses are listed at JW.org. Many Witnesses will send their same letter to all six, bringing the total to—say, 30 million. Yuri will not be jealous that Dmitry received the same letter as he. Some, comfortable in writing, will compose several letters and send each to all six. Make that 50 million. Then there will be non-Witness human rights people. These will write in numbers of far less percentage, but there are far more of them. There will also be some who don't like Jehovah's Witnesses and who will write to support the ban, not to mention some virulent opposers who will chide him for being so half-hearted. Will that bring the total to 60 million? More? Your guess is as good as mine.

Will the letters from opposers fool him? I doubt it. He will say: "Look, I can see why Harley would write me, he and all his 8 million chums, but what about this loser? Is he pretending he is somehow my friend who would warn me of a great danger? Is he not part of the general world who was last week (in the United States) called me a 'thug and a murderer?'"42

Let us now consider how Vladimir Putin will shake in his boots as he reads a letter on the business stationary of Bob's Cleaning Service. Witnesses were invited to use their business letterhead if they had such, and not all Witness-owned businesses will knock your socks off. There are elements of comedy in everything, and Christians are a spectacle to the world. The Christian drama is the one to watch. Who knows? Maybe Bob will remind Putin of his chauffer pal and thereby carry the day. Maybe an aide will tell him of some impending crisis that requires his immediate attention. "Handle it, will you?" Putin will respond, as he wonders what would the world be like if everyone behaved like Bob, transcending national, racial, and social divisions to show loving concern for their spiritual brothers.

## Tell the House Church to Take a Hike—April 7

The American popular media, almost to a person, opposed the election of President Trump. Throughout 2017, they pushed the narrative that Russia had meddled in the American election and that Trump was a Russian stooge. But in early April, Trump became convinced that Russian ally Syria had used chemical weapons within its borders. He ordered a missile strike in retribution.43 American pundits recalibrated. Russian pundits were livid. Perhaps the country they regarded as the perennial aggressor was fomenting another war, as it had (in their eyes) 100 years ago _to the day_ with World War I.

Russian media source RT.com recounted how Woodrow Wilson, the world's "first globalist," propelled the U.S. into that war, reversing entirely his campaign promise to keep the country out of it. When enthusiasm for the nascent entry seemed less than he had anticipated, he came to favor mandatory conscription and laws that would penalize anyone speaking ill of the war effort. Thus was born the Espionage Act of June 1917 and the Sedition Act of May 1918.44

The Espionage Act was famously used against Jehovah's Witnesses in 1918, sending leaders to Federal prison. Their convictions were overturned nine months later. Today, Russia's own Extremism Law threatens to do the same for its counterparts on the other side of the world. Okay, I know it's naive, and the following is tongue-in-cheek, but could this possibly play out? Might Putin possibly say: "Yesterday, it is St. Petersburg!45 Now it is Syria! Next it will be North Korea! What a crazy world! What do I care if the Jehovahs want to preach? Get this case out of my hair! I've got things to do! Tell the House Church to take a hike!"

***~~~***

Now the priests, the prophets, and all the people heard Jeremiah speaking these words in the house of the LORD. When Jeremiah finished speaking all that the LORD commanded him to speak to all the people, then the priests, the prophets, and all the people laid hold of him, crying, "You must die!"

... _The priests and prophets said to the princes and to all the people, "Sentence this man to death! He has prophesied against this city! You heard it with your own ears."_

... _Then the princes and all the people said to the priests and the prophets, "This man does not deserve a death sentence; it is in the name of the LORD, our God, that he speaks to us."_ 46

It is always this way. The princes have no problem with it. It is the priests and the prophets that oppose religious truth. The very ones who you think would be in harmony with it are on the other side. Will it turn out that way in Russia today?

It is hard to imagine that traffic to the Witness website will not increase, perhaps even explode. In view of the publicity, people will want to see if it is truly extremist. This will be especially true with those we find difficult to reach: the newsworthy and well-connected. What will be the result when they discover that it is not extremist at all? Perhaps _that_ is the greatest contribution our Russian brothers make to Jehovah's service. The decision itself may not go in our favor. Russian Witnesses may once again become like the Christians of early times who walked about under duress, "and the world was not worthy of them."47 It happens with good precedent in a world unfriendly to Christians. Jesus was not summoned before Pilate to receive a pat on the back, was he? It was _more_ than a pat on the back he received. Pilate saw through the scheme in a heartbeat. He tried to free Jesus. But he had a province to run. In the end, he proved unable to withstand the clamor of that day's religious leaders desperate to preserve their place and the status quo.48

The non-Orthodox religious world follows this case closely, for fear they will be next. Many of them are cozier with the politicians, as Lunkin noted,49 and their literature isn't necessarily that different from that of the Orthodox Church, so it may take a while, but they fear their time may yet come. After all, if you are going to the Baptist church, then you are necessarily not going to the Orthodox one. As is not infrequent, they are letting Jehovah's Witnesses do their heavy lifting for them. They hold back. What support they offer is tepid, because Jehovah's Witnesses are a cult that do not believe in the Trinity. If we win, they will latch on for the ride. Will they be grateful? It's unlikely. We will continue to be portrayed as a cult that fully deserves whatever bad comes upon it.

***~~~***

" _But when Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews rose up together against Paul and brought him to the tribunal, saying, 'This man is inducing people to worship God contrary to the law.' When Paul was about to reply, Gallio spoke to the Jews, 'If it were a matter of some crime or malicious fraud, I should with reason hear the complaint of you Jews; but since it is a question of arguments over doctrine and titles and your own law, see to it yourselves. I do not wish to be a judge of such matters.' And he drove them away from the tribunal. They all seized Sosthenes, the synagogue official, and beat him in full view of the tribunal. But none of this was of concern to Gallio."_ 50

Gallio saw that what was before him was a religious dispute. Why should he care about it? He had an empire to run. He "drove them away." Despairing of his waning attention, they beat the daylights out of someone right under his nose. But their fifteen minutes of fame had expired. The Roman official had moved on to other things, perhaps finishing his newspaper, rustling the pages to shoo the agitators away. What of Putin when the Church and its friends accuse Jehovah's Witnesses? Might he also be like Gallio?

***~~~***

Eleven days after the trial, which Jehovah's Witnesses lost,51 a Russian language site posted a summary set to musical background. It should not be missed. What follows is an English translation of the subtitles displayed onscreen:52

Supreme Court of the RF (Russian Federation)

Six days of court hearings

Ministry of Justice demands the banning of Jehovah's Witnesses

Yaroslav Sivulsky: member of the Governing Committee of the Administrative Center of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia: "When the court case began, the judge was denying our petitions one after the other, it seemed that, that was it, the issue had already been decided beforehand."

Judge Yuri Ivanenko: "The Court, having listened to the opinion of the persons taking part in the case, of the representatives, has decided to... reject, reject, reject... [the rest is not clear, maybe 'persons and evidence' [DM]"

Brother Sivulsky: "On the whole, about 17 petitions were denied and only 1 granted by the Court. We did not see any evidence supporting the claim of the Ministry of Justice. To clarifying questions, often the representative of the Ministry of Justice said: 'I am not aware of... I don't know...'"

Judge Yuri Ivanenko: "You prepared for this court case."

Justice representative Svetlana Borisova: "Yes."

Judge: "So certainly, you know what remaining danger we are talking about..."

Borisova: "It is hard for me to answer now."

Lawyer Viktor Zhenkov: "Tell me, have there been specified cases of disturbance of public order by Jehovah's Witnesses under the influence of the reading of Jehovah's Witness literature? Do you have such facts?"

Borisova: "No I don't have such facts."

Lawyer Anton Omelchenko: "Please tell me which local religious organization spent what sums of money and on what extremist activity."

Borisova: "We do not audit local religious organizations."

Omelchenko: "That is, you don't have any such information; have I understood you correctly?"

Borisova: "No."

Omelchenko: "Thank you."

_BANNERS_ _:_

8 witnesses were called

of whom 4 were on the side of the Ministry of Justice.

Brother Sivulsky: "Although the witnesses on the side of the Ministry of Justice tried to damage the reputation of Jehovah's Witnesses, they could not present one single fact supporting extremist activity on the part of Jehovah's Witnesses."

Judge Ivanenko: "In the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation it has been decided, in the matter of the claim of the member of the Ministry of Justice, to uphold it..."

_BANNER_ _:_

The very same day, unknown persons threw stones at a religious building [Assembly Hall in St-Petersburg].

Legal expert Maksim Novakov: "From this status of "extremists" will flow a general application of violence against Jehovah's Witnesses."

_BANNER:_ _The activity of the Administrative Centre is BANNED._

Brother Sivulsky: "Never before have the press, social workers, people in general, been so interested in Jehovah's Witnesses to this extent."

_BANNER:_ _The verdict of the Court will be appealed._

Judge Ivanenko: The court session is closed.

***~~~***

It was sealed on April 20th what Jesus had said at John 15:20: "No slave is greater than his master. If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you." "We know that this sect is denounced everywhere," said the Jewish leaders to the apostle Paul.53 _Including here_ , says Russia.

Early indications that the trial would be little more than a sham to rubberstamp a decision already made were recounted by Mark Sanderson, a Governing Body member, who was present throughout. Eighteen of the defense team's nineteen motions were promptly denied, among them one to admit videotaped evidence clearing showing police planting banned literature. That motion was denied. Every other interested party in the world had already seen it on JW.org; the only ones who refused to see were the ones who had a moral obligation to do so. Embassy officials of other nations saw it, too, and they were surely dismayed to see it barred as evidence. Their turn was to come, as the Court went on to refuse to hear their own testimony regarding the record of Jehovah's Witnesses in their respective countries.

It is just like Jehovah's Witnesses to look for the silver lining in the cloud. They observed on their web broadcast that six of their people had provided clear, cogent testimony reflecting the true nature of their faith's worship and work. They even declared a victory of sorts, based upon a passage in Luke, for events certainly had worked out in the following way: "Before all this happens, however, they will seize and persecute you, they will hand you over to the synagogues and to prisons, and they will have you led before kings and governors because of my name. It will lead to your giving testimony."54

Toward the end of the trial, Witness attorneys were able to remind the Court that it was not really they before the Russian authorities. Rather, it was everyone, defense and prosecution alike, arguing before the Supreme Court of the universe. Also included in the broadcast were Russian brothers who gave assurance of their intentions to serve Jehovah steadfastly regardless of their new circumstances, and to do it with the Christian trademark of not returning evil for evil.55

[Moved by this broadcast, ISIS World Headquarters rehearsed their own special broadcast to be made in the event that they, too, should ever get into hot water with the Russians. They, too, tried to line up interviewees to upbuild their adherents. They were thwarted in this, however, because any person that stepped forward was instantly blown full of holes by heavily armed ISIS members. This happened because ISIS is an extremist group.] (bracketed material concocted by author for purposes of comparison.)

On day two of the trial, the Russian Presiding Judge became surprisingly active, reported Sanderson. He questioned closely the Ministry of Justice on just what might happen if Russian Witnesses were to continue reading their extremist publications. Virtually everything Jehovah's Witnesses publishes is on the government's list of extremism literature. The Ministry of Justice assured him that there could be dire consequences. What of the rights of 175,000 Russian citizens? the judge wanted to know. It was not the only time he was to do his job. On Day 5, he questioned the Ministry of Justice as to the legal basis for shutting down Jehovah's Witnesses and confiscating their property. The Ministry of Justice declined to identify one. Other times, too, it was observed that he was "surprisingly" impartial. He peppered the prosecution with questions that they seemed totally unprepared for. Possibly, they had imagined an unchallenged cakewalk.

Russian brothers were not surprised at the outcome. They had never expected to win. In the West, people are accustomed to judges acting independently of the executive branch. In Russia, it is not a foregone conclusion. Nor are the Witnesses there unaccustomed to dealing with police harassment, which they expect to intensify. Several said that the judge appeared sad as he granted the Ministry of Justice's petition to ban Jehovah's Witnesses, after reviewing 43 volumes of submitted evidence in a single hour. He knew what he had to do. But possibly he was a man with a conscience. Possibly he did not want to, even for a single hour, be chief spokesperson for the Devil.

Still, he did a lot. He was very bold. Not many are prepared for their 15 minutes of fame. Even Peter caved, three times denying Christ. By asking pointed questions throughout the trial, which the Ministry of Justice seem totally blindsided by, he exposed them as not having a legal leg to stand on. In this, he aids future appeals as well as present worldwide review. He did a lot, even if he ultimately declined to throw himself under the bus. Not many persons would. This writer will chalk him up as a supportive figure, even if flawed—for who is not flawed?

Throughout history, during the repressive days of countries ranging in government from authoritarian to liberal, Jehovah's Witnesses have blanketed areas with preaching campaigns that were thorough and quick, sometimes happening overnight. Suppose that the Russian Witnesses were suddenly to intensify their service to God? Either separately or on cue? There are 175,000 of them, after all, and for the time being, they have the sympathy of the world behind them, a circumstance that is not that common.

It is not for others to say what they will do. It is their neck on the line, not ours. But since they have been dealing with police harassment for some time, and the legal defeat does not surprise them, they fully expect opposition to intensify _._ "We may as well supply a reason for it to intensify," perhaps they will say. In one way or the other, they will give an answer not unlike that given to the Jewish high court leaders of long ago: "Whether it is right in the sight of God for us to obey you rather than God, you be the judges. It is impossible for us not to speak about what we have seen and heard." It is not that they would not. It is that they _could_ not; it was " _impossible_." It would have been like lighting a lamp and putting it under a basket. Who would do such a thing? Will they be intimidated that they are just regular folk standing in the face of ones more "awesome"? If anything, they will draw power that they are in good company. They are like Peter and John, uneducated, ordinary men, who confounded the ones educated and extraordinary of their time.56

"The king knows about these matters and to him I speak boldly, for I cannot believe that [any] of this has escaped his notice; this was not done in a corner," said the apostle Paul before Festus and Agrippa. So it is with the Russian ban on religion. It has not been done in a corner. The Governing Body did not permit it to be done that way. Nobody with a finger on the pulse of events could have failed to have heard about this.57 The entire affair, which Russian Witnesses, if not the non-Russian ones, always thought was a long shot, was given maximum exposure. Let people declare themselves on one side or the other with Christianity. All know the identity of those who are truly following Christ's command to "lay down the sword." All know the identity of those who are truly proclaiming "this gospel [good news] of the kingdom" and striving to live by its requirements even today.

A Witness worried online that other nations, far from being outraged, might take Russian events as a template for banning Witnesses in their country, too. If it should happen, let it happen with maximum publicity, as does this present case. How literally is the second Psalm to be fulfilled, that the "kings on earth rise up and princes plot together against the LORD and against his anointed one?"58 Let them all take their stand publicly if it is to be. Let it become clear before all who is loyal before God and who would fight against him. At some point the experiment of human self-rule must end. Has it not proven itself an obscene failure?

The Witness organization gives this campaign the greatest publicity. Our Russian brothers will forever know that their courageous stand, which they are prepared to continue, spurs honest, hungry and humble persons to look into the faith now on display via Internet and literature in the streets, and heretofore uninterested persons check to see if it is truly extremist. When they see that it is not, how will they respond to that?

Will Jehovah's Witnesses now fold in Russia, as some have predicted and as their enemies have hoped? Time will tell. It may turn out instead that they will be as a hurricane gathering strength over warm waters, for the words of Peter will not be lost upon them: "For whenever anyone bears the pain of unjust suffering because of consciousness of God, that is a grace... for to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered."59 The invitation to imitate Jesus is impossible to turn down. They will also call to mind Jesus words: "But the one who perseveres to the end will be saved."60

Chapter 2 endnotes

Return to Table of Contents

# Chapter 3 – Aftermath

The day after the Supreme Court decision, Steve Inskeep of National Public Radio interviewed Andrew Roth, a Washington Post correspondent. He expressed bewilderment that Jehovah's Witnesses should be placed in the same category as ISIS.1 The latter related the inside joke that Witnesses are now the most pacifist extremists in Russia.

Probing, Inskeep repeated that Jehovah's Witnesses are indeed known for pacifism. They are apolitical. They knock on doors, pass out pamphlets, and seek converts. "You may dislike them, but they don't seem that threatening." He asks how many there are in Russia, and Roth answered that they grew very quickly after the fall of Communism. That growth has unnerved the Russian Orthodox Church and even the government itself, which is "really trying to clamp down and to sort of recreate an idea of what official religion is in Russia...there's an important symbiosis between religion and the political power in the country. And so the Orthodox Church and the Kremlin have walked in lockstep. And I think it's fair to see that this crackdown is in some ways sort of influenced—growing influence of Orthodox Christianity and a view of Christianity that can support the Kremlin's aim."

## A segment of an article considered at Witness meetings worldwide the week of May 15, 2017 follows

[redacted]

***~~~***

Witnesses rebuilt the ruined camp and turned it into a well-landscaped lot. Fellow believers came from Finland, Sweden, and Norway to aid with the effort. The architect was Finnish. The construction work spanned ten years, from 1992 to 2002. It all belongs to "citizens of other countries, the Witnesses aver, and therefore it cannot be confiscated." "What do the witnesses of Jehovah have in St. Petersburg?" MRKU asks. They answer their own question: "One of the most influential religious organizations in the world from now on in Russia was banned."

Back in the 1990s, the article reports, Mayor Anatoly Sobchak presented the Witnesses a plot of land in both Solnechnoe and Komomyazh—a total of 11.5 hectares. It included the remains of a former Pioneer Camp consisting of residences, buildings, and a boiler house, from a construction company. There was also an unpleasant surprise—under the future building was found a hazardous waste dump. But the Witnesses paid for the complete remediation. They also agreed, as a condition, to pay a significant sum as their contribution to the development of the city.

Witnesses rebuilt the ruined camp and turned it into a well landscaped lot. Fellow believers came from Finland, Sweden, and Norway to aid with the effort. The architect was Finnish. The construction work spanned ten years, from 1992 to 2002. It all belongs to "citizens of other countries, the Witnesses aver, and therefore it cannot be confiscated." "What do the witnesses of Jehovah have in St. Petersburg?" MRKU asks? They answer their own question: "One of the most influential religious organizations in the world from now on in Russia was banned."

***~~~***

Eight days after the ban, Lisa Mullins of WBUR interviewed a resident of the Witness's branch facilities in St. Petersburg.4 His name is withheld. He stated: "For me and my wife we spent here for last 23 years. We live a happy and interesting life, now is everything changed. We have to stop our religious activity in St. Petersburg and our administrative center and we have to go somewhere else. Of course, it is very painful. Many cried. Some tried to be positive, but it's emotional moment for every one of us because we built this administrative center. I spent one year building here, buildings and offices and everything with my friends from other countries, they all came to help us build our beautiful center and now we have to leave."

Mullins asked about the evangelizing work—is it still taking place in Russia today? "Any activity of Jehovah's Witnesses could be viewed as extremist activity," was the reply. "You might be discussing the Bible with a neighbor and find that it is viewed as a criminal action subject to ten years imprisonment." He stated that reports were being received of people being beaten "not by police but by aggressive people who saw so many bad news from the government channel and after all this propaganda some people got angry and started to scream or even to beat some of our—we call brothers and sisters." "So is it still happening, then?"—Mullins seeks to clarify with regard to the public ministry. "Some continue, some may be hesitant to do it. It's difficult to say in whole Russia," is the answer.

Conversation then turns to the reason for the ban. Why is it happening? "We have no answer for that question because we love our neighbors. We try to preach good news of the kingdom to all our citizens in Russia, our neighbors, and why government viewed as a threat—it is really difficult to understand. Some observers say that we are very fast growing or we are too active or that we are compete with the Orthodox church, but frankly say we are not competing with anybody but we are just doing what we have to do—what Jesus command us to do: go and preach in all nations, but as you know, our website JW.org is already banned in Russia, and from April 2015 no single copy of our literature came through the border because government decided to forbid any shipments of literature to Russia - even Bible was stopped at the border and sent to the Court for expert study on anti-extremism law basis. It means they want to pronounce our New World Translation Bible also extremist literature, which is—yeah, it is ridiculous."

Mullins closes by inquiring whether her interviewee fears that he is putting himself in danger merely by speaking to her. The answer: "I don't know—to be frank, I have no fear. If something will happen—okay it will happen—what I can do? What I am telling only the truth—then why I should fear? If something happens, okay, we will face this problem. For me it is easier because my family was exiled to Siberia. My father spent seven years in prison. My mother spent four years in prison. And I also myself spent one and a half years in prison for military service objection. That's why I know what does it mean to be persecuted and I have no fear."

***~~~***

"We were hoping the court would realize that we are not a threat," said Robert Warren, a spokesman for Jehovah's Witnesses from their New York world headquarters. "But now the environment is worse than ever."5 Witnesses in Russia have been assaulted, fired from their jobs, and have suffered destruction of property. Witness children have been bullied by teachers. Repercussions have spilled over boundaries. In early May, a 61-year-old Jehovah's Witness from neighboring Kazakhstan, a retired bus driver battling cancer, was sentenced to five years in prison and banned from preaching for three years after he gets out. But in late May there came a completely unexpected announcement: President Putin presented to Valery and Tatiana Novik, Jehovah's Witnesses from Karelia, the Order of Parental Glory. Six of the eight Novikov children also attended the award ceremony.6

The Order is given to parents with many children who set an example in strengthening the institution of the family. An eligible awardee must head a socially responsible family that leads a healthy lifestyle. He ensures the full and harmonious development of the children's personality. The family must display a high level of care for their health, education, physical, spiritual and moral development. In response, speaking about the spiritual and moral development of children, Valery Novik cited a text from the Bible, which serves as a guide for him, the parent. The words he uttered were from the New World Translation which can no longer be quoted because that Bible is extremist. So what he said, according to the NABRE was: "Train the young in the way they should go; even when old, they will not swerve from it."8

Look, I am probably all wet here, but it is just possible Putin is doing it to soften the blow against Jehovah's Witnesses and/or to send a signal to intolerant ones that he is not with them. Perhaps it is akin to Eleanor Roosevelt putting in a good word for Witnesses during the outbreak of violence against them in the U.S.8 We err when we vilify him, in my opinion. When we do that, we are simply following the lead of the American media, whose reasons are political. If you watch Putin through any eyes other than that of the Western media, he does not come off as bellicose, sinister, or unreasonable. He heads a system of government that restricts some freedoms, so he is loathed in the West, where people are accustomed to a relative lack of restrictions.

Of course, national leaders all have departments of public relations—we mustn't be naïve—but he simply does not display a villain's appearance, given the authoritarian form of government he heads. The unbridled freedom of Western democracy has not worked well for Russians, and his actions display a pushback against some of it. I remain hopeful, perhaps naively so, that he is not at heart one of the instigators—that he has gone along for the ride but is troubled by the wave of violence against people that he, as a career person, doesn't care for, but as a man, has nothing against and perhaps even regards with some favor. Perhaps he is like the Persian king, suddenly taking interest in what he has paid scant attention to previously, pondering what good thing should be done for Mordecai.9

He is careful to keep ties close with the Orthodox Church, but he may, at some point, no longer want to rubber stamp everything they do. Russia is painted in a bad enough light internationally as it is; he does not want to supply proof positive that the negative reports against his country are true. He wants Russia to take its rightful respected place among nations. He does not want to play hardball when there clearly is no reason for it.

Does the Witness religion break up families, as some have charged? The president of Russia has perhaps declared where he stands on that issue. The appeal of Russian Witnesses to the Supreme Court is to be heard in July. Perhaps it will not be the rubber stamp most people anticipate. Perhaps it will follow the pattern of the U.S. Supreme Court in the days of West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette, which reversed the unfavorable-for-Witnesses Gobitis decision made just three years earlier.10

Was Valery Novik like Esther? Was his conscience like Mordecai? Many Witnesses drew the analogy. In the days of Queen Esther, a scheme was launched to exterminate the Jews within King Ahasuerus's realm. With other things on his mind, it appeared that the king had been maneuvered into endorsing it by enemies of the Jews. The queen, a Jew, at much personal risk, spoke up in behalf of her people and secured their deliverance. Her uncle Mordecai had exhorted her: "Even if you now remain silent, relief and deliverance will come to the Jews from another source....Who knows—perhaps it was for a time like this that you became queen." Esther rose to the occasion and dangerously broke protocol with a volatile king, having resolved: "If I perish, I perish." Her brave course won delivery for her people. Would the Novik family do the same for Witnesses in Russia?11

Let us not become overdramatic here. No one is risking his life to pick up his Grand Prize. Still, perhaps it was for a time like this that the Noviks became one of Russia's families of good repute. We will know more when we see who President Putin gives the award to next. If it is to a family of the other extremists, an ISIS family, with bombs hanging from their belts, we will know that all of our speculations are for naught.

***~~~***

Eight governing members of Jehovah's Witnesses were sentenced to American prison in 1918, on violation of the Espionage and Sedition Act, mentioned previously. The religious press rejoiced. Dr. Ray H Abrams, in his book _Preachers Present Arms_ , reports that "I have been unable to discover any words of sympathy in any of the orthodox religious journals."12 By this measure, the Russian media's response was almost cheery. Most of them rejoiced, but not all. One that did not was Novaya Gazeta, which ran an article summing up Witness beliefs with reasonable accuracy, if not proper order, and was sympathetic to their plight—taking for granted that they must continue to perform their ministry. Included were vignettes telling why some had become Witnesses and how they felt they had benefited from the faith.13 One woman said that she regretted only one thing—that she learned about the Bible too late to save her first marriage. Applying Bible principles would have done it, she felt, if she only had known them.

Said a man identified as Eugene, "In Russia, the image of Witnesses is being demonized. Previously, we also came up with many different names—the enemy of the people, sectarian, spy, now this is the fashion word: extremist." He added: "Witnesses do not take up arms, do not participate in wars and rallies. We will fight by purely legal methods. I do not understand why we are banned. But it seems to me that those who prohibit do not know the answer either."

It had not been easy for them to start speaking to others of God, and they now felt unable to stop simply because it had been outlawed: "When I read that Jesus said, 'Go and tell about me,' I was so upset," laughs Eugene. "Well, I did not want to go to anyone and communicate with anyone. It was hard for me, and now it's given." They hoped they would not have to flee Russia: "Even if the decision does not change, there is the European Court. We do not want to leave the country because of the ban. We love Russia. We love the Russian language. We love these people."

***~~~***

Material is slotted for consideration at congregation meetings up to a year in advance. The material itself may have been written a year prior to that. Therefore, it is remarkable how worldwide "Christian Life and Ministry" meeting content seemed to parallel Russian developments. After the adverse April 20th verdict, the attention of individual Witnesses soon shifted to the appeal. Soon it was announced that such an appeal would be heard in July.

The uninitiated thinks that an appeal is a new trial, a second chance. It is not. It is a review of the first trial with the purpose of spotting procedural or constitutional errors. The verdict is not looked at anew unless errors are discovered. There were many errors in the original April 20th trial, but they were so blatant that it appeared nobody cared about errors. If they happened the first time, they would happen the second. However, hope springs eternal. Jehovah's Witnesses advanced cause for optimism. They like optimism. By a single stroke of the pen all of their 396 registered organizations in Russia had been eliminated and their religious activity was prohibited. Just where does one start with that? They chose optimism.

Meeting content looked at similar events and court cases from other countries during that interim period leading up to appeal. Many thought one or all might prove a template for July. Perhaps somehow the Russian justices, upon learning their situation was not unique, would allow themselves to be instructed. The book _God's Kingdom Rules_ , then under consideration, summarized High Court victories in such countries as Switzerland, Romania, Netherlands, Serbia, Turkey, Greece, and the United States.14 A few other countries were also spotlighted for additional detail.

Of Nicaragua in 1953, the book stated:

[redacted}

15

[redacted]

16

Perhaps Canada would be the place to watch.

[redacted]

[redacted]

17

The very week before the July 17th appeal of the Russian Supreme Court decision, added material involving Russia itself was considered at the weekly meeting. It was recounted how after decades of ban under the communists, Jehovah's Witnesses were registered in 1991, followed by formal legal recognition in 1992. The book _God's Kingdom Rules_ continued:

[redacted]

***~~~***

In late June of 2017, a poll taken by the Levada Center revealed that 79% of Russian citizens approved of the ban. Was the poll timed to remind the judges that upholding the ban at the upcoming July 17th appeal date would be a fine thing, or is it but paranoia to think that? The figure means little in itself. The result depends upon how the question is asked, Chivchalov pointed out. If it is just a matter of stopping awkward unannounced calls about religion, then the figure would be replicated in many parts of the world; this author, too, takes cover when he spots persons unknown walking up his driveway. _Get rid of them!_ is his first instinct. However, if the question is framed that violators might go to jail, get beaten up, and have property and belongings confiscated, the approval rate would likely drop sharply. For Russians are pretty much like people everywhere. Most are okay. A few are horrid.

"80% of the negative attitude toward Witnesses is due to media and state propaganda," Boris Malyshev, of the Russian State Humanities University observed, "and 20% due to the stereotyped mindset of citizens." Few in the U.S. would consider the media hostile to them. Occasionally they are, but not consistently. Mostly they just botch the details of a religion they cannot get their heads around. But the Russian government recognizes only the four mainstream faiths, and all "the rest are considered an annoying misunderstanding,"19 Malyshev said. Witnesses are darkly perceived as "a purely American phenomenon." Aleksei Levinson, of the Levada Center, confirms that "the state broadcasts the idea that there should be no religious minorities and the negative attitude toward Witnesses is intensified by reports about their links with 'subversive foreign forces.'"

An organization must be based somewhere, but it is hard to paint Jehovah's Witnesses as American, even though headquartered in New York State. Less than 15% of Jehovah's Witnesses live in the United States. The rest are scattered throughout all countries, where they ever represent a tiny minority.20 Ironically, the other "off-grid" Christian faith with American headquarters is the Church of Latter Day Saints (Mormons). It has over twice the concentration of members in America as do the Witnesses, and they are the most political of all faiths. Pew Research Center, in 2014, published a chart of political leanings by religion (29 faiths) and Mormons topped it, with 70% identifying as Republican, 19% as Democrat, and 11% as having no leaning.21 Jehovah's Witnesses almost broke the chart, with a full 75% listed as having "no leaning (the next highest listing of that choice was Hindu with 26%)," 7% Republican and 18% Democrat. Yet the Mormons get their new church in Moscow, noted previously, while Jehovah's Witnesses are losing their buildings. Don't misunderstand. This writer does not begrudge the Mormons their new church. I am just vexed about ours.

About Jehovah's Witnesses, Pew says that they "are taught to remain politically neutral and abstain from voting, [and they] stand out for their overwhelming identification as independents who do not lean toward either party. Three-quarters of Jehovah's Witnesses put themselves in that category." One might wonder why all of them do not. This writer's take is that it is because persons self-identify for the Pew chart. The Watchtower organization, on the other hand, counts as members, not those who self-identify, but those who report some activity in the Christian ministry. I have little doubt that, of those, the figure would be in the 90th percentile.

***~~~***

Speaking at an early May joint news conference with Putin, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said: "We have heard some very negative reports about the treatment of homosexuals in Chechnya and I asked President Vladimir Putin to use his influence to guarantee minority rights here as well as with Jehovah's Witnesses." Though she had mentioned the two in the same sentence, the BBC reported the gay plight and did not mention Jehovah's Witnesses. The Associated Press also managed to edit Witnesses away, though most sources did not.22

It is seldom that the gay community and Jehovah's Witnesses find common cause so that Angela Merkel can mention them in the same breath. American Witnesses thought it well that they were mentioned along with others suffering repression, but one Russian Witness said it said was not well. "Comparing JWs with gays is not a good thing in Russia," she wrote. "Very few people will protect gays. I am afraid I can't explain it but, believe me, it doesn't sound good....Of course I don't know, but hope report about [the intense persecution of] gay men is false. It is really hard to believe that there are alive gay men in Chechnya. They wanted to have gay parade in our city. And people wanted to beat them. Fortunately, the parade was forbidden because any gay propaganda is forbidden. Those gay men in Chechnya must be really brave...Russia doesn't like minorities."

There are gay men in Chechnya, and they are not faring well. In April, Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta wrote of 100 men, thought to be gay, who were rounded up and tortured by government officials, spurred by concerns to head off that planned gay pride parade. Russia downplayed the incident, with the observation that "there were not gay men in Chechnya."23

***~~~***

For the purposes of this narrative, religion reporter Joshua Gill picks up where Emily Baran leaves off. He uncovers a major piece of the puzzle. He connects the dots that few Witnesses knew existed, and fewer still knew of their interplay. One cannot thank him enough. Upon the lost appeal, Gill wrote in The Daily Caller:24

"The Russian Supreme Court's July 17 ban on the Jehovah's Witnesses was the result of a decades long conspiracy funded by the French government, blessed by the Russian Orthodox Church, and sanctioned by the Putin administration....The latest phase of that plan first garnered international attention with Russian authorities' arrest of a Danish citizen." That would be Dennis Christensen, arrested May 25 for conducting a congregation meeting after the ban had gone into effect. Why is a foreign citizen the first person arrested? Is it to underline in bold the "No Tolerance" policy toward Witnesses? Arrest of a foreigner will surely draw the world's attention more than arrest of a Russian, which is more easily written off as an internal affair and no concern of anyone else.

Gill spotlights the role of Alexander Dvorkin, the Russian Ministry's Expert Council for Conducting State Religious Studies. That Council exists so as "to investigate religions that deviate from Russian Orthodox teaching and to recommend actions against those religions to the state." They have recommended taking strong action on non-majority faiths. Mr. Dvorkin is also vice president of the European Federation of Research and Information Centers on Sectarianism (FECRIS), a French NGO dedicated to identifying as a "sect/cult or a guru the organization or the individual which misuses beliefs and behavioral techniques for his own benefit." It is an organization fully funded by the French government, and it may be remembered that that government tried to eliminate Jehovah's Witnesses by imposing a 60% tax on their activities in 1998. The tax was doggedly appealed by Jehovah's Witnesses until it was struck down by the European Court of Human Rights fourteen years later.

The Daily Caller article reveals the depth of Dvokin's misinformation and dislike of Jehovah's Witnesses. "Their adepts recruit failed university enrollees, and people on vacation as well [as though the two groups have everything in common, rather than nothing]; they have a wide range of psychological influence, especially on the unstable minds of adolescents and youths," he says of both them and the Hare Krishnas. He has encouraged the public to "take part in the fight against sects, file complaints and collect raw data so that the local authorities can react quickly." In a 2009 documentary called "Emergency Investigation: Jehovah's Witnesses," he compared Witnesses to drug dealers. _The Journal for the Study of Beliefs and Worldviews_ attributes instances of public violence against Russian Witness members to that documentary. There is even a new app in Moscow with which to report sects, so that the "person or his relatives who got into the sect, now do not have to write statements, he can quickly send us information. There are agreements with law enforcement agencies and experts of the Ministry of Justice, they will process it, if something serious—automatically the information will come to the police."25

It is impossible not to call to mind religious enemies of early times who instigated the violence against the original Christians, as related in Acts. Jehovah's Witnesses, as the foremost example, are more dangerous than Satanists, Dvorkin says, because they "conceal evil under the guise of good." Counterintuitively, the Satanist Church of Moscow was not among the handful of groups he singled out. It has not been labeled extremist. It has also come out in enthusiastic support of the Witness ban.26

***~~~***

"Jehovah's Witnesses Had Foes Before Putin" announced the Bloomberg headline the day after the decision to ban, with the subtitle: "Russia is reverting to Soviet-era restrictions on religion. But this denomination has survived worse." The previously-quoted writer, Leonid Bershidsky, expressed no doubt that the "stubborn group" would fight on, but "the court has delivered another chilling reminder that President Vladimir Putin's Russia is even less free than the USSR was."27

Witnesses in Russia will not intimidate easily because they have rarely known anything but persecution in Russia. Bershidsky recounts some history: "When, after Stalin's death, the state stopped systematically imprisoning them and switched to a harassment tactic, the flock started growing. By January 1991, when President Mikhail Gorbachev's government officially permitted the organization, there were about 45,000 followers in the Soviet Union. They formed one of the most stubborn and resourceful resistance groups that ever existed in the Communist country." Bershidsky then quotes Emily Baran: "They [under the Soviets] organized a highly complex underground organization, with its own finances, leadership structures, and internal reporting system that kept careful record of its members' archives. While intellectual dissidents exercised caution in sharing their views with others who could denounce them, Witnesses spoke about their beliefs to complete strangers in an effort to convert them."

The 1991 honeymoon between the government and Jehovah's Witnesses was over almost as soon as it began. Witness promptly acquired over 100,000 new members, and that was enough for their opponents. Old unfavorable memes reappeared and were enhanced by some new ones in the guise of anti-cult crusading. Writes Bershidsky, "Russia has no more patience with openness and tolerance. Putin's regime doesn't care whether it passes any tests on that score. In a way, it's as defiant as the Witnesses, and so far, it's just as resilient. But the Jehovah's Witnesses have been resilient for longer."

Notwithstanding a certain _clash of the titans_ air, mentioned previously, it is a fine article of support—well-informed. It is appreciated. But clashing is not what Witnesses want. All they desire is to exist. And to read the Bible. And to meet. And to spotlight Bible teachings. People do not "light a lamp and then put it under a bushel basket; it is set on a lampstand, where it gives light to all in the house," says Jesus.28

Grant Witnesses these few concessions and they will be as happy as pigs in mud. They won't make any trouble. They will find out what are the rules of the national king for maintaining public order, which vary from country to country, and follow them. When the king levies taxes, they will pay them; they are known not to cheat in this regard. If they draw upon social services, they will draw upon them less than most groups. When it comes to police resources, they will draw upon these barely at all, provided those resources are not employed to prevent them from existing. Governments will have no trouble from them. Through personal and family morality, they will be a good influence, aiding governments in their own efforts to promote laudable qualities among their citizenry. It will be a win-win.

***~~~***

Was the letter-writing campaign of Jehovah's Witnesses a waste of time and money? It dissuaded no one from imposing a ban on Witness activities. Other than earning a "Postal Glory" award from financially strapped postal systems, what exactly was accomplished?

Again, Witnesses like to put a good face on things theocratic. Mark Sanderson of the Governing Body gushed on about the "wonderful witness" that was given the world. And why not? What does the verse say? "You are my witnesses—oracle of the LORD—my servant whom I have chosen. To know and believe in me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, and after me there shall be none," says Isaiah.29 And a psalmist declares: "Let them know that your name is LORD, you alone are the Most High over all the earth."30 (As observed before, the modern trend is to remove the divine name. Some translations, though not the NABRE, have yet let it remain at this Psalm, since the passage sounds odd without it. The Russian synodal translation includes the name ten times. At the trial to ban the New World Translation, partly due to the name, the Witness attorney pointed out that it was engraved on the Constitutional Court building of St. Petersburg. Had those proceedings been held there, one can almost picture the judge leading a delegation outside to check.)31 If one measures by these verses, the publicity campaign was a resounding success.

Moreover, it is hard to imagine a campaign that could so captivate and bind the Witness worldwide brotherhood. The witness given the world over appears to be lasting. Alexa.com, measuring worldwide web traffic, records two distinct spikes in traffic to the Witness website from search engines—just before the trial and just after the appeal.32 In the span of three months, the worldwide ranking of JW.org rose from #1200 to #800. People hear the charge that the website is extremist. Some visit to investigate, where they find that it is not.

Seen in this light, the Russian authorities are doing kingdom interests a great favor. It is a 21st century adaptation of Acts chapter 8: "On that day, there broke out a severe persecution of the church in Jerusalem, and all were scattered throughout the countryside of Judea and Samaria...those who had been scattered went about preaching the word." Opponents succeed in shutting down the good news locally. But not without much publicity, which ultimately intensifies the witness. In time, the kingdom message spills right back into where it was banned in the first place, stronger than before.33

Chapter 3 endnotes

Return to Table of Contents

# Chapter 4 – Appeal

Anton Chivchalov covered the July 14th appeal with the following tweets:1

By human logic, we can't win this appeal since everything seems to be decided, but nobody knows what Jehovah wants to do

More than 100 people already gathered by Supreme Court building 2 hours before the beginning

Foreign diplomats, lots of journalists, police, and the biggest court hall—everything is the same as in April

Our side has 4 representatives: Kalin, Zhenkov, Omelchenko, Novakov. MOJ [Ministry of Justice] side is the same: Svetlana Borisova

Today there are 3 judges instead of 1

Judges: Galina Manohina (chair), Vladimir Zaitsev, Vladimir Popov

Our attorney asks to postpone the hearing until all claims from individual Witnesses are heard (which are hundreds)

He files motion to question those Witnesses who were rehabilitated as victims of political repressions which the court never did

File motion to question witnesses of literature planting and other cases of fabricating evidence by the FSB

Our side has 5 representatives totally (plus Toporov)

Totally, our attorneys want to question 57 witnesses

They file some other motions that the lower court rejected, like analysis of "extremist" literature

Remind that the court must analyze all evidence related to the case, and this was not done properly in the lower court

" _According to new law, the Bible can't be declared extremist, but all JWs literature is based on the Bible"_

File motion to questions experts (religious scholars, linguists, etc.) which was again rejected by the lower court

File motion to add new facts of vandalism and other aggressive acts towards JWs after April 20, ask to watch videos

MOJ protests against all our motions

Court takes a break to discuss the new motions

If they reject all of them now, it would mean they want to finish in one day

... _It took court just 10 minutes to consider many motions, dozens of witnesses, lots of new facts of aggression against citizens_

Court offers our attorneys to explain their arguments

Attorneys: "Lower court gave no proofs of extremist activities on part of JWs, even MOJ admitted they had none"

" _Why 396 organizations are banned if only 10 of them declared extremist, and no evidence of extremist activity on part of AC? [Administrative Center]"_

" _Even MOJ admitted the AC and more than 300 LROs [Local Religious Organizations] never committed extremist acts as they are defined by law"_

" _Why then court ruled just the opposite: ban them for extremism, is it not surprising for you as judges?"_

" _In Crimea 22 LROs were banned despite any wrongdoings ever recorded and after just 2 years after their registration"_

" _Also errors in lower court verdict. It says extremist acts on part of AC were established, while MOJ admitted they were not"_

" _Court ignored fact that almost all publications were declared extremist before Supreme Court explanation in 2011..."_

"... _explanation that criticism of other religions and beliefs can't be considered extremism, hatred, or inciting to discord"_

What a curious case of a court ignoring its own rulings

" _All previous courts didn't allow the AC to take part in proceedings explaining that the AC had nothing to do with those cases..."_

"... _And now the court suddenly takes the opposite stance and bans AC on the basis of exactly those cases!"_

" _Dear court, you must be coherent. Isn't the Supreme Court an example to all other courts in Russia?"_

" _The lower court verdict is also not adequate to stated danger. Court wanted to protect interests and safety of citizens..."_

" _But lower court itself established that in 26 years of AC activity no harm was done to state, no vandalism, no moral harm"_

" _And what threat to state or public are we talking about if even the President himself awarded JWs on May 31 in Kremlin?"_

" _On the other hand, believers themselves face threats and violation of their rights, we have many examples"_

" _The lower court erroneously prohibited 395 banned LROs from taking part in the hearings"_

" _Lower court erroneously applied a number of laws and rulings that are inapplicable to religious organizations"_

" _Lower court established that AC financed LROs, but MOJ failed to provide any financial documents—we believe deliberately"_

" _The whole case is based on fabricated evidence such as planting of literature which is clearly seen on video"_

Attorney shows video screenshots to the court

" _The ruling has all attributes of political repressions as in a similar case 'Merabishvili vs. Georgia' in the ECHR"_

Attorney proves that application of anti-extremism laws to JWs is unpredictable and random which is against international law

Now it's the turn of the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) Svetlana Borisova to give explanations

Borisova: "All religions have right to disseminate its ideas, but their formulations should not insult members of other religions"

" _Close relationship between the AC and LROs [Local Religious Organizations] prove that they are one organization, not separate entities"_

And that's all she can say. Of course, if the verdict is already decided, why waste time?

Court has no questions to the MOJ

Our attorneys ask to pronounce some case files, judge: "We've been preparing it for long and already well know all documents"

20-minute break announced

Court pronounce the public declaration published by AC in February 2017 and religious scientific reference about JWs

Debates begin. Attorney Zhenkov: JWs are well known in the world and never known as extremists, why Russia is different?

" _They love each other, their neighbors, and are far from everything mentioned in the anti-extremism law"_

" _Though some Russians dislike their religion, even they don't associate JWs with extremists"_

" _History of JWs has proved that extremism and their beliefs are two absolutely inconsistent things"_

" _So why are all their 396 organizations being banned? Only one reason: erroneous application of anti-extremism laws"_

" _Even MOJ representative today incorrectly quoted from the law: 'superiority of one religion over another'"_

" _There is no such thing in the law, but a different statement: superiority of one person over another one based on religion"_

" _Only once in history in Russia the state confiscated religious property: in 1918, why repeat it today?"_

" _In the past, judicial mistakes costed a lot to millions of innocent people, why repeat the same mistakes again?"_

" _Is it lawful to ban 395 LROs without giving them ability to defend themselves?"_

" _Is it lawful to make rulings that result in violence and hatred against people that became targets just because of this ruling?"_

" _Extremism of JWs remains extremism on paper, virtual, without any consequences and victims"_

" _It's unlawful and unfair to judge anybody without their presence"_

" _Jesus was judged unfairly, illegally, but even the Sanhedrin didn't dare to judge him without his presence"_

" _Hitler vowed to destroy JWs for their refusal to become extremists, and MOJ today wants to label JWs as extremists"_

" _Isn't it strange that FSB failed to provide any evidence or recordings of any Witness giving anybody any extremist literature"?_

Reply to.....Sir William Blackstone was an English jurist, judge&Tory politician of the 18th C. He is most noted4writing Commentaries on the Laws of Eng.

" _There are law of nature dictated by God and law of revelation, they are higher than everything else", quotes William Blackstone_

" _The natural law finds absurd to persecute someone for teaching to 'love neighbor as yourself' even if he thinks others are wrong"_

" _And both court and MOJ agree that JWs are persecuted for teaching Russian citizens their Bible-based beliefs"_

Now it's the MOJ turn to speak

MOJ: "Their crimes are dangerous, systematic, deliberate, and gross"

Quotes from the state strategy of counteracting extremism

That's all, the judges left to consider verdict

Judges came

Predictably, we lost

Our representative Sivulsky to journalists: "Religious freedom in Russia is over"

" _You as reporters can either promote hatred or soften it"_

" _As you could see today, there were no real facts of any extremism on part of JWs, it's all about bad literature and intolerance"_

" _It's a very sad situation for our country: now anyone who studies the Bible can be jailed"_

" _Many reasonable people can't believe that it's happening in modern Russia: ban a whole religion"_

" _We are very surprised: the whole pyramid the MOJ built is falling apart, but the court still rules this way"_

We're appealing to ECHR, but in 2015 Russia adopted new law allowing to avoid its decisions if they're against our constitution.

And of course, whether they are against Constitution or not, will be decided inside Russia

Reporters sensitive to such things knew that Sivulsky was right—Russian religious freedom was over. The government had spoken loud and clear: "There are FOUR religions in Russia: Russian Orthodox, mainstream Buddhism, Judaism and Islam! Everyone else had better watch their backs lest what happened to Jehovah's Witnesses not happen to them—and it may anyhow." It is as though the order came down: "You can drive a Chevy sedan, a Ford sedan, a Dodge sedan and if you absolutely must go exotic and foreign, a Hyundai sedan. That's more than enough! Never speak to us about this again!"

After the verdict, a Witness who follows world politics (relatively few do) grumbled: "By shrewd selling of weapons and assistance [Putin's] influence is increasing in the world, especially the middle east [where she resides]. The Russians love him for it." Well—as stated, we won't go there. He is not my pal, but we are wrong if we demonize anyone personally. That is just buying into Western media hype. Who is there knowing whether with him it will one day be "the one who once was persecuting us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy?"2 No, I don't think it likely, either. But neither was it with Paul. Why poison the well? The grumbler feels the same way, most likely. It is just that with such an outrageous injustice, it is hard not to look for a human villain. _That_ is easy to understand.

The best reason for staying neutral in world affairs is the Witnesses' reason—they represent, as an ambassador, a separate nation—God's kingdom. Accordingly, they do not meddle with the affairs of their host country. A second reason that even many non-Witnesses will latch onto, is that it is impossible to know all the relevant facts.

It is a herculean task trying to decipher the latest through the conflicting array of this world's media. No matter. It is not, at root, any person we are dealing with, for they are but actors in the play. They are almost _literally_ actors, with Putin riding shirtless or covering Fats Domino's Blueberry Hill, and the American president revisiting his celebrity days from _The Apprentice_. One must not be distracted. It is the rulers of the invisible places that must be watched. "For our struggle is not with flesh and blood but with the principalities, with the powers, with the world rulers of this present darkness, with the evil spirits in the heavens."3 Those outside the Witness world will understand the political causes of persecution better than do the Witnesses themselves, but the latter understand the spiritual causes.

Two days after the appeal decision, the Slavic Center for Law and Justice expressed concerned over the precedent set. Even the symbolism boded ill. The Center's Roman Lunkin wrote about the ban coming on Hitler's birthday and the appeal confirmation on the anniversary of the royal family's murder. Prosecutors chose an easy target, but it might come back to haunt others who at present imagine themselves safe. They knew that in the religious world "nobody especially would support Jehovah's Witnesses, and official representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church will condemn them with joy." They observed sardonically that "such Orthodox activists as Roman Silantiev or Alexander Dvorkin base discrimination...on myths about 'national security' and how spies exist everywhere, and poor citizens supposedly do not know who is preaching to them."

"Nobody considered the consequences of the decision that was adopted," Russian lawyer Vladimir Ryakhovsky said. "After 17 July it is inevitable, not only that property will be confiscated, which is an unprecedented since Soviet times nationalization of church property, but also that there will be criminal cases against members of religious congregations. Believers may wind up in confinement or receive suspended sentences." Lunkin laments for his nation's reputation: "The case of Jehovah's Witnesses for many years became the occasion for accusations against Russia in violation of freedom of conscience and just common sense....Believers prepared a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights and it is perfectly clear that the decision will not be in favor of Russia." In the West they paint this sort of thing as "starting down the slippery slope." Lunkin paints it as more akin to jumping off a cliff. "Hope that common sense will prevail has not been justified," he writes.4

"Baptists, Pentecostals, charismatics, Adventists immediately became prime targets for radical 'fighters against sects.'" Lunkin describes how existing law might easily be used against the Orthodox Church itself, as there are factions both conservative and liberal therein who also want to preach. The prospect of jail time now has many of them more scared than Jehovah's Witnesses, who never doubted that such a thing might happen in the first place—the series of videos dramatizing police action against Christians, shown at the worldwide Regional Conventions of 2016 and referred to in chapter 2 of this book were plainly in a Russian setting.5

The political world is subdued over the actions taken by the Court. Some from that world have been supportive of the Witnesses. But even those who have not are not inclined to cheer. Do they look at the 2nd Psalm with discomfort? "Why do the nations protest and the peoples conspire in vain? Kings on earth rise up and princes plot together against the LORD and against his anointed one: 'Let us break their shackles and cast off their chains from us!' The one enthroned in heaven laughs; the LORD derides them. Then he speaks to them in his anger, in his wrath he terrifies them."6

No, they do not believe the verse; they have moved beyond that. But, deep within themselves, is there not yet some reluctance to put themselves on the short end of that equation? Are they all so bold as to, when informed that something is in the Bible, tear out the page like Jehoiakim and say that it is not?7 Might some of them be like Pilate's wife who sought to extricate her husband from the hot spot? "Have nothing to do with that righteous man. I suffered much in a dream today because of him," she cautioned.8

No one of Jehovah's Witnesses knew at first just how strictly the ban would be enforced. Perhaps it would be but an unambiguous policy statement of little practical consequence—just insurance to be held in someone's back pocket. Quickly it became apparent that the authorities were playing hardball. Within days of the appeal, a campground was raided. It was feared that Jehovah's Witnesses were teaching their religion to their children, thereby causing them harm.9

It didn't sit well with those who commented on the news article. "Something is too much. Even I, being an inveterate and convinced atheist, against such interference in the personal life of citizens, even if they are any Witnesses (this is still to be proved). People are adults, they went out with their tents to rest, yes, and with their children." 54 comments were supportive. Most were sympathetic to Witnesses. One who was not—Witnesses would call him an "apostate"—out-wrote all of his peers, chiming in six times that they were objectionable by many standards and got only what they deserved.10

The first person to be arrested for conducting a congregation meeting was not a Russian at all, but a Danish citizen residing in the country with his Russian-born wife. It was as though Russia wished to signal the world that there would be no tolerance. At the time of this writing, Dennis Christensen has been imprisoned nearly a year and trial is just now (maybe) getting underway. Efforts to secure release on bail have been thwarted by prosecutors insisting he is a "dangerous criminal." His wife has no resources or financial support and their bank accounts have been frozen. A carpenter, his last actions of public note were to build a playground for the children and to take part in the clean-up of a public park.

He was arrested on the evening of May 25, 2017. At least 15 masked and armed police together with Federal Security Service (FSB) officers disrupted a religious service of 70-80 people. Most were detained hours, with about 20 held until 9 the next morning. Christensen was charged with organizing an illegal religious activity. If convicted, he faces up to 10 years of imprisonment.11

He was interrogated throughout the first night of his arrest, reported his lawyer, and was not given any food until 36 hours had passed. Nor did he look good at his pre-trial hearing before judge Svetlana Naumova in Soviet District Court of Oryol. He had been kept awake for 40 hours. Only his lawyer and a Danish Embassy official had been allowed to visit him. His wife had not till then been allowed, though at present she can visit twice a month.

At a September 28th pre-trail hearing, he himself addressed the courtroom, which included many supporters.12 Danish supporters asked him questions and he answered in Danish, with his wife translating for everyone else. Reporter Denis Volin of the Orel News relates: "At some point the Dane began singing some melodic song and tapping on the table, which evoked smiles and laughter from those gathered around. However he was quickly rebuked."

He later addressed all: "I am an honest and peaceful person who tries to live according to the golden rule: Do unto others as you wish that they will do unto you. Therefore I respect the opinion of others, even if they do not agree with me...I have never done anything criminal. This contradicts everything that I believe and love, and on which I have built my life. In the gospel of Matthew it is said: 'Love the Lord as you love yourself and love your neighbor as yourself.' I have always acted in this way: I have loved God and neighbor.

"I have lived for many years in this splendid city with my wife, Irina. Every spring and every fall I have participated in volunteer work days [subotniki]. Here in Orel is my life and my work. I am an independent businessman. Since 2009 I have done much to build a good business and to develop relations with clients. They know me as a peace-loving and honest person on whom one can depend. In addition, I have many friends in Orel who are very dear to me. The FSB has tarnished my honor and good name by means of false and contradictory accusations. But these are false accusations and I intend to prove that."

He also described how in custody his health has deteriorated sharply. "It is very cold and damp in the cell. All day I walk about the room in a winter overcoat and hat and at night I wear all available clothing. I became sick and developed a cold. But when I appeal to the medics that they would give me medicine for a sore throat, I find out that they do not have medicines and cannot help." He is allowed to shower but twice a week and washes other times out of a bottle with cold water. He confused the Danes by telling them he ate a lot of "sechka" (buckwheat gruel), a food of which they had not heard, and it required the locals to explain to them that is a fermented dish of common prison fare.

After deliberation, the judge returned to the courtroom. He quickly announced that the decision of the district court remained in force and thus the Dane will remain in pre-trail detention at least until the end of November. [which has now extended into 2018]

Seeking to justify the Witness ban before a critical British official, the Russian Embassy broadened the charges against them.13 Not only were 95 publications and materials of Jehovah's Witnesses extremist according to the Russian law—even the children's book and even "5 Ways to Improve Your Health"—but "the management of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia has also been involved in other crimes such as money laundering and seizure of its followers' property." Thus, it was not a religious crackdown at all, but a simple criminal proceeding. Hopefully, the British official would mind his own business, the Embassy suggested.

Throw it on the stack! It is another "insult." It is another "evil." It's about time Witnesses start taking pleasure in insults and evils, for they certainly get their fill of them. They cannot possibly be as bad as their enemies say they are because the Devil is not that bad. Zero in on the first part of the verse this time: "Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you and utter every kind of evil against you [falsely] because of me." Why blessed? "Rejoice and be glad, for your reward will be great in heaven."14 Fortify yourself like the apostle Paul, for in the end it makes you strong: "Therefore, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and constraints, for the sake of Christ; for when I am weak, then I am strong."15 (brackets original to text)

It is just the government trying to defuse a firestorm of international condemnation. If there was anything to it, it would have been part of the court case—though probably not, because no reasons were actually given there. There has never been a financial scandal among Jehovah's Witnesses. However, do not level an accusation when they are legal and can represent themselves in court—level it after they have been declared illegal and are thereby impeded.

To do what Jehovah's Witnesses do is now criminal in Russia. It is the pat line: "I never speak about religion or politics" on steroids. It is those loath to admit that they really don't care about the deep spiritual matters they know in their hearts they should care about. It is those offended that uneducated street ministers would invade the realm of the professionals. It is those who disapprove of God having the temerity to declare: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the learning of the learned I will set aside."16 It is those who dislike Jesus saying "that the light came into the world, but people preferred darkness to light."17 It is me laying it on pretty thick, but not inaccurately. The Soviet government brought in the "iron" a hundred years ago, but it took the modern Russian government partnering with the Church to bring in the "silver"18 of judicial outrage.

One week after the Witness appeal was denied, legal proceedings began in Vyborg City Court to declare the New World Translation of the Bible extremist and thereby ban it. The government summoned many of their experts and they all agreed that it was extremist. One of them was concerned that the cover read: "New World Translation of the _Sacred Scriptures_ " and not "New World Translation of the _Bible_." She further fretted that the Table of Contents divided books into the "Hebrew-Aramaic Scriptures" and the "Greek Scriptures," instead of the Old and New Testaments. As evidence that it included extremist speech, much was made of Genesis 19:24— [redacted] It was quoted over a dozen times at the trial. Surely that is hate speech, it was alleged, an allegation that carried the day even after it was pointed out that all Bible translations say the same thing.19

Chivchalov wrote for Porta-Credo on July 26th as follows: "For the hearing of 28 July, the prosecutor's office has prepared a new, intensive expert analysis of the New World Translation which is simply shocking in its illiteracy and outright mockery of law of a secular state. In a sort of 'secular' and 'scientific' expert analysis, the provisions of the Orthodox faith are defended by the open text, for example the doctrine of the Trinity, while it cites a seminary student as an academic authority. It declares unacceptable the use of the name of God in the form of 'Jehovah,' despite the fact that this same name in the same form is used in the official Orthodox Synodal translation All of this shows that the prosecutor's office now does not hide the fact that it is fighting with the Jehovah's Witnesses from a purely doctrinal, theological position....The expert analysis is essentially plagiarism, since it copies various public sources about Jehovah's Witnesses from the Internet, which naturally have an anti-cult bias."20

A member of the Council on Human Rights under the President of the Russian federation, Liudmila Alekseeva, comments on the trial of the Bible thus: "If knowledgeable people do not stop them, it will be a disgrace before the whole world, because the Bible is a great book which is read not only by Christians of the whole world but by the whole world in general. They just have to be very ignorant people." Chivchalov adds: "The trial will become a litmus test, which will show whether we really live in a secular state, where all religions are equal, or whether in our country once again some turn out to be more equal than others."21

Alexander Verkhovsky, who runs the Moscow-based SOVA Center for Information and Analysis, sums up the experts that the Court relied upon: "Within the community of experts who specialize in texts and extremist acts, [they] are already practically household names. Not only that, their education does not correspond to anything. They simply write any nonsense and for this they are famous. All translations differ. Why this [Bible translation] can be in any sense illegal is completely incomprehensible."22

The hearing to ban the New World Translation, the verdict since reaffirmed in higher courts, followed a by-now predictable pattern. Chivchalov offered tweet after tweet of remarks validating the New World Translation, followed by a final tweet of its banning.

The ban of the Book was too much even for Alexander Dvorkin, the one who got the ball rolling in the first place. It is a Bible—obviously it is—he complains. He doesn't like it, but it plainly is a Bible. Banning the Bible makes his country look like a nation of goons, something that was never his intent. To say it is not a translation of the Bible is "unreasonable, erroneous, and extremely harmful," he writes for Pravoslavie.ru. Every intelligent person in the world knows it. The Court decision "causes huge losses to the image of our country."23 From patriotic sentiments, smarting from such a huge loss needlessly inflicted upon a country he loves, Platon Prohorov of RelioPolis becomes very sharp: "Alas, the carriers and disseminators of these negative factors, which cause our country and its people to be traumatized, are not rats or cockroaches, which can be combated with substances designed to do so, but are the people themselves" who "with foaming mouths defend [the ban's] 'advisability.'"24 One wonders if he isn't including Dvorkin himself in his condemnation, as none of this would have happened without him.

"It is not the government's business, in the person of its officials who are not very competent in linguistics, theology, and religious studies, to issue a decision as to which translation is correct and which is not, or which faith is true and which is not," Dvorkin writes. He was happy when the same persons banned the Witness organization itself, but they went on the overstep their bounds. In tackling the matter of Bible translation, they look like fools, despite the help, or primarily _due_ to the help, of their "experts." He laments that the Court "amateurs" were drawn into an "extremely crude theological mistake." They thought that their job was to show that the New World Translation refuted the Trinity doctrine, and thereby demonstrate its extremist nature. However, the Synodal translation also refutes it, as the Witness lawyer made clear. 25

John 8:18 was discussed. The Witness lawyer chose it specifically as something that would appeal to lawyers and the judge, since it referred to Israelite law and how there must be two witnesses for testimony to have force. Jesus says in that text: "I myself bear witness about myself and the Father who glorifies me bears witness about me." The Trinity doctrine makes them both a single meaningless witness; only rejecting that doctrine allows the verse to make any sense. "Christ says precisely that God and Christ are two witnesses, and that means their testimony had legal force," explains Mr. Dvorkin.26 It is in the Synodal translation, and it demonstrates exactly why the Church doesn't like Witnesses to preach from the Bible—any Bible, because they'll mess it up, reading what it says instead of what it is supposed to say. What it actually says Dvorkin deems an "extremely crude theological mistake."

Though he crafted his scheme to ban Witnesses, Mr. Dvorkin has not lost sight that "the issue is about a [Russian] government whose constitution proclaims its religious neutrality." It is not a ban on people, just the organization behind it. The government cannot ban a religion constitutionally. But the 'clumsy' Court apparently didn't understand that. They just reached the decision that they thought they were expected to reach, as they were among the general population under the impression that they _had_ banned the Witness religion.

The errors of the Vyberg court are so blatant, issuing decrees on things they know nothing about, that Dvorkin fears another court may come along later with some knowledge and overturn things. The European Court of Human rights will certainly do so, but they are Western, and can thus be dismissed. Prior rulings overturning restrictions of Jehovah's Witnesses in Moscow indicate that the European Court does not sufficiently appreciate Russia's point of view. However, the woeful translation decision may be too much even for another _Russian_ court, he fears.

Look, he didn't want to outlaw the Witness _religion_ , he says, just the people directing it. He has no problem whatsoever with members of a family, provided that they can be separated from that family—all the better to be assimilated. This is a battle for hearts and minds—nothing less. The Watchtower study article stated: "The world under Satan's influence is still searching for a way to settle national and international disputes. Jehovah alone has the wisdom to bring about world peace."27 "No, he doesn't," Mr. Dvorkin says in effect. "Besides, even if he does, it is at the expense of 'controlling people'—too great a cost to pay." A supporting verse for the Watchtower passage was Isaiah 2:4. "One nation shall not raise the sword against another, nor shall they train for war again." They "don't pick up the sword?" How hard is that to understand? "They'll pick it up when we tell them to," the State says, with Dvorkin's blessing. "They certainly will not put it down at the behest of a faith whose headquarters is _outside_ the country!"

Mr. Dvorkin is thrilled at what he's accomplished, but banning the Bible goes too far and makes he and his co-religionists look like thugs. He says of his victory: "In July 2017 the Russian Supreme Court liquidated the religious organization of Jehovah's Witnesses in our country and confiscated its property. All of it! There is no such organization in Russia any more. The sect lost a substantial part of its possibilities of having influence upon its members. Now it has become much more difficult to assemble files on them and to control each aspect of their life. The possibility of passing financial streams along sectarian channels is also now reduced to a minimum. Representative functions through the use of real estate have been lost. The possibilities for recruiting have been reduced to a substantial degree. Now the flow of new members has come to naught and the departure of the old will be increased monthly."28

_We broke both their legs! They'll die now_ , is his expressed conviction. There is no need to go further and ban a Bible, a move that can only backfire. "Now the sect has been presented a unique possibility—to prove that all of its devotees really made their choice for themselves, without psychological influence and pressure of the organization. I am sure that it will not be able to prove this. Let them try to gather devotees in small groups in private apartments and explain the faith in their own words without the techniques and control of the Brooklyn center and to exist without financial inputs and influences from the U.S.A. and so forth."29

Had Mr. Dvorkin had his way in the first century, the Christian "devotees in small groups in private apartments" would have been deprived of the letters from Paul, James, Peter, and John, because that represents outside "psychological influence and pressure." The events related in Christian history would not have happened: "As they traveled from city to city, they handed on to the people for observance the decisions reached by the apostles and presbyters in Jerusalem. Day after day the churches grew stronger in faith and increased in number."30 Dvorkin would have intercepted and squelched each decision from those interlopers. The entire New Testament, post-Acts, would collapse into nothing, and Dvorkin would not be around today to chide those who carried out his bidding but went too far. He is worried about it. "Having ruled the New World Translation to be extremist material, the Vyberg court actually has devalued its own concept of extremism, depriving the specific term of any meaning. Thereby it has wittingly or not made meaningless all prior decisions of courts with similar wordings."31

Unfortunately, when you release the hounds of hell, you find that you cannot control just how many they will maul. His confidence that Witnesses will wither in the face of curtailed organizational support calls to mind a similar taunt to God in Scripture: Take away Job's support system and see whether he will not curse God to his face.32 If it were not for the fact that real people are involved with real blood and real freedom to lose, this writer might almost say: "Bring it on!" Witnesses tend to rise to the occasion when they think they are proving God true and Satan a liar. "Be wise, my son, and bring joy to my heart; then I can answer anyone who treats me with contempt."33 Though they may fall back, they historically regroup. Even though the enemy breaks both their legs, he finds that the Witnesses will still not betray their God. Dvorkin employs exactly the tactic that has failed since the introduction of Christianity, and he trashes his country's reputation in the process.

The most prominent Witness refugee to date is Russian punk rocker Fyodor Chistyakov. While on tour in the United States, Chistyakov told Novaya Gazeta in a July 31st telephone interview that he had no other choice but to remain where he was. "I cannot openly follow my religion [in Russia] now. And that is a trauma itself even when I am not in jail, although incarcerations are taking place already," he said.34 In another interview: "For example, they came to the home of one of my comrades and took away all his computers and a search was conducted in the house. Because he is a member of the organization. This is a nightmare for me. I have a studio in my home and I allowed them to begin during working hours to dig and look for signs of extremism."35

He is known as Dyadya Fyodor (Uncle Fyodor) and has led the groups Nol (Zero) and [of course] the Fyodor Chistyakov Band. The late 1980s and the 1990s was his heyday, but he still commands a following, and he's become nervous in recent years. The 2009 _Beware: Jehovah's Witnesses_ documentary specifically branded him "a brainwashed sectarian."36

Jehovah's Witnesses have hitherto not been well represented among the punk rockers. Now that will change as Chistyakov brings his talents to bear. Is it strange that a Witness would be a punk rocker? It is explained if we but interject into the verse: "To the Jews I became like a Jew to win over Jews; to those under the law I became like one under the law... to win over those under the law. To those outside the law I became like one outside the law... to win over those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, to win over the weak. _To the punk rockers I became a punk rocker, to win over the punk rockers_. I have become all things to all, to save at least some." (1 Corinthians 9:20-22)

He became one of Jehovah's Witnesses in 1995. He credits Bible knowledge with saving him,37 as did the American artist Prince.38 He turned his life around, and stopped drinking, smoking, swearing and singing his earlier raunchy songs, also as did Prince. This turnaround does nothing to mitigate his "brainwashed sectarian" label. So atypical is such a turnaround among entertainers, it may have even added to it. "The only thing when I look in the mirror in the morning, every time I cannot believe that I, Fedor Chistyakov, [am] an extremist and a threat to Russia's national security."39

To be told that God works in mysterious ways simply does not satisfy everyone. For it to be reinforced with: "It is God and country around here" also doesn't fly, for some people know that there are other countries, and they are dubious of nationalistic claims that theirs alone is the one that God cheers for. A real hunger roils in ones like Chistyakov, motivating him to learn the Bible. They are not satisfied with: "If we want to learn of the Bible, we'll go to the main Church. If they choose not to explain it, that's their business. If, when they do explain it, it makes no sense—well, that's probably why they didn't want to explain it in the first place. We're okay with that. Enough with the 'God' obsession—it's too much." That's frank, and can be admired at least for its frankness, but it does not satisfy everyone.

Chistyakov even took some heat online from some political anti-Putin types for not condemning the government. Far from condemning it, he stated he is supportive of it in all but the Witness ban that makes his life untenable. He is most sorry to leave. He is neutral on two counts; as a Jehovah's Witness and very likely as an artist. Artists consumed with their art do not have much space left in their heads for politics, and sometimes none at all. It is not easy to leave one's homeland. People are a product of what they are fed. If he has learned of malfeasance on the home front that activists want him to holler about, Russian media doubtless highlights plenty of malfeasance elsewhere to counterbalance it.

Nobody would stay anywhere if they tallied up all the evils of their home governments. A prime reason that ones becomes Witnesses in the first place is that they recognize malfeasance everywhere that no government can snuff out. To harp too much over this or that instance of it is to miss the point. The real drama is being played out in the spiritual realm above. "For our struggle is not with flesh and blood but with the principalities, with the powers, with the world rulers of this present darkness, with the evil spirits in the heavens"—we revisit Paul's words to the Ephesians.40 It is ever that way. Zealots become aware of an injustice, and assume that theirs should take preeminence, as though no other exists. People tend to forgive their own county and fixate only on the wrongs of the other country. Occasionally, it works in reverse.

The world loves celebrity and will even cut Witness celebrities a little slack, of whom there are precious few anyway. Witness detractors will not cut them slack; they will wait for the slightest misstep to launch the taunt that _a celebrity_ can get away with this or that, but just wait till the ordinary Joe Witness tries it. Still, the world in general likes them. Even Selina Williams, in the skimpiest of attire, beating the stuffing out of all comers, would praise Jehovah loudly in public, and people would dismiss it as a quirk, unsure as to whether she had taken to the faith she was raised in or not, and not particularly concerned either way. The punk rocker generated floods of rare positive publicity in the Russian press following his exile in the West.

Lawyers for Jehovah's Witnesses defended their cause well, and the world was witness to it. Whether it was the April 20th trial, the July 17th appeal, or the Vyborg ban of the New World Translation, Witnesses produced the facts to establish their innocence. Prosecutors admitted time and again that they had no evidence to back up their assertions. The judges then found the Witnesses guilty. They knew what they had to do.

I am sorry to hear it, and not just for the right reason. I am sorry to hear it for Russia's sake, too—something which should be none of my concern. Nonetheless, I am saddened to see a great nation so clearly paint itself not-great and show itself contemptuous of universally recognized human rights. They have become like the boor who "may not know art, but he knows what he likes." Indeed, they have surpassed him, for art is subjective, but plain facts are not. One is even reminded of dissidents speaking of the enforcers in harsh lands: "What is important is that they can force you to acknowledge that they define reality. They really don't care whether you believe their lie or not."

Would they deprive Russian Witnesses of their coordinating organization, under the guise of protecting them? It is as though an enemy king seeks to benefit Russian soldiers by depriving them of their army. He has no problem with the soldiers as disconnected individuals. Perhaps they can even be absorbed that way. It is no more than the Russian king playing his part in the grand scheme of the 2nd Psalm: "Kings on earth rise up and princes plot together against the LORD and against his anointed one: Let us break their shackles and cast off their chains from us!" The LORD and his anointed one work tirelessly to provide support for their people, though a channel they have established. "Let us disrupt that channel," says the king, "Let us break their shackles and cut off their chains, so that we can present our version of reality unopposed."

Jehovah's Witnesses, who feel that they must persevere, have reverted to pre-1991 techniques, when there was also never a question of their giving up. Some of these have been interviewed. As in the old days, they say they must watch for police, who not only would harass them but also turn a blind eye to civilian violence. As in the old days, they must brace to combat the perception, which had never disappeared, that they are instruments of the West. Some have related how their parents and grandparents had been sent to Siberian gulags, almost with the honored air that they may now carry on the family tradition.

Others have told of how they had become Witnesses during the period of freedom. After the fall of the Soviet Union, religion was finally no longer off limits, and people started asking questions about God. The notion that they might actually understand the Bible intrigued some. They related how they had been cautious at first, for fear they might be enmeshed in a cult, for they had heard the warnings and did not blow them off as nothing. But the idea of no ritual, only a discussion group of questions and answers, piqued their interest and ultimately drew them.41

Chivchalov, the one who covered proceedings with tweets, was among them. Baptized in 1996, he explains of his initial contact with the Witnesses: "I was immediately attracted by the logic and reasonableness of the presentation. All this contrasted sharply with the perception of religion that I had before that: something gloomy, confused, mixed with strange rituals, 'for old ladies,' and so forth....I unexpectedly discovered for myself that the Bible gives absolutely reasonable answers to important questions and formulates an integral and logical picture of the world. For example, before that I did not find anywhere a more logical explanation for the nature of evil than in the Bible." He came to appreciate what he termed "genuine Christian qualities" among the Jehovah's Witnesses. "These are brotherly love, mutual help, a serious attitude to the study of the Bible, treating it as a handbook and guide for all areas of life, and zeal in the work of evangelism. All of this is today in great deficit among other Christian churches."

"What do I feel?" he continues in interview. "I feel a great responsibility to do everything in my power to help my brothers and sisters in Russia, to consecrate the name of God and to establish His Kingdom. This is the main thing that we do, in whatever country we live, no matter what the circumstances. This is what always unites us as a world brotherhood."42 Of course! He is bringing his gift to the altar. He is in the right place at the right time, with the right prerequisite skills, but he is otherwise no different than the eight million persons, ordinary for the most part, who jumped at the chance to write President Putin and five others when given opportunity. He even hails back to the woman at Simon's house who anointed the Lord with costly oil. It aggravated some, but Jesus said: "Why do you make trouble for the woman? She has done a good thing for me."43

"A lot of people started when the Soviet Union was destroyed, to find what is written in the Bible," another recalled. "[Talking about religion] became open. After the Soviet Union fell, you could talk about God openly — no problem! That was very interesting [to me] — [I wondered] what was inside [the Bible]?" Another said how his religion in Soviet times had been communism throughout those times, when he had served in the army. By degrees, after "Russians firing on Russians" during the Soviet collapse, he came to think of Jehovah as the "great geopolitician." He related how he had always felt the stirrings of religious longing but had not yet become a true believer, though his wife was studying with Witnesses. Only when she started to preach did his new stirrings cement themselves into reality. Now the world is a chess board to him, with God the ultimate player.44

Russians like chess. One is reminded of a certain Isaac Bashevis Singer story, in which during czarist times, a certain Polish Jew (Poland was then under czarist control) viewed all of life as a chess game against God. The latter would crush him with every move, but it wasn't all bad. Nobody wants to waste their time on an unworthy opponent, he pointed out, and it was a great honor playing against God. He felt especially honored when he, a handyman, was summoned to the apartment of a drop-dead gorgeous woman to fix a window casing. The woman was ill, and it was necessary for the man to mount a stepladder and reach over her while she was resting on the couch. He slipped and fell on top of her! Belt buckles locked, and they could not separate! At that moment the door flew open and the woman's insanely jealous brute of a husband appeared. His eyes widened. As he charged with fists clenched, our hero had time for but one final thought: "Masterful move, God! Absolutely brilliant!"

Who can resist a people who can think like that? It is Russian as well as Jewish. And it is not so far from the truth. "When life hands you lemons, make lemonade," is the Western saying. Treat it as discipline, regardless of whether it really is that way or not. You will never know, anyway. Allow it to make you a better person.

The Russian situation is the same play as has played out before. Only the actors are different, and the setting altered. The lead actor who was the Soviet state is replaced by the actor who is the modern establishment. But he has learned the same lines. "The [state-run] TV and newspapers, they demonize Jehovah's Witnesses," says a Witness there. "But we aren't stopping preaching — and we won't stop preaching," adds another. They are not political. "It doesn't matter who is the president. Just don't touch us. We don't want to change the president. We have to pray for the [leaders] — that they can manage the country with wisdom," they say.45 Of course! Governments of this system are God's ministers for doing good—for maintaining public order. Pray that they may do a good job.46

Having said that, one of the interviewees alluded to the prophet Daniel, who long ago served an unbelieving king. "Daniel, he had good days, he had bad days," he said. "But he held to his faith. Every day, he served God. The biblical word he uses in Russian, 'spastayanstvom,' has the connotation of a donkey: day by day, turning in circles to mill the grain. The meaning? Daniel was stubborn....Now we have bad day in Russia," he says. "But we will continue to worship God as Daniel did. Thanks to God, Daniel was saved. And he will save us. But who has to worry? The people who put Daniel in the lion's den. They had to worry. Because when Daniel was released from the lion's place, the bad people were killed by the king — you see what I mean?" Another adds: "So, the people who do the same things in Russia have to worry. Not us. Jehovah's Witnesses survived in Hitler's time. In Stalin's time. We survived gulags. Siberia. We have a God. The people who persecute us—they're the ones who have to worry."47

A new normal is taking place throughout Russia that is really just the old normal reasserting itself after a brief respite. In September it was reported that two Jehovah's Witnesses were arrested while out for a walk. Police had been canvassing homes of local Witnesses to find out whether they had been visited by other Witnesses. A man recognized the two as Jehovah's Witnesses "who are forbidden" and reported them to police. They were questioned for hours and later detained on the charge of disobeying a policeman by refusing to get into the vehicle—although there was no vehicle.48

In Belgorod, on February 7, 2018, groups of police including even the SOBR (Special Rapid Response Unit, apparently similar to the SWAT teams of the United States) invaded several private residences. "In some cases citizens were thrown on the floor, put to the wall, then all were forcibly taken to the police, in the homes they searched." 3300 kilometers to the east, it was the same. "In Kemerovo... armed SOBR officers in masks opened their doors by force, bursting in, putting civilians face to the wall with their arms raised or falling to the floor." Those accosted were not allowed to make a phone call, nor invite a lawyer, and the senior police office told them: "We are not in America." Women and the elderly were among those interrogated. Some "experience[d] a state close to shock. Many have exacerbated chronic diseases. Telephones, tablets, computers, personal belongings, information carriers [were] confiscated."49

A 1951 report of the U.S.S.R. Minister of State Security Viktor Abakumov to Joseph Stalin told of progress in combatting the Witnesses: "During the years 1947-1950, the MGB bodies uncovered and liquidated several anti-Soviet organizations and groups of illegal Jehovist sect that conducted active hostile work....However, the remaining illegal sectarians continue conducting active anti-Soviet work and again take measures to strengthen the sect." A report in 2016, 65 years later, updates the same resumed struggle: "Despite the preventive measures taken, the activity of structural subdivisions of the Administrative Center [of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia] continues revealing signs of extremism....Appropriate measures to eliminate the causes and conditions conducive to their extremist activity are not taken for a long time." The warning is issued by the General Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation, March 2, 2016. All new news is but updated old.50

It is not everywhere. There are hot spots. Most Witnesses have merely tightened an already cautious deportment. They now must look over their shoulder more than in the past. They still laugh. It occurs to this writer, who is far away, that current raids hint at the Jewish pogroms of long ago, which were very bad when they happened, but they did not always happen. You never know, however, when the driver will step on the gas.

The Russian-speaking member of the Governing Body, Mark Sanderson, hosted a report on JW Broadcasting directly after the failed appeal. He related how, shortly after the April 20th ban, the Finnish branch committee arranged a convention for about 4000 of their brothers in Russia. Since it was on the spur of the moment, a call went out for hospitality. More than that many beds were offered, plus many who [redacted]. Witnesses who had, in some cases traveled 6000 miles from Vladivostok arrived and asked: [redacted] They had had no idea that the entire convention was for them, that all of it was in Russian—and Sanderson reports that when they found out, tears broke out on some. 5137 attended and 33 were baptized. Sanderson added: [redacted]

During that same program, he told some previously unknown details. He recounted how an international Witness delegation of 18 had been present in the courtroom at the appeal hearing. That much was already known by Witnesses worldwide who had kept abreast. What had not been known was that the delegation had been advised, in the event of a negative court outcome, that they would have to leave Russia that same night.

[redacted]

He is not "low-level." He is one of the Witnesses Governing Body. And yet, as though he were a common criminal, he is advised that he cannot safely remain in Russia in the event of a negative outcome, lest he want to become Christensen's cellmate. Let no one say members of that body do not risk their very souls for the sake of those they serve. How many of their critics would be willing to put their own skin on the line, knowing they could get stuck in the newly repressive land if there was a hitch?

Chapter 4 endnotes

Return to Table of Contents

# Chapter 5 – Endurance

During the 1940s, after the U.S. Supreme Court held that American Witness children could be required to salute the flag, a wave of violent reprisals broke out from ordinary citizens suddenly turned thugs. Elanor Roosevelt, wife of the President, spoke out to stay the violence.1 So did the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), declaring: "It is high time we came to our senses regarding this matter of flag-saluting. Jehovah's Witnesses are not disloyal Americans....They are not given to law-breaking in general, but lead decent, orderly lives, contributing their share to the common good."2

Alarmed over what they had unleashed, three years later the Court, with several new members, overturned their own decision. Foregleams of it had already appeared. "Ordinarily we would feel constrained to follow an unreversed decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, whether we agreed with it or not....The developments with respect to the Gobitis case, however, are such that we do not feel it is incumbent upon us to accept it as binding authority," stated a lower court (United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia), as a similar case wended its way toward the top Court. There, the prior decision was reversed by a 6:3 majority, and the verdict was announced on Flag Day, June 14, 1943.3 Will there similarly emerge men of conscience in Russia, who cannot abide what they have unleashed?

Schoolteachers and principals in Russia have turned upon Witness children; persecution is not confined to adults and the Devil is not tender-hearted. Children become the new pawns. One 8-year-old girl's parents were summoned to her school after she had sung a Witness song and talked about God to classmates. She was threatened with expulsion. In Ufa a policeman demanded a Witness mother explain why she "involves minors in extremist activities" as the eldest daughter recorded the conversation on her cell phone camera. In the Rostov region, a teacher sent a 14-year-old girl to the principal's office, having previously confiscated her phone. There a police officer began to tell the girl that her mother forces her to go to a "terrorist organization" in which "they are robbed" and "are taught to kill people." The officials brought the child to tears, in asserting that Jehovah's Witnesses would "take control of her and send her to blow up the school," and that she should "show her mother her individuality and not go to meetings."

Another teacher told a child who had refused to sing a song heralding the military: "You are now banned and we are already fed up with your religion." To her mother she reiterated "You are now extremists and there will be no indulgence." At the family's request, she allowed a song about nature to substitute for a music lesson but lowered the child's grade on that account. A Witness once living at St. Petersburg Bethel (the Administrative Center) told of yet another 8-year-old girl who was forced by her school principal to sing a patriotic song at school in front of her classmates. Bullying children has become the new norm.4

It is the same scene in Russia that once played out in the United States. As brainwashing ever does, thought is replaced by rote. In the chain of events leading up to the United States Gobitis decision over the pledge to the flag, one Coronel Moss noted: "Another form that false patriotism frequently takes is so-called Flag-worship—blind and excessive adulation of the Flag as an emblem or image—super-punctiliousness and meticulosity in displaying and saluting the Flag—without intelligent and sincere understanding and appreciation of the ideals and institutions it symbolizes. This of course is but a form of idolatry, a sort of 'glorified idolatry,' so to speak. When patriotism assumes this form, it is nonsensical and makes the 'patriot' ridiculous."5

Another court went on to observe that "there are schools all over the United States in which the pupils have to go through the ceremony of pledging allegiance to the flag every school day. It would be hard to devise a means more effective for dulling patriotic sentiment than that. This routine repetition makes the flag-saluting ceremony perfunctory and so devoid of feeling; and once this feeling has been lost it is hard to recapture it for the 'high moments' of life."6

Would the enemies of Jehovah's Witnesses accuse them of brainwashing? Just who are the real brainwashers? Is it truly a fine thing that children of each nation must sing their respective patriotic song and salute their respective flag? Is it truly a gift from God to divide people in such a way? Start when they are young, for is that not the most effective time to brainwash?

"Officials who were already inclined to take action against Jehovah's Witnesses are now emboldened, and ordinary people who have long disliked them are also emboldened," said Felix Corley, a Norway-based religious rights activist. Within a month of the ban, assaults on Witnesses became legion. One enraged man in Belgorod shouted "You have been banned" as he repeatedly punched a Witness in the head, face and upper body. In Lustino, the home of a Witness family was burned to the ground. Outside of Moscow, a plainclothes policeman told Witnesses gathered to worship in a private home that the Court decision meant that they could no longer do so.7

Andrew Sorokowski, a columnist with the Religious Information Service of Ukraine posed the question: Why would a nation of some 144,000,000 risk its international reputation to persecute a religious sect numbering no more than 175,000 followers? The persecution is not illegal, according to its own laws, he points out. The federal law on Combating Extremist Activity punishes "propaganda of exclusiveness, superiority or inferiority of an individual based on his/her religious identity." That law means no one but the Orthodox Church and an approved Jewish, Buddhist and Muslim selection can claim to be the one true path.8

Legally, they can do it. But why would they? The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom promptly labeled Russia one of the "countries of particular concern," along with Iran, North Korea, Nigeria, and Sudan.9 There is a reputational price to pay for any nation that would carry on so outrageously. Few are willing to pay it. They do not want to paint themselves before the whole wide world as a land of ruffians dictated to by house religions.

The most absurd accusations about Russia emanate from Western media these days. Surely a news report that Russia utilized the Pokemon Go game to undermine the American morale takes the cake.10 "Is there no end?" Russian outlets have, in effect, asked. "Is there no accusation too preposterous?" Unfairly, perhaps, but also predictably, Russia's bullying of all minority religion and the outright ban of one suggests that there is not—that all accusations must be carefully considered. All but the most repressive nations on earth have learned to accommodate the human urge to worship as each individual sees fit. Russia sides with the forces of repression in this regard, and even surpasses them when it bans the Jehovah's Witnesses website as extremist, the only country on earth to do so. Everyone else on the planet can visit and plainly see that it is not. How can Russia not lose face? Everyone know what extremism is and they know that Jehovah's Witnesses are not it.

The latest one to complain in this way is Sergey Lavrov.11 He grumbles at a press briefing that "Russia is blamed for everything that goes wrong on this planet." Ought he not look in the mirror for the reason? He was among the six officials that Witnesses everywhere were invited to write. He received several million letters. Did they touch his heart? Addressing a question from the media in December of 2017, he said: "As concerns Jehovah's Witnesses, Russia bans organizations that encourage their supporters to openly break Russian laws. This is exactly what this cult was doing. They were warned several times but they would not listen and continued to involve their members in anti-constitutional activity. There may be no question about this."12

Lavrov was one of those who received a letter from Bob's Cleaning Service. Say what you will about Bob, but you will never find a more decent, unassuming and honest man. Bob worked hard on his letter—he doesn't write too many of them. Lavrov could have read it, taken it to heart, spoke to his five other friends, and saved his country untold grief. Instead, he sided with the Court expert who scribbles "any sort of nonsense" and the anti-cult hero who "disseminates hate speech--that description supplied by Human Rights Without Frontiers.13 If you do this and criminalize 175,000 peaceful citizens who are Jehovah's Witnesses, and then continue to make life miserable for the Pentecostals and the Baptists and the Evangelicals and the Mormons and the Salvation Army and the Adventists and the Roman Catholics and, in fact, any group professing Christianity that is not Russian Orthodox, not to mention non-Christian groups, you cannot say at the press conference "Why do people think we do bad things?"

In one of my individual blog posts that I cobbled together to make Chapter 2, reflecting a time before I was up to speed on so many things, I laid down the challenge: "If it is to be, let Russian officials look themselves in the mirror and publicly declare: 'I believe, what with all the villains and scoundrels on the loose today in our country and throughout the world, that taking out Jehovah's Witnesses is the most important thing we can do.'" Mr. Lavrov and his friends rose to the challenge! It is the theme of Fedor Chistyakov's new album, "Unwanted Song." Dyadya Fyodor belts out: "We'll seize the world later, for now...remove the witnesses!"

Chistyakov, too, is bringing his gift to the altar. He has been busy since his exile, writing and recording music that he never foresaw himself writing and recording, music that for him is a first. "So we lived to see emigrant music," the web source Sobesednik says from Russia. Yes, that's because they chased him away from his homeland. He's holed up in New York, right now, and not by choice. Sobesednik offers the best explanation for his plight that it can envision: "Chistyakov is an extremist? And what did he do? Never mind." It makes no sense at all to them.

"To the punk rockers I became a punk rocker," Paul would have said had he thought of it. No one can say that the cat has got Fedor's tongue. "The muzzle of a furious red-brown bear [emblazons the cover, along with] biting texts with a lot of allusions and direct analogies with the current Russian reality." But Fedor enters a world strange to him. Is this an album of "defiance," as Bershidsky would say? No. It is a tactic of last resort, just as when Chistyakov's eight million brothers wrote to Putin. Who were they to write to Putin? Never in their lives would they have imagined it. They did it when the situation became desperate and an opportunity to do something opened up. It is the same with Chistyakov. "I'm a believer, and I should not interfere in politics," the musician explained to Sobesednik. "At the same time, I'm not blind, I see what's going on, and I'm terrified of this....Maybe the album will help someone. This album is not a protest. This is the essence of things." 14

Yes, why would a nation of some 144,000,000 risk its international reputation to persecute a religious sect numbering no more than 175,000 followers? It is a good question. Yet Russia has done so. Religious repression hardly accounts for American media accusations, which are driven more by its own internal concerns. But it suggests to the unpracticed eye that all such accusations just might be true and that there is no accusation too fantastic to be dismissed out-of-hand. On Twitter someone sarcastically writes: "Don't forget to check under your bed before you go to sleep tonight. There may be a Russian under there ready to give bad dreams." "Thanks for the tip!" says anyone familiar with the plight of Dennis Christensen, jailed for nearly a full year without trial for merely leading a Bible study, and he peaks under the bed to check. How can people not imagine Russia capable of unlimited villainy? Perhaps whatever they hear is but the tip of the iceberg. It is sad to see the self-inflicted wound of a great nation.

Jesus' command is the one to follow, say the Witnesses: "And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached throughout the world as a witness to all nations and then the end will come," he instructs his followers.15 "Not here!" this or that king says. "We have our own religion here. We're good. Peddle it elsewhere!" I can recall right now a certain local speaker with a dramatic flair, twirling a globe he had brought onstage with him, repeating Jesus words, and then interrupting himself with: "This gospel of the kingdom _will not_ be preached in my part of the earth," and covering with a finger or two the human nation that would defy God. Should nations truly do that? Should they truly seek to neutralize faith? Should they let the house religion tell them that all bases are already covered more than adequately—particularly when it covers none of them with regard to Bible literacy?

It is not unlike how religious enemies treated Amos of the Old Testament after he uttered words they deemed not patriotic. Priest Amaziah, ever close to the king, "sent word to Jeroboam, king of Israel: 'Amos has conspired against you within the house of Israel; the country cannot endure all his words.'" It is the same with Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia. Prominent ones assure Putin that the country cannot endure all their words.

The answer Amaziah decides upon is to send Amos far away—outside the borders. It is the same answer once arrived at in Russia. "Off with you, seer, flee to the land of Judah and there earn your bread by prophesying! But never again prophesy in Bethel for it is the king's sanctuary and a royal temple." It is not just the high-handed command that rankles; it is also the insult, for Amos does not "earn his bread" prophesying, just as Jehovah's Witnesses do not. He works to support himself, just as Jehovah's Witnesses do. His is a humble line of secular work, as is generally true of Jehovah's Witnesses. Amos knows the work that he must do. For some reason, the pre-eminent Amaziah and his bunch have not done it. No matter. Amos will. "I am not a [paid] prophet, nor do I belong to a company of prophets. I am a herdsman and a dresser of sycamores, but the LORD took me from following the flock, and the LORD said to me, 'Go, prophesy to my people Israel," he replies to the lofty one.16 They are humble people, those who God selects; they are not the bombastic bigwigs who love to hog the stage. Is it an absurd play in which herdsmen are the central actors? Yes. But just because something is absurd does not mean that it is untrue.

Enemies make trouble for Jehovah's Witnesses, and the Witnesses simply have to plow through it as best they can. Jesus' direction cannot be shunted aside, not even for the king. Ultimately, if he stops them, he stops them. They then become an example of Jesus' other words: "If they have persecuted me, they will persecute you."17

On behalf of her country, Russian Parliament Council member Lyudmila Narusova submitted a paper (July 2017) to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Parliamentary Assembly calling for others to show religious tolerance. It is another Kafkaesque event: taking the tolerance lead publicly while running in just the opposite direction privately.

"Today political, religious and public figures should make efforts to prevent intolerance and discrimination on a religious basis. There is nothing worse than sectarian strife, and history has shown that many times," the head of Russian delegation told that body. The resolution pointed out each person's rights on the freedom of thought, religion and beliefs called for interreligious dialogue. It even added that terror attacks committed by followers of a particular religion cannot justify religious intolerance.18 It's unbelievable!

The 2017 Russian resolution dovetails with and even surpasses a statement of Vladimir Lenin made prior to the Bolshevik revolution of 1917, exactly 100 years ago: "Everybody must be perfectly free, not only to profess whatever religion he pleases, but also to spread or change his religion. No official should have the right even to ask anyone about his religion: that is a matter for each person's conscience, and no one has any right to interfere."19

Is it blatant hypocrisy? Is it one hand that doesn't know what the other is doing? Is it internal discord within the government? It is nothing that this writer can figure out. Adding a note of further irony, Ms. Narusova's now deceased husband was once considered a prime mentor of Vladimir Putin, in earlier post-glasnost days.20

Further indicating either that opposition to Witnesses is not monolithic or that the right hand does not know what the left is doing, or that it knows it very well but is content to send a signal—is the letter received by two Jehovah's Witness elders from the Sergiev Posad City Prosecutor's office, with apologies: "On behalf of the state, I bring you an official apology for the moral damage caused to you, connected with unreasonable criminal prosecution under art. 282 part 2....You have the right to demand the sending of written statements about the decision that justifies you, at the place of work, study or place of residence. In the event that information about...the illegal actions you have been applied to have been published in the press, distributed by radio, television or other media, you have the right to require the relevant mass media to make a report on rehabilitation." Furthermore, their names and that of other believers have been removed from the list of "persons for whom there is evidence of their involvement in extremist activities."21

This favorable decision toward the Witnesses was arrived at after years of investigation, trial, acquittal, and renewed trial. In 2010, two agents posing as persons interested in Bible study secretly recorded the program at the area Kingdom Hall. "Overcome evil, restrain anger," and "What reputation do you deserve before God," were the themes then discussed. The same expert—the mathematics teacher, who would later testify to the Vyborg court that the New World Translation was extremist—testified that these two meetings also contained content that was extremist. For three years, authorities in Moscow disagreed, but in 2013 they reversed themselves. The two men were arrested at their respective homes. The first court acquitted them and found the experts biased against Witnesses. This judgment was appealed to an appellate court which also acquitted them. From start to finish the ordeal lasted seven years, and the inclusion of one on the extremism list caused his loss of employment.22

It turns out that the Court expert is an "expert" on many things. Olga Nikitova, of the Agency of Political News, says that she "undertakes any research in the field of linguistics, culture, social sciences and even sexology and heraldry." She and her colleagues are rather like hired guns, mercenaries; her expertise, which Nikitova calls "malignant expertise," was rejected by the Sergiyev Posad court as "inconsistent, biased, contradictory and unacceptable." Several months later a member of the St. Petersburg Chamber of Lawyers filed an application with the Investigative Committee to initiate criminal proceedings against her and her fellows. Vladimir Ryakhovsky, member of the Presidential Council for Human Rights, further complained of the "abuse of this expert, the dishonesty of this expert."

It is "nice work if you can get it," to quote the popular George Gershwin song. "Examinations are a profitable business: each examination is paid by tens, or even hundreds of thousands of rubles from the state budget," says Nikitova. Alexander Verkhovsky, director of the information-analytical center _Owl_ , further writes that "they are just legendary experts who are ready to write about anything, absolutely anything. For that, in fact, they are loved by customers. They write quickly their expertise and with the result that is always necessary." He is embarrassed for the entire Russian justice system that makes such ready use of them.23

Somewhere I read (and cannot find it again) the Witness resolve: "We will continue to declare the good news tactfully." Is it a concession—to do it tactfully? It has always been the goal—though perhaps not always. When Witnesses paraded around 80 years ago with placards emblazoned with: "Religion is a Snare and a Racket!" that was hardly tactful, was it? Still, all things must be considered in their context; the placards were displayed amidst the backdrop of the two World Wars, throughout which the major Christian faiths played major supporting roles on both sides.24

Who is it among the Witnesses who said: "You should strive for truth and tact. But if you have to sacrifice one, sacrifice tact,"—who said that? Was it Nathan Knorr, the third Watchtower President? Or is the entire line apocryphal? There will be more emphasis on tact today, but not at the expense of truth. Let's face it, tactfulness doesn't come easily to some of our people. They are real people, coming from the real rough and tumble world. They are not from the airy world of etiquette, of people who have come to realize that they must behave, if only superficially, so as to advance in their careers. There is only so much tact you can muster when telling people that their goose is cooked if they remain where they are. But Witnesses try. The goose of human rulership is indeed cooked. The training to preach is in place, and members improve over time. "Don't sacrifice truth, but let your words be winsome, and not wincing," they are coached.25 Set up literature carts, where persons can approach you instead of you them. Set up a website so that they can do the same.

It is not a piece of cake to pursue such a ministry. It does not come naturally. The average Witness is an average person, not given to diplomacy, often conscious of inequality, much as Amos was, and much as Jeremiah was: "Ah, Lord GOD!" I said, "I do not know how to speak. I am too young!" But the LORD answered me, Do not say, "I am too young." To whomever I send you, you shall go; whatever I command you, you shall speak. Do not be afraid of them, for I am with you to deliver you—oracle of the LORD. Then the LORD extended his hand and touched my mouth, saying to me, See, I place my words in your mouth! Today I appoint you over nations and over kingdoms, to uproot and to tear down, to destroy and to demolish, to build and to plant."26

Russia is not a Western country and thus is not so enamored with human rights as are its Western counterparts. Some feel the prospects of Jehovah's Witnesses there are doomed on that account. Why go there? Plenty of people suffer harm in places where human rights supposedly carry the day; they are simply _different_ people. One should never forget the dictum that a "king's heart is channeled water in the hand of the LORD; God directs in where he pleases." Vladimir Putin is a national leader, but he is also a man with a heart.27

Sometimes a powerful person will overturn an established opinion of Jehovah's Witnesses based upon personal contact with one of them. During the 1960s civil rights era of the United States, Alabama governor George Wallace was considered the epitome of racism. A black American Witness who regularly called upon him did not remember him that way. Concluding a conversation with Wallace, he heard upon returning to those in his car rumors that the Ku Klux Klan planned to disrupt an upcoming circuit assembly. He returned to Mr. Wallace, by then engaged in discussion with State Police authority. Upon hearing the man's concern, Wallace directed the lawman to see to it. The story could be apocryphal, but I doubt it. It was related by someone too guileless to lie.

Just prior to a meeting with the circuit overseer, local pioneers were engaged in hubbub over the challenge of witnessing to certain ones considered opposed. John Wayne's name came up. An uber-patriotic American film star, everyone assumed he would be hostile. The circuit overseer corrected everyone with his observation of how, in a prior circuit, a Witness had called on Mr. Wayne, who could not have been more polite or respectful. He had the highest regard for Witnesses, he told his visitor, and expressed the frank regret that he felt unable to live up to their standards. It is likely due to his friendship with Mickey Spillane, to whom he gave a Jaguar automobile. Spillane, author of the most shockingly violent fiction of his time, became a Witness in 1952, and his work thereafter pivoted 180 degrees. He worked in entertainment venues for the duration of his life—sometimes with John Wayne.

Okay, it's a bit of a stretch to say that Putin is on some Witness's return visit route. I won't say it. However, perhaps at the next Kremlin picnic he will run across his 3rd cousin twice removed who will tell him about the wonderful Jehovah's Witness who returned his ruble-stuffed wallet he had accidentally dropped on one particularly hectic day.

The point is, there can always be a human connection, just as there was when Median king Ahasuerus thwarted a decision to kill off the Jews in his realm. "If you do not act," Mordecai had told his niece Esther, "salvation for the Jews will arise from some other source. But how do you know that you have been placed where you are for the very purpose of your speaking out?"—and she thereafter did speak out.28 In the same way, there was a human connection when Cyrus was shown the scripture foretelling the action he had just taken in overthrowing Babylon; Josephus relates the account. It was just that way when Saul, the former chief persecutor of Christians, did an about face, and became their foremost advocate. That one even went beyond a human connection, but who is to say that the other ones did not as well?29

Will Putin become an Ahasuerus or a Cyrus? I'm not holding my breath. Still, stranger things have happened and you never know how things will turn out. "The kings of the earth take their stand as one against Jehovah and his anointed one," says Psalm 2. You never know when a given king will read ahead and not want to play that game. Saul, holding high religious office, came to do a complete turn-around and wrote with regret of how he had once been a "blasphemer, persecutor and an arrogant man."30

When Charles T. Russell, widely traveled, visited the Russian field in the late 1800s, he saw little prospect for the kingdom hope to catch on there. [redacted]

Yet look at what happened. By the time of 1991 legal registration, Witnesses numbered 45,000. They made hay while the sun was shining and grew to 175,000 in 26 years. Who is to say those days are finished?

Having declared the New World Translation of the Bible extremist, the next step was to make a grab for all Witness religious property. An unexpected glitch arose when reaching for the crown jewel in St. Petersburg, the administrative center complex of buildings that has been valued at $15 million (US).32 It was discovered that it was foreign-owned. The center had been specifically denied representation at the April 20th trial on that basis—that they were a foreign entity and thus the trial did not concern them. Now in order to seize the facilities, that rationale had to be reversed.

It was done without too much fuss. Since there was close cooperation between the Center and local witnesses, it was deemed that Russian interests owned it after all, and so it could be confiscated without creating an international incident. This was despite the fact that the foreign owners in New York had made regular tax payments for seventeen years, per the terms of the original agreement.

Denis Korotkov, writing for fontanka.ru, summed matters up this way: "In the resort area, the prosecutor's office and the court made a gift to Jehovah's Witnesses. The property is worth...about 2 billion rubles. As a result, the American church lost its burdensome property and received almost one hundred percent chance of a generous return. International scandal—a bonus." What Mr. Korotkov is saying is that Russia is giving the Watchtower Society a "gift" in the form of a sure international scandal now and a generous financial return on their seized assets once that scandal has forced the government's hand to undo the mischief they have just done. In the meantime, the 14-building complex that was a burdensome property for the Watchtower, since they could no longer use it but had to maintain it, no longer is. What appears to be a lose-lose for the Watchtower he reframes as a win-win. The article goes on to say that if Russian higher courts uphold the property grab, "there will inevitably be an appeal in European and American jurisdictions, and Russia will have to pay. Given the legal costs and fines, the amount can significantly exceed the cost of the complex in Solnechny."33

Will the court decision be appealed outside of Russia? "Yaroslav Sivulsky, representative of the European Association of Christian Witnesses of Jehovah, one of those who defended in the courtroom, spoke about expropriation. 'Of course, we will appeal this decision. It is based on nothing, except the desire of the prosecutor's office to simply seize the property. We did not hear a single legal argument. This is expropriation. Russia encourages foreign business to invest in the country, but what investments can be made if the property is not protected and can be seized at any time?'"34

This writer agrees with Korotkov and is of the unusual opinion that if you are going to ban the Jehovah's Witness organization in Russia, then it is a good thing, not a bad thing, to also ban the New World Translation and seize the Administrative Center buildings. Each action draws in people who might not otherwise care. Human rights people protest when Witness activity is banned, but it is partly offset by: "Well, they _are_ a pain and they _do_ call unannounced at the most inconvenient times."

But when you ban the Bible—even ringleader Dvorkin thought that was going too far.35 It plainly is a Bible; he doesn't like it, but it plainly is one. He says, in effect: "We cut them off from U.S. organizational and monetary support. That's enough. Break both their legs and they will die! You don't ban the Bible as well, which will only make us look like a country of backward rednecks." I say ban it for exactly that reason. Let the sensible people of Russia observe how the anti-cult ideologues have sullied their reputation.

The academic community couldn't believe it. The Russian expert witness, who "copies any sort of nonsense" off the Internet, which thereby becomes "essentially plagiarism,"36 had the court believing it wasn't a Bible because it said: "Holy Scriptures" on the cover and not "Bible!" In her voluminous expert analysis that she said took 287 days to complete, how could she have missed that the Forward of the Russian edition plainly states that it is a translation of the Bible? Witness attorneys asked her that. She attacked the use of God's name—nothing will get Jehovah's Witnesses going more than that—fretting that "in the New World Translation, the dominant factor is the 'Jehovah concept.'" Whereupon Witness attorneys had the judge reading from ten different Russian translations that also say "Jehovah," creating the appearance of a [redacted], said Moses Adjubage, who was present and later interviewed on JW Broadcasting.37

Faithful Chivchalov, who tweets like Trump, also covered the hearings, and one gets the sense that it is not easy for him. Let us join the poor fellow, so that he does not lose his mind. With but a few superfluous tweets omitted, he says, all on a single December day:38

All experts who previously declared #NWT extremist came to testify to the court. Also representatives of US, UK, and Netherlands.

The experts will testify from Moscow on video conference call. #NWT

Switzerland embassy representatives also came. Europe wants to know what is wrong with Russia. #NWT

This time a larger court room is used, more people are able to attend. #NWT

A real philology expert, Anatoli Baranov, who defended #NWT at the lower court, is allowed to testify from Moscow too.

Let's hope Internet won't go down as he will start speaking. #NWT [Chivchalov is not personally present but is monitoring the proceedings online.]

JW attorney explains that previously 2 believers were criminally charged based on these false experts study (Kruykova, Batov, Kotelnikov). Later the study was found erroneous, and they were acquitted. #NWT

Sorry, the experts in that case were Kryukova, Tarasov, Kotelnikov. While the #NWT experts are Kryukova, Batov, Kotelnikov. They are essentially one team. They produced more than 50 studies against JWs in Russia in various cases.

Attorney files motion for disqualification of these "experts" as incompetent based on 280-page brief. #NWT

Court rejects motion for disqualification of the experts. #NWT

Judge asks questions to N. Kryukova: Why is the book you studied has different titles in the study, sometimes Russian, sometimes English? - This was an error. #NWT

Judge: What does the English word "Greek Scriptures" mean? N.K. It means "Gospels." #NWT #facepalm

Judge: Is it a Bible? N.K. This is not a Bible from the viewpoint of traditional Christianity, but a sacred text of Jehovah's Witnesses only. #NWT

JW attorney asks Kryukova why she thinks #NWT is not a Bible. She replies: the Bible is only a translation with the ROC Patriarch blessing or a book 100% consistent with such a translation.

Judge: How can we know which translation is bad? Expert Tarasov: It can be determined on the basis of the activity it produces. If this activity is bad, the translation is bad as well. #NWT

Judge asks expert Baranov to clarify. He replies there is a lot of criteria, but the one stated by Tarasov is unknown to him. This is the end of the experts' testimony. #NWT

But on hearing all this nonsense, judge rejects the motion to order a new study of the #NWT with new experts.

Court rejects the JW attorneys' motion to ask the Constitutional Court to clarify what the Bible is. #NWT

But court accepts the motion to file new proofs of the plagiarism of the study based on Wikipedia analysis (yep, the study has numerous quotes from Wikipedia). #NWT

It's paradoxical that Kryukova's study doesn't contain a single quote from the #NWT it studies! But the court doesn't seem to care about it.

The court also doesn't care that Kryukova and her team claim to have studied the Russian #NWT version but quoted Wikipedia about the English version which are technically two different books.

JW attorney points out studies of #NWT by authoritative scholars and reviews of Kryukova's own study that show serious flaws of it.

One such study stated: "[Kryukova's text] shows that it is not JWs who are hostile to other religions but Kryukova and her colleagues are hostile to JWs." #NWT

Prosecutor: "#NWT defendants pursue only one goal - to engage the court in religious debates about what is God, Bible, and religion, which is inacceptable."

That's all, the judges leave to discuss the ruling. Almost 10 pm on the clock. #NWT

Oh and here is the ruling: leave the decision of the lower court in force, reject the appeal. #NWT

So friends, if you live in Russia and want to ban something, all you need is a math teacher who knows how to use Wikipedia. The ruling will be appealed in Supreme Court now. Stay tuned!

It is good that Chivchalov showed endurance. Let the record reflect that nobody in that courtroom knew anything of biblical scholarship and their expert witness used that fact to showcase them all as ignoramuses before the world. See if they will thank her for that the next time they are laughed off some academic stage. She stated: "The only book that can be called a Bible is one approved by the Russian Orthodox Church and that is marked by the blessing of the Patriarch or that matches word for word that translation." Good. Let them explain before educated people how they went along with her on that one. [redacted]

It took the judges four minutes to review seven hours of testimony before giving their decision.

The decision regarding the branch headquarters draws in the potentially much more influential business community. I say it is a good thing for them to seize the building. It cannot serve its intended function anyway. Let it serve its new function of calling attention to theft. Let the business community reflect upon how, should they upset the government, their assets might be seized. Within days a Finnish business delegation being courted by Russia for investment had declared it "a very bad sign."38 Mr. Devine related that the hearing was in a small cramped room where "our attorneys and prosecutors literally were two feet apart facing each other over a small table." Several congregation members who attended to offer support were relegated to the small barred holding area for criminals, where they might find themselves at any rate for a related reason on another day.

If you are going to go unjust, do it big time and make sure everyone knows. The Governing Body saw to it that the initial trial was videotaped in the largest venue possible. The sham nature of Russian justice toward kingdom interests has been exposed there. At one point the Russian judge asked the Ministry of Justice whether it had prepared for the trial, so unsupported by facts did the prosecution appear. In the end, he did what he knew he had to do if he wanted to keep his job, but his interaction with them clearly exposed a sham system, and that exposure was repeated at the appeal, repeated again at the hearing over the Bible, and again at the decision to confiscate the branch headquarters. And it was repeated in the case in the imprisonment without trial of Dennis Christensen, a dangerous criminal that everyone can plainly see is not.

A lot of people don't like Jehovah's Witnesses. They are a hot-button topic in several ways. But they do know that rule by law and even common sense is a good thing, not a bad thing, and when they see it so blatantly violated, some get more worked up than they would over the Witnesses themselves.

Chapter 5 endnotes

Return to Table of Contents

# PART II

# Chapter 6 – Statecraft

The year 1962 nearly brought nuclear war to the world. America armed Turkey and Italy, but then discovered the Soviet Union doing the same in Cuba. The U.S. declared it would board approaching ships so as to stop that from actually happening.

Nikita Khrushchev is remembered in the West as the hothead who pounded his U.N. desktop with his removed shoe and, on another occasion, bellowed: "We will bury you!" He meant economically, but the media liked sound bites then no less than now. Was it his telegram that saved the day? At the John F Kennedy Presidential Library is the 2700-word telegram he sent to JFK, dated October 26, 1962.

Dear Mr. President:

I have received your letter of October 25. From your letter, I got the feeling that you have some understanding of the situation which has developed and (some) sense of responsibility. I value this.

... _Everyone needs peace: both capitalists, if they have not lost their reason, and, still more, Communists....War is our enemy and a calamity for all the peoples....I have participated in two wars and know that war ends when it has rolled through cities and villages, everywhere sowing death and destruction._

... _Mr. President, do you really seriously think that Cuba can attack the United States and that even we together with Cuba can attack you from the territory of Cuba? Can you really think that way? How is it possible? We do not understand this....You can regard us with distrust, but, in any case, you can be calm in this regard, that we are of sound mind and understand perfectly well that if we attack you, you will respond the same way..._

We, however, want to live and do not at all want to destroy your country. We want something quite different: To compete with your country on a peaceful basis. We quarrel with you, we have differences on ideological questions. But our view of the world consists in this, that ideological questions, as well as economic problems, should be solved not by military means, they must be solved on the basis of peaceful competition,

If there is no intention to tighten that knot and thereby to doom the world to the catastrophe of thermonuclear war, then let us not only relax the forces pulling on the ends of the rope, let us take measures to untie that knot. We are ready for this....There, Mr. President, are my thoughts, which, if you agreed with them, could put an end to that tense situation which is disturbing all peoples. These thoughts are dictated by a sincere desire to relieve the situation, to remove the threat of war.

The superpowers came close. Perhaps it was Khrushchev's telegram that averted catastrophe. Both sides removed missiles and the U.S. promised not to invade Cuba again. We "lucked out," wrote The Week magazine, commenting on the telegram. Pundits will squabble till the end of time as to who was the worst villain or the best hero. It is in the eye of the beholder.

The little people ever want to get along but the greater interests thwart it. The 1966 movie _The Russians are Coming, the Russians are Coming!_ featured for plotline a Russian submarine stranded off the New England coast. Before chieftains of the West could assume evil intent and retaliate, townspeople, who had taken a liking to the Russians, came to the rescue. They surrounded the sub with every yacht, sailboat, and dingy they could muster to escort the Russians out to sea and out of danger.

_Marooned_ , a 1969 movie, strands American astronauts in space in a crippled spacecraft. All efforts to save them come to naught until Russian cosmonauts come along and haul them onboard their own craft. The air-starved Americans don't know what is going on and try to fend off their rescuers, but in the end, everything works out for the best.

On the other hand, when filmmaker Oliver Stone showed the satirical _Dr. Strangelove_ to Putin, apparently sneaking glances to see whether Putin would like it, it seemed pretty clear that he didn't. Russian leaders are portrayed as buffoonish in that movie, though not villains. They _were_ portrayed as villains when Students Wildly Indignant over Nearly Everything (S.W.I.N.E—from the comic strip Li'l Abner) effusively met the invading Russian General as he was striding ashore from his transport ship, and the first thing the general did was to kick all their behinds, seemingly for the sheer reason that he was mean. When the cartoonist had Russia send over their skilled negotiator Coldfinger during the 1970s period of detente, a period that cartoonist distrusted, he proved so skilled at negotiating that the Americans were soon stripped of their clothes and were reduced to wearing barrels.

At Brooklyn Bethel, they likely didn't see the movies—they don't do movies much there—but who could miss Li'l Abner, at one time in 900 daily newspapers? Even those who don't keep up with politics—and that is Bethel—find it hard to resist the funnies.

Notwithstanding a few films, in dozens of tiny ways, and in some big ones, Russia is portrayed as the villain in the U.S. "Wouldn't it be nice if we actually got along with Russia?" Trump asked during the 2016 campaign, tacitly acknowledging that the U.S. doesn't. Despite his sentiments and despite his election, U.S.-Russian relations are worse than ever, more mistrustful than even during Cold War times. A 2017 Levada Center poll revealed 68% of Russians consider the United States a threat.1 Putin recently introduced the next generation of nuclear weapons and suggested his countrymen name them. One popular submission was: "Goodbye America."2

It is hard not to absorb something of the culture in which you live, for it is the air you breathe. If anyone can do it, it is Watchtower headquarters, which is in most respects a world unto its own. They follow politics to an astonishingly small degree. Slate.com accurately gave the reason: "They don't vote because they are 'representatives of God's heavenly kingdom,'" it wrote in 2008. "For the same reason, they don't run for public office, serve in the military, or even pledge allegiance the flag," though the pledge issue is more about avoiding idolatry, per the first of the Ten Commandments, than it is about neutrality.3

Nations are represented by their ambassadors, and the Bible presents believers that way. They represent _their_ nation, God's kingdom, before others. An ambassador is not to become involved in the politics of his host nation. His role is to represent his own nation. "So we are ambassadors for Christ, as if God were appealing through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God," writes the apostle to the Corinthian congregation.4

An organization must be based somewhere, and, despite its best efforts, it can pick up the lingo of the host country. One slip-up—say, one reference to the "iron curtain," in those ultra-suspicious Soviet times, was to fuel distrust.5 How can they be neutral? the Russian government grumbled—it's not an iron curtain at all. It's a protective border, was their position. Surely, the Witnesses were a political movement disguised as a religion, they concluded—a suspicion that ran deep in the Cold War period, and still remains. There's bad blood between the governments of the U.S. and Russia. It is long-standing, resulting in Soviet suspicion about any religion headquartered in America.

A plain indication of the Witnesses' neutrality is found in the Watchtower article considered at meetings in early July of 2017. The topic under discussion was how to give aid of a spiritual and practical nature to refugees. "Listen patiently to their concerns, but do not discuss politics," the magazine counseled.6 If ever it was understandable to talk politics, it would be with those who have so recently suffered at its hands, yet it is a topic Witnesses are to avoid as they pursue kingdom interests.

When you set up shop in a new country, you find out what the king wants, and then you do it. Usually that suffices to keep both you and him happy. Usually, all he wants are things having to do with public order, which you also want. You go about your necessary business in the new country, modifying it where necessary to avoid misunderstandings. If the king there intrudes upon what are "God's things," matters of worship, then you must take a stand, but in most cases, he does not. Even when he does, you don't take a stand in the form of confrontation. Political protest is just not something Witnesses do. Even Chistyakov releasing his fiery album sought to explain it was not that.

As already discussed, the book _God's Kingdom Rules_ was considered at Witness meetings throughout 2017, as the Russian ban first threatened and then was realized. Besides the high court cases related in chapter 3, it relates many bans that Jehovah's Witnesses have faced in many parts of the world. In Australia, during the years of World War II, "Witnesses were unable to meet or preach openly. Bethel operations were closed down, and Kingdom Halls were seized. Merely possessing our Bible literature was prohibited. After operating in secret for several years, the Australian Witnesses found relief at last."7 "You see?" a local Witness commented at a meeting, "nothing changed." The brothers continued to operate. They simply had to do it "in secret," which was inconvenient, but the ban didn't negate God's command of exclusive devotion. They had to forge ahead at greater-than-normal human cost until the country's High Court reversed the ban. One Russian brother even said that a ban in his country might be a good thing in a spiritual sense, in that it would prod all into vigilance and bring into stark relief just who is on God's side and who isn't.

Though it may seem a technicality, Jehovah's Witnesses are not banned in Russia. The Russian constitution guarantees freedom of worship and the government has not forgotten that. Misunderstanding the nature of Christian worship, or deliberately redefining it, what is liquidated are the legal instruments that Witnesses use—the instruments that, in the eyes of the government, constitute ties to a headquarters outside the Russian border. They are suspicious of that. It is as though to say: "Nobody is saying you can't drive your Chevy, but why do you need to keep ties to General Motors in Detroit? Yuri's Auto Repair down the street will do just fine. If he doesn't have just the exact part, he can improvise. That way everything is safely and agreeably Russian."

An organization to ensure worldwide unity is an essential component of the Witnesses' spiritual life. Without it, they know they eventually devolve into a hodgepodge of loose cannons each with his own personal relationship with God, each a part of this world in various respects. They become divided along national lines, and the national king inevitably persuades them that he is the hero and his counterpart overseas is the scoundrel. Soon they are further divided along internal political lines. Soon to follow are social lines, racial lines, and economic lines. The way to prevent this is with a centralized overseeing organization. There should be no "divisions among you," Paul wrote to the Corinthians, adding "that you may be united in the same mind and in the same purpose."8

He goes on to liken the congregation to the organization of the human body. "Now the body is not a single part, but many. If a foot should say 'Because I am not a hand I do not belong to the body,' it does not for this reason belong any less to the body. Or if an ear should say, 'Because I am not an eye I do not belong to the body,' it does not for this reason belong any less to the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole body were hearing, where would the sense of smell be? But as it is, God placed the parts, each one of them, in the body as he intended."9

The ruling of the Russian court would place those body parts differently. The ones happening to be in Russia would be divided from the rest of the body. But God wills "that there may be no division in the body, but that the parts may have the same concern for one another. If [one] part suffers, all the parts suffer with it."10 This explains the letter-writing campaign, eagerly participated in by Witnesses the world over, started with but a single invitation from the Witness organization. The government today pursues policies so that Jehovah's Witnesses will not band together. It wants them as independent individuals, who can thereby never get out of hand. It wants to dictate terms to them and see those terms adhered to. God is a fine Person, they acknowledge, so long as He remembers He is Russian.

Mr. Putin knows what it is for people to be divided. He thereby will understand Jehovah's Witnesses' lamentation over ones who would divide them. Speaking with American interviewer Charlie Rose, Putin stated: "I indeed said that I believe that the collapse of the USSR was a huge tragedy of the 20th century. You know why?"

Charlie Rose: "Why?"

"Because, first of all, in an instant 25 million Russian people found themselves beyond the borders of the Russian state, although they were living within the borders of the Soviet Union. Then, all of a sudden, the USSR collapsed—just overnight, in fact. And it's turned out that in the former Soviet Republics—25 million Russian people were living. They were living in a single country. And all of a sudden, they turned out to be outside the borders of the country. You see this is a huge problem. First of all, there were everyday problems, the separation of families, social problems, economic problems. You can't list them all. Do you think it's normal that 25 million Russian people were abroad all of a sudden? Russia was the biggest divided nation in the world. It's not a problem? Well, maybe not for you. But it's a problem for me."11

Putin understands the tragedy of division. He will understand Russian Witnesses' tragedy. With regard to his nation's effort to divide Jehovah's Witnesses, the latter might mirror his words back to him: "It's not a problem? Well, maybe not for you. But it's a problem for me." He is essentially saying: "Religions don't count; political nations do." Jehovah's Witnesses, the religion, may seem to stretch the definition of nation, yet they are a nation more so than most physical nations. They are a nation of persons united in spiritual outlook, purpose and cooperation, a nation in which every member is concerned over the welfare of every other member. "Open up the gates that a righteous nation may enter, one that keeps faith," says Isaiah.12 They regard themselves as that nation.

Putin and Russian Witnesses are similar in that both love the land of their birth. Witnesses, to the same extent as most people, ever maintain a warm spot in their heart for where they originated. In this regard, individual patriotism is noble. Collectively, however, patriotism transforms into nationalism and is just one more tool of the Devil to divide people. God wants to unite his people. It is not his fine idea that the earth should be carved up into 200 squabbling sub-divisions. To forbid God from uniting his people is an attempt to thwart him. He doesn't like it. His people are not able to abide by it. They know that illustration of the congregation being like the human body and they also know that it is not to be borne to have an arm cut off.

Secular persons can usually see that neutrality is no threat, especially once they realize that there are just as many neutral Jehovah's Witnesses on the other side as they are on theirs. If they fight here, they will fight there. Must everyone fight? Is there no room anywhere for anyone to take a pass? Khrushchev had "participated in two wars and [knew] that war ends when it has rolled through cities and villages, everywhere sowing death and destruction." How can it be so terrible if ones decide to sit it out?

A common bit of wisdom handed to me as a boy in America was that every generation has a war to fight. As a child, my classmates and I ducked under our school desks during air-raid drills, where we were told to clasp our hands behind our necks to guard against "flying glass." With a child's imagination, I pictured glass flying, as though with wings, in search of children to slash. Generational war was then portrayed as a rite of passage, a part of growing into adulthood—only afterwards could your credentials as an adult be verified—once you had proven yourself. It was as much a constant of life as was the Junior Prom, then the Senior Ball, and might well follow just as quickly—several of my graduating class died the next year in Vietnam. Our grandfathers fought World War I, our fathers World War II, our older brothers the Korean War, and for us it was the war in Vietnam.

It wasn't clear for the latter wars why anyone should go. There was a boiler-plate line dispensed to all about how the communists invaded one country after another and would topple them like dominoes—it was actually called the domino theory. It remains an example of how the media of any nation spins stories to fit their own narrative. RT.com, gaining in popularity in the States, is lambasted by some as being a source of Russian propaganda. "It is from Russia—people take that into account," the site says, shrugging off criticism. I like RT.com. I like the China People's Daily. I like U.S. news sources, both conservative and liberal. By following them all, and not just the home team, one can hope to approximate an overall sense of current events, because no one source tells it all.

Only through studying the Bible did I become aware of a greater cause: allegiance to God's kingdom, that was a morally consistent "out" for taking part in whatever war was going on at the moment, with no damage done to the country. If all of Jehovah's Witnesses were to fight, they would simply cancel each other out. Why don't they all sit it out instead and focus on that which they excel? I have at times asked to hear stories of military service from old-timers I come across in my ministry. They are old, and no one wants to hear their old stories. So I do. I will listen with all earnestness. Who cannot respect a person who puts his life on the line for a cause he believes in? I can genuinely respect his loyalty to country. However, I also must note that were he anywhere else, he would be equally loyal to another country.

My father was but a farmboy when he went to fight in the second world war. When they found he could fix tractors, they stationed him in a motor pool in the Philippines and made him a sergeant. The closest he ever came to combat was when a lieutenant wanted to draft his whole crew to fight off a Japanese incursion somewhere on the island. Pop told him to forget it—where would the army be without jeeps? Decades later, killing time in a small New York town, he and I came upon its war memorial in the village square. All the town's war dead were carved into stone. Many small towns have such memorials. Pop was troubled. "They shouldn't do this." he said. "It just glorifies it."

He would have agreed with the historian Sir Max Hastings: "Having spent most of my life studying wars, my respect is very great for all those who take part in them and for what some wars have achieved for the rest of us. By their nature, conflicts bring out the very best and the worst in human beings. Writing books about them [he was promoting his] means studying both how low mankind can fall and how high it can rise. 'The Glorious Dead'—it is the sort of phrase that all nations have to write on their memorials. Otherwise you'd never get anyone to go to war again," he says.13 Yes. Carve the names into memorials to ensure a steady stream of participants.

The last soldier of World War I from France, Lazare Ponticelli, was 110 years of age when he died. Some things he had never figured out, such as why he had been fighting in the first place. Or why his enemy had, for that matter. Of course, he knew the reasons supplied by leaders, but how did it ever get so _personal_ —a worldwide slaughter that took the lives of 14 million? "One of the paradoxes of 1914 is that in every country huge numbers of people, of all parties, creeds and blood, seem, surprisingly, to have gone willingly and happily to war," states British historian John Roberts.14 Their latter reflections would be different. "More than anything, [Ponticelli] was appalled that he had been made to fire on people he didn't know and to whom he, too, was a stranger. They were fathers of children. He had no quarrel with them."15

Hermann Goering, the German Air Force leader from the next World War understood these things quite well: "Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war, neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."16

Do not think it is easy to resist the "leaders of the country who determine the policy." It is these who form the backdrop of popular thinking, the unconscious elements from which everyone draws. The contemporary "follow your inner voice" philosophy is but sloganeering which works splendidly when times are easy and fails utterly when they are hard. Nationalism has proven more than equal to the task of molding inner voices. Wisdom from "on high," on the other hand, _will_ enable one to withstand, perhaps wisdom that has been forged with Jesus words: "Put your sword back into its sheath, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword."17 If ever there was a reason to unsheathe the sword, it was in order to deliver Jesus from death. Surely, if you don't do it there, you don't do it anywhere.

During that second World War, there were only two major faiths in Nazi Germany: the Roman Catholic Church and a union of Protestant churches known as the German Evangelical Church.18 If even one of those faiths had stood up to Hitler as did Jehovah's Witnesses, might the war have never occurred, with its 60 million casualties? Is this what the Book of Revelation means when it blames Babylon the Great, that conglomeration of unfaithful religion, for not only the blood of the prophets and the holy ones, but for all who have been slain on the earth?19 The slain prophets and holy ones slain are acts of _commission_ , but the far more numerous third group represents a staggering act of _omission_ : the failure to train members in ways of peace. Only Jehovah's Witnesses and a handful of other tiny faiths observe those ways.

60 million casualties! Even were we to multiply the supposed count of Witnesses who are alleged to have died refusing blood transfusion20 by a factor of hundreds, the product would be but a small number compared to the lives saved, theirs and that of those they might target, by declining war participation. As much as this world carries on about the value of life, if the cause is right, it will mow them down by the millions. If it deems the cause not right, one is too many.

Cassius Clay (Muhammad Ali) was among the first to break ranks during my youth. "No Viet Cong never called me nigger"21 he declared and refused the draft into the Vietnam war. Exactly. What quarrel did he have with persons halfway around the globe? If the kings of the earth couldn't get along, how did that become his problem? His real enemy was elsewhere. Ali didn't go to jail—he won his case on appeal22—but he was stripped of his Heavyweight Title and lost several years boxing. There is a price to be paid to sit out the war that the world leaders would funnel you into. The price is especially steep when, like Jehovah's Witnesses, you not only sit out war but also the substitute civilian activity that is clearly designed to support the war. As for me, had I not become a Witness when I did, perhaps I would have been shipped out of Vietnam in a box for a cause history judges not especially noble—for I could not then, nor now, scrap like Mohammed Ali.

Most wars are ambiguous in aftermath. Though the victors write history, a case can usually be made for the other side. World War II is an exception. To this day, those who would defend the defeated side can be fit, relatively speaking, into a thimble. Yet even in this theater the Christian consciences of Jehovah's Witnesses moved them to decline participation. Victor Blackwell defended many American Witness youths in the local courts of that time. Almost always the punishment for declining military service was prison, usually delivered with some heat, such as: "I sentence you to five years in a federal prison to be approved by the Attorney General. My only regret, you yellow coward, is that I cannot give you twenty five years!"23 Blackwell writes of an exception to this rule, in which he said:

"May it please the Court, even though my client is in truth a minister of Jehovah, yet he could not meet the strict criteria for the Act for the ministerial exemption, as the Act has been constructed by the Supreme Court. I shall therefore not impose upon the Court's time and patience by asserting a defense which my client and I both recognize as untenable before the law. However, I would like to make a brief statement in mitigation of the sentence of this Court.

"The defendant here was accorded the conscientious objector status, which he had claimed....The tender and delicate conscience of this youth, trained in the Holy Word of God, would not permit him to accept the civilian work. Much as he did not like to disobey the board order, he could not and would not disobey the more binding order of his conscience. It was not a matter of defying the law, but of responding to what he earnestly believed to be the Law of God."

The judge ordered the young man released. It almost never happened. Blackwell writes: "The federal prosecutor was flabbergasted. He had told me before trial he had a foolproof case....Ironically, this prosecutor had told me in connection with previous cases tried with him: 'It is most distasteful for me to prosecute and send these fine, clean young men to prison. They are the finest specimens of youth I have ever seen. If it were left up to me, I'd throw every one of these files sent to me in the wastebasket.' Yet, through the years, for a quarter century, he continued such prosecution. In later years, he became bitter and hostile toward them."24

With regard to another young client sentenced, Blackwell writes: "He served one year and was paroled. The final parole report said of him: 'as was anticipated [he has] made an excellent adjustment under supervision....He is a Jehovah's Witness and is active in church activities. His prognosis is excellent.' With perhaps negligible exceptions (though I am aware of none), this is the kind of final probation report filed in the cases of the many thousands of other American citizens who paid a dear price for keeping an unblemished conscience."25

Blackwell also defended a young man in military court, who became a Witness while enlisted. He writes: "The judge was more than fair-minded and impartial. He was gracious, both to the youngster and his counsel. He permitted the most extensive questioning of the accused by his own counsel and army counsel. The youth was allowed to explain in the most complete manner the causes and reasons which impelled him to sever his relations with the army. His skillful use and handling of the Word of God, the Sword of the Spirit, was most impressive to the judge and all others present at the hearing." Council for the army did not insist upon his being kept in the service, and the judge subsequently said: "I have known many of Jehovah's Witnesses. Their sincerity, as with this young man here, is beyond all questioning. They earnestly believe that they have a higher mission than serving their country in the military, commendable as that is....Their scruples here should be respected. I do not have the authority to discharge you, young man. However, I direct the authorities here to put through a request to Washington for your early release." The release order came through within a reasonable time, the young fellow was discharged, and has since been devoting a large measure of his time to the ministry as one of Jehovah's Christian Witnesses."26

The foregoing is the same ancient pattern playing out in modern times. "A careful review of all the information available goes to show that, until the time of Marcus Aurelius [121-180 C.E.], no Christian became a soldier; and no soldier, after becoming a Christian, remained in military service," states one source.27 "It will be seen presently that the evidence for the existence of a single Christian soldier between 60 and about 165 A.D. is exceedingly slight....Up to the reign of Marcus Aurelius at least, no Christian would become a soldier after his baptism," states another.28 "The behavior of the Christians was very different from that of the Romans... Since Christ had preached peace, they refused to become soldiers," states yet another.29 "It was impossible that the Christians, without renouncing a more sacred duty, could assume the character of soldiers, of magistrates, or of princes," states a fourth.30 The legal price to pay is usually substantial, but there is no wiggle room in which to wiggle.

In modern times, some governments have proved progressive (and some haven't)—willing to substitute neutral civilian service for military service. Taiwan instituted such a program in 2000. Kou-Enn Lin, director general of the program, recommends it to other nations during an interview with a Witness representative. Approved applicants to the system are assigned to sites such as hospitals, government offices, nursing homes; there are sixteen possible venues. It's not "very light work," Kou-Enn makes clear, because the purpose is to substitute for, not exempt from, military service. It is a win-win, he maintains, and he cites figures to indicate a satisfaction rate of 90-97% among the agencies to which applicants are assigned. The greater goals of religious people are to serve, he says. They fit right in and need no discipline; they attack their work with enthusiasm. "At one time we had a situation where there were people with religious conscience in jail and people with little conscience outside of jail. Resolving this contradiction shows our respect for human rights."31

He concludes with: "It's good to have a system in parallel with regular military service as an alternative. That's the solution. The results and benefits exceeded what we expected. Human rights, religious suppression; all of these things can be resolved. I really hope other counties will come and draw lessons from our experience."32

The general world of churches tends to accept the world's division of people into myriad nations as a God-given reality. They pray to God to bless it, particularly the section in which they live. Jehovah's Witnesses say it is all from the Devil—it is his idea, not God's. That's not to say that human leaders operating therein have evil intent. More often than not they are conscious of a responsibility to govern and provide for the public good. If the system allows for it, they stay as long as possible, for one cannot provide such governing from the outside looking in. As though students of Newtonian physics, they seek to remove friction so that the object in motion (themselves) will stay in motion. There is no need to bad-mouth anyone. Has Putin amassed money while in office? American politicians do no less. They come in poor and they leave wealthy. They come in wealthy and they leave wealthier.33 The current president is one of the few who go against the pattern. He comes in wealthy and has seen his financial interests suffer, as he takes no salary and sees opposers boycott the family business.

The worst problem leaders may inflict comes when they decide that they can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. It primarily then becomes a problem for the eggs, not the leaders themselves. Unfortunately for Witnesses, even though they strive to be "good eggs" as people, they are still eggs. Political leaders don't reliably look into spiritual matters and many take it ill that human government should be described as Satanic—never mind that all governments are described that way and not just theirs.

Witnesses say what they say because the Bible says it. The Gospel of Luke relates how Satan shows Jesus all the kingdoms of the world and offers him headship for simply an act of worship. Jesus rejects the offer, but not the premise that the kingdoms are the Devil's to offer. It has been that way from the rebellion of Eden. That is not to say Christians disobey the governments, for until God's purpose is realized, they exist as a stopgap measure. They build the roads. The deliver the mail. Woe to the people where anarchy prevails. Even an repressive government is usually better than that.34

If you want a certain policy to take place, then you must side with the party promising it. One can hardly vote for one party and then complain that the policies of the other are not taking place. If you want righteous conditions realized earth-wide, reason the Witnesses, then you must 'vote' for the party that has such in its Bible platform. You cannot vote for the party that has never managed to bring it about. You must vote for the party that has given evidence that it can deliver. Of course, you also must wait until Inauguration Day.

Alas, Witnesses are not diplomats who ever so gracefully sidestep subjects unpalatable. They crash into them head-on, worried not about being blunt. Accuse them of watering down the Word and they _double down_ just so that there should be no misunderstanding. Still, these days they are careful to point out that while the system is of the Devil, that is not to imply that the players therein have horns. They have not always stated matters so delicately. They ham-fistedly call a spade a spade. They decline to pussyfoot around, as do some who manage to convey the muddled impression that a spade is really just a misunderstood heart, a club with poor self-esteem, or a "diamond in the rough."

If you try to "expose" the faults of the king, he gets upset. Keep out of his way, and usually you'll do fine. In all lands it is: "Ask the king his ground rules for maintaining public order, and then do them." Witnesses' life is not about human rule. Do what he says and get on with life. Of course, if he turns against you, siding with the house Church, you are up the crick and our brothers have it very tough for a time. The only caveat is that they are used to it, as others might not be.

Visiting Uzbekistan, Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia, asserted that "insulting religious feelings is one of the forms of extremism, this is what shakes the foundations of social life, what provokes internal conflicts."35 If we do not confine our gaze to the real thing, many things can be described as "forms of extremism." The Patriarch's concern for shaking the foundations of social life and the welfare of the state calls to mind the concerns of other religious leaders from long ago: "These people who have been creating a disturbance all over the world have now come here!"36

At the same time, traditional religions, according to the primate, "are called upon to strengthen the foundations of national existence." Patriarch Kirill called on religious leaders "to work with their flock, but to educate this flock in the spirit of respect for each other, in caring for the stability of public life, in caring for the welfare of the state." If only he had called upon them to strengthen their flock's foundations of Bible knowledge, as most of the flock will assume is his role. But, no. It is the foundations of national existence and welfare of the state that comes first. God is welcome in the soup of national sovereignties, so long as he knows that his place is to serve as a balm applied to the prevailing system in hopes it will run a bit smoother. Pour it on like a syrup. Perhaps it will seep into the foundation somehow and fortify it.

The World Youth Festival opened for 2017 in Sochi, Russia. President Putin addressed the delegates. He spoke of challenges of the future—the payoffs can be very real, but the threats are also very real. The young—Putin takes an interest in them—must pursue the future that science makes possible, but they must not abandon moral and ethical values in doing so, he warned, for that could cause a catastrophe larger than a nuclear war.

"In the nearest future, humanity may enter and will, most likely, enter a very difficult and important period in its development and existence," he said, referring to recent scientific breakthroughs. "What I've said now may be more dangerous than a nuclear bomb. Therefore, no matter what we're doing, we must never forget about the moral and ethical basis of our business. Everything that we'll be doing must benefit the people and empower humanity, not destroy it."

The president used genetic engineering as an example to illustrate his words, saying that this discipline can bring both positive and negative results. "It's great" that it can provide the possibility to change the genetic code of people suffering from serious diseases, he said. "But there's another component to this process. Humanity also receives an opportunity to meddle with the genetic code, which was created either by nature or, as people with religious views say, God."37

Yes, it is right around the corner, he said: the possibility of "creating a human with predesigned characteristics." However, "it may be a genius mathematician or musician, but also a soldier, who will fight without fear, compassion and regret, without pain," Putin warned. He gets into such things speaking to the young people, who are the prospects for the future. It is unfair for the West to accuse him of making himself a cult figure. Or, rather, if he does, it is with no evil intent, but for the good of those he leads. If being perceived a cult figure helps him better lead, so be it. It may well facilitate his greater object. Does he pump iron and ride bare-chested and slam hockey players half his age into the boards? Okay. It means he could best the American president in hand-to-hand combat any day, despite his smaller stature, and sometimes one wishes that world leaders would settle their disputes just that way. He calls to mind Jesse Ventura, former pro wrestler turned governor of Minnesota. The bumper stickers read: "My Governor Can Beat Up Your Governor."38 Reporters asked whether he had seen them. He said that he had and that furthermore, they were true. He had been to those governors' conferences. He had looked those flabby guys over. There was not one of them he could not take.

Putin makes clear his vision for the future speaking before those students. It is science. It is human efforts. It will be a challenge that human science does not outmaneuver human ethics, he says, for it is all human. Does religion play a part? It can, if that part is modest and does not rock the boat. "Humanity also receives an opportunity to meddle with the genetic code, which was created either by nature or, as people with religious views say, God," he says. Gone are the days when the Soviet State insisted it could only be 'nature.' Now if one wants to say 'God,' that is okay. So long as he doesn't overdo it. So long as he acquiesces that God's place is to assist human efforts to save the planet through science. If people want to entertain some silly stories about afterlife, we all can live with that—they do no harm to the overall program. But to suggest human efforts are not up to the job in the _present_ life, as Jehovah's Witnesses do—to suggest that God disapproves, that he will one day replace the status quo—to get people all worked up over _that_? Surely only a pest would behave that way. It is the purely secular outlook of the future that sees religion as unnecessary, but so long as it does nothing but reinforce, its efforts are tolerated and sometimes even welcomed. But if it runs off with an agenda of its own, it must be stopped. Why can't it just line up with the Orthodox Church which has the God base adequately covered? Why does it have to go and be a pest? Why does it have to rock the boat? It is too much to bear.

"We found this man to be a pest; he creates dissension among Jews all over the world and is a ringleader of the sect of the Nazoreans," the religious leader said of Paul.39 What was Paul's problem—in their eyes? He was a pest. He created dissention in that religious world. If he stopped doing that, then he would not be a pest and all would be fine. Why can't he just go along with the way things already are—make a suggestion or two and leave it at that? Putin likes the Russian Orthodox Church because it helps build a strong Russia. But now they, too, report a pest. Why should he see them have to suffer a pest? So he signs off on the move to harass all minority religion and ban the most pernicious one in particular.

If one allows that it may be God, and not just nature, who made all things, might not some deductions be made? Is our origin truly a matter of no consequence? If God made all things, it stands to reason that he may have some purpose behind it all. He thus may not stand aside and see it all be wasted away or otherwise brought to ruin. However, if nature is responsible for all things—nature through evolution—then if there is any hope for humanity it lies entirely with what humans are able to do. And they are not doing so well. That is why Putin cautions them.

The president talks a good game—how scientists, in the person of those young delegates present—must rise to the occasion of making the world better, or at least ensuring that it _has_ a future. Does he believe it? Does he have misgivings? Who can tell? But the issue is: Will it be human efforts or God's efforts saving the future? The Russian government unreservedly looks to human efforts. Jehovah's Witnesses unreservedly look to God's efforts.

It is not unlike the post-World War I innovation of the League of Nations, the first organization of its kind to tackle governing the entire planet through human means. Its object was to prod the governments into talking to each other and defuse conflicts before they could trigger another war. That very year (1919) Jehovah's Witnesses held a convention in Cedar Point Ohio in which they embraced God's kingdom as the sole hope for governing the planet: a government by God, not men. The two are philosophically precise opposites. At this fork in the road, which stand did the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America take? It famously declared the new League of Nations to be the "political expression of the kingdom of God on earth."40 Religion must be practical, in its eyes. It must support human aspirations of equitable government and not roil matters by suggesting God will one day replace it all. Does any religion maintain that the stone cut from divine sovereignty will one day strike the idol on the feet and crush it?41 Surely that is extremist.

If Putin carries on about morality and ethics, how can he go along with, if not order, Jehovah's Witnesses to be suppressed, even with violence? It is a reasonable question, and the answer may be found in how Jewish religious leaders described Paul to Roman governor Felix—he was that pestilent fellow not worthy of Rome's justice.

It is human efforts that must save the day, so they say. Nothing must get in the way. Nothing must distract or discourage. The stakes are too high. Those who cannot fathom God cannot understand why anyone would quibble over different perceptions of him. The more authoritarian ones among them do not want it even to happen on their watch. It does little good to carry on about the Russian constitution that guarantees freedom of religion. Freedom of religion is not a Russian concept. It is appended onto the constitution because it sounds good. But it does not resonate. It is boiler-plate language for many Russians, legalese inserted at document's end in the confidence that nobody will read it. The Levada Center recently reported that, whereas 79% of the Russian population in the early 1990s thought the repressions of Stalin constituted "a crime that has no justification," the figure has now dropped below 40%.42 "Enough of freedom," many say—"it means nothing but trouble."

Jehovah's Witnesses steadfastly advocate in Russia the Bible viewpoint, and for that they suffer. It is the trials of the ancient people of God revisited. They "endured mockery, scourging, even chains and imprisonment. They were stoned, sawed in two, put to death with the sword; they went about in skins of sheep or goats, needy, afflicted, tormented. The world was not worthy of them. They wandered about in deserts and on mountains, in caves and in crevices in the earth." Update it but slightly. Replace "scourging" with "beating." Strike the "chains," but keep the "imprisonment." Cancel the detail about "clad with skins of sheep and goats" and settling in "caves and crevices." Instead, just sack them from their employment; freeze their assets, and let them survive that way if they think they can.43 The only part of the verse to remain is: "the world was not worthy of them."44

Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia will think Paul's preceding words prophetic: "You even joined in the sufferings of those in prison and joyfully accepted the confiscation of your property, knowing that you had a better and lasting possession."45 "You got that right," they will say to Paul, for they have seen a lot of property confiscated. Can one really accept such things joyfully? Not in and of itself, no—it is an atrocity--but in the greater picture, yes. People whose horizons are only those of this system of things can never appreciate the mentality of those who are not. It is but one more way that "the natural person does not accept what pertains to the Spirit of God, for to him it is foolishness, and he cannot understand it, because it is judged spiritually." One hates the confiscation of one's things, but it is compensated for by being a "spiritual person, [who] can judge everything but is not subject to judgment by anyone."46

"During the chaos of the early post-Soviet years," writes the Moscow Times, "the average Russian was adrift, aghast at his sudden job insecurity and embarrassed about his country's poverty....Then came Vladimir Putin to restore his sense of dignity. Putin assured Russians that every country had skeletons in the closet, "nothing to be ashamed of." More important, he returned the state to its role "as a paternalistic caretaker. The modern Russian is very much like [the Soviet Russian] only with a car and nicer clothes" and is not inclined to protest or make trouble.47

laThe Russian experiment with Western freedoms produced a mixed bag of results. Some things blew up in their faces. It was too much. So they beat a partial retreat. The administration's 2000 National Security Concept stresses "protecting the cultural and spiritual-moral legacy and the historical traditions and standards of public life and preserving the cultural heritage of all Russia's peoples." Also, "there must be a state policy to maintain the population's spiritual and moral welfare, prohibit the use of airtime to promote violence or base instincts, and counter the adverse impact of foreign religious organizations and missionaries."48

The average person cares not overmuch about government. He or she has a life to lead. A weakness of most media is that they are obsessed with government and are staffed with persons who imagine it the central hub of life. This writer recalls a personal friend who used to point out how Newsweek and Time would completely miss the thrust of this or that story, whereas Watchtower-published Awake! would capture it. Not if the subject was politics or business, of course, but if it had to do with the general populace, Awake! would win hands-down. Those two secular magazines would send their wildly overeducated reporters into this or that barrio, and the locals, thoroughly over-awed, not wishing to appear stupid, would tell them anything they wanted to hear. Awake! would send in their peers and get the true picture.

Not too long ago, BBC interviewed a poverty-stricken man in an impoverished nation. "Whom can you trust?" the reporter wanted to know. "I trust in God," the fellow replied. "Yes, yes, you trust in God," repeated the newsman, eager to get this useless bit of trivia behind him, "but what about politicians?" "Some politicians, but not all politicians," the man said. Ah—at last! Now we're talking—human efforts! Awake! would have zeroed in on his initial response, taking for granted the general irrelevance of politicians to most people. Ancient governments are likened in Scripture to the heavens. They would shine on you one moment, rain on you the next, and there was nothing you could do about it. For all the democratic notions prevalent in some lands, the situation is little different today. To get an ounce of result, you must apply a ton of pressure, and most people are simply not up to the job.

The human record of exercising authority is most discouraging. "All these things I saw and I applied my heart to every work that is done under the sun, while one person tyrannizes over another for harm," says Ecclesiastes.49 Yet the Witness view is that God allows it as a stop-gap measure. Heaven help the people where there is anarchy.

The last chapter or two of each Gospel is of Jesus interacting with Pilate. If Christians were meant to change government, surely it would be revealed here. One sees not a trace of it. Pilate asked Jesus if he was a king. Jesus said he was. Pilate knew straight away that he was looking at some sort of religious thing, and not the literal sedition the Jewish leaders, hoping to cause Jesus trouble, made it out to be.

Jehovah's Witnesses appeal to this world's justice system when the occasions for it arise. They work until they don't. The course has precedent. A full quarter of the Book of Acts is the apostle Paul appealing to authorities following his arrest in Jerusalem. As he wends his way up to Caesar for a final trial, he does not criticize Roman government. Nowhere does he call them on their deeds, heavy-handed though some of them were.

His appeal was ultimately unsuccessful.50 He ended his days under house arrest in Rome. But it was successful from a witnessing point of view, and it is part of the Bible record that has stood for two millennia. Paul witnessed to each official he met. When his appearance sparked a riot in Ephesus, the Romans took him into protective custody. It was not too protective, however--the Roman officer in charge wanted to know why all the ruckus and he figured that he would beat it out of Paul. But Paul was a Roman citizen and, as such, had certain rights:

" _The cohort commander ordered him to be brought into the compound and gave instruction that he be interrogated under the lash to determine the reason why they were making such an outcry against him. But when they had stretched him out for the whips, Paul said to the centurion on duty, "Is it lawful for you to scourge a man who is a Roman citizen and has not been tried?" When the centurion heard this, he went to the cohort commander and reported it, saying, "What are you going to do? This man is a Roman citizen." Then the commander came and said to him, "Tell me, are you a Roman citizen?" "Yes," he answered. The commander replied, "I acquired this citizenship for a large sum of money." Paul said, "But I was born one." At once those who were going to interrogate him backed away from him, and the commander became alarmed when he realized that he was a Roman citizen and that he had had him bound."_ 51

This was not the first time Paul asserted his rights as a Roman citizen before government officials. When local authorities threw him and his companion into prison and magistrates sought to undo it quietly the next day, Paul would not permit it: _"They have beaten us publicly, even though we are Roman citizens and have not been tried and have thrown us into prison. And now, are they going to release us secretly? By no means. Let them come themselves and lead us out." The lictors reported these words to the magistrates, and they became alarmed when they heard that they were Roman citizens. So they came and placated them, and led them out and asked that they leave the city."_

So it was that the Governing Body made sure that the Russian trial to ban Jehovah's Witnesses was held in the largest venue possible and received worldwide attention. If there was to be an injustice, let it not be done in secret. Let the world know. One is also reminded of the Watchtower's campaign of the 1950s and 1960s, related in Baran's book, to ensure that Russian Witnesses knew their rights under the Soviet constitution—those rights buttressed by pertinent U.N. resolutions and even select quotations of Lenin. If the rights were not to be respected by government authorities, that did not mean they were nonexistent.

After Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus, he made himself a persistent menace to the religious powers that were then, peeling off their adherents willy-nilly. Picture their annoyance at watching this play out in town after town, and take note of their response: _"Following his usual custom, Paul... entered into discussions with them from the scriptures, expounding and demonstrating that the Messiah had to suffer and rise from the dead, and that 'This is the Messiah, Jesus, whom I proclaim to you.' Some of them were convinced and joined Paul and Silas; so, too, a great number of Greeks who were worshipers, and not a few of the prominent women. But the Jews became jealous and recruited some worthless men_ [imagine—going down in history as 'worthless'] _loitering in the public square, formed a mob, and set the city in turmoil."_

Nor was it just Paul. All Christians were encouraged to do likewise, so as not to be a lamp placed under a basket. Paul wrote to Timothy: "Be eager to present yourself as acceptable to God, a workman who causes no disgrace, imparting the word of truth without deviation."52 The word "workman" is telling. It would not be a separate, elite class that would "impart the word of truth without deviation." It would be the "workmen" that the educated class scorned. Christians would be run-of-the-mill persons made powerful through coordinated study of the Word. It is little wonder their enemies felt they had no recourse but to silence them.

As stated, Paul never emerged from under that arrest in Jerusalem. He appealed his case to Caesar. The Book of Acts from that chapter on tells of his travels to Rome. Along the way he met a bevy of officials—some petty, some major—and he pitched Christianity to each one. They all ran for cover, the same as folks do today. They all had their reasons, the same as folks do today.

First off was provincial governor Felix. _"He had Paul summoned and listened to him speak about faith in Christ Jesus. But as he spoke about righteousness and self-restraint and the coming judgment, Felix became frightened and said, "You may go for now; when I find an opportunity I shall summon you again."_ Felix does not comport well in history; many are the complaints of his "cruelty and licentiousness." It is hardly surprising that "righteousness," "self-restraint," and the "coming judgment" made him sweat. The succeeding verse does nothing to put him in a better light: _"At the same time he hoped that a bribe would be offered him by Paul, and so he sent for him very often and conversed with him."_ Paul had little control over who his audience would be, but he did have control over whether they would be an audience.

Notwithstanding Felix's dubious record, when the high priest traveled from Jerusalem with a spokesman in order to make trouble for Paul, the spokesman gushed: _"Since we have attained much peace through you, and reforms have been accomplished in this nation through your provident care, we acknowledge this in every way and everywhere, most excellent Felix, with all gratitude. But in order not to detain you further, I ask you to give us a brief hearing with your customary graciousness."_ When it was Paul's turn to reply, he said _"I know that you have been a judge over this nation for many years and so I am pleased to make my defense before you."_ In so many words he says: "Well, you've certainly been around for a while." Yet even so, he is nowhere disrespectful, nor does he tell Felix how to run his jurisdiction.

Felix leaves Paul in prison so as to please the dominant religion. His successor is a man named Festus. The same representatives of that religious system come down to secure Paul's doom once again, having failed in their previous attempt to have him sent to Jerusalem, where they had hoped to assassinate him along the way.

Festus eventually entertains a neighboring king and tells him the background: _"There is a man here left in custody by Felix. When I was in Jerusalem the chief priests and the elders of the Jews brought charges against him and demanded his condemnation. I answered them that it was not Roman practice to hand over an accused person before he has faced his accusers and had the opportunity to defend himself against their charge. So when (they) came together here, I made no delay; the next day I took my seat on the tribunal and ordered the man to be brought in. His accusers stood around him but did not charge him with any of the crimes I suspected. Instead they had some issues with him about their own religion and about a certain Jesus who had died but who Paul claimed was alive. Since I was at a loss how to investigate this controversy, I asked if he were willing to go to Jerusalem and there stand trial on these charges. And when Paul appealed that he be held in custody for the Emperor's decision, I ordered him held until I could send him to Caesar." Agrippa said to Festus, "I too should like to hear this man." He replied, "Tomorrow you will hear him."_

The next day Agrippa and Bernice came with great ceremony and entered the audience hall in the company of cohort commanders and the prominent men of the city and, by command of Festus, Paul was brought in. And Festus said, "King Agrippa and all you here present with us, look at this man about whom the whole Jewish populace petitioned me here and in Jerusalem, clamoring that he should live no longer. I found, however, that he had done nothing deserving death, and so when he appealed to the Emperor, I decided to send him. But I have nothing definite to write about him to our sovereign; therefore I have brought him before all of you, and particularly before you, King Agrippa, so that I may have something to write as a result of this investigation. For it seems senseless to me to send up a prisoner without indicating the charges against him."

Agrippa said to Paul: "You are permitted to speak in behalf of yourself." Then Paul stretched his hand out and proceeded to say in his defense: "Concerning all the things of which I am accused by Jews, King Agrippa, I count myself happy that it is before you I am to make my defense this day, especially as you are expert on all the customs as well as the controversies among Jews. Therefore I beg you to hear me patiently."

Paul gives an account of his past and how he came to be where he was. It is too much for Festus: _"Now as he was saying these things in his defense, Festus said in a loud voice: 'You are going mad, Paul! Great learning is driving you into madness!'"_ (Some Witnesses alive today recall various clergymen discouraging study of the Bible, claiming it would make one "crazy.")

Paul wasn't put off by this remark. Instead, he countered: _"I am not going mad, Your Excellency Festus, but I am uttering sayings of truth and of soundness of mind. In reality, the king to whom I am speaking with freeness of speech well knows about these things; for I am persuaded that not one of these things escapes his notice, for this thing has not been done in a corner. Do you, King Agrippa, believe the Prophets? I know you believe." But Agrippa said to Paul: "In a short time you would persuade me to become a Christian." At this Paul said: "I could wish to God that whether in a short time or in a long time not only you but also all those who hear me today would become men such as I also am, with the exception of these bonds."_ Some lemons are hard to make into lemonade—"bonds," for example. Nobody can say Paul was timid speaking before the king, though, nor ashamed of the cause for which he was arrested.

" _And the king rose and so did the governor and Bernice and the men seated with them. But as they withdrew they began talking with one another, saying: "This man practices nothing deserving death or bonds." Moreover, Agrippa said to Festus: 'This man could have been released if he had not appealed to Caesar.'"_

So it was as Paul worked his way toward Caesar, establishing his innocence at every stop. Still, they decided to keep him restrained. Everywhere he is an ambassador for God's kingdom, and everywhere he avoids telling them how they should run theirs. It is the same way that Jehovah's Witnesses act toward the governments under which they live.

The Book of Acts ends with Paul under house arrest. The dominant religious system did not attain its goal of killing him, but it did attain its goal of restricting him. The restriction was less successful than they might have imagined, for Paul went on to complete the majority of letters in the New Testament. Higher critics maintain he essentially founded a different religion, putting his own spin on the words of both Moses and Jesus.53

Tradition has it that Paul was executed during the time of Nero. This is consistent with the fact that Nero pinned the burning of Rome on the growing Christian movement. That machination triggered many an atrocity. Over time, Christianity modified itself. It learned to accommodate its enemies and be molded by them. Paul had forewarned: "I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them." These men did not lose. They won. They would win today except that the timing is different.54

Jesus illustrated the change of timing with his parable of the wheat and weeds. The enemy sowed weeds among the fledgling wheat. "Leave them be," the owner tells his slaves, and the weeds promptly overrun the wheat. During the harvest, however, it is a different story. "Then at harvest time I will say to the harvesters, 'First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles for burning; but gather the wheat into my barn.'"55 The weeds that were victorious soon after planting are not victorious at the harvest, despite the efforts of the dominant religious empire. Even though they maneuver the governments into fighting against God, they are not victorious.

Chapter 6 endnotes

Return to Table of Contents

# Chapter 7 – Education

Two of the four Witnesses who testified at the April 20th Moscow trial were highly educated. Probably they were selected for just that reason. If the world understands nothing but education, give it to them in spades. But the 50/50 mix at the trial is atypical. For every college trained person among the Witnesses, there must be ten who are not. Some say it is that way by design—that the Witness organization wants people to remain uneducated and thereby easier to influence.

The accusation misses the point. If it is that way with education, it has always been that way with Christianity as portrayed in the Bible. It is even _deliberately_ that way on God's part, and it can be taken as a taunt at the world's collective wisdom that has so blatantly failed to provide peace, security, and well-being. "For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in the eyes of God, for it is written 'He catches the wise in their own ruses,' and again 'The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain,'" say the verses.1 Is there any place that wisdom is to be found more than in in its system of higher education? Surely that system must take ownership of the world it has collectively produced.

Celsus, a philosopher of the second century, made great sport of ridiculing Christians. They were "labourers, shoemakers, farmers, the most uninformed and clownish of men."2 The apostle Paul would not have been embarrassed by this. On the contrary, he agrees: "Not many of you were wise by human standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. Rather, God chose the foolish of the world to shame the wise, and God chose the weak of the world to shame the strong."3 Jesus passes it off as almost a grand trick to those too full of themselves to notice: "I give praise to you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, for although you have hidden these things from the wise and the learned you have revealed them to the childlike. Yes, Father, such has been your gracious will."4

Many modern writers seemingly are embarrassed by these humble beginnings and will gloss over the unpleasantness, as though to say "Okay, they may have _started_ lowly, but look how they pulled themselves up!" They strive to qualify the uneducated roots. They are embarrassed about them. For example, Edward D. Andrews explains it away by writing: "Celsus was an _enemy_ of Christianity... what Celsus observed is only within the sphere of his personal experiences. How many Christians could he have known out of almost a million at the times of his writing?" [italics mine]5 Do not these remarks reflect a cultural bias that it is the educated people who most matter? You do not want to be portrayed as a religion of dumbbells. You must leave such humiliating circumstances behind if you are to rise in popular esteem.

First-century Christianity primarily drew from the lower rungs of society. In time, it apostatized and thereby made itself more attractive to the more elevated rungs, but it has not been that way from the beginning. The "uneducated" and "ordinary" men who formed the very leadership of the new faith ever remain uneducated and ordinary.6 Christianity is a 'working-class' religion. It thrives on humility. The more education of this world a person has, the greater the assault on that quality, and the more likely such ones will accept only a modified version of the faith that will fit their terms. Jehovah's Witnesses are nothing if not ones who hold to the original model. Celsus's words should not be shied away from. They should be embraced as the template that would forever define true Christianity. If God had wanted to cater to the accomplished crowd back then, he would have arranged that his Son be born at the Jerusalem Hyatt instead of the Bethlehem Manger. The fact that he didn't demonstrates that he doesn't just 'put up' with the 'lower rungs'—he chooses them over the higher ones.

Can the higher rungs really be that high? Would not the world they have collectively built be much more livable if they were? Pure academic muscle carries little weight with God, much less the credentials that the world defers to. The twelve were decidedly not intellectuals. They were "workmen" who had learned to handle the Word aright.7 Paul had intellectual credibility, with advanced education for his time, but he took direction from the workmen. His lasting stature is not that he was an in-house thinker. He was primarily a doer, whereas the "superapostles" who were always trying to upstage him, boasting of their own credentials, were not.8

It is unfair to say that the Christian congregation has contempt for contemporary education, a charge sometimes made. But it is fair to that say it doesn't allow itself to be shoved around by it. The offerings of human wisdom are ever inconstant, ever arguable, and occasionally downright stupid. The organization of Jehovah's Witnesses looks to Scripture for basic training in life. "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work" is their mission statement with regard to education.9

Surely it is fair to demand proof that this world's educational system delivers the goods it advertises. If its end result is a planet tearing itself apart at the seams, with extinction an acknowledged possibility, must one not ask of its driving education model: 'What good is it?' Jehovah's Witnesses unify, dignify, pacify, and harness the activity of persons from every background of race, nationality, social and financial strata. Should this world's education not produce comparable results before it is hailed as the be-all and end-all? If the swirling mass of humanity should disappear down the giant flush of a washbasin, it will hardly matter how educated each individual imagines himself to be.

Jehovah's Witnesses do not neglect education. They redefine it. The general model of this world's education is to focus on training of the intellect, with the apparent assumption that moral qualities will take care of themselves. Of course, history testifies that they do not, and their absence results in the undoing or even the redirecting to harm much of what its education brings about. Frankly, unless people have proved themselves to be of good heart, you are frequently better off not educating them—they can do less damage that way. If janitors and car wash attendants had run the financial world back in 2007, they might have figured out a way to beat the taxpayers out of a day's wage. As it was, highly educated MBAs ran it and they found a way to sink all future generations into intractable debt.

It is surprising that so little attention is payed to moral training in the greater education models of the world. One can only suppose it is because those who mold it can agree on no common foundation upon which to base it. Jehovah's Witnesses take it as a given that the Bible fulfills that role. They focus on the moral training to be found in that textbook from the Creator. By doing so, they are not filling in the gaps of education. They are providing its underpinnings. The lessons of the heart are those that are essential. The lessons of the head can be added on an as-needed basis. Bible education alone will not teach you the practical skills required for specific tasks, of course. There, Jehovah's Witnesses look to offerings in the world's educational system, which they cherry-pick.

Bible curriculum forms the core of a Witness's moral training. The great ideas of this world are but footnotes for them—electives. Peruse them if you wish, but they are hardly requirements. After all, if the Greeks form the cradle of civilization for Western nations, they also form the cradle of pedophilia. The grooming of young boys for sexual purposes was an enshrined component of that society.10 One wonders how today's rationalists—adoring the ancient Greeks, but abhorring child sexual abuse—will ultimately resolve this bit of cognitive dissonance. Will they finally excuse the sexual abuse as just 'one of those things,' or will they haul the Greek perverts, the very heroes of critical thinking, off into infamy? Historian Robin Osborne has acknowledged that "historical discussion of paiderastia is complicated by 21st-century moral standards."11 Indeed it is.

When Jehovah's Witnesses look to Scripture for "training in righteousness," they do no more than recognize that God made us, not we ourselves. If you want to best maintain your fine new vehicle, you read the new vehicle's owner's manual. The Witness organization does no more than disseminate the owner's manual for the vehicle that is us. Take too much to heart of the higher education owners' manual and you risk prematurely ruining the car. Four years or more of such education will reliably both plant and nurture thinking corrosive to Christianity. Students, over time, are conditioned to look to humans for the answers, as the only ones having it within their power to fix things. They learn of myriad government models to select from, and myriad philosophes. Also, they learn of myriad business, science, and cultural models. Surely something will work if we can just find the right blend. They are influenced to think of God as a human construct. Serious belief is unfashionable. Bland belief is permissible, the sort that repackages human thinking as religion, though even that is looked at askance. The concept of God evolved because the dregs of any clan must be kept in check, they say. However, the dregs fight back at any human check, creating societal disharmony, so a _superhuman_ check—a God with whom you cannot fight—is evolutionarily preferable.12

Students are conditioned that man is naturally good. If you can but isolate the cream of human wisdom you cannot go wrong. They are influenced to absorb the intoxicating air of independence along with its corollary that almost the most foolish thing people can do is to let someone else direct them; loyalty to any group of persons is suspect. Authority is problematic. Question it. Acquiesce to nothing until it can answer every question. Personal fulfillment will likely be lauded as the highest goal. Career will come first. Family will be what you choose to make it. Marriage will be a relic of the past. Should you choose to enter it, certainly do not be cowed into thinking it is permanent.

The prime teachings of the greater world's education are deleterious to Christianity, yet they constitute the air breathed at universities today. Details may vary from country to country, as does the local degree of air and water pollution, but they are the essence of the liberal arts woven into most curricula. Should Jehovah's Witnesses be eager to throw their offspring under the bus of such education? The world is a tortured mass of cognitive dissonance, ever struggling to reconcile its cherished teachings of life with the chaotic mess they have collectively produced. 'Why shovel our kids into the maw of that monster?' Witnesses reason. Direct them somewhere with happier outcome.

One might even turn the tables and call the higher education route a route of brainwashing, a charge that has been made against the Witnesses themselves. Does one really become a Witness through brainwashing? If so, there are far better examples, and college is foremost among them. Students are separated nearly 24/7 on campus from all that once stabilized them—a classic time-tested tool of brainwashing. The phrase says it all: a college student is "in college"—living in the dormitory, in the dining hall, in the social haunts, and in the classrooms on campus, in a setting atypical and unfamiliar.

Such brainwashing, if we should call it that, is all the more effective because its nature is veiled. Pursuing college education is no more controversial than pursuing regular health care. It is a thoroughly conventional course of action, portrayed almost as a rite of passage into adulthood. In contrast, persons who study the Bible with Jehovah's Witnesses know full well that they are straying off the beaten path. They do it because they perceive that the beaten path is leading nowhere, but they invariably know they are going atypical. Still, even as they do it, they are grounded 95% of the time in their familiar routine and surroundings, as opposed to college life, where everything is new and unfamiliar. If one must bandy about the 'brainwashing' label, the trick is not to deny that Jehovah's Witnesses do it. The trick is to point out that the world's education does it to a far greater degree and with some ideas that are far more deleterious.

What persons who accuse Jehovah's Witnesses of brainwashing find most objectionable is something that has nothing to do with brainwashing. It is the _conclusions_ Witnesses come to that rankle, not their process of coming to them. The process is straightforward, plainly labeled, and more easily discontinued in the event of second thoughts than is college, since the latter has often taken great financial commitment and generated social expectations. However, those who would style themselves as thinkers today pride themselves on never shutting down ideas, for that would be to show themselves intolerant. They feel it better to cloak attacks of their ideas as attacks on the 'unfair' process of reaching them. If you dislike the kingdom message, you will dislike the organization that facilitates its spread. It is no more complicated than that.

Few things in this world are _less_ tricky than choosing to become a Witness. One cannot do so without a lengthy period of voluntary study, seldom lasting less than a year in the U.S. It is not a religion where one can impulsively 'come down and be saved.' The one who studies the Bible with Jehovah's Witnesses remains always in familiar routine, save for a personal home Bible study, congregation meetings and a social gathering or two. One is always in control of one's destiny.

As an example of a deleterious idea that will be planted in most systems of higher education, consider the foundation upon which children have historically been raised—that of monogamous marriage. Surely the nurture of children is a foundation of humanity. The Bible zealously advertises and guards marriage as the institution to build life around. The higher education of this world is unafraid to experiment with it and is apt to recommend jettisoning it altogether. "We struggle with monogamy—is it time to abandon it altogether?" postulates New Scientist.13 "Monogamy evolved to keep baby-killers away," pitches another article,14 and now it works against us. "Women only stay with men for security, and men only stay with women for sex. It's a cynical view of human relationships, but researchers now say it is the driving force behind the evolution of monogamy—and women started it. By offering sex all the time, females in monogamous species disguise whether they are fertile and trick males into sticking around."15

Is _this_ the reason people cannot hold together a marriage to save their lives? Is it evolution that, long ago, coerced the women to play a mean trick on the men? If so, it is time to move on, these writers for New Scientist seem to argue. There are no longer predators to eat our children—at least not in the literal sense. Why behave as though they were? Why feel guilty when it is time to 'move on'? That's just religion trying to guilt us with its evolutionary manmade gods. We do not want to feel bad about ourselves—it is bad for self-esteem. We want to feel good about ourselves, for man is 'naturally good' and should not be made to feel bad unnecessarily. Make no mistake: there is a strong emotional appeal to such new ideas, which lies entirely apart from their scientific merit. And how are the children to fare? They'll adjust, is the apparent afterthought. Seen in this light, Russia's Order of Family Glory is a quaint relic of the past and will eventually be phased out.

This new branch of science, called evolutionary psychology, purports to explain how men came to prefer physically attractive women in the first place. A low waist-hip ratio—say .70 or so—is associated with good health and thereby fertility.16 One can almost picture such favored creatures as having convenient shelves upon which to balance many babies, without which she is prone to drop and kill them all. It helps in the struggle for survival to have such a figure, and that it how preference for it came to be encoded in the very DNA of men. It is the very reason male eyes and heads snap about in the presence of a pretty woman. They wouldn't _be_ perceived as pretty were it not for the dictates of human survival.

Is there really any proof for this or is it merely the biblical equivalent of "fables fit for old women?"17 Only an Internet search will convince the person of common sense that the above models are real and not mere joking on the part of this writer—for here is offered nary a hint of the scientific method that we all learned in school was the very hallmark of science. As pure speculation, the biblical equivalent of which the Witness organization advises members against getting too caught up in, it may be tolerable. But it is taken as cutting-edge science. Your children will learn the underpinnings, if not the specific teaching, amidst their diet of higher learning. They may even be subject to written exams, where they have to spit back the nonsense to the professor.

From time to time in Watchtower literature one can read that the Bible does not disagree with "true science." Plainly, Witnesses do not regard the above as "true science." They regard it as the fraudulent kind, as indeed they do much of the framework of evolution. But that is not to say they reject every aspect of it. The typical Witness parent sees that evolution chart and wants to turn that parade of ascending ape-like creatures about and march them right back into the slime from whence they came. But he must take care. _We_ are not the religionists who put dinosaurs on the Kentucky ark.18

Watchtower publications speak of the days of creation as [redacted] and the time preceding as [redacted] since Scripture does not insist upon "day" being the 24-hour variety.19 Witnesses refrain from instructing scientists on their own turf. A lot can happen in epochs and aeons. If God churned out living creatures as an assembly line churns out automobiles—well, _that_ he could easily do in a 24-hour day. So what is the point of the epochs and aeons? In 2006, Awake Magazine interviewed scientist and author Michael Behe, who accepts evolution in the main, but stipulates that it has limits.20 They would not have done that if the two hated each other's guts, would they?

No one is being dogmatic, here. Science is accommodated to the maximum extent without ignoring Scripture, which Jehovah's Witnesses consider the most reliable guide to life. The 2010 brochure _Was Life Created?_ states [redacted]21 Thus the Witnesses' current view allows for what is described as micro-evolution (within a kind) but not macro-evolution (outside of a kind). But 'implies' is not an ironclad word, is it? The point is, for the Christian, if the time element for developing life is indeed epochs and aeons, you need not squabble much with scientists who describe them. Let scientists be scientists and Bible teachers be Bible teachers. Vast areas of conflict disappear, though certainly not all. Resolve your 'cognitive dissonance' by saying 'I don't have to know everything just now.'

Jehovah's Witnesses call theirs 'divine education.' Their Governing Body is ever dubious of the latest offerings from the intellectuals, since they know much of it will prove to be the "every wind of teaching arising from human trickery" of Bible verse. It will be "profane babbling and the absurdities of so-called knowledge" that "by professing it, some people have deviated from the faith." It will be the waterless clouds and the cisterns that leak. It will be the pit that the blind lead the blind into—for ideas have repercussions. It will be things of atheism, of self-determination, of moral experimentation, and of amoral evolution.22 It will be the things furthering the cause of nationalism. It is not Jehovah's Witnesses who feed the war machine with millions of their young, thereby ensuring there will never be peace. Neither is it Jehovah's Witnesses whose values result in millions of lives lost to drug abuse, tobacco deaths, or overdrinking; their education safeguards against such things. For every quality-of-life 'glitch' that exists among Jehovah's Witnesses, the greater world has fifty.

'We hold these truths to be self-evident,' begins the American Declaration of Independence, _'that all men are created equal.'_ But to those raised on a diet of evolutionist rationalist thinking, it is not at all self-evident. What _is_ self-evident is the chief ape of '2001 – A Space Odyssey' realizing that it can wield a club and wallop the daylights out of the other apes. What _is_ self-evident is the children's game King of the Mountain, in which the victor shoves rivals aside so as to take their place.

In contrast to current educational models, it is the Bible that makes equality self-evident. "He made from one the whole human race to dwell on the entire surface of the earth," it says, "and he fixed the ordered seasons and the boundaries of their regions, so that people might seek God, even perhaps grope for him and find him."23 If there is one thing that even the most ferocious opponents of Jehovah's Witnesses will agree upon, it is that the faith has proved successful in realizing equality among members. The non-Witness world enjoys little success in this regard. It ought not be surprising. The Witnesses' prime education model makes clear that all are equal. Outside the Witness world is an evolutionistic origin-of-life view that makes clear that they are not. Why should not Christians focus on the former rather than the latter?

Bible knowledge was long deemed indispensable to a well-rounded life. That has changed only in recent decades, as persons have redefined 'well-rounded' and have divorced themselves from their historical roots. The range of human knowledge today becomes exceptionally broad but correspondingly shallow. Typical, and a foremost example, of the past is Abraham Lincoln, who peppered his speeches and papers with biblical references. To his son questioning, as any reasonable child can be expected to do, why he needed go to Sunday School, he said: "'Every educated person should know something about the Bible and the Bible stories, Tad."24

Historian Michael Nelson wrote: "For all his mockery, Lincoln was consumed by religion as a subject, as well as by the Bible, a book that all of his biographers agree he had read and studied assiduously since his youth. Although disdainful of Christianity in its cruder, frontier forms, Lincoln seems to have been open to, even seeking, an account of the faith that rang true on grounds of reason and justice."25

The farmer does not begin hoeing out the weeds until the harvest-time. Even Abraham Lincoln was not able to make things out; he was ahead of the curve. He had great respect for the Word, but incomplete understanding. The time was not yet right. Persons were not yet roving about. To a friend, Lincoln gave the best advice he could: "Take all of this book upon reason that you can and the balance on faith, and you will live and die a happier and better man."26 27

The theme of John 3:16 has ever reverberated through history: "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life." Even though persons could not explain just how that worked, they knew the verse nonetheless. Few did, and do, know 'just how that works'—church doctrine is so convoluted that most reasonable persons give up searching and acquiesce to a science-absorbed world that declares it all nonsense.

One of the benefits of Jehovah's Witnesses is that they do know 'just how that works' and they are ever ready to explain it—sometimes to people's dismay as they see them yet again traipsing up the driveway. There was once a saying among Witnesses that new ones ought to be locked up for six months until their zeal was tempered by common sense. It is not to their credit that they know what they know. They simply live in the right time period and have accepted the invitation to explore words "kept secret and sealed until the end time."28

In a nutshell, Paul's letter to the Corinthians says it all: "So, too, it is written, 'The first man, Adam has become a living being,' the last Adam a life-giving spirit...The first man was from the earth, the second man, from heaven." Per the Bible model, Adam pulled the plug on himself when he disobeyed God—and the blades of a fan disconnected slow down. He and all his offspring lost out on a life which could have been to time indefinite. No succeeding man can undo the damage, for none have the perfect status that Adam forfeited. Only if another perfect man comes upon the scene and acts as Adam did not does it become possible to repair the damage. That man is Jesus, the 'last Adam,' who exactly counterbalances the first. To ones putting faith in God's 'swap,' the hope of life indefinite can yet be attained, after all the other consequences of Adamic rebellion are undone.29

This makes sense only if one discards the Trinity doctrine. If Jesus is equated to God, and not a perfect man, it all becomes an incomprehensible muddle. Fortunately, discarding the Trinity doctrine is not hard to do scripturally—though politically, it is next to impossible. The doctrine lives only by taking certain phrases literally—phrases which in any other context would instantly be recognized as figure of speech.30 Among leaders of the Orthodox Church, the ban of Jehovah's Witnesses is greatly welcomed—though they seek to clarify that they did not instigate it—due to the Witness's rejection of the Trinity doctrine. For example, Church Metropolitan Hilarion said of the Witnesses that "they deform Christ's teaching and falsely interpret the Gospel. Their doctrine contains many lies: they do not believe in Jesus Christ as God and Savior [he is correct on the first but incorrect on the second], they do not recognize the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, and therefore cannot be called Christians."31 (brackets mine) Most churches would reiterate his statement, though not necessarily with his venom—that is how central the Trinity doctrine is. Jehovah's Witnesses reject it with an understanding that it is impossible to draw close to God hamstrung with that as a default belief.

Hampered by doctrines that made little sense, the Trinity being but one, when scientists began calling into question the existence of God—in contrast to Galileo, Kepler, and Newton, who thought their discoveries glorified God by uncovering his 'handiwork'32—churches had little to fight back with. They did not wish to miss this latest wind of intellectual thought, so the mainline churches acquiesced to whatever scientists said they must. Manifestly, the teaching of human evolution makes the explanation of a first and second Adam nonsense. What is gained by the embrace of such teaching is a certain esteem in the eyes of contemporary educated persons. What is lost is the key to the meaning of life.

A certain Watchtower article considered for congregation study spotlights a 'flying scroll' that Zechariah saw in vision.33 It consists of a condemnation of theft on one side and of perjury on the other. Immediately beneath the Watchtower paragraph is a photo of a teen looking shifty at a boutique, as though she is about to pocket an item. One critic disdains this literal and mundane application of a vision sent all the way from heaven, and so quickly seeks to shift it to a 'higher' one that one suspects she steals from boutiques herself. In fact, it _does_ seem a trivial application; most would agree. However, it fits well with the context of the paragraph, which is a discussion of the "spiritual paradise" that Jehovah's Witnesses say they enjoy. To that end, it offers a practical example of theft that young people especially will identify with. It does not take much to destroy a paradise. One sicko inserted one razor blade in one apple and the celebration of Halloween changed forever.

At the Regional Convention I can drop my wallet and with near certainty know it will turn up at the lost and found. Can I do that outside of the spiritual paradise? There is a reasonable chance that the wallet will come back to me. But with the money intact? Unlikely. It may happen. But I will not hold my breath. My wallet _did_ come back when I dropped it during a visit to Canada. (It is no picnic getting back across the border without it.) Someone took the trouble to contact me upon my return in the States and arrange its return. I appreciated it. But when I asked about the money within, he said: "What money?"

Teaching not to steal at a very mundane level is the very stuff of Christianity. It is what makes all the rest of it work. I both admire the Governing Body and suspect they are somewhat naive in that they teach what needs to be taught without regard for self-appointed experts who will invariably seize upon their material and beat them over the head with it. They need better public relations: PR. Or maybe they don't. Maybe it is just me who thinks they do. Jesus didn't seem too concerned about public relations, either. Maybe it should just be taken for granted that they will fare no better than did their counterparts in the first century, representing a "sect" which was "denounced everywhere."

Besides, they might not even know that detractors make mincemeat of their lessons. They take their own counsel, which is the Bible's counsel; they don't go there to check out what the detractors have to say. They are like Jesus, who observed one set of scoundrels slandering him one way and another set slandering him just the opposite way. 'Don't worry about it,' is his advice. "Wisdom is vindicated by her works." He is like David. All day long they would mutter evil things about him, and he just kept his mouth shut, declining to answer.34

Others would be embarrassed to teach such a childlike lesson of theft at a meeting primarily attended by adults, for Jehovah's Witnesses do not separate their children into Sunday Schools. But the lesson is not beneath the grown-ups. Adults are ever inclined to dismiss the childish application so as to conduct sophisticated debate over a greater application—and then they pinch a scarf or tie clasp from the boutique on their way home.

At another congregation meeting is featured another lesson so basic that few would call it education. Yet for lack of application of it and a few dozen other spiritual themes, so much of the world's education results is short-circuited—allowing a glimpse into brilliant possibilities and then torpedoing it because its participants cannot get along.

The video shown was entitled: Remove the Rafter.35 It featured a disgruntled member who thought most of his congregation a bunch of unrealistic oddballs. Even if they were, he came to realize in the end that the only one he could change was himself. As the Bible verse he was considering, in order to give his assigned student talk, faded onscreen, two words remained a split second longer than the others: 'splinter' and 'beam.' This happened three times, and on the third, the word 'hypocrite' also remained. It is Jesus' words he considers: _"Why do you notice the splinter in your brother's eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me remove that splinter from your eye,' while the wooden beam is in your eye? You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother's eye."_ 36

At first glance, it is a slick move from the Watchtower video directors. But it is meant to illustrate a slick move upon the heart. The reason those two words remained, and then three, is that his heart was yet soft enough for them to register—having benefited from previous divine education. A hardened person would not have responded that way. The brother allowed the scripture to mold him. This is how God trains in the congregation, but it would all have been lost upon one who's heart was molded primarily by this world's education. Imagine how differently history might read if this verse was a staple of education, and not just a dreamy footnote. With Jehovah's Witnesses, it is a staple.

'That's _it_?' detractors will ask. ' _That's_ your education?' _That_ , and the flying Zechariah scroll? Yes. It is part of the foundation and it ensures that anything resting upon it will enjoy success. It is the reason Jehovah's Witnesses get along and thereby can accomplish things that the general world cannot. It is no credit to them. It is Miss Daisy telling her grown but illiterate chauffer that, as a teacher, she taught some of the dumbest children God ever put on his green earth, yet they could _all_ read by the time she was finished with them.37 It is purely a result of absorbing one's education. It is the same happenstance as "they will beat their spears into plowshares," the Isaiah passage adorning the U.N. building. It translates into a way of life for Jehovah's Witnesses, rather than mere rousing words.

Do opponents of Jehovah's Witnesses recognize the value of such Bible teachings as the splinter and the beam? No. They assume the organization is using it as 'mind control,' an encouragement to 'overlook whatever sinister things _we_ may be up to— _we'll_ party while you _slave!_ ' One wonders how adults can become so adolescent. When the Witness Governing Body presents Bible teachings, they expose themselves to it first. They not only recognize it as training from God; they also recognize that they themselves are the ones who need it most, since their actions affect the most people.

The selected articles in the study edition of the Watchtower Magazine used for weekly study of the Bible are more than an outline but less than a complete article. In a pinch, they can stand as one. In fact, they certainly will, for they will take their place in the accumulated volume. But they are not primarily intended that way. Their first use is to facilitate congregation discussion of whatever spiritual theme is under consideration. They could be likened to flour, which does not become a cake until you mix in the other ingredients—the individual comments of congregation members. Afterwards, their work done, the articles are absorbed into the archives, where they may seem curiously abridged. Their primary value was realized at the congregation meeting. There they served to train the hearts which ultimately drive the heads.

Scientists identify four fundamental forces of nature: the strong and weak nuclear force, gravity, and the electromagnetic force. For 99.9% of the earth's population, these are irrelevant and there is only a fifth that must be understood: the force of sexual attraction. God didn't want to revisit Adam and Eve after a few hundred years, discover them on a barren planet, and hear them say "Oh, we were supposed to do _that_? I guess we plumb forgot. Sorry." Sexual attraction is the most crucial force to understand, even if it is not of the Four. Pursue the four if you like—and it is good for human knowledge that some do. However, the typical youngster will never approach a black hole of outer space to see the four forces interact. He or she _will_ approach the black hole of sexual attraction that his seemingly overcautious parents have probably told him about. Intrigued by an awakening of desire, he gingerly approaches. All seems inviting, tantalizing—what is this fuss that the old people have carried on about? He edges closer and closer until its sudden irresistible pull grabs and stretches him into a two-mile strand of spaghetti.

A force so strong and capable of bringing so much joy must be understood and harnessed, for it can easily be misused and cause misery. It is underappreciated how sexual attraction has been a major driver of history. Understanding the interaction of the sexes should not be a footnote to education, as it usually is today, but should be among its centerpieces; let the four brainy forces be the footnotes for interested ones to pursue if they like. Jehovah's Witnesses are among the minority of religions holding that sexual relations should be reserved for married persons. For the sake of the general world, this writer will concede that it can be more-or-less managed where there are stable monogamous relationships. However, depend upon higher education to undermine even this stabilizing model. Wish 'good luck' to the world enforcing its new outrage over sexual harassment while overall continuing to hype sex at every opportunity via a hookup culture in which it is recreation absent commitment—it will need it.

When the greater world finally wakes up to a moral problem, as it has with sexual harassment, it wildly overacts. Sexual liaisons, involving various degrees of coercion and sobriety, are reinterpreted as rape. Harassment and what was once called 'getting fresh' are equated with rape. Complementing a woman's appearance is even interpreted as harassment by some.38 How will it resolve? It is too soon to tell. Suffice it to say that the Witness environment is one of the few environments where men can be expected to behave. They will hear about it if they don't. It is a result of their education. The occasional miscreant can expect serious chastisement.

Less than two years ago I wrote a book entitled _Tom Irregardless and Me_ , in which I speculated facetiously: "AI robots and VR porn promise sex so steamy that it's feared people will lose interest in the real thing. Is the world to end with a fizzle, and not a bang, as its inhabitants neglect procreation?" The 'prediction' becomes less facetious by the minute. Since then, the robotic sex doll industry has exploded. Robots of both male and female anatomy can easily 'outperform' their human counterparts. In a world that neglects to teach men and women how to relate with one another—its mainstream education simply doesn't go there—many can be expected to forget all about the real thing and take refuge in robots. No matter how whacky the Revelation scenarios become of humans threatening to destroy the planet, modern humanity can always manage to top them.

It is better to stick with the Bible teaching that marriage is a divine institution and listen to its counsel on how to hold it together through thick and thin. You don't follow your 'inner caveman' and move on periodically, even though evolution 'says' you can.39 The mainline sophisticated church, with occasional exception, is ready to accommodate the latest wind of thinking—sometimes eventually, sometimes immediately. Evolution they dare not defy, for they do not want to lose more credibility than they already have with this world's educated people. While not (in most cases) declaring marriage invalid, they adopt popular ways of thinking that make it all but untenable for the long haul. By dereliction of duty, the Church ensures the unhappiness of young people. It virtually ensures they will not remain with a marriage partner. 'Let us see how we can incorporate this or that bold new enlightenment,' it frequently says, rather than toting it out straightaway to the curb where it often belongs.

The world does not make it easy for its education to be had a la carte, as Witnesses prefer. It does not want to give just the diamonds one needs. It wants to mix them with the turds of corrosive teachings that have collectively sunk the overall world. Jehovah's Witnesses do their best to cherry-pick. Sometimes they cherry-pick at the college and sometimes they do so elsewhere. Why not simply accept it all in a package of higher education? Why not just spit out the turds of corrosive teachings later? Alas, we are not built that way. We absorb the atmosphere in which we are immersed. Not so if we are in it for but a brief time. But if it becomes our environment for years at a stretch, then absorb it we do. At seventeen, one is still but a child, with values that are far from stabilized.

Unless your grades are in the toilet, the school apparatus is unlikely to bless your plans not to roll over a 12th year of schooling into an automatic 13th, for they fear you may fall off the rails of career and never remount. Believe me, Witnesses know about this. Their organization, in contrast, unabashedly invites youngsters into full-time service to God as an activity right as rain, often directly out of high school. Youthful activity in the ministry can run concurrently with continued education and complement it. The general encouragement is to view the Christian ministry as one's vocation and the requisite skills to support oneself in it an avocation. Are you, as a youngster, averse to instructing ones two or three times your age? Share what you know in the ministry and let them share with you whatever they wish. You will know what is poisonous and what is not. If you are unsure, take it in sips.

People and families differ. Not all take up the Watchtower's invitation for a full ministry straight from high school. Families with a tradition of college often continue in that model; some circumvent the 24/7 pitfalls of higher education by commuting from home. Furthermore, academic offerings, requirements, and environments vary from place to place. Nothing is cast in stone regarding Witnesses and overall education. Sometimes after an interval, Witness adults will return to college with a specific goal in mind. But seldom is it the goal of a Witness family of lesser means to send their first child ever to college so as to lay hold of a life that was closed to the parents. Frequently it is the goal to have that child pioneer. Telling and preparing persons for the 'true life'40 is the main goal of Jehovah's Witnesses. The secular education that they choose seldom disregards that overall purpose.

'A la carte' can come in the mysterious ways that God is sometimes said (not by Witnesses) to work himself. This writer stumbled across a BBC list of the top 100 important books of all time. I discovered that I had read over half. No other commenter had read more. Is it boasting to slip this into the book? Hardly. Take it as an invitation to be a janitor, for it is while so employed that I 'read' most of them via the Books on Tape service. On Twitter, I came across a CEO who grumbled: "Stupid janitor forgot to leave an extra roll of toilet paper – I'm screwed." I tweeted back: "I read 54 of the BBC's top 100 books as a janitor via Books on Tape. Sorry about the toilet paper." There are even people who deliberately _choose_ menial work so as to not turn their minds over to 'The Man'—corporate or government interests. The Man may reward you materially, but he does not do so without demanding your soul. One can always read the great works, if one has a desire to, on one's own, free from the indoctrination of the world's educational system.

They wouldn't let my homeschooled son read when he briefly forayed into public schooling; it was ever workbooks for him. When he later entered community college, they declared his math skills age-appropriate and his reading skills "off the charts." "I had no idea that there were so many stupid people," he innocently remarked later. How can they not be stupid? The intellectual diet of this system of things is one of pop culture, transitory trends, and video games. He had never been denied those things; he had simply been directed to keep them in their place. And nobody on the homeschool front gave two hoots about workbooks. He could read all day if he wanted to and sometimes he did. "He _reads_?" exclaimed a local educator, an ally, to my wife who had asked what she should do. He then ventured: "Don't do anything." Do not mess up that formula.

The notion of Witnesses 'redefining' education does not come unchallenged in a world long used to another model. The Bible describes life under God's kingdom rule as 'the life that is true life.' What does that say as to this life? Take the Bible too seriously and one will assuredly experience kickback from the model that holds that _this_ life is all there is. A 2017 National Public Radio report was entitled 'Lack of Education Leads To Lost Dreams And Low Income For Many Jehovah's Witnesses.'41 The writers had found former Witnesses who lamented that they had not gone to college while they were in the faith; their parents and most in the congregation had discouraged it. Some had attended after leaving the Witness religion, but they got a late start and were upset that they were behind the curve. I dutifully read the article, but I didn't need to; the headline says it all: Just where does one look for fulfillment of dreams? Witness orientation is to look to 'the true life.'

The NPR story is not inaccurate, but it is incomplete. Witness parents will often encourage their youngsters to train for work as high-paying as possible, then do as little of it as possible, so as to focus on the Christian ministry, for that they regard as the most important activity in this present world. This is likely to put you on the lower rungs of the income latter, though not for the reasons NPR stipulates.

University education represents to Witnesses an invitation to trash the faith of their child, for humans are not immune to their surroundings. Thus, some hideous new style appears and within ten years it is widely adopted by ones who wonder how they ever could have imagined those peculiar styles of yesteryear did anything for them. Peer pressure unfailingly works with such trivial matters. It also works with matters substantial. Witness parents wish for their children to avoid an anti-religious minefield that embraces the assumption that humans have the answers, that embraces throwing off restraints, that portrays obedience as bordering on the pathetic. They regard such education as intensely indoctrinate and ever harping on trendy issues. The foregoing is a generalization. Some subjects involve less traipsing through the minefield than do others—technology or engineering, for example. There are some times in life when a person _does_ choose to enter a minefield. But they don't go waltzing through it. They think long and hard before they do it at all.

"To be fair, one should compare the satisfaction statistics of ones who have chosen the college route," one commenter (me) appended to the article. In pursuit of dreams, if they are in this system of things, surely it must be factored in what is the cost of those dreams, for they are far from free in the United States. And what is the likelihood of achieving them? The job market in most places is hardly stellar. Chart wrongly in the U.S, and one can easily end up with a mundane job, or no job at all due to being 'overqualified,' but saddled with tens of thousands of dollars of debt that cannot be discharged under current law. Higher education (in the U.S.) offers an uncertain ticket into a high-priced unstable job market that it itself has created. A six or even eight-year degree is the minimum requirement for most high-flying careers of today. Mike Rowe, in testimony to Congress, stated that education in the trades offers by far the most secure route to a well-paying job.42 That sort of education can often be had free. Sometimes high schools offer it.

Jehovah's Witnesses are nothing if not eminently practical, and they do not salivate over an education model that has become dysfunctional. They seek practical skills that pay well, are easily transferable, and don't sap time and energy that is more profitably directed towards God and family. It does happen that a Witness youngster steered away from college may later come to regret it. Since the beginning of time parents have steered their children. Since the beginning of time some children, as adults, wish they had been steered differently. But surely it must factored into the overall equation the many more youngsters who were steered _into_ college by the school system, taking on enormous debt, and came to wish they had listened to someone like Mike Rowe instead.

The world does well to take ownership—'hold itself accountable,' to use the current buzzword—of all that its system of education has produced before insisting that every student drink his or her fill. If higher education was worth the price of admission it would have resulted in a far better world by now. Jehovah's Witnesses are willing to bypass it all as something superfluous. Should one touch upon it, do so as a hobby. Don't imagine it is the stuff of life. Beyond some gadgets made by Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, two men who _dropped out of college,_ (does _that_ account for their groundbreaking success?) where is the evidence that it is indispensable? To some extent, this parallels the prodding of the contemporary feminist _herstory_ movement; prove that your version actually works before you carry on too much about your _history_.

Since Jehovah's Witnesses go light on college education, the Pew Foundation unsurprisingly reports them the least educated of all faiths.43 So be it. Their relative shunning of college is deliberate, as they redefine what it means to be educated. They focus on moral training so basic as 'getting along with each other,' which would enable the world to do something with its education were it able to embrace it. "A day of divine education is worth a thousand years of college,"44 one (me again) might say, who has seen both, and who admittedly likes hyperbole. Focus on the moral qualities. You can always run out and get secular education piecemeal when you need it. Don't let them tell you their education is a prerequisite to life. Embrace their lauded Greek heritage, and you embrace whatever is today's moral counterpart of pedophilia and misogyny.

Embrace Bible education instead and tell the Pew Foundation to take a hike. They don't care anyway. They just measure things. But opponents of Witnesses grab hold of their charts and cry to the heavens at how stupid Witnesses must be. Don't be intimidated by them. The most basic invention of the West is the toilet. It, combined with some other lifestyle and drug innovations, predictably contributes to constipation over time, for squatting best suits the anatomy, as any toddler knows and as the uneducated still do.45 Nobody's thinking is as constipated as that of the Western critical rationalists. See them demolish each other online as they argue topics to the death. Sometimes one wishes they could just learn to let go.

Woe to those who pride themselves on their critical analysis, as though no other means of communication exists. Jesus has little use for it. He speaks at length in the gospels, yet very little of what he says would satisfy today's disciples of argument and reason. He spins involved parables which he rarely explains; let the heart figure it out. He diverts from hostile questions by asking counter-questions that reveal motive. He even resorts to ad hominem attacks of a sort: a major no-no to today's devotees of reason—though he always connects it with a reason, so that it is not really ad hominem but more like courtroom character cross-examination. Nowhere does he patiently reason on the 'facts' with his steadfast opponents because he knows their only relevant fact is that they want him dead.46 He says: "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day."47 He lost many disciples that day. What a stupid thing to say if his main concern is to persuade devotees of 'facts'! But if his prime concern is, not heads, but hearts, then it is flawless. Persons of heart hung around, waiting for elucidation. People without heart departed; their time was too valuable to waste unraveling riddles. If the heart is pure, one can work with whatever mind accompanies it. If it is not, the mind is a mixed blessing at best and at times a downright curse.

To translate the Bible into 200 languages, a website into 900 languages,48 and printed material into even more, using exclusively volunteer labor, is truly a colossal, one might say unbelievable, achievement—where is Baran's hagiography critic when you need to show him something? Yet it is typical of the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses. It is not done through 'college power.' Whenever intellectuals insist that insufficient university training hampers Witness volunteer translators, they miss the point that _they_ should come to _us_ , not the reverse, since Witnesses have done what they can only talk about. They are correct that there is little higher education to be found among the countless translators. Any specialized training has come a la carte, and most has been produced in-house, by persons who do not horde their knowledge or sell it but make it freely available as needed.

It is 'talking'—how hard can it be? A child brought up in a dual language household effortlessly picks up both. In a tri-lingual household, he picks up all three. The sticking point is not the intellectual work; it is assembling, motivating, and empowering qualified volunteers—volunteers, so that the end result is affordable. These factors are the strengths of Jehovah's Witnesses; their education has trained them to be that way. Granted, the translating of _ancient_ language adds a challenge, but this is a factor only for producing a master text. Master compilations of the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic scriptures are readily available, and the Witness organization has over eight million members, some of whom will be linguistic experts and who won't insist that their name appear in spotlights because they have dedicated their lives in service to God. One expert among the Witnesses is worth fifty in the greater world, because they don't fight. They don't engage in turf wars. They know how to share. They know how to cooperate and bring their "gift to the altar." They display the wisdom of the ants, not that of the big dumb male animals that ram each other with antlers so as to prove 'who's the man.'

Our people produce a straight-forward master text in English. All the volunteers worldwide are schooled in translation techniques. They are all encouraged to ask questions about specific problems or verses, and when they do, the answers become part of a database accessible to all. A significant number of translators are young people who know both English and their native tongue—their parents know only the native tongue. Could these plainly qualified persons ever be used on any sizable commercial project? Not on your life. Without a university degree, they would not be allowed within 100 yards of it. The final translation product of the Witnesses is affordable due to the volunteer workers. It is made affordable again by not having to rely upon this world's for-profit distribution channel.

The free transfer of intellectual knowledge is key to making this work. The greater world will not do this. Knowledge is passed along, but only for a significant fee. One must pay the significant, even exorbitant, cost of higher education in order to be entrusted with anything of significance. Even after that, knowledge transfers only on a for-pay basis. None of this blockage occurs in the Watchtower organization. Witnesses are also well known for freely sharing physical abilities in other venues; Watchtower is the largest construction outfit in the world and the Witnesses' mobilization for disaster relief is the envy of government. Freely sharing intellectual abilities is just as important, and it makes things like the '900 languages' a matter of routine.49

A Nepalese man quoted in the Watchtower magazine expresses appreciation for the New World Translation in his language. In English, there are many readable translations—the New World Translation is far from the only one. But in Nepalese the choice is meager. Nobody cares about the Nepalese man because he does not have any money. He is stuck with some 200-year-old turkey of a translation that he cannot understand and likely cannot afford anyway, until the New World Translation comes along to meet his needs. It is a situation repeated in many lands.

Why has not the greater church world seen fit to equip him with an understandable and affordable Bible? It has far more resources to draw upon. Can it be for any other reason than that it does not consider his spiritual needs important? Even if it should, it is beholden to a profit-driven commercial channel of book distribution that does not consider his _monetary_ means important and therefore does not bother. Dare we say it? "Those people" do not count when it comes to spiritual things. Only those with money count. With Jehovah's organization, they _do_ count. In fact, they are often given priority, since it is the ones of lesser means who have ever responded to Bible truth more readily than those well-off. One sixth of the world's population today cannot read, a byproduct of an educational system skewed toward the privileged. How many even know that these people exist? Only Jehovah's organization produces simplified versions of materials already written simply so as to reach them.

If you are serious about proclaiming 'this gospel of the kingdom in all the inhabited earth,' then naturally, you will have such a website with 900 languages. In an ill-advised (in my opinion) suggested magazine presentation, a Witness calls attention to the website, and then asks the householder: "Do you know why we do it?" "What—do you think I'm a trained chimp?" one actual person found in the ministry responded, "of _course_ I know why you do it! You want to reach people!"

When your car needs repair, do you take it to the shop that has equipped itself with every modern tool? Or do you take it to the shop content to operate with hammer, vice grips, WD-40, and duct tape? Shouldn't anyone serious about carrying out Christ's commission to preach be so well-equipped as Jehovah's Witnessed? Aren't they inept at best and frauds at worst if they have not equipped themselves in such a way? There is no excuse to be so negligent. They show either that they don't care about Christ's commission to proclaim his kingdom or that they are incapable of the cooperation needed to get the job done. Cooperation, love, humility, coupled with reasonable intelligence, will trump the results of this world's system of education every time.

Human institutions universally look to higher education for leadership. Successful entrepreneurs are even awarded honorary degrees after the fact, a tactic that serves to maintain the illusion that only college people can amount to anything. For the most part, respectable religions of this world have followed this model. Its clergy must also have advanced post-secondary degrees. It may be that Paul took direction from fishermen, but that will never repeat on their watch. The Watchtower organization is strikingly unique. It is true to the first-century pattern. It does not look to the greater world's repository of degrees for authorization to lead. Members of their Governing Body are yet fishermen at heart. They don't pretend to take the lead though brains. They take it though heart.

The Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses has no specialized knowledge of anything, generally speaking, but they know where to find it when they need it. They know how to coordinate it. They know how to put it to use for the benefit of others. How obscenely wasteful and discriminatory is the world's system for disseminating knowledge. Knowledge for them is a commodity monetized and sold amorally. It is a business. It prices its knowledge out of the reach of much of the population. It is not the fault of any individual within the system. It is the fault of the selfish model that they make their home.

The trick is to not copy Sam Gerard's 'The Fugitive' colleague and say "Well, we're smart, too," thus trying to play catch-up with another education that even he considers superior. The trick is to say that you have an education model that leaves theirs in the dust. Without the prerequisite moral training imparted by Bible education, the world does not know what to do with the knowledge it accumulates and is as likely to turn it to harm as to good. Moreover, some of the knowledge it gathers and dispenses in its colleges will turn out to be of the variety Mark Twain derided: knowledge that "ain't so."

They are smarter than us, for the most part—the university-trained crowd. It is no good pretending otherwise. But most of their plans will come to naught because they are not able to cooperate. A foremost example presents itself in the aftermath of a Florida school shooting in which 17 children died. Such shootings have become commonplace in the United States. Two arguably effective solutions have been proposed. Either ban rapid-fire assault guns or allow armed veterans, who would love the idea of protecting children, to roam the school corridors. Neither will be adopted soon because neither side will tolerate yielding to the other.

The Witness organization does not let the world bully it into its own mold of education. It has come up with something better. Jehovah's Witnesses with knowledge are generous with it. They don't hoard it. Free from petty competitiveness and jealousy, they give it away and thereby accomplish good that a hamstrung world cannot. The educated world is dismayed to find the persons they look down upon outstripping them in practical deed. Those who are noble strive to get their heads around it and examine a model unfamiliar. Those who are not noble stand on their favorite paradigm of university superiority and ridicule the accomplishments they did not produce. Those who are _really_ not noble try to run the competition off the road.

Chapter 7 endnotes

Return to Table of Contents

# Chapter 8 – Brainwashing

"Jehovah's Witnesses members are dangerous because they approach people in the street and offer them their literature, introduce themselves as a Christian organization, while their activities are based on manipulating consciousness, and they erode the psyche of people and the family," Russian Orthodox Church Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk explained.1

Witnesses wouldn't be dangerous to anyone had the dominant church not been asleep at the switch. Surely the solution for anyone dangerously offering Bible-based literature is to train people to spot what is wrong with it. If they did their jobs, they wouldn't have to worry about cults. People would see through cults in a heartbeat.

Witnesses hold that "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work."2 All the Church must do to withstand unjust assault is to make its own people familiar with the book. Why have they not? They have had the time and resources. The Witness model could not be simpler: Acquaint persons with the Word so that they can be guided by it—God's wisdom as opposed to human wisdom. Many people like that model.

Faith is not so important to most people in an overwhelmingly secular age. They keep religion in its place—typically last place. With Witnesses it is unapologetically in first place. That is apparently how Jesus 'the Extremist' would have it. "Do not think I came to bring peace to the earth," he says. "I came to bring, not peace, but a sword."3 Any faith incapable of evoking division is not the faith Jesus is describing. Though overall a godsend, there will be some component of it analogous to waving a red flag before a bull.

Politics is what is important to most people, even if not to Jehovah's Witnesses. It can and does provoke disruption in many a family. The capacity to provoke disruption is a measure of a object's importance. Jesus voluntarily pursued a course that led to his execution. Did he consider his faith important or something that should be kept in its place?

Early Christians knew that their gospel would not be welcomed. They knew they would be vehemently denounced, even by family. "You will be betrayed even by parents, brothers, relatives and friends; some of you they will have put to death; and everyone will hate you because of me," said Jesus. They were not to become unduly concerned about this. "So make up your minds not to worry, rehearsing your defense beforehand; for I myself will give you an eloquence and a wisdom that no adversary will be able to resist or refute," their Lord said. "By standing firm you will save your lives."4

Jehovah's Witnesses are maligned in the Russian press. For example, a 2400-word article in the General Newspaper of Moscow salivates at the prospect of seizing Witness property throughout the country and mocks their appeal to international law in an effort to prevent that from happening. Witnesses are low beings who "wet in the toilet," would "clog your brains," do "dark things through Jehovah," and as to your money, they would have you "give the last." 5 A follow-up article from SOVA Center reported the Witnesses' consternation at this article, with the words: "In the opinion of believers, this 'material is capable of arousing hostility on the basis of attitudes toward religion and lead to a stream of violations of the rights of innocent people.'"6 Do you think?

Those who know some Witnesses personally may think it odd that people who are so agreeable individually can be so dangerous collectively. The ones they know personally are fine people, but somehow, when you put them all together, they become evil. It doesn't quite make sense that it should be that way, but there are other things to think about. Doesn't the Orthodox Church say bad things about them? It is enough for most people, who like the Church because it typifies Russia.

The Huffington Post criticized the April 20th Court decision. But then it walked its criticism back. If a faith claims to be the one true faith it will sooner or later turn violent, the Post said. At first it may content itself with soft violence, that is, seeking by law to force its views upon others. Should that fail, it will look to hard violence. The writer then cites historical examples of that happening, in most cases skipping the soft violence altogether and going directly to the hard. He then proceeds to base his entire article on the one example, almost the only one he could have chosen, which disproves his point.

"In America, most of us think of Jehovah's Witnesses as that occasional Saturday nuisance," the article begins. "They interrupt our morning breakfast or afternoon chores to tell us their version of the Christian faith. They cheerfully drag their families along for quiet strolls through the neighborhoods and pass out Watchtower Magazines for us to throw away later. Annoying? Yes. Disruptive? Usually. But extremist? That depends," the writer says.7

Should we not agree that if a religion participates in violence, it is extremist, and if it does not, it is not? Is the Post not attempting to erase the distinction between virtual extremism and actual extremism? The article uses Jehovah's Witnesses, unfailingly non-violent, to launch into a discussion of religions that _are_ violent, yet somehow manages to insinuate that Jehovah's Witnesses are the worst of the lot. ISIS spills blood today, but it is hardly unique, says the Post. "From the Spanish inquisition to the convert-or-die tactics used on Native American Indians, Christianity has been used to commit horrific acts of violence throughout the centuries. Judaism, from which Christianity arose, recorded shocking details in the Torah of the slaughter of entire populations, including women, children, and animals."

It is too stupid to be countenanced. Surely, Jehovah's Witnesses will one day turn violent, the writer hints, even though Witnesses have supplied a 140-year track record that they will not. Their non-participation in both hard violence and the softer political type of violence is common knowledge. With anyone else the writer might have a point. Few factions will not resort to violence when they deem the cause right. Yet, the first group to be branded extremist in Russia is the one group that categorically rejects violence in all circumstances and has proven it since its inception.

Actions are not the sticking point with the Huffington Post writer, despite professions to the contrary. It is _words_ that he has a problem with—the words that are Jehovah's Witnesses' only weapon. "Sticks and stones will break my bones, and words are even worse"—he doesn't say it, but the implication could not be more clear. His is an attempt to muzzle words that would violate his world view.

Nor is the Huffington Post writer worried about the future, issuing his dark warnings about coming violence from the one group that has never offered any. It is concerned with the here-and-now. The Huffington Post is a humanist champion with little use for religion. A religion that actually heeds Jesus' words to 'put down the sword' is not welcome news to their writers, for it argues against their premise that the worship of God is a relic of the past that humanity does well to outgrow. Humans have the answers, it urges. We must all get on board and pull together. Do not rain on the parade by asserting, as Witnesses do, that human efforts are doomed to fail; surely it is extremist to say such a thing even if nobody picks up a gun. The 'good news' that the Witnesses tell is fake news to the writer, and he does not want it to be told.

Most likely the Post writer realizes that associating Witnesses with physical violence is nonsense, for after he implies guilt by association, he moves on. He uses the complaint as a bridge to another complaint he hopes will find better reception—the supposed threat that Witnesses pose to the LGBT community. This is also nonsense, but it is an easier sell. Jehovah's Witnesses do not allow the homosexual lifestyle within their ranks, and these days that is enough to be considered hostile to those not within their ranks. They would disagree. Can it really be hostile to keep one's own standards within one's own house? The causes of homosexuality are by no means clear. "Teen Hormones [are] Being Altered by Gender-Bending Chemicals," says the Sun and goes on to relate how an ingredient employed in the manufacture of plastic mimics estrogen, and has been found in the bodies of 80 to 90% of teenagers.8—yet another scenario arises to explain sexual fluidity. Who can say? Jehovah's Witnesses are constrained by Scripture from allowing homosexual acts within the congregation, but they do not stir up hostility toward them in the outside world, or lobby for laws to that effect—something many a church does do.

The Satanic Church of Moscow is also not concerned about deeds. They are concerned about words. They are less hypocritical than the Huffington Post in that they say it outright. "The Jehovah's Witnesses had an extreme approach. We oppose indoctrination and religious propaganda," said the church spokesperson Oleg Sataninsky [his real name not given], as reported in Newsweek. His church is "flourishing" and it was pleased with the ban on Jehovah's Witnesses—even "cheering" it.9 That there should even _be_ a Satanist church is not thought extremist today in Russia or most other places in the world. However, a religion that categorically shuns violence is.

His own group is misunderstood, Sataninsky protests. They are not devil worshippers there, he says, nor do they go in for the dark rituals of movie lore. They have nothing to do with the red-suited figure with horns and pitchfork, or to the extent they do, it is merely to tweak the religionists. Instead, they elevate human reason as the foremost star and celebrate its accomplishments.

They thereby identify with the actual Devil more so than do the storybook depictions of him in the church. The veneration of human reason exactly reflects Satan. It has been the issue from the opening Genesis account: Satan urging the first human couple to disobey God and thus be "like him, knowing good and bad."10 They are urged to set their own standards of right and wrong—who needs God, anyway? He is just a tyrant set on stifling human accomplishment, charged the Devil back them, as he charges today. In the elevation of human reason, the Satanic Church is not unlike the Huffington Post. Jehovah's Witnesses represent the polar opposite of both, as they recommend God's teaching as the highest source of wisdom. Most of the greater religious world straddles the fence, here stressing things spiritual, there bending to the latest innovation of human reason, and thereby incurring the wrath of the Post and the Satanists to a lesser degree than does the Watchtower organization.

It is not deeds opponents fear. It is words. "This gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth," says Jesus.11 It will not, says the Russian government, the Orthodox Church, the Huffington Post, the Satanic Church, and a host of other opposers. The specific words these various groups are concerned with may differ, but it is always words, and not deeds, that upset them. The problem with words is that they can be strung together in many different ways—and not just the ways these ones prefer. What will be the result of words when strung together as these opposers would string them? Jesus answers: "In fact the hour is coming when everyone who kills you will think he is offering worship to God."12

A month after the Court decision, Alexander Dvorkin, the anti-cult expert, crowed about the outcome he helped mastermind. At last the coordinating organization of Jehovah's Witnesses would be shut down so as "to protect the civil rights of the members of this organization." He was "absolutely convinced that after a few years, the number of members of the organization will decrease dramatically, two or three times, because, when one cuts off its financial foundation, its ability to freely, without hindrance, recruit other people, to rent large halls and so on, then, in fact, people will lose interest and will very quickly disperse and, in this sense, this decision is very correct and far-sighted."13 In other words, when you cut off someone's limbs, that person can be expected to die. He champions his role as protector of the _individual_ Witness by severing ties to their organization.

Their fate serves them right, he says, because "Jehovah's Witnesses do not recognize the foundations of the constitutional system of the Russian Federation, forbidding its followers to bear arms and participate in elections." And "by the way, as far as I know, [reports are] sent to the headquarters of the organization in the United States." In fact, Jehovah's Witness do report to their congregation the amount of time engaged in the ministry, and the aggregate number is sent to headquarters for worldwide compilation and the better coordination of ministry resources. Some grumblers allege that Witnesses thereby care more about hours than people. It is a cheap shot. The hours _are_ people, to whose spiritual needs Witnesses are devoted.

Individual Witnesses spread their message "by deception," Dvorkin says, and thereby those they speak to are "deprived of basic human rights." He spreads his version of the gospel outside the country, too: "Many times I have faced and tried to speak with different so-called human rights organizations, which, again, are sponsored mostly from abroad, that there is a specific case of people who are affected by sects... there is actually a struggle for human rights [that] is replaced by the struggle for the rights of organizations that violate the human rights," he says. Note how he disparages various human-rights organizations which are "abroad" as "so-called" because they do not acquiesce to his point of view. The European Court of Human Rights does not agree with him? That is because it is a "so-called" human rights organization.

What he is saying is that members of Jehovah's Witnesses are being manipulated by an overpowering organization. He dislikes organizations that coordinate and magnify words he opposes, but he cannot attack Witnesses individually without appearing intolerant, so he attacks their organization. He has no problem with other organizations, such as his Church, or even the government itself. But Witnesses should not be organized, especially from outside the country. He is saying that Witnesses are being brainwashed to do all they do. It is an old accusation, just worded a bit differently. Dvorkin is playing the role religionists have played before he was born, using state apparatus to squash enemies, doing so under a guise of People's Protector. Always religion pursues the same path: wrestle a majority and then kill off the competition. It happens everywhere—with politics, with science, with religion, and with philosophical outlook. Often the stated goal is to protect people, as it is with Dvorkin. Even the drug lord says his competition sells bad stuff.

By liquidating the Witnesses' branch organization, he thinks he puts an end to this threat to Witnesses' civil rights. What he is saying is that, when faced with persecution, Witnesses will fold. He is the actor taking the place of the Jewish leaders of early Christian times—so excited to have struck a lethal blow against the religious upstart, and so persuaded that will be the end of it.

The historical record reads: "On that day, there broke out a severe persecution of the church in Jerusalem, and all were scattered throughout the countryside of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles...Saul, [the Apostle Paul pre-conversion] meanwhile, was trying to destroy the church; entering house after house and dragging out men and women, he handed them over for imprisonment...Now those who had been scattered went about preaching the word."14 Dispersion of Christians didn't work back then. Nonetheless, the sufferings of those in the first century were substantial, and there are reports of the same in 21st century Russia. "What are you doing, weeping and breaking my heart? I am prepared not only to be bound but even to die in Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus," said Paul regarding tests he knew he would face.15 One can find one's heart broken. Witnesses around the world all ask themselves whether they, should their turn come, will be as courageous as their Russian brothers are called upon to be in facing this latest machination of the Devil.

On June 10, 2010, the European Court of Human Rights, adjudicating legal mischief stirred up in Moscow several years prior, found no evidence to support the accusation that Jehovah's Witnesses use "mind control." "The Court finds it remarkable that the [Russian] courts did not cite the name of a single individual whose right to freedom of conscience had allegedly been violated by means of those techniques," it said.16 However, the Russian Supreme Court was not chastened by this rebuke and saw no need to cite a name for the April 20th trial, either. They did, however, find every need to not hear representatives of foreign embassies who might, for all they knew, have sided with the European Court.

It is the pearl of great value that Jehovah's Witnesses spotlight. They spot its worth immediately. Jesus states: "The kingdom of heaven is like a merchant searching for fine pearls. When he finds a pearl of great price, he goes and sells all that he has and buys it." Most people today would consider this merchant a fanatic—and by today's definition, even an extremist. Jesus indicated his was the example to follow. Will Russian Witnesses relinquish it because Dvorkin twists their arm? It is a battle for hearts that is waged, not a battle of might. The heart will recognize the pearl of high price and will do anything to lay and keep hold of it. Unless God puts his finger on the scale, hurtling anyone on the other side into oblivion, Witnesses will always lose the battle of might. But they will not lose the battle of hearts, any more than Christians lost it in the days of Acts.17

"And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached throughout the world as a witness to all nations, and then the end will come," Jesus says. 'It will not be preached!' says Mr. Dvorkin, in effect. "We do not want you to be unaware, brothers, about those who have fallen asleep, so that you may not grieve like the rest, who have no hope,"18 Paul writes. 'Let them be unaware!' Mr Dvorkin responds. 'Maybe the house Church will explain it someday.' "Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our troubles, so that we can comfort those in any trouble with the comfort we ourselves receive from God. For just as we share abundantly in the sufferings of Christ, so also our comfort abounds through Christ. If we are distressed, it is for your comfort and salvation; if we are comforted, it is for your comfort, which produces in you patient endurance of the same sufferings we suffer. And our hope for you is firm, because we know that just as you share in our sufferings, so also you share in our comfort," again writes Paul.(NIV)19 'If you kids don't stop whining about comfort back there, we'll give you something you'll wish you were comforted about!' yells Dvorkin. But, as anyone who has ever driven a car with kids in the back seat knows, they will not be so easily dissuaded. The mountain vista on their assembled puzzle is too persuasive for them to be dissuaded by the diatribes of any anti-sectarian.

Having inculpated the Russian Orthodox Church, let us walk back on it, as though we were the Huffington Post itself. The ban of the Witness organization is a gift for the Church, and some clergy squeal with delight as they open it, as though kids on Christmas morning. But they did not originate the gift. It does not come from the world of religion. It comes from the irreligious world of the anti-cultists of France, and it is imported into Russia via the emissary Dvorkin, as Joshua Gill points out in chapter 3. It is like another Russian import of 100 years ago: Marxism, exported to the country by outside powers in hopes of neutralizing the country's might in the face of World War I.20

Is Russia to be forever abused by outside factions pursuing their outside concerns? Once it was Marxist ideology injected into the country from Germany. Later it was the anti-cult crusade from France. More recently it is denunciations from the United States for meddling in its election via social media. Ironically, had all Americans been Jehovah's Witnesses, the nefarious scheme would have come to naught, for Witnesses have been trained to be leery of social media on the basis that it teems with liars. An engaging whiteboard video entitled 'Be Social Network Smart' is directed to teens, the most vulnerable population, on JW Broadcasting, and recommends that they 'friend' online only those they personally know. Even adults who do not follow the same counsel are nonetheless put on notice that one does not believe everything read on social media, despite this author's annoyance in chapter 2 that some seem to do exactly that. And as to the charge of Russian meddling—has the U.S. ever meddled in a foreign election? 'Yeah, we do it all the time,' is the gist of the former C.I.A. chief's comments, and he feels it is not at all the same since it is done in the interests of _its_ brand of government: democracy. Essentially, it is ' _We_ are the good guys and so it is okay.'21 Just once I would like to hear of a conflict in which one side or the other says "We are the bad guys."

The ban has its immediate root in the 'Yarovaya' law, discussed in the introduction of this book. It has its roots in Article 29 of the post-Soviet Russian constitution, that decrees freedom of religion, but also stipulates that it is not permissible to promote the superiority of any one of them.22 It is all a product of irreligion, that begrudgingly allows religion to exist, but only in a watered-down state where it doesn't count. No wonder the Satanist church applauds it to high heaven.

The true thinkers of the Russian Orthodox Church do not welcome the ban. "Even among Orthodox officials it's not easy to find supporters of the draconian verdict against the Jehovah's Witnesses," the Christian Science Monitor says. "It is the first major post-Soviet instance in which Russia has moved to outlaw an entire religion, deploying "extremism" laws against a group that poses no threat whatsoever of violence, racism, or hate speech," it says, highlighting Jehovah's Witnesses' pacifism. Vsevolod Chaplin, a former spokesman for the Orthodox Church, notes that banning Witnesses did not work even in Stalinist times, and adds: "We should be wiser in this case." He doesn't like Article 29. He does not approve of muzzling religious speech as do the Satanists. Chaplin feels that _his_ Church is the superior faith—it is not all Ladas versus Kias to him. "If the state forbids us from saying that [our religion is superior], it will put itself at odds with the majority of its citizens," he says, since most Russians identify with the Church, even if relatively few are actively involved.23

Andrei Kuraev, a professor at the Orthodox Church's Spiritual Academy in Moscow, mentioned in the Introduction, agrees. He picks up on the "totalitarian" label of the anti-cultists, but the term is not his: "Sure, the Jehovah's Witnesses are far from blameless. They are a totalitarian sect who control their adherents and spread bad information about other faiths," he says. "But sometimes our Orthodox preachers do the very same things. I have personally taken part in debates with the Jehovah's Witnesses, and I believe that's how things should be handled. We should have equal conditions. The state should stay out of it and not under any circumstances try to play the role of arbiter."24

Can totalitarianism truly fit hand in glove with pacifism? Plainly, something doesn't fit. Since it is not pacifism—few things are as clear as Jehovah's Witnesses 'pacifism'—it must be totalitarianism. The description of 'totalitarian' comes from those who insist religion should be kept in its place as an accessory to a person's life, but not life itself. It comes from the world of irreligion. The Church may benefit being freed from the "aggressive missionary activity" of the competition, but it too is leery of being shunted aside as a non-factor. The more spiritual persons among them do not agree that choice of faith should be comparable to one's choice of automobile make, generating a mild debate as to which is better, perhaps, but in the end, who cares? since any car will get you into heaven.

Emily Baran wrote the book on the persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in Soviet Russia, as discussed in this book's first chapter. Unsurprisingly she has much to say about present developments. The "idea of Jehovah's Witnesses posing any serious threat to national security [is] absurd," she writes in the Moscow Times.25 She is joined in that description by Rachel Denber, deputy director of the Europe and Central Asia division at Human Rights Watch. It is the 2002 anti-extremism law that is absurd in its scope, Denber asserts, more so than the Court decision that logically stems from it. The law effectively "prohibits any group, except the Orthodox Church and a few other traditions, from claiming the true path to salvation. The Witnesses do claim it, she says, "but not in a way that should land them on the same list of outlaws that includes al-Qaida and the Islamic State group."26

Are Witnesses totalitarian? Do they control people? It is nonsense. College is more 'controlling' than anything Witnesses devise, as discussed in chapter 7. Unlike the Witness experience, college overwhelms and replaces former associates from Day One—gone completely is the stabilizing influence of family, community groups, and long-held friends. Enemies dislike the _conclusions_ that Jehovah's Witnesses have come to. They mask it with concern about their 'controlling methods'—methods that are significantly less controlling than that of the greater world's system of education. "Indeed, the word of God is living and effective, sharper than any two-edged sword, penetrating even between soul and spirit, joints and marrow, and able to discern reflections and thoughts of the heart," says the Letter to the Hebrews.27 The Witness opponent's response amounts to: "If it penetrates more than butter, it is too sharp."

"Old age and treachery will always beat youth and exuberance," says playwright David Mamet. The old were once young and they searched for answers. They found none on most meaningful things, and they gave up. American flower children of the 60s grew into adults more shallow than their parents, ever seeking and never finding, because they dared not search too far off the beaten path. Young people ever insist that they now see the light previously hidden. It is not that way. They have but identified some of the problems, especially the ones that afflict them personally. Identifying the answer is another thing entirely. Their parents eventually gave up. Some want their youngsters to give up, too, and settle for a life practical and comfortable. It is risky to so shunt aside spiritual things. For want of spiritual grounding, people are set adrift. Suicide even becomes faddish among the young. Friends and family express shock. Tragically, the vanilla values they hoped their young would embrace did nothing to prepare them for the assault of modern life.

Witnesses have built up street credibility. They do the work. They log the time. The fair-minded person hears them out on that account alone. Don't spin stories about their pathetic "need" to "save" people. Their course is no more than putting the lamp on the lampstand by people who know light when they see it and know that one can function better with it than without it.28 Grumblers try to malign the work. It is only because someone is "making Witnesses do it," they say. If they say it to me, I invite them to look around and identify that person.

Chalk it up to the Greek word most commonly used in Scripture to convey love: 'agape.' There are four words used in the New Testament that are translated 'love,' but far-and-away the most frequent is agape. It is a principled type of love that attaches itself to an object and does not let go until its purpose is realized. It explains how, with regard to some, love can precede like. Usually the best course is not to correct, but to concede. It _is_ a little absurd that a "loving" stranger should appear out of thin air and profess a desire to teach the Bible. Admit it and move on. It is part of the theatrical performance Christians provide for the world in a play that is alternately noble and ridiculous.

Not only should speaking with Jehovah's Witnesses be permitted—one might say (though no one does) that it should be a requirement. Jehovah's Witnesses offer a safe setting in which one can talk about matters that are off the grid of daily life: matters not mundane, matters spiritual. Witnesses are not out to defraud anyone. They are not out for any sordid purpose. If you tell them 'no,' they go away. It is a parent's worst fear that his or her youngster may be drawn into something radical, something that purports to offer answers to questions that they, the parents, have not figured out and have come to expect no more, even supposing it dangerous to pursue such answers. Deep down, they have learned to give up on discerning deep matters of life such as 'Why is there suffering?' 'What is the overall purpose of life?' 'What happens at death?'—they have largely given up on discerning the nature of God, or even if there is a God, yet they are unsure that their offspring will also give up, as they must if they are to carve a traditional career in this system of things. The greater world distrusts those becoming too serious about the Bible, for fear the ones so affected may run a bit crazy, forgetting completely the goals that have been laid out for them. The fear is that they may develop other goals, goals leading off the charted path. What if they even carry on as did Jesus, getting himself killed over religion? Keep religion in its place. Ban those who do not.

Jehovah's Witnesses offer a safe setting to explore unconventional ideas with regular people. The worst you can do is to get stuck with somebody awkward or boorish. This _can_ happen despite training not to be that way, for Jehovah's Witnesses are just regular people. But even at their 'worst,' they want nothing from anyone. They are not recruiting. Sometimes, when I am speaking with someone hung up over such things, I will say: "If it helps, let us both agree that there is no way on God's green earth that you are going to become a Witness. You know it. I know it. So you needn't worry about me maneuvering to that end." Yes, I would like to see it. But it is so extraordinarily improbable with any given person—it would take up to a year of discussion were one to join up—that no Witness seriously entertains that prospect in their ordinary contacts. One cannot participate in a Bible discussion without knowing something of the Bible, and usually Witness visits are made solely with that immediate goal.

One can get stuck with a pest. But one will never get stuck with a menace. At worst it will be someone overeager for a cause and imperceptive. The news is good news, not bad news, and so the temptation is to over-present. Even so, it will be good training for a child on how to deal with the tangle that is humanity today. It represents 'training wheels' for later in life when one will run across scoundrels who are up to no good and one may not know just how to deal with them. Having briefly conversed with an adolescent who turned out to be the only person at home, I took my leave and headed down the drive. The boy's mother pulled up in her car. I told her that I had asked a brief question to her child and he had answered intelligently. "You should be proud of him," I said.

A new stage of hardball was reached when the Russian Supreme Court added the involvement of children in sects or extremist organizations to the list off offenses for which parental rights might be terminated.29 Only two groups of children were identified for State-imposed resocializing: children of ISIS members and "tens of thousands of children and adolescents" in families of Jehovah's Witnesses.30 There have been no reports of it happening as of March 2018, but it is a new tool in the toolbox. The proposal does not cause public outrage, but rather enjoys wide popular support. A survey by the All-Russian Center for Study of Public Opinion showed a 79% approval rate.31

Is it a bad thing for parents to teach their children? Should children take their parental training to heart, is it a bad thing to let them follow through on it? It is spun that way in an increasingly irreligious world. Yet, it is not true that if you withhold teaching your child, he will grow up free and unencumbered and, when of age, choose for himself values among life's rich cornucopia of ideas. No. All it means is that someone else will teach him. There are many who would claim the role. Surely the educational system will. Even the Boy Scouts, founded in 1908 in Great Britain by a lieutenant general of the British army, serves to acclimatize children to the notion of patriotic service in uniform and advancement through the ranks, as though in preparation for the military.32

Among the philosophical underpinnings of compulsory public education in the Western world is that it is well if children are separated early from the possible pernicious influence of the parents so as to be molded by greater society.33 Thus, schooling cannot wait until adolescence; it must start early. To this day, compulsory school advocates stress the imperative of socialization, which they maintain is only to be found in schools. Observing the actions of many youths today, it ought to be clear that socialization does not necessarily tip the balance favorably.

When Witness parents are progressive, as all are exhorted to be, they will incorporate into their child's training the family resources found abundantly in Watchtower publications. They will thereby produce emotionally secure offspring. Ideally these will stand up to the current flood of propaganda that labels Christianity passé or even undesirable. It is no more than Parental Glory Award recipient Novik quoting the proverb that gives proof God authorizes and expects parents to provide such training: "Teach the boy on the right path; he will not shy away from it, even when he grows old." Even should children reassess later in life and indeed shy away, they yet have a secure foundation to build upon. At the very least, with a Witness upbringing, they will be comfortable speaking before an audience, a prospect that terrifies many an adult, but which the majority of Witnesses can do without fuss.

We are, to a great degree, who we associate with. It is intellectually flattering to think otherwise. It is also nonsense. That is why we acquiesce so quickly to style changes and say of yesterday's cars: 'We used to be happy driving _those_ toasters?' We run with the herd not just on small things like styles, but on all things. Always there are those eager to insert themselves up front so as to direct the herd this way or that. In almost all cases, nobody cares more about the child than does the parent. That does not necessarily mean they are right on all things, but it does mean that their concerns should never be blown off as nothing.

Witness children who embrace their moral training may decide to dedicate their lives to God and symbolize it in baptism even at an age as young as ten. Their parents and the Witness organization itself have been criticized for it. Is it a fine idea to allow Witness children to be baptized so young? It clearly is for those who will remain. Having made a commitment, they strive to live up to it, as would be the case for any cause anywhere. Some reassess later in life, however, and family rifts may thereby develop, for the Christian world and the overall world are like diametrically opposed political parties, and diametrically opposed political parties have been known to divide families.

If only one could tell in advance who was who. If only one could tell in advance who would stay and who would one day depart. You could then tell the latter to hold off from dedication without hamstringing the former. When someone invents such a predictor, please let me know. Meanwhile, if you find something good, it is never considered wrong to dedicate yourself to it at a young age. Successful businesspeople do that. Scientists do that. Entertainers do that. Athletes do that. I've never heard one of them criticized for it. Usually they are lauded for reaching out in quest of their dreams.

During our family's homeschooling days, a local couple was fined for violation of the child labor laws. They owned a small deli. It was nothing for their children to take turns at the cash register when they returned from school, and one was doing so the day that Child Protective Services appeared. Sharing in the function of the family business is not exactly reaching for dreams, but it clearly is a part of growing up and learning to handle responsibility. Homeschool pioneer John Holt opined that (not regarding this case, but he had many others) this was the very reason children become delinquent. They are shut out of the adult world under the guise of protecting them.

Should a baptized Witness child later leave the faith, he or she generally finds that most Witnesses lose interest in association. As in most things, people seek out common interests. Look at how many families have been divided over Trump/Hillary in the United States. Does one really think that when Kathy Griffin holds aloft the mock, bloodied head of the President,34 her Republican dad (if he is) says "That's my lass! She speaks her mind! It won't affect Thanksgiving dinner, though."?

So ones who leaves the faith usually finds that they lose all their Witness friends, and even family, though not in so formal a way. It _becomes_ formal, however, when they leave with a splash—either a determination to practice what is wrong within the congregation or a public denouncement of it. Both courses are likely to trigger disassociation and distancing. One must concede that if someone was baptized young and later left on bad terms and finds himself or herself distanced by family because of it, that is not a good place to be. Who cannot empathize with that? Having said that, it is entirely possible for a person baptized young who later decides to leave to do so without triggering avoidance. Fade. Drift away. Or just tell a few that you don't want to do it anymore. There are some anti-Witness factions that encourage such ones to go out with a bang and tell them all off at the Kingdom Hall! By following their advice, one virtually assures the outcome that they will be avoided. Few governments will smilingly watch their citizens declare them illegitimate, and it is no different in Jehovah's nation. One wonders why any outfit—often "apostates" do this—would recommend such a confrontation, knowing the disruption it will bring on a family.

To serve God faithfully in treacherous times takes a toll. It did before. It does today. People are not stone. They are flesh and blood. Sometimes they complain. Baruch did. After taking flak from opponents, serving alongside Jeremiah for decades, he complained mightily. God readjusted him in the 45th chapter of the Book of Jeremiah: "You said, 'Woe is me! the LORD has added grief to my pain. I have worn myself out with groaning; rest eludes me.' You must say this to him: Thus says the LORD: 'What I have built, I am tearing down; what I have planted, I am uprooting: all this land. And you, do you seek great things for yourself? Do not seek them! I am bringing evil on all flesh—oracle of the LORD —but I will grant you your life as spoils of war, wherever you may go.'"35

His timing was off, that's all. He wanted 'great things?' Nothing wrong with that. Who doesn't want them? But he had forgotten where he was in the stream of time. God was to be "bringing evil on all flesh." If he didn't bolt, he would be granted his "life as spoils of war, wherever you may go." One is again reminded of the NPR story 'Lack Of Education Leads To Lost Dreams And Low Income For Many Jehovah's Witnesses.' Where does one look for fulfillment of dreams? Not all dreams occur at the most convenient time.

Does one believe it or not—that one is in the final days of this world, however long those days may continue? It is not a question without consequence. Witnesses are serious about their faith. They look beyond this system of things to the new one promised. They make changes in their present life on that account. But if anyone reverses this hope, and decides _this_ world is the one to watch, then their entire life as a Baruch at Jeremiah's side becomes pointless. Some have decided just that, and they have become disgruntled over the time lost. Some accuse former friends of brainwashing or manipulation: a course which is far easier than admitting that one made a decision that didn't work out.

That Baruch made the right decision for his time becomes apparent in the very next chapter of Jeremiah. The calamity that the prophet spoke of takes place. Of Babylon, God says: "You are my hammer, a weapon for war; with you I shatter nations, with you I destroy kingdoms. With you I shatter horse and rider, with you I shatter chariot and driver. With you I shatter man and woman, with you I shatter old and young, with you I shatter the young man and young woman. With you I shatter shepherd and flock, with you I shatter farmer and team, with you I shatter governors and officers."36 Baruch was probably glad that he got on the right side of that one. Whatever inconveniences he had put himself to, which were considerable, they probably seemed worthwhile. There comes a time when God has had it up to here. Through Ezekiel, he says "I have heard all the insults you spoke against the mountains of Israel...You boasted against me with your mouths and used insolent words against me. I heard everything!"37 It is good to go back into your archives and strike out all your insolent words when he starts to carry on like that.

"Demas, enamored of the present world, deserted me," writes Paul to Timothy.38 It is a verse not meaningful to those whose religion differs little from the present world. They may think that they will go to heaven when they die, they may think that God is a Trinity, they may pursue one or two hot-button topics, such as abortion or opposition to, they may advocate for this or that political candidate, but in all major respects, their goals are that of the greater world. It is _this_ world that they hope to make their mark in, not some nebulous world to come. Jehovah's Witnesses look primarily to the world to come. Paul calls it "the life that is true life." Witnesses take practical positions harmonizing with that atypical goal, and it results in many a mischaracterization, some of which are deliberate on the part of their detractors. Everywhere the first century sect that is Christianity is denounced, says Acts. Everywhere they "insult you and persecute you and utter every kind of evil against you."39 You don't pick on groups that people like; you pick on groups that people don't like—just as people most assuredly did not like Christians in the apostle Paul's time.

Chapter 8 endnotes

Return to Table of Contents

# Chapter 9 – Discipline

After my father died at 94 years of age, family members emptied out his home. I had never before peeked into his office den desk. I came across a heavy leather belt and I thought of keeping it because it was heavy and it was leather, not the cheap junk they sell today that falls apart in no time at all. "You know what that is, don't you?" said my brother. "It's THE BELT!" Gasp!!

It didn't happen like clockwork, but neither was it an especially rare occurence. "Just wait until your father gets home!" my outmaneuvered mother would say. She'd tell on me the moment he walked through the door and then it was one sore rear end for me!

It was reassuring to my sense of history to see that belt, for the revisionists try to rewrite the past to pretend that corporal punishment was phased out in the civilized world eons ago. In fact, it was an absolutely unremarkable aspect of child-rearing just a few decades ago. It was not necessarily a belt. Usually a sound spanking sufficed. Some had it worse than a mere belt. My older friend's dad had him cut his own switch from a tree, and if it wasn't big enough, dear old dad would cut one himself the size of a two by four.

It was days of long ago. Don't misunderstand. I make no argument for its return. Don't think that I do. Having said that, it is by no means clear that today's children are happier and better adjusted because of its disappearance.

The etymology of the word 'discipline' reveals that it has to do with primarily with training.1 It can incorporate punishment, but that is only a footnote. "Train the young in the way they should go; even when old, they will not swerve from it," says Proverbs 22:6. This is the verse that Valery Novik cited in accepting the Order of Parental Glory Award from President Putin. Discipline, as presented in Scripture, is primarily instruction and repetition. "Take to heart these words which I command you today. Keep repeating them to your children. Recite them when you are at home and when you are away, when you lie down and when you get up," says the Torah.2

How can one not commend Russia for simply _having_ an 'Order of Parental Glory' award? presented by the president himself, no less. Public policy caters much less to family in Western lands; it certainly stops far short of honoring fine examples publicly. There is much of contemporary policy that would undermine family life. It is too bad that President Putin does not read the marriage and family sections of JW.org and watch the cartoons for the children and whiteboards for the teenagers. He would confer the Parental Glory award upon the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, even though most of them are not parents.

It is a shame that the Novik family is now forbidden to speak about their faith, since they have credited that faith with making them the glorious family that they are in the first place. Indeed, one cannot even say with certainty that they still have custody of their children, since the Supreme Court has authorized the removal of children for involving them in activities of a sect or extremist organization.3 Everyone knows it is Jehovah's Witnesses they have in mind, unless they are thinking of the community-minded ISIS family down the street, the other designated extremist group. It is a satanic ruling that equals anything of Stalin's era. There can be little doubt that Russian Witnesses call to mind the loyal ones' retort to the ancient king's threat to hurl steadfast Jews into the flames: "If our God, whom we serve, can save us from the white-hot furnace and from your hands, O king, may he save us! But even if he will not, you should know, O king, that we will not serve your god or worship the golden statue which you set up," the three brave lads told him.4 Imagine imposing such a trial on family heads today; even if they were those whom Putin did not give the prize to, it is unspeakable.

For some time after this writer became one of Jehovah's Witnesses in the 1970s, he would tell persons that marriages lasted among Jehovah's Witnesses and that divorce was unheard of. It was not true. But it wasn't that far from not true. 'One never heard of divorce?' No, it was I who never heard of divorce among the Witnesses and thus assumed it didn't happen. For a new person to think that in a population where everyone quickly comes to know everyone else, they had to be as scarce as hen's teeth, and they were. But they did happen. They even accelerated later amidst an overall explosion of divorce in the greater world that jettisoned away the very concept of permanent monogamous relationship as though something archaic—something to 'move on' from.

Witnesses were then the ducks emerging into the raging current that were slowed down but did not give up. They continued on course. Actually, the literal ducks I witnessed on a recent visit to Canada _did_ give up; they emerged from the shelter of a bridge abutment into an unexpectedly raging current following heavy downpours, paddled valiantly for a few seconds and then thought better of it, turning about and going with the flow. Many church members did likewise regarding marriage when confronted with the flood of a new morality. Unsupported in meaningful ways by their own church, they soon yielded to the current. The Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses doubled down with supplying the right biblical education at the right time, and determination to abide by Bible standards in this regard was, and is ever, continually fortified among the congregations.

It is by not taking a firm stand that illicit conduct is entrenched. God singles out adultery as illicit conduct. It is not a passing phase with him, but it is among the Ten Commandments of Moses.5 Jesus even expands upon it to advise that lustful longing for another's wife is the same as adultery 'within one's heart.'6 It is not hard to see why man's Maker would dislike it. It breaks up families on a scale to make the most sinister cult look like a beneficent marriage counselor. Adultery is not something a marriage readily gets over. Unfailingly it corrodes families, the bedrock of any society. Not only do children in the household suffer, but married children out of the household suffer; their own marriages are imperiled as they wrestle with the question: 'If my own parents could not make a go of it, what chance have I?'7 You do not, in any way, want to normalize adultery. It is a malady like those Paul speaks of that spreads like gangrene.

Nonetheless, it is normalized today. When I worked on a job with mostly young people, I let slip that I had been married over twenty years. It was as though I told them I was from another planet. Products of broken homes, most of them, they had never heard of a marriage lasting so long. What chance is there that they will put trust in a model they have never seen work? Adultery is among the reasons God cast aside his ancient people of the Old Testament, summoning Babylon to scatter them. They were as lustful stallions back then, 'neighing' after another's wife.8 In words more mundane than Jeremiah, but dealing with the same time period, Ezekiel lambastes a disobedient nation: "Each of you has defiled his neighbor's wife."9 One wonders how literal it can be? ' _Each_ of you?' Don't open the door to that sort of behavior, because the herd will stampede through. Others who never would have thought of such a thing will entertain the idea once they see it has become in vogue.

Adultery is seriously dealt with in Witness congregations. It is not shrugged off as one of those things. It is the one recognized grounds for divorce that the Bible allows. Many an unrepentant person has been disfellowshipped for adultery. Almost always it involves some scheming so that immediate claims of repentance are taken with a substantial grain of salt. Some eventually make their way back into the congregation, for God is the ultimate judge. Others never do. This policy of no tolerance for adultery was used against the Witness organization at the April trial, presented as evidence of extremism. A summary of one day's testimony included: "The essence of [one witness for the prosecution's] the statement came down to what she said was the existing 'complete and total control of life by the Administrative Center.' Responding to a request from the judge to cite instances of control, [she] reported that an example was her expulsion from the congregations after she 'began her close, but not officially registered, relations with a man,'"10 The acceptance of such 'evidence' is but another way of declaring religion should exist so long as it does not do anything meaningful.

On the mild end of congregation discipline, which usually suffices, there are reminders, elucidation, and admonition. But discipline reserves the right to coerce, to rebuke, and to punish. "Do not withhold discipline from youths; if you beat them with the rod, they will not die," says the proverb, and then even recommends that course as a means to save them from death, continuing: "Beat them with a rod and you will save them from Sheol." [Hebrew, meaning the grave]11

So unpopular has corporal punishment become in the West that even Jehovah's Witnesses refrain from acting upon these verses. When the Western media covers spanking now, it tells of a fundamentalist church member who unrelentingly spanks his child until he dies, trying to elicit choice words of contrition from the lad that he refuses to say.12 In the face of uncontrollable conduct in the schools, a few administrators have gingerly allowed that corporal punishment might have a tiny place after all. In this new world, a child is occasionally spanked a single time or two with a paddle, and there are teachers, sometimes parents and principal, to witness it, to ensure it does not get out of hand. The American Civil Liberties Union regards it as a major affront to human dignity.13 What was once as routine as breathing air has now nearly gone extinct. Middle Eastern refugees, some of whom respond to the kingdom message, are dumbfounded that perfectly acceptable child-rearing practices from back home are absolutely taboo in their new home. We tell them that it is not just they, but old-time American parents feel similarly disempowered. What was once allowed and even encouraged can now land them in serious legal hot water.

History rewritten does not mean the old did not exist. The constant refrain of my youth and the generation prior was of how persons hated physical discipline as youngsters but became glad of it later. Even those graduating from Catholic schools, where corporal punishment could be draconian, where ruler-wielding nuns whacked knuckles for the slightest infraction, would often reflect (rightly or wrongly) that they had benefited from it. But times have changed, and 'corporal punishment' today is a pejorative phrase.

Discipline in the Bible, which can include physical punishment but does not defer to it first, is portrayed as a good thing, even a necessary thing in raising children. "Discipline your children, and they will bring you comfort, and give delight to your soul," says Proverbs 29:17. "At the time, all discipline seems a cause not for joy but for pain, yet later it brings the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who are trained by it," adds Hebrews 12:11

Neglecting discipline is painted as a bad thing. "Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge, but whoever hates reproof is stupid." (Proverbs 12:1) "Whoever spares the rod hates the child, but whoever loves will apply discipline." (Proverbs 13:24) "If you are without discipline, in which all have shared, you are not sons but bastards." (Hebrews 12:8)

The model of family discipline can be extended to illustrate how Jehovah deals with his worshippers in general. "So you must know in your heart that, even as a man disciplines his son, so the LORD, your God, disciplines you." (Deuteronomy 8:5) "Besides this, we have had our earthly fathers to discipline us, and we respected them. Should we not [then] submit all the more to the Father of spirits and live?" (Hebrews 12:9) "Endure your trials as 'discipline'; God treats you as sons. For what 'son' is there whom his father does not discipline?" (Hebrews 12:7)

It benefits them: "Happy the one whom God reproves! The Almighty's discipline do not reject." (Job 5:17) Discipline is not to be rejected even though it can sometimes be severe, as follows: "We cried out in anguish under your [God's] discipline." (Isaiah 26:16) Also: "I will continue in my hostile rage toward you, and I myself will discipline you for your sins sevenfold." (Leviticus 26:28)

One can also extend the model of discipline to illustrate how God deals with those of the Christian congregation. Of Israel, we read: "Then these city elders shall take the man and discipline him." (Deuteronomy 22:18) In the Christian congregation, discipline was mostly general: "For the command is a lamp, and the teaching a light, and a way to life are the reproofs that discipline." (Proverbs 6:23) "Fear of the LORD is the beginnig of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and discipline." (Proverbs 1:7) Yet those who taught in the congregation would teach such discipline publicly and _privately—_ it could be individualized. "Brothers, even if a person is caught in some transgression, you who are spiritual should correct that one in a gentle spirit, looking to yourself, so that you also may not be tempted," says Galatians 6:1. It could escalate in severity: "Reprimand publicly those who do sin, so that the rest also will be afraid." (1 Timothy 5:20*) It could even become in severe cases: "Purge the evil person from your midst." (1 Corinthians 5:13)

*The "extremist" New World Translation is the more balanced here. It renders "reprimand publicly" as the more literal "reprove before all onlookers." The Governing Body reasoned long ago that "all onlookers" will be those who know of a particular sin, which would seldom include everyone in the congregation. More often it would be just a handful of persons. Moreover, "reproof" indicates an appeal to the heart: a far cry from shaming a person before all as a "practicer of sin." Reproof, when necessary within the Witness framework, is done privately between the elders and the individual before such "onlookers."14

Discipline applied in the Christian congregation benefits individuals, but it is not administered solely for their sakes. Jehovah's Witnesses recognize an obligation to God to present to him a clean people. The Witness Governing Body dares not treat him shabbily, for this is no passing fancy with him. In the Bible Book of Acts can be found the record of a meeting to determine Christian policy: "Symeon [Peter] has described how God first concerned himself with acquiring from among the Gentiles a people for his name," James tells the other congregation leaders. His _name_ is what must be honored. "Hallowed (make sacred) be thy name," Jesus instructs in the 'Our Father' prayer.15

The people of the congregation become, in effect, an advertisement for God and for his name. If they maintain conduct separate and distinct from that of a morally decaying world, it reflects well upon him and draws other persons of good heart. If they do not, it becomes clear to others that Christian worship does nothing for a person and is but a social and sermonizing clique. To please God, the congregation knows that it must adhere to his standards. Discipline ranging from the very mild to quite severe is part of the package. The ones who rail at congregation discipline as harmful, such as the anti-cult people and the Satanists, are invariably those focused upon individual rights. Yet not everything can be about the individual. Uncorrected bad influences spread "like gangrene." Humans are built that way.16

Sexuality in modern times has proven itself more fluid than anyone would have imagined. It does not constrain itself to a one-man/one-woman policy. It does not respect any underage cutoff barrier. It does not respect gender lines; it goes from hetero to bi-sexual to gay and back again. Homosexual relationships, which have always existed, are now beyond edgy and have entered the mainstream in the West. Who knows why it is, but it is. There is the suggestion, from chapter 8, that ubiquitous plastic contains chemicals that interact with living tissue much as does the hormone estrogen. Romans 1:26 is not generally regarded as prophetic, but it could be taken as the Bible's most striking prophesy: "Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another." It is not the existence, but the widespread embrace that is staggering; nobody of my generation would have foreseen it. Recently a local couple had their gay pride flag stolen. It was a major news event. I do not condone stealing anyone's gay pride flag and I have never felt an urge to do it. But the _national_ flag can be worn as underwear and people barely raise an eyebrow.

God's name is not honored by presenting him with a motley assortment of unruly people. This is why many become Jehovah's Witnesses in the first place—they are not drafted against their will. They know that measuring up to God's higher standards will only benefit them. They know instinctively that discipline is not a bad thing. Congregation discipline is usually mere public instruction that the listener takes to heart, unbeknownst to anyone. Correction is usually quite mild, though it can escalate when lesser means have been exhausted to no effect and when a given provocation is serious enough.

God will ultimately judge those outside. But as for those inside, that is for congregation shepherds to apply Bible discipline.17 To ignore God's perceived standards is to be a false advertisement of him. It is to be "fake news" about him. Witnesses realize that God must not be thus shortchanged. 'My people are a reflection of my high standards,' he would say. 'They can't be too high, then,' people respond, looking around in many places, but not in the Witness congregation. If Witnesses carry on about high standards, the intent is not to be self-righteous. It is a manifestation of their being unwilling to displease God by ignoring his requirements.

This newfound concern, in the case of those becoming Witnesses, is not necessarily appreciated by former friends or even family. Peter says: "For the time that has passed is sufficient for doing what the Gentiles like to do: living in debauchery, evil desires, drunkenness, orgies, carousing, and wanton idolatry. They are surprised that you do not plunge into the same swamp of profligacy, and they vilify you."18 They don't quite know what to make of those new concerns and 'high standards,' but they figure it out in a hurry, and they figure out that the proper response is to "vilify" those taking to it. Those truly living Christianity will automatically trigger some hostility from those who do not, for the latter read into it an inherent, even though unexpressed, judgment.

The Book of Romans counsels Christians: "You who preach against stealing, do you steal? You who forbid adultery, do you commit adultery? You who detest idols, do you rob temples? You who boast of the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? For, as it is written, 'Because of you the name of God is reviled among the Gentiles.'"19 The Governing Body does not want to see the Name reviled on its watch. That would be an abuse of its authority, if not from the standpoint of humans, certainly from that of God. It is not management of a bake sale they are dealing with. It is the Name. Of miscreants, we read: "Furthermore, many will follow their brazen conduct, and because of them the way of the truth will be spoken of abusively."20 The Governing Body doesn't want that to happen, either, and they counter it to the extent of their ability.

Is it a crime for an organization to insist upon maintaining Bible-based morality among its members—particularly when members sign on exactly because they prefer that morality? Jehovah's Witnesses have chosen to maintain congregation discipline as a buttress to good intentions, which do not alone always suffice, for we are human and swayed by many influences. Those who would deprive them of that right are those who would neuter religion. They are those who would wish it to be a support club for the greater world, and nothing more. Many groups during the past century have chosen to discard discipline. They have that option of course. It is hardly clear that people are better adjusted for having taken that option, however.

Witnesses keep 'shunning' in their tool chest of discipline as a 'Hail Mary play.' It is a last-ditch attempt to insist upon godly morality of voluntary members when all else has failed. At any time, ones who have joined the Witness faith are free to leave. So long as they remain, however, they must live the godly principles they have signed on for. Shunning has a place as a play of last resort. When employed it is tough on the individual, as tough discipline always is. But the individual cannot ever be the sole concern. When you hear people treating "the greater good" as a pejorative phrase, then you know the pendulum has overswung towards individual rights. Christianity is nothing if not about recognizing "the greater good," and it starts with its founder. Did Jesus die because he wanted to assert his rights as an individual?

There was a time when most Christian denominations knew this. There was a time when most Christian denominations disciplined their own members as needed, for they dared not ignore God's insistence of a clean people. No one had to be a biblical Christian back then, but if they chose to become one, they were to abide by 'the rules'. While the rules make plenty of allowance for human imperfection, they cannot be blown off as nothing. "We appeal to you not to receive the grace of God in vain," says 2 Corinthians 6:1.

This is why the Witness organization takes an interest in the conduct of its members, which is now spun as a negative in a world that increasingly denigrates or seeks to redefine religion. It takes such interest, not in order to be intrusive or controlling, but in order to comply with the greater Christian requirements as laid out in the Bible. Even whatever pedophile records exist, which have blown up in the Witness organization's face, would not have existed but for the purpose of identifying this pernicious group so that they be could punished to the degree required and thereafter monitored so that they would not slip from one congregation into another, as they can anywhere else—something no other religions attempt to do. We will visit this white-hot topic in a chapter to come.

Just as Daniel apologized for his countrymen, though he had done nothing blameworthy himself, so Ronald J. Sider bemoans America's evangelicals, telling it all in his 2005 book, The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience.21 Sure, they believe the Bible, as they are quick to tell you. But they don't practice the Bible. They don't apply it in their personal lives. Some do. Some are upright. But in no greater proportion than the world in general.

It wasn't supposed to be that way, a point which chapter two of his book makes abundantly clear. That chapter is as concise and comprehensive a discussion of the purposed application of the Bible to morality as you will see anywhere. Taking each New Testament book in succession, Mr. Sider highlights verse after verse to show that Christians were (and are) expected to live under Christ's law, and that doing so would produce a people who lived so decently that their _lives_ , not merely their words, would be a drawing card to the faith:

"Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us." (1 Peter 2:12 NIV. Here we will employ the translation Sider employs, the New International Version, which is also safe and legal to read in Russia. They all are, except for the New World Translation.) "The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God." (Galatians 5:19-21) "If Paul is even close to being right about what it means to be a Christian, one can only weep at the scandalous behavior of Christians today," Mr. Sider states. "How many preachers today speak that clearly about the sins of greed, adultery, and slander?"

He quotes again 1 Peter, just as we have above, but in a different translation: "For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do—living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry. They think it strange that you do not plunge with them into the same flood of dissipation, and they heap abuse on you." (1 Peter 4:3-4) Apparently, the countercultural lifestyle of these early Christians was obvious to outsiders, he notes. Not so today among the evangelical community. "Our disobedient lifestyles crucify our Lord anew," he writes. After reviewing the evidence, "we have seen the stunning contrast between what Jesus and the early church said and did and what so many evangelicals do today. Hopefully that contrast will drive us to our knees, first to repent and then to ask God to help us understand the causes of this scandalous failure and the steps we can take to correct it."22

Mr. Sider then does just that, and then goes on to offer some remedies. _You cannot read these remedies without noting that they are the very building blocks of the Jehovah's Witness organization_. They are all matters of discipline and organization. And they do, to a great degree, solve the woes Mr. Sider describes. First, says Mr. Sider, the Western world's obsession with independence must end, to be replaced with recognition that Christians are a community belonging to, and having responsibility for, each other. Paul goes so far as to say Christians ought to be slaves to one another. Galatians 5:13 literally reads "be slaves to each other," yet most popular translations, Mr. Sider notes, dilute the verse to a more independence-savoring "serve one another in love."23 (but not so the New World Translation. It reads: [redacted])

Many churches today trumpet that they are "independent Bible believing," yet the very notion is "heretical," says Mr. Sider.24 To be part of the body of Christ, a church must align itself with a larger structure to give "guidance, supervision, direction, and accountability." Jehovah's Witnesses have exactly such a structure in their Governing Body. Opponents rail against it as an agency employing "mind control."

Secondly, Mr. Sider suggests, any congregation with over fifty members ought to arrange its people into small groups, where oversight and encouragement can more effectively be offered.25 They're called "service meeting groups." Since as long as anyone can remember, congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses have made use of such small groups.

'Make it harder to join' is a third suggestion.26 Evangelical Conscience points to early Anabaptists and Wesleyans, as though no modern examples existed, Jehovah's Witnesses being a "cult" to many of them. These groups took their time admitting new members, ensuring that their _conduct_ as well as words lined up with Christ's teachings. They did not just settle for a quick "accept the Lord and be saved." Jehovah's Witnesses are well known for requiring an extensive period of Bible study and application as a prerequisite to baptism.

Lastly, "parachurch" organizations, groups like Youth for Christ, that transcend the larger church structure, have, by definition, no accountability to anybody: "Many of the worst, most disgraceful actions that embarrass and discredit the evangelical world come from this radical autonomy," says Evangelical Conscience. Somehow, such groups have to be brought into tow, though Mr. Sider admits that he has no clue as to how to accomplish this.27 The Governing Body does and implements it, despite howls of protests from the anti-cultists.

Some variation of the internal discipline now practiced by Jehovah's Witnesses was practiced in most Protestant denominations until less than 100 years ago and was based on the same scriptures that Ronald Sider identifies. But when it became unpopular, they gave it up. As a result, the morals and lifestyle of today's evangelical church members are indistinguishable from that of the general populace. The ones who actually apply Christianity are left unreinforced, in some ways even challenged, by their own church. Long-time Witnesses will recall circuit overseers pointing out that 60 years 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 and the organization daring to implement it not be the deciding factor?

As a method of last resort, the Bible authorizes expulsion from the Christian community: "I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people, not at all referring to the immoral of this world or the greedy and robbers or idolaters; for you would then have to leave the world. But I now write to you not to associate with anyone named a brother, if he is immoral, greedy, an idolater, a slanderer, a drunkard, or a robber, not even to eat with such a person. For why should I be judging outsiders? Is it not your business to judge those within? God will judge those outside. 'Purge the evil person from your midst.'"28

Jehovah's Witnesses live according to Bible morality; the fact is widely recognized. However, such living is not to be taken for granted. It does not happen without discipline to reinforce each members' resolve to live as Christ did. Expulsion from the congregation is never taken lightly. It always represents a last-ditch effort to reach the individual in addition to protecting the congregation from corrosive influence. Is it necessary? Suffice it to say no group has succeeded in adhering to Bible morality without it. Everyone else is carried along by the winds of popular opinion—some hanging on trees for a while as though in a hurricane, and some already caught in flight, hurtling along and loosening the grips, through collision, of those attempting to hang on.

Church discipline used to be a significant, accepted part of most evangelical traditions, 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," Robinson writes, "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."29

Get this undisciplined church mob away from here! Because of their misdeeds, those who must preach the good news in all the inhabited earth suffer. Unfortunately, this is the model that the anti-cult experts today favor, those who attempt to neuter serious religion so as not to pose a challenge for the bland religion they prefer—religion that mounts no threat to their world-view. 'Does God want a clean people? Tell him to take a hike. They'll be 'clean' if they want to, but there must be no outside influence,' say the anti-cult people. Sider's book aptly demonstrates that they will not be clean in that circumstance.

Who would have thought that the greater world would pry into Christianity's internal discipline in an attempt to short-circuit it? Most of religion has complied with this new normal of "hands off" as to conduct. They have come to acquiesce that religion is not to be taken too seriously. It is not to get into morals. Morals in the abstract is okay, but insistence on individual morals is "controlling people." " _We'll_ handle that if we deem it objectionable—and little of it is," says the overall world. Discipline used to be "an accepted and significant part of most evangelical traditions," Mr. Sider writes. "You cannot do it anymore," declare the anti-cultists; "We've moved on." With both hands tied behind its back, their Christianity cannot and does not deliver the moral goods, providing detractors ample reason to condemn it. The anti-cult movement is a movement to stamp out meaningful religion. One cannot state it more concisely.

Disfellowshipping among Jehovah's Witnesses is a last-ditch application of discipline to be applied when all else has failed. Aspects of it may be arguable. The general idea is not. The Witness governing arrangement is ever conscious of the individual, for they know that people are fragile and that this system of things appears almost _designed_ to expose a person's individual fragility and then exploit it to the fullest degree. God is not blind to the individual, for 'not a sparrow falls to the ground unnoticed,' but he is intensely jealous over the moral cleanness and exclusive devotion of the group. He shows no sign of getting over it. The Christian congregation is not to be a mere typical slice of society modified by a smiling God logo. It should truly represent morals above and beyond. It should be an oasis for those tired of today's widespread moral decay. This result is not something that happens by chance, but it happens by members watching over themselves individually and as a group. It doesn't happen for Sider's people because they neglect those things, to his disappointment.

It has been a dozen years or so since the expression 'disfellowship' has been heard in a Kingdom Hall. On occasion the announcement is read that so-and-so is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Let me tell you that it goes over like a dirge—it is a very sad announcement. It is a lose-lose for both parties, and the light at the end of the tunnel seems not so bright at all—by no means a sure thing. When all provisions for correction and mercy have been exhausted, a person is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses if he or she persists in conduct or speech blatantly out of harmony with Bible standards. Has expulsion ever been 'the straw that broke the camel's back?' Judas was so distraught over being expelled that he committed suicide. Even so, nobody would ever think that was the fault of God, nor of his Son who declined to forget his Father's requirements. Almost always the focus today is on the rights of people as individuals. Almost never is it the rights of people as groups, as though what they are as member of groups has no bearing on what they will be as individuals.

Detractors' relentless condemnation of disfellowshipping in the Witness community stems from the viewpoint that a person's immediate well-being is the issue of ultimate importance. It is the same approach of the churches who say it is all about us: all about our own personal salvation and personal relationship with Jesus. Does God want a clean people, since a soiled one, physically, morally, or spiritually, is a reflection on him and makes him 'fake news?' Fugedaboudit! as the expression goes. Opponents would have the world believe that it is primarily about religion not stepping on the toes—ever—of any individual. State can do it if it sees fit, but not religion, for the latter has been assigned the role of "bringing us together."

Should congregation authority be so hard for the Russian government to understand? What of their old proverb about government? "Ask the children what they want for dinner, and they say: 'ice cream.' They get beetroot soup because they live under communist rule, and not a democracy." What is democracy, H.L. Mencken says, but "the pathetic notion that individual ignorance adds up to collective wisdom?" It is not so different in the Christian congregation, which is constructed biblically along something better than democratic lines.

Upping the ante significantly is the Bible's authorization of control over some types of speech. It is not an entirely foreign concept to the greater world today. 'Everyone has the right to free speech, but no one has the right to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater,' is a phrase that learned ones will agree upon. Scriptures expand upon the list of things you can't yell in a crowded congregation. New Testament letters to Timothy and Titus tell of some, even some named individually, who "must be silenced because they are disrupting whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach." Some unhealthy teachings "spread like gangrene," and "they destroy the faith of some." Two such "teachers" were "handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme." Some others were to be "rebuked sharply." It is not exactly a mecca of free speech that is described.30

Some, described in the Second Letter of John, "pushed ahead" and "did not remain in the teaching of the Christ." Of such a person we read: "Do not receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him" so as not to be "a sharer in his wicked works." Persons of Western background can scarcely believe it—discipline extends to reproving those who will not control the tongue. Here we run into problems with American-styled churches, for they are so enamored with the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence that they simply _assume_ such ideas are enshrined in the Bible. When shown they are not, they assume it anyway, as though the Bible writers would have said it had they a better way with words. It is axiomatic to them that the church should reflect Western values, the most sacrosanct of which is free speech. However, as American civil–rights advocate Joel Engardio, who was raised a Witness, recalls telling his teachers as a child (to their non-enthusiasm), that God is not an American.31

One could almost argue that the discipline over misuse of speech is the discipline of paramount importance, for the tongue can do the most damage. "The tongue is a small member and yet has great pretensions. Consider how small a fire can set a huge forest ablaze. The tongue is also a fire," says the Letter of James. Consistently, the governing arrangement of the growing first-century congregation sought to hose down all "arguments" and "pretensions" "raising itself against the knowledge of God."32

"Are you so easily stumbled? Is anyone?" says a proponent of unrestricted free speech, aghast that someone would discourage it. Is there a doctor who says the same to the patient's body cells about gangrene? The doctor of "individual rights" might dismiss gangrene as not a cause for concern, but the doctor who wishes to keep his license will not. He will not think that every cell should be able to take care of itself and not be so easily stumbled. He knows that they are not built that way.

Some of what throws a wrench into this discipline for what is ultimately thought a good cause is that, in some cases, the departing one no longer troubles himself about living forever, on earth or anywhere else. He or she has gone atheistic and has come to think the remaining few decades a great bargain, with no sense of being cheated from all eternity. When the world embraces atheism many paradigms shift. One can hardly expect atheists to recognize God's interests that a separate people be kept as clean of this world's defilements as possible. Usually they will read that stated interest as 'judgmental.'

"Remove the unclean man from yourselves," the Bible says. If that one does it himslef, however, no one pursues him. But it is the fury that anyone should think them 'unclean' that motivates some vociferous opponents of the Witnesses; the world has moved on from the notion of moral absolutes. In the West, a rapidly emerging paradigm is that if one is not seen to embrace any new cause, it indicates one is a hater of that cause, notwithstanding whether that course stems from Bible scripture or not. That circumstance may even intensify the perception.

Jehovah's Witnesses still maintain, as many faiths once did, that _not_ "all roads lead to heaven"—they are not all the same—and that, if one would survive into the new world to come, one must serve God according to _his_ standards and his truths, not theirs. If one leaves to join another religion (for example, surely one who joins the Mormons is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses), they have apostatized from the faith. Far from being an extreme interpretation, it is what every denomination should do. Mormons do it themselves, I believe. However, few people take religion that seriously. Few can imagine making such a fuss over God, though they will go for the jugular when it comes to human politics.

From their point of view, it has become: Why make trouble over such things? Surely God will roll with it, especially since he may not exist anyway.' Denomination is a difference not meaningful to them. Why change horses midstream? they reason, but if you do anyway, who cares? When my father, years ago, declared his intention to marry the woman who would become my mother, the Catholic Church said she would have to convert to Catholicism first. "Forget that!" Pop said, and they never saw him again. Having little that is unique to offer in a world that is not too spiritual in the first place, most churches today throw away such obstacles to retain members.

Jehovah's Witnesses, on the other hand, are absolutely unique; their combination of certain biblical teachings is to be found nowhere else, and they employ Christian correction so as to keep those teachings untainted. Churches have forsaken discipline with regard to apostatizing because they have little to apostatize from. Many have fallen sound asleep spiritually and have acquiesced to the prevailing view that 'all roads lead to heaven.' Seen from this perspective of the believer, disfellowshipping is not cutting off a family member—so the departing one merely moves up the hour of separation which will occur anyway at cut-off time for this world. Therefore, the ultimate goal in avoiding even a family member who departs for different actions or beliefs is to help him see that he must self-correct spiritually, thus re-uniting the family forever spiritually and otherwise.

Jesus pointedly says that, in some cases, choosing him will cause contention in a family, and that if one chooses him over family, it is a good thing, not a bad thing. This is not the world the anti-cultists want to see, so they attach the "cult" label to those observing Jesus' words. They say: Surely, these cults use foul means wrestling converts from the mother Church. In so saying, they attempt to wrestle Scripture away from the ones who wrote it.

It is never a piece of cake to turn 180 degrees from previously held positions. It causes discord anywhere. "Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth," Jesus says. "I came to bring, not peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one's enemies will be those of his household." And "Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever has greater affection for son or daughter than for me is not worthy of me. And whoever does not take up his cross and follow me is not worthy of me." Yes, religion can even tear at the family fabric. Is there anything thicker than blood ties? Jesus' plain answer is in the affirmative.33

"I have come to bring not peace but the sword"—nearly everyone other than Jehovah's Witnesses act as though these Bible verses do not exist. Nearly everyone thinks that Christianity should be a subset of the status quo, if not the State itself. Nearly everyone thinks that the minute popular wisdom accepts a new norm, it should be accommodated in the congregation. Nearly everyone cherry-picks, goes for the feel-good verses, and ignores the ones they don't like. This is why their versions of Christianity do not work. This is why people become Jehovah's Witnesses in the first place. 'Finally,' they say. 'A people who actually _live_ the scriptures and don't use them simply to soften a quest for success in this world.'

Disgruntled family members who have found themselves on the outside looking in and yet decline to change their chosen course so as to get back in, like the aforementioned witness for the prosecution in the April 20th trial, spread the view that Jehovah's Witnesses break up families. The European Court of Human Rights, when called upon to weigh in on this charge in 2010, didn't buy it, writing: "It is the resistance and unwillingness of non-religious family members to accept and to respect their religious relative's freedom to manifest and practice his or her religion that is the source of conflict."34

Discipline is a tough sell today. It is decidedly unpopular. The need for it is a constant of life, however. Let us play with the notion as we consider the prophet Malachi. Did he have teenagers? How else can one explain his style of writing? The Book of Malachi is the last book of the Old Testament, a short work of just four chapters. The entire book is read in less time than a quarter of this chapter:

I love you, says the LORD; but you say, "How do you love us?"

And if I am a master, where is the fear due to me? So says the LORD of hosts to you, O priests, who disdain my name. But you ask, "How have we disdained your name?"

"' _By presenting polluted food on my altar.' 'And you say: "How have we polluted you?"'_

By offering defiled food on my altar! You ask, "How have we defiled it?"

You have wearied the LORD with your words, yet you say, "How have we wearied him?"

Return to me, that I may return to you, says the LORD of hosts. But you say, "Why should we return?"

Can anyone rob God? But you are robbing me! And you say, "How have we robbed you?"

Your words are too much for me, says the LORD. You ask, "What have we spoken against you?"

Enough already! Everything is challenged! Everything is hurled back in God's face. Just for kicks, turn the page. Find yourself in the gospels. What if Mary had answered the angel that way when he announced that she would carry the Child: _"Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you?"_ What if she had shot back: _"In what way is he with me?"_ Had she talked back like that to the angel it might not be Mary remembered as the mother of our Lord. It might be Olga or Tatiana.

Mary did not smart-mouth the angel. She almost seems an anomaly. Paul summarizes God's customary dealings with the Israel of that time at Romans 10:21: "All day long I stretched out my hands to a disobedient and contentious people." In the world of Bible translation, most works list "disobedient" as the first adjective when rendering that verse. The second is up for grabs. The house Bible used here, NABRE, says "contentious." Others say "obstinate", "rebellious", or "stubborn." Some older translations say "gainsaying." The banned New World Translation says [redacted]. But the pre-revised NWT of 1981 hit the nail on the head, by saying that they "talk back." Apparently when that version was revised in 2013, someone thought that "talk back" was too much of a departure, but I like it best. After all, in the olde English, "gain" means "against", so "talk back" seems not too bad an update of "gainsay."

Jehovah's Witnesses conform to discipline without too much fuss. They are not the sort to engage in political protest over what the king is doing or is not doing. Within the congregation as well, they conform to discipline. They bring to life an observation of Nathaniel Hawthorne: "People who think the most bold of thoughts have no difficulty conforming to outward norms of society."35 Nobody thinks thoughts more bold than Jehovah's Witnesses. By conforming to the usually minimal discipline of the king and the congregation, they enjoy a remarkable peace and unity unknown to the general world.

Though Hawthorne doesn't say it, the reverse of his statement is also true: people who _cannot_ conform to the outward norms of society are apt to be the most inwardly conformist of all. Totally obsessed with the petty freedoms this world has to offer, they are blind to the significant freedoms: freedom from fear of death, for example, that a relationship with God enables. One is reminded of the pigs Jesus sent rushing over the precipice, pigs blinded by the 'demons' of their momentary thinking—too distracted by them to notice the drop ahead.36

Chapter 9 endnotes

Return to Table of Contents

# Chapter 10 – A Governing Body

The first institution of higher learning in the Western World, the Academy of Athens, was founded by Plato in 387 B.C. Much of what is bedrock to Western civilization traces back to him. Plato recorded his concept of ideal government in which he advocated rule by "philosopher-kings." He favored monarchy, but not hereditary monarchy. Instead, his rulers were to be selected, by already-existing rulers, on the basis of merit. This would follow a lengthy period of education designed to separate the wheat from the chaff, so lengthy that it seems nobody under age fifty would be eligible for consideration. Consider an excerpt from 'The 100,' an intriguing book by Michael Hart, which undertakes to rate the one hundred most influential persons throughout history (Plato is #40):1

" _Only those persons who show that they can apply their book learning to the real world should be admitted into the guardian class. Moreover, only those persons who clearly demonstrate that they are primarily interested in the public welfare are to become guardians. Membership in the guardian class would not appeal to all persons. The guardians are not to be wealthy. They should be permitted only a minimal amount of personal property, and no land or private homes. They are to receive a fixed (and not very large) salary and may not own either gold or silver. Members of the guardian class should not be permitted to have separate families, but are to eat together, and are to have mates in common. The compensation of these philosopher-kings should not be material wealth, but rather the satisfaction of public service."_

Anyone familiar with Jehovah's Witnesses will recognize at once that these words almost exactly describe their Governing Body. Only the "mates in common" does not apply. It is too rich—the group that, without fuss, and no doubt unknowingly, actually _applies_ the words of the philosopher Plato, is a relatively uneducated group beneath the notice of many today—Jehovah's Witnesses. Imagine! The standard-bearer of modern intellectuals devises a system of government that they admire, but cannot reproduce, and then the Governing Body stumbles along and says 'Hey, we'll try some of that,' and implements it without sweat!

One may object that Plato's recommendation is for the government of nations, whereas Jehovah's Witnesses are a religion. But the similarities are more striking than the differences. Worldwide, Jehovah's Witnesses number over eight million, midway on the scale of nations, with about the same population as Switzerland. The Bible speaks of God's people as "a great nation." It shouts: "Open up the gates that a righteous nation may enter, one that keeps faith." It warns religious opponents that "The kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people [translations vary about 50/50, some opting for 'people,' others 'nation'] that will produce its fruit."2

Scripturally, Jehovah's Witnesses are a nation as real as any nation on the world's roster of nations today. In fact, they are more so, since their citizens are more united. Their universal reputation of being a moral, decent, and law-abiding people is no accident, nor is it explained solely by their belief in the Bible as the source of divine instruction. It is also the result of effective administration—governing. Many groups that claim to follow the Bible are populated by members whose lifestyles belie the claim, as Sider makes clear in the prior chapter. Jehovah's Witnesses are unified in a common goal and purpose. They practice what they preach. It is all a result of effective governing. They are Plato's dream come true.

The reason Jehovah's Witnesses can do it and the intellectuals cannot is that Plato's system depends upon persons who are neither ambitious, nor materialistic, nor overly proud. It is not that such persons cannot be found among the general population. It is that the values of this world are such that these persons cannot rise to the top. Once they are spotted, they are dismissed as impractical nuts and shunted off to the bottom, as in some great antitypical game of Chutes and Ladders. But in the world of Jehovah's Witnesses, these people do rise to the top, and part of their very qualifications is that they do not regard themselves as 'rising to the top,' but only as fellow Christians willing and able to serve.

One can almost entertain the fantasy of Plato himself appearing on the world stage today. As soon as they discover it, today's educated best would rush to welcome him into their homes and, of course, he would graciously accept. In time he would learn that, while he was honored with words, he was yet dismissed as an impractical dreamer with regard to his ideas of government. Eventually (it might take a while) he would discover that Jehovah's Witnesses had put his ideas into practice. He would rush over to Bethel to consult, where they, having no idea who he is, would make him take a number and wait his turn.

In the first century, the "apostles and presbytrs" in Jerusalem formed a governing body to set policy for the rapidly expanding Christian faith. That agency determined how scripture would apply to new developments, much as a Supreme Court might determine how a country's constitution might apply to new developments. Without such application, a constitution quickly becomes irrelevant. The fifteenth chapter of Acts provides a specific example of how Christians were governed then. The specific issue hardly matters; it is not a burning topic today. It is the template that matters. Today, the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses uses that template in directing modern Christian activity. Read it and note the dispute and the agreed-upon channel of redress. Note how, prior to reaching a decision, scripture is considered, both historical and prophetic. Witnesses are heard who testify to the role holy spirit is manifestly playing among the congregations. The resulting decision is put into writing and sent to all the congregations: "As they traveled from city to city, they handed on to the people for observance the decisions reached by the apostles and presbyters in Jerusalem. Day after day the churches grew stronger in faith and increased in number."3

Alas for those who suppose God is an American. Alas for those who suppose Christianity ought to be based upon Western democracy. Churches in America typically paint God that way. He is enthralled with democracy, majority rule and freedom of speech. But it wasn't guidelines being delivered back then by the apostles and presbyters. It wasn't suggestions. It wasn't proposals to be put to popular vote. It was _decisions_ which were to be observed. Nearly all English translations use words as "decisions" or "decrees." The New International Version calls them "decisions for the people to obey." The Amplified Bible strays slightly with "regulations," Moffatt's New Testament translation: "resolutions," the Good News Bible: "rules." Only the ridiculously paraphrased Message translation waters down the phrase to "simple guidelines which turned out to be most helpful." Isn't this what one would expect? If God's ways are truly higher than our ways and people become Christians precisely for that reason, does anyone really think that God's ways would be determined by majority vote? If that is the case, what would be the need for God?4

The apostles and presbyters governed from Jerusalem in what came to be viewed as a God-ordained arrangement. They were not ambitious men seizing power. They were Christians with the most experience, men who had introduced the faith to others, and they saw to their own succession. Is this arrangement to be extended into the present? Jehovah's Witnesses say yes. It is what they glean from consideration of a passage in Matthew: "Who, then, is the faithful and prudent servant, whom the master has put in charge of his household to distribute to them their food at the proper time? Blessed is that servant whom his master on his arrival finds doing so. Amen, I say to you, he will put him in charge of all his property."5

At first glance, one might wonder if these verses can refer to governing at all. Some hold that they are no more than a nice story with the moral to always do your best. But consider that the verses are embedded in Matthew 24 and 25, two Bible chapters devoted to prophesies and parables about Christ's return. Matthew 24:3 leads with the question posed by Jesus' disciples: "Tell us, when will this happen, and what sign will there be of your coming, and of the end of the age?" The next chapter consists of three parables in which the Master returns after a long absence and settles accounts with his slaves. 'What have they been doing while he has been gone?' he wants to know. Some have been diligent. Some have been negligent. Some have kept alert. Some have fallen asleep. Some have done well by his brothers. Some have ignored them.

Today, among Jehovah's Witnesses, that "faithful and prudent servant," found by the "master on his arrival" to be giving "food at the proper time," has been appointed over all [the Master's] belongings. It defines a governing body which oversees kingdom interests on earth. As closely as possible, it models itself after the pattern set by that first century governing body. In this way, congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses are governed. They thereby maintain unity and stand for something separate. They do not merely reflect national or cultural norms of the day endorsed and slightly modified with a God "smiley face."

Members of the Witness Governing Body are not bluebloods born into privilege. They are ministers illustrating the root meaning of the word: 'through the dust.'6 They have not been _as_ lowly as their 'brothers.' They have been _more_ lowly than most of them, engaging in the full-time ministry throughout their lives—humble, door to door work, often humbled again through assignments to poverty-stricken locations. To cite author Hart, they have "applied their book learning to the real world" and have "demonstrated that they are primarily interested in the public welfare."

Even now, they essentially live in dormitories. They are _nice_ dormitories, to be sure, but they are dormitories nonetheless. Their basic needs are covered, but they are not amassing pensions or retirement plans. They needn't hitchhike to get to where they want to go, but they generally relied on public transportation back in the day. Though heading an eight-million-member organization, when they fly, it is via commercial flight. They thus typify again Plato's ideal government: "The guardians are not to be wealthy. They should be permitted only a minimal amount of personal property, and no land or private homes. They are to receive a fixed (and not very large) salary and may not own either gold or silver....The compensation of these philosopher-kings should not be material wealth, but rather the satisfaction of public service."7

Members of the Governing Body could be described as having been set on high, who have prepared for it by time spent in places low. They would say that they strive to be examples of trusting in God. They read the Bible regularly, a course they advise for everyone else, reflecting the kings of ancient Israel who were directed to read the Mosaic Law daily. When they devise some new Bible-based training school, they put themselves through it first, where they are ever reminded of what they aspire to be. Yet, even as they are aware of their own imperfections, they do their level best to shepherd the flock, to ward off sectarian influences, and to give direction in order to meet current circumstances. They issue "decisions" as their counterparts did in the first century.

They hold to the Bible as best they can and unabashedly refer to it as "God's Word," a designation the more liberal churches abandoned decades ago, possibly so that they would not be looked down upon by intellectuals. They like God's pleading expressed by Isaiah: "If only you would attend to my commandments, your peace would be like a river, your vindication like the waves of the sea."8 Peace is a good thing. They are ever vigilant to teach God's commandments so as to help ones attain it. They take God's side as the murmurers complain: "The LORD's way is not fair!' Hear now, house of Israel: Is it my way that is unfair? Are not your ways unfair?" If the brilliant thoughts of those who think them truly were worth the paper they were printed on, surely they would have resulted in a better world by now.9

In view of the modest means of the Governing Body members, Hart's further assessment is readily understood: "Membership in the guardian class would not appeal to all persons." There were persons of the first century who wanted Paul's authority—but not his work. These were the "superapostles" of 2 Corinthians, ambitious men coveting power. Some of them made a grab for power, mostly by disrespecting direction from the "apostles and presbyters" and teaching whatever they pleased within their sphere of influence.

Paul became so fed up with them that he, at one point, seemed to take leave of his senses: "Are they ministers of Christ? (I am talking like an insane person). I am still more, with far greater labors, far more imprisonments, far worse beatings, and numerous brushes with death. Five times at the hands of the Jews I received forty lashes minus one. Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, I passed a night and a day on the deep; on frequent journeys, in dangers from rivers, dangers from robbers, dangers from my own race, dangers from Gentiles, dangers in the city, dangers in the wilderness, dangers at sea, dangers among false brothers; in toil and hardship, through many sleepless nights, through hunger and thirst, through frequent fastings, through cold and exposure. And apart from these things, there is the daily pressure upon me of my anxiety for all the churches. Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is led to sin, and I am not indignant?" One can almost picture caretakers hauling him off for a sedative at this point and a check of blood pressure! How much can a man take? _He_ does the work! _They_ grab the credit! Most of Paul's would-be usurpers were essentially established men comfortable in their home congregations, lacking the track record of Paul but confident that they had the wisdom to compensate for that lack.10

One of that number, Diotrephes, ruled his local roost. The apostle John says: "I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to dominate, does not acknowledge us. Therefore, if I come, I will draw attention to what he is doing, spreading evil nonsense about us. And not content with that, he will not receive the brothers, hindering those who wish to do so and expelling them from the church." The same drama plays out in the modern-day with some insistent that they should have greater input in "decisions" that are made through the governing arrangement and who are inclined to second-guess them all.11

Members of the Governing Body are selected by existing members from the tiny subset of Witnesses who profess to be anointed. Details of this anointing are doctrinal and dull to non-Witnesses and well-known to actual Witnesses. Suffice it to say that it is a group numbering just 144,000 (a number taken from Revelation) throughout all Christian history. Consequently, almost all of Jehovah's Witnesses today look forward to everlasting life on earth under God's kingdom rule, but this small number profess the hope of being part of that rule in heaven upon their death. There they will be a "kingdom and priests for our God, and they will reign on earth."12 They 'profess' this hope but once a year—never verbally—by partaking of the wine and unleavened bread at the celebration of the Lord's Evening Meal, the only meeting of Jehovah's Witnesses of which a portion could ever be described as ceremonial.

Since those with the heavenly hope self-identify, is it possible for a person to do so simply to one day assume leadership of the organization? Were mere education the criteria, such might be the case, but since decades of unpaid service is also a prerequisite to such leadership, it is inconceivable. Among the greatest sins one can commit is to partake unworthily, falsely partaking of emblems representing the Christ. Dishonest persons might blow past this stricture and do it anyway, but they are not going to supply proof of their qualifications with decades of lowly service. In the individual congregations, members professing the heavenly hope—there are only ten thousand or so worldwide—enjoy no special status and are not inclined to draw attention to themselves or their calling. The arrangement is one of the future, not the present, apart from the few who serve as a governing body. At present, that agency numbers eight. The number fluctuates.

The Governing Body's model is that of 'rising through the ranks.' As in the first century, they are "men who have given up their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ."13 It is a marked difference between leadership in the Witness organization versus leadership in the greater religious world. There, generally speaking, applicants attend a specialized college, earn a degree, find a church to hire them as pastor or assign them as priest. From that start, there may be a promotional ladder to be climbed. Thus, one may eventually become a church leader _having never truly followed_. With those who have served on the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses it has been different. They have spent decades in full-time service performing a ministry more lowly than that of most persons they will one day lead. It is only after, not before, they have "given up their lives" that they receive specialized training to lead.

The Governing Body strives to promote peace with the national "king" in whatever nation in which it operates. No king will find more cooperative citizens than Witnesses so long as he does not insist upon invading God's turf. "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."14 If Caesar wants you to walk a mile, walk two. Don't sulk because he is doing something you don't like—thank him for building the roads you drive on. Don't test him and take up the side of those making him trouble. Honor him for his efforts to keep the unruly in check. Don't niggle him out of his taxes. Pay up. Fear his authority, for the verse cautions he "does not bear the sword for nothing."15

Help him out where he tries to promote moral strength among his people. He sees some of them falling prey to alcoholism, sloth, drugs and petty crime. Be a bulwark against those things. Pick up the litter in the park that his more careless subjects strew about. In fact, even pray for the king, not for the success of his plans, for that is his business, but pray as Paul advised Timothy to pray: "I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity."16 Do what the king says. But if he tries to regulate worship or ministry, then there is no choice but to give God's things to God.

'Exactly, your honor,' tell him. 'We'll be nothing but model citizens. Please leave us be in our efforts to declare the Bible's teachings. If we are wrong in our interpretation, we'll look like fools. We'll take that risk. But under no circumstances does it ever become a threat to you, for everyone knows we are the most peaceful people in the world. Do not deprive your citizens the right to decide for themselves about all-important spiritual things. Do not take anyone's word for it that our interpretation of Scripture is wrong, especially when they make little effort to teach it themselves. This advertising of the Bible's good news (gospel) is what we must do, for "this is good and pleasing to God our savior who wills everyone to be saved and come to knowledge of the truth."17

Jehovah's Witnesses are often described as 'pacifist' but the description is not technically correct. They are neutral with regard to the conflicts of this world, which goes further than pacifism. They will not fight, but they will also not take a desk job for the war effort. They stay separate from it all. They feel that heroes and villains should be determined by the Bible's measure, and not by the dictates of the national king. There will typically be heroes and villains on both sides. Can the current military person really fit in with God's overall purpose? Since they have demonstrated in this world that they will blow my head off with a gun if some man tells them to, there is a problem. They will have to give up that allocation of loyalty before one could trust them in God's new system.

Still, notwithstanding the seemingly opposite views of Jehovah's Witnesses and members of the military over how patriotism is best expressed, it is not uncommon for the two to have respect for one another. Both recognize the value of discipline. Both recognize the value of self-sacrifice. A professional soldier will often respect the professional soldier of the other side for serving the cause in which he believes. Once they see it is the same with Jehovah's Witnesses serving their cause, perceptions sometimes change.

Many accept it as normal that perception should be determined by the local king and the immediate country, in line with the conventional goals of the overall world. Mark Smith writes that "the strongest predictors of people's moral beliefs are not their religious commitments or lack thereof but rather when and where they were born."18 The Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses does not permit such factors to predominate. It is alarming to some non-Witnesses that religion might cause persons to stray so far from the familiar mindset.

"In the long run, religion is best understood as responding to changing political and cultural values rather than shaping them," Smith further states in his book _Secular Faith_.19 The Governing Body does not permit politics or culture to play that trump card among its members. They take a lot of criticism for it. When the herd turns, and they refuse to turn with it, some bruising is inevitable. Often, it will come as charges about "controlling people," and can even escalate to charges of "totalitarianism."

Smith's book charts five contentious issues in America's history: slavery, divorce, homosexuality, abortion, and women's rights. In each instance he shows how religious leaders have allowed their churches to be molded by changing cultural perceptions, not necessarily immediately, but inevitably. Modern church members have more in common morally and politically with contemporary atheists than they do with their own church counterparts of long ago, he observes.

They reinterpret the Bible when they have to, so as to stay relevant, just as the Russian judge reinterpreted the constitution when he had to. A reviewer of the book declares it "ultimately hopeful" that churches so accommodate present trends. He has in mind secular considerations leading religious ones, not the other way around. It is a reassuring message that he brings to those who would mold politics/culture, and even the anti-cultists, that they need not worry overmuch. Religion may drag its feet a bit, but it will ultimately come around to follow prevailing opinion. However, the Governing Body quotes a line from the book: "Christian leaders have regularly revised their teachings to match the beliefs and opinions gaining support among their members and in the larger society,"20 and says: 'It doesn't happen here.' The heartened book reviewer is displeased about it, formers of politics/culture are displeased, and a worrisome new target presents itself for the anti-cultists.

The Governing Body doesn't "reinterpret" anything. Or rather, it does, but it is only in cases where former teachings are seen to stem from influences more cultural than biblical. As an example of the former: the scriptural arrangement of headship is now appreciated purely as a spiritual one and need not dictate matters practical. Should stereotypical roles be reversed with the husband at home with the children, and the wife at work, it raises no red flags. In the Witnesses' branch organizations, it is routine for women to exercise authority over men in various areas of workplace expertise.

There is one more circumstance in which the Governing Body actually reinterprets quite a bit, but not the matters that Mark Smith writes of. They do not reinterpret matters of morality clearly defined in Scripture. However, they lay no claim to being inspired or infallible, but only to taking the lead in the Christian work. "The Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible. Therefore, it can err in doctrinal matters or in organizational direction," they have written. Who is not disarmed by such frank statements?21

There is no finer way to get some grousers going than to say: "Oh, we changed that." Hostile people scour past Watchtower publications and discover positions that have altered, and pounce over the 'flip-flop.' It is not a piece of cake looking into the future. Everyone knows that. So if you miss the mark, you back up and tackle the subject anew. The Witness organization does it all the time. For decades, Watchtower publications have spoken of "tacking" and the "light getting brighter." What is that if not an admission that they have often been wrong? They are very open about it, so when detractors complain about teachings that have changed, they look pretty silly if they harp on it. It has never been said that they didn't.22

The present explanation is always a tentative explanation, considered the best out there. If it proves insufficient, members of the Governing Body will, in time, re-examine and present things afresh. They "tack" in "ever brightening light" routinely. They will no doubt continue to do it as the situation warrants. They make no secret about it. Nor is anyone required to shout from the rooftops any current interpretation. Witnesses trust headship as they would trust the airplane pilot and take for granted he is handling the turbulence as best as can be expected. They don't expect the cockpit door to swing open and the pilot shout: "Hey, anybody here know how to fly this thing?" Though the flight attendants may retreat with their refreshment carts of coffee and juice, passengers fasten their seatbelts as advised to ride out the rough patch without undue concern. They don't reach for the flotation seat cover. They know that if God is worth his salt, he can provide capable human leadership. They know they haven't signed on to a democracy.

That other point the Governing Body just clarified? You may have pondered that point some time ago in your own private study of the Bible. And if this was the greater church world, you would have run out and started up your own sect over it. Instead, Witnesses wait on the human authority they are convinced God has provided. Sometimes that authority has been wrong in expectations. When they are, it is like misreading a bus schedule and is not the basic fabric of the faith. It is a disappointment, but it does not change anticipation of the bus's arrival. This author goes way out on a limb with a flippancy unmatched to liken several missed date perceptions of the early 1900s to the time you missed the nail with the hammer, and in frustration, swung several times more, again missing each time. What can you do? It would be nice had it not happened, but it did. If one has to go back over a century to dig up dirt, there can't be that much dirt to dig up. Nor do they do anti-types anymore—"this is an anti-type of that'—probably because too many have blown up in their faces. You get almost as much bang for the buck, with no downside, by saying "This reminds us of such and such." Who is there that can come along later and say that it did not?

The things Jehovah's Witnesses have reinterpreted, or even flip-flopped on, are all superfluous things. They are all trimmings on the tree, and not the tree itself. The essential doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses that distinguish them from any other religion have been solidly established for over 100 years—teachings that the Trinity is unscriptural, for example, and that the soul does not live on after death. These are the important points that one should focus on. No one else figured it out. Forerunners of today's Governing Body did, constituting powerful evidence that they are indeed led by God's spirit.

Among the basic tenets discerned 100 years ago is that human salvation is not the prime issue before all creation, but the vindication of God's name and purposes is.23 It is a huge distinction between Jehovah's Witnesses and the general world of churches. It is the approach of so many of the latter who say that it is all about us: all about our own personal salvation and relationship with Jesus. It invariably makes one self-centered. Invariably it leads to emphasis on rights outstripping responsibilities.

If the Governing Body has made some mistakes, they nonetheless man up and move on. They are not the cat that Mark Twain wrote about: "A cat that sits on a hot stove will never sit on a hot stove again. Nor will it sit on a cold one, for they all look hot." They take heart that similar blunders occur repeatedly in Scripture. In the first century the word went out among the congregations that the apostle John would not die until the Lord's return. It took John himself to set the record straight. He didn't bother doing so until nearing the end of his life. Perhaps he had thought it himself.24

The apostle Peter declares that: "The end of all things has drawn close." When the established Jewish world effectively ends with the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E, that is not the end he had in mind. Nevertheless, he probably drops to his knees and thanks God that he was not among those at the Jerusalem Hyatt for celebrations just then. He doesn't grumble about being misled by whomever that 70 C.E. was not the big one. It was big enough. When they tell him they were just tacking, he doesn't complain about it.25

Apparently, God is okay with it all, all of the 'tacking,' all of the 'light getting brighter.' If he was upset, he would short-circuit JW.org so that it would read in English and Pig Latin only and not the 900 languages in which it does read. If there was a substitute somewhere that did all that the Witness' organization does in furtherance of the good news, minus the missed hammer swings, the best course would be to go there. But there is not, and it becomes apparent that God puts up with people who miss the nail, even as he is trying to overhaul them into people who do it less often. "All humans are imperfect," he says in effect. "They'll just have to sort through their own blunders."

There are many examples in the Bible of faithful ones doing or saying things that did not pan out. Take, for instance, King David, troubled that he was living in trappings more palatial than those allotted to God. He plans to remedy that disparity by constructing a huge temple. Nathan the prophet gives him the green light. "Whatever is in your heart, go and do, for the LORD is with you," he says. But God tells the prophet to back off. He points out that he has wandered about with the Israelites for centuries, perfectly content with the tabernacle he himself directed be made. Did he ever say that he wanted a house more permanent? However, he does allow that one will be built in the future, only not by David—he is a warring king and the symbolism is not right. It will be built by his son, Solomon, who will preside over an unprecedented period of peace. David wasn't going to build any house! Solomon was!26 Nathan was wrong! Was he a false prophet? Did he carry on over being second-guessed by God? Did David complain about being misled? There is no record of it.

The closer to significant events, the more eager become the 'prophets.' "Lord, are you restoring the kingdom to Israel at this time?" the apostles asked the resurrected Jesus. "No, I'm not. Mind you own business and carry on in the disciple-making work" was, in essence, his answer.27

When they had asked him about it previously, for "they thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear instantly," he told them a parable designed to show that it would yet be a while and that they should keep busy in that preaching and disciple-making work while he is away: A certain man of noble birth was traveling to a distant land in order to secure kingly power and return. Before leaving, he gives his slaves funds and says they should put them to good use. Upon his return, he finds that the first two slaves have done business and have doubled his money. The third slave has sat idle. "Lord, here is your gold coin that I kept hidden away in a cloth," the fellow explains. "You see, I was in fear of you, because you are a harsh man; you take what you did not deposit and you reap what you did not sow."28

What is he saying to the Lord but: "You want disciples? Get off your rear end and make them yourself!" The attitude of the 'wicked slave' finds a counterpart in some opponents in modern times who balked at the prospect of preaching to the general public, preferring the more comfortable model of preaching to the congregation—never mind if that is the biblical pattern or not. The 'winners' among them reintegrate back into the greater world and resume life. The 'losers' among them mask their reason with complaints about direction and governance in the congregation and attempt to undermine the work of those who have stayed the course.

In answering the 'wicked' slave, the master does not deny that he reaps where he does not sow. He even lets stand the slave's perception that he was thereby 'harsh.' Furthermore, he even indicates that he could have worked with such a flawed attitude. Had the slave deposited the money in the bank, a one-time trip, so as to start the ball rolling accruing interest, the master could have worked with it. He may not have jumped for joy, but he would not have delivered the rebuke he did. The parallel account in the 25th chapter of Matthew shows the 'wicked' slave digging in the ground, _working up a sweat_ , to bury the master's money and thus thwart any possibility of his interests benefiting. How can this not correspond to former adherents actively opposing what they once espoused?

Not all members of the faith are zealous in the ministry, though zeal is ever encouraged. Those who refuse are not the same as those who decline to do it. The latter do not deny the ministry; they simply feel, for whatever reason, that they are not up to it. The former turn against it. The latter agree with Jesus that if you have good news, you do not just sit on it; you put your lamp on the lampstand. The public ministry grounds a person. Stray from it at your personal spiritual peril. To the extent possible, members of the Governing Body engage in the house to house work just like everyone else.

The other action of the 'wicked slave' is to beat his fellow slaves when the master is delaying. Says Matthew: "But if that wicked servant says to himself, 'My master is long delayed,' and begins to beat his fellow servants, and eat and drink with drunkards, the servant's master will come on an unexpected day and at an unknown hour and will punish him severely and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth."29 Molasses hardly delays more than the Master, in the eyes of some grousers, the 'wicked slave' counterparts, and they take out their frustrations in attacking those taking the lead, with charges of totalitarianism and mind control.

The Governing Body has framed witnessing about the kingdom as natural an activity as the sunrise and sunset, to Witnesses and non-Witnesses alike. They have made it a third inevitability that must be acquiesced to. There is death, there is taxes, and there is Jehovah's Witnesses. The message is presented tactfully (ideally). It is augmented these days by methods less 'in-your-face' than house-to-house visits: via Internet and public displays of Bible literature staffed by Witnesses ready, but not insisting, to explain the contents.

It is no small feat to position kingdom preaching this way, for the message is not popular among humanists who would have us believe society ever moves onward and upward. It is not popular among religionists, for it overturns many a cherished teaching. It is not even popular always with the Witnesses themselves. They see the need for it, and have signed on to the program, but the desire to preach can be tempered by fear of man, leading one to yield to the implicit conviction of many that religion is just not something one speaks of openly—that it is a personal matter as delicate as explaining the facts of life to a child. The Governing Body at times experienced some pushback from those who wanted the faith but also a 'normal life.' 'How can one lead a normal life in an abnormal world?' was their answer. They have largely won that battle. They have held the course. They have furthered the course with ministry expansion worldwide. They are aided by daily news events clearly demonstrating that they are correct in describing the world as 'abnormal.'

Just how God influences this small group is unlikely to ever be clear. The topic is not off limits, but one can only go so far in explaining how it works. Most likely they don't know themselves. They are the imperfect vessels molded by the perfect potter. We don't have to know everything. In fact, we _cannot_ , for here we are peering into the divine/human interface. "The Spirit itself intercedes with inexpressible groanings," says Romans.30 Just try demanding that it enunciate properly. "Just as you do not know how the life breath enters the human frame in the mother's womb, so you do not know the work of God," says Solomon.31 Just try setting him straight on that point. This will be one of those areas in which we can glimpse the fringes of God's ways and no more.32

It is better for one to focus on manifestations that it works, demonstrated by accomplishments replicated nowhere else. Only the rare passenger, or even driver, is called upon to explain the inner workings of his automobile. Few can. All they really have to know is how to ride in it, work a few controls, and suffer through the potholes it will occasionally hit. It is ever the fascination of persons to describe just how government works. Pundits pry and attempt to worm their way in, and usually get it wrong; at best they get an imprecise glimpse. If that is true with human things, how much more so with spiritual things? God has never signed a disclosure agreement.

In some respects, the closer one gets to the 'inside' of theocratic things, the more challenge it is perceiving God's direction. Rank and file Witnesses will marvel at how God has supplied just the right understanding at just the right time. "Yeah, it's only because so-and-so is too stubborn to..." the jaded insider will say. _This_ is how God 'works in mysterious ways'—the phrase is an escape clause reserved for when religionists must extract themselves from the corner their own doctrines have painted them into. In the case of how God directs humans, however, it is spot-on. We are not going to know it. The critical thinkers are checked. Some of them will overturn the entire chessboard on that account and stomp home.

God does use a human organization; this much is evident if only by its accomplishments and unity. He uses imperfect humans who have differences and opinions, and somehow hammers out leadership from them. To suggest otherwise is to suggest the Witnesses' critics are right: that Jehovah's Witnesses are brain-washed zombies. No, they are regular people, with differences even at the top and yet somehow God makes it all work. In some strange way that probably they themselves are not aware of, God works through this assembly as they read and meditate upon his written word and as they meet together to discuss it. Things gradually dawn upon them. They have a bevy of helpers, no doubt, to draw upon, but in the end, God works through them.

Can those 'helpers' be identified, particularly if they are acknowledged experts in this matter or that—say, in ancient history upon which any explanation of prophesy must rest? Doubtless there are some who would love to be a fly on the wall at the weekly meetings of the Governing Body. It is unlikely they will be indulged. Likely those participants savor the feeling of letting God's spirit direct them wherever it will. But as soon as someone pins them down with this or that name of a recognized expert, that freedom is compromised. They know that expert will henceforth be monitored to get the inside scoop about how things that are spirit work in a human way. Anointed ones are unlikely to discuss it with John Q. Publisher, especially since the ability to keep a confidence is such a rare commodity these days.

This writer has chosen the role of an apologist. I'll defend what they do. I'll brace myself for the inevitable charges of being a 'lapdog.' My support doesn't mean I don't acknowledge some things might be done differently or that they cannot make mistakes—they have acknowledged that themselves. It simply is not my role to push for changes. If they decide to do things differently, I'll spin positively that new policy too. It's the part I have chosen.

The Western model of journalism is that of 'exposing' errors that it assumes no responsibility to fix, nor any responsibility to deal with the consequences of stirring up discontent among persons not previously disposed to be discontent. There is no biblical precedent for it and much biblical precedent that would argue against it. This ultimate issue is: What does one prefer—'leadership by the people' or being 'taught by the LORD?'33

Does the Governing Body arbitrarily decide things without input from 'the people?' That can hardly be said. Each week every circuit overseer in the world sends in a report from the congregation he has served. A cynic would say that they are 'yes men,' and admittedly, all are loyal to the cause, but it is hardly a given that an organization must send out its agitators to represent it. The circuit overseers, especially the more experienced ones, can be trusted to give input about whatever is affecting the congregations. In this manner, it is 'taught by the LORD' and not 'leadership of the people,' since the latter does not always lead to fine ends. It is largely an article of faith in today's world that it does, but a perusal of history reveals that it only occasionally does.

The Governing Body has its hands full coping, and they are overall doing well in catering to God and not just the individual. I won't tell them where they are going wrong. How would I know? For every line of intelligence I have, they have fifty. Unlimited free speech is a Western concept, not a biblical one. The Bible speaks of ones whose mouths it is necessary to silence, others who should be told not to teach what is false, and others who ought to be rejected after a warning or two for insisting upon having their own way. Many are those who want "to be teachers of the law, but without understanding either what they are saying or what they assert with such assurance." I'll try not to be one of them.34

The Governing Body plunks along, deferring to what the Scriptures say, I am convinced. They go wherever the Bible indicates to them that they should go. If it gets them in a jam with some component of the present world, they are content that God will somehow get them out of it. They are like the leaders of the first century who were loath to abandon teaching of the word so as to wait on tables.35 That's what helpers are for. Here and there they shoot themselves in the foot. As low-key as possible, they extract the bullet with a grimace at their own mistake and carry on. They will refine and shift and ultimately something will come down through congregation channels and I will say: "Yep, it must work, or there would not be the 900 languages."

The application of Bible principles is always a qualification of authorship for Watchtower paper or digital publications. Some recognized scholar of the greater world might submit a guest article on nearly any outlet, but it will not happen on JW.org. One must apply Christian principles in order to have a voice. They may or may not in the scholastic world, but in that of the Governing Body, they do. Doubtless they miss out on some scholarship through such insistence, but they also safeguard themselves from much error, as it is not uncommon for yesterday's scholarship to become today's trash.

Granted that the ship may not always turn on a dime in secular waters. It takes a while to establish that something really is something and not just the tossing of flotsam on the waves and the trickery of men. On the Internet there are many who would tell the Governing Body what to do. It is the Internet and people can do what they want. But such correction by the people, though popular today, is not the Bible pattern. When David truly _was_ being a scoundrel, and really _did_ need correction, it was not the people who called him on it, but an already established prophetic channel.

Leadership by apology is in vogue today. Should the Governing Body apologize for any wrong interpretations they ever offered up? Apostates demand it, though one gets the sense their motivation is primarily to make their former associates squirm. How much and how often leadership should apologize is a matter of style. Suffice it to say that among determined opponents anywhere, an apology only stimulates demands for more apologies, and the more apologies never lead to forgiveness, but only demands for resignation. The technique is employed everywhere, not just, or even primarily, in religion. But when it happens in religion, it plays into the greater goal of halting the preaching of the gospel worldwide.

The worldwide disrespect of authority of any kind is shocking to behold for someone raised just two generations prior. It is people in ecstasy to tear down with nary a care over the rebuild. 'The people flounder where there is no wise direction,' says the scripture, yet the anthem of today is the words of the second Psalm: 'Let us cast their chains from among us!' Witnesses don't go there. It is enough to occasionally admit to blunders, such as was done with overemphasis on a 1975 date, and cover the rest with tacking and lights getting brighter.36 Everyone knows that humans are imperfect and make mistakes. What is important is to conduct oneself with humility and to 'pour oneself out' in God's service. This the Governing Body has done.

Prominent ones in Bible times were wrong about many things, yet I cannot recall one of them apologizing, other than Paul for insulting the high priest who had slapped him. When he learned that it was not a common thug, but the high priest of God, he apologized. It is the only example that comes to mind.37 Honest-hearted persons do not demand apologies. Persons not honest-hearted are not satisfied with them. What! When Jesus says his followers would be hated by all the nations, it is because of missteps of the Governing Body? Jesus would be wrong, and the whole world would love Christians today were it not for the miscues of clumsy ones?38

The Governing Body has assumed an almost impossible task: that of representing Christianity before a hostile world. It is made impossible once more by representing authority in a world that despises authority. Governing Body members strive to be 'infants as to evil.' They distrust the greater world's higher education. They think of Paul who considers it 'so much rubbish.' Having little of it, they find it hard to separate the wheat from the chaff, and so are apt to say it is all chaff. That's what they have helpers for: to figure out the separation. Unfortunately, the helpers may not be up to speed either. Ah, well—their world works and the one based upon human wisdom does not. They don't lose too much sleep over their lack. "The spiritual person can judge everything but is not subject to judgment by anyone," they cite the verse. One can worry too much.39

If a platform can be built upon, surely that argues in its favor. If it cannot be, surely that argues against it. Much of contemporary life is predicated upon lofty ideas that fail when implemented. Strangely, that failure does little to cool the ardor of true believers. The platform of the Governing Body does not fail, because it is based upon the Bible's pattern, not their own, which they maintain is of God. Bible teachings implemented have enabled diverse persons to cooperate and build a structure for advancement of the good news that is unparalleled. One is reminded of the scriptural admonition to 'taste and see.' One cannot _prove_ something tastes good. One has to taste and see in order to find out.40

Much Bible education laid out for Witness consumption is laid on with a trowel—the Governing Body is not subtle. Let the Witness be warned by Jesus words: "Every scribe who has been instructed in the kingdom of heaven is like the head of a household who brings from his storeroom both the new and the old."41 It will not be just the new. It will also be significant repetition of the old. No matter. It is a battle for hearts and minds being waged. Does the Devil state his point once and then discreetly retire? No. He will be like the computer app that notices you checking out vacation cruise prices and thereafter drowns you relentlessly in ads until you crack open that wallet and book a few trips. It is not easy instructing a group, for one person will barely notice that which has pummeled his neighbor into the ground. Let them err on the side of clarity if they are to err. Pummel them all if they must. It is their role to coordinate the chorus of Ephesians 4:11-16:

" _And he gave some as apostles, others as prophets, others as evangelists, others as pastors and teachers, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of faith and knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the extent of the full stature of Christ, so that we may no longer be infants, tossed by waves and swept along by every wind of teaching arising from human trickery, from their cunning in the interests of deceitful scheming. Rather, living the truth in love, we should grow in every way into him who is the head, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, with the proper functioning of each part, brings about the body's growth and builds itself up in love."_

Are they 'authoritarian' as has been charged? They do no more than reflect the sentiments of Jesus, who said the road to life would be constricted and narrow. Do they emphasize obedience? They do no more than reaffirm Paul, who even added 'submissive' to the list. They do no more than advocate the wisdom from above that James speaks of, which is 'compliant.' They do not want to find themselves in Lot's shoes, giving direction at a crucial moment only to find that his sons-in-law think he is pulling their leg. Leave them be to operate. Everyone knows a back-seat driver is obnoxious, especially when he tries to grab the wheel. Critics groused about leadership all during Moses' time, too, even trying to redirect the bus back to Egypt.42

Are they 'controlling?' From the world's point of view, that of 'anything goes,' they are. But if you weigh their policies against commentary of freedom of speech and independent thought found in the scriptures, they are easily within the ballpark. A person who represents them in some capacity, say as an elder or pioneer, will find it necessary to become 'an example' of the faith, and reign in some personal freedoms that the rank-and-file need not do. The former can lose privileges by flying in the face of counsel as to what is locally acceptable or has been published. It is that way in any organization. "Much will be required of the person entrusted with much, and still more will be demanded of the person entrusted with more."43

Jehovah's people are not belligerent or headstrong and are not inclined to blow off counsel or a certain peer pressure as nothing. They are inclined to heed the "wisdom from above," which is "compliant." Elders are not control freaks or micro-managers. It is never a matter of petty rules enforced by people who just like to meddle. Anyone who carries on like that jeopardizes his reputation as a 'reasonable' person—one of the criteria for serving as an older man. Continual training serves to refine and improve elders, who are people, after all, with all of the baggage that people carry.44

Nobody has any problem with God. It is always with his human representatives. This was true with Moses, as has been seen. It was true even with Judas. He and God were tight. But Jesus looked pretty human to him, not at all qualified to do what the Messiah was supposed to do. And those yokels he was attracting! It was just too much. Judas wanted refined people.

There are those approved in Revelation who keep following the Lamb "no matter where he goes,"45 In whose eyes? If it is only in their own—well, _everybody_ does that. Everybody follows the Lamb per their own standards. The whole phrase becomes silly and should be replaced with: "each one did what was right in his own eyes," because that is what it will inevitably default to. In the absence of human authority, if the counsel or method seems not attractive, you simply interpret it away. No harm done.

The very basis of the Governing Body's authority is challenged by some today with respect to their claims to represent Christ. Follow just _Christ_ , the critics say, not some human agency. Practically speaking, just how does a faith wishing to stay relevant do that? It is possible to set the bar so low that anything can be claimed as a victory. Thus, one churchman acknowledged that his faith had made a great impact upon _him_ but not the world. Was it a failure on that account? Not at all. Who is to say the world wouldn't have been worse without it? It is rather like the ne'er-do-well parent responding to the complaints of his jailbird kids. Without his parenting that they have found fault with, why—maybe they would be doing life in prison and not just ten years.

Contemporary grumbling over humans brings to mind those who groused at the marked difference in both direction and style from Charles T. Russell to Joseph Rutherford to Nathan Knorr, successive Watchtower presidents leading up to establishment of the present arrangement of a Governing Body. They are fixated on men. If they are going to harp on this, they ought to follow through. Tell them to ignore Paul and focus only on what Jesus said. The good news enjoyed tremendous growth under Paul? Big deal. It has done the same under the direction of the Governing Body today, yet that makes no difference to their critics.

If we step outside the world of Bible-believing people, we find this is exactly how those of critical thought regard Paul. They essentially treat him as a person who founded a separate religion, reinterpreting the words and teachings of Jesus, linking them to Old Testament events that Jesus himself never specifically linked them to. It cannot be that God works through a group of men today? Don't be so half-hearted. Extend the logic to Jesus and Paul. Take the Bible and rip out every book after John.

Remarks from the disgruntled often assume an 'us versus them' mentality: the boss class dictating to the worker class. The Governing Body doesn't look at it that way. When they say: "Some brothers in the past thought such-and-such," they mean themselves as much as any in the ranks. They do not draw a distinction between themselves and the rest of the brotherhood. Instead, it is the way of Matthew 23:8-10 with them: "But you, do not you be called Rabbi, for one is your Teacher, and all of you are brothers... Neither be called leaders, for your Leader is one, the Christ." Members of the Governing Body do not view themselves as leaders, but as fellow brothers who are taking the lead. There is a difference. The leader is Christ.

While pursuing the pathway to become a Witness, nothing about the way God uses a human agency to direct his people is ever hidden. It is manifest from the start. It seems disingenuous to grouse about being misled, should anyone do it. Instead, some simply reassess matters over time. They decide the cost is too high, and the reason for paying it too nebulous or too far off. They depart because they were "not of our sort." They decide that they like this present world after all, or at least do not dislike it enough to keep such distance.46

The exception already touched upon would be those raised in the faith. They never did see both sides. Or, rather, to the extent most of them did, it was both sides presented through the eyes of the theocratic organization, which hardly represents the other side as that side would represent itself. How to solve this? I don't know. It may already be solved to the extent it can be. The reason Obi-wan does not want Luke to go over into the dark side is that he really thinks it is the dark side. He is not trying to control Luke. He is not trying to deprive him of anything. He is looking out for him. He truly believes the dark side is bad, and he doesn't say: "Why don't you go over there and roam around for a while so that you can make an informed choice?"

So it is with the Witnesses' Governing Body. Charges that they try to control people are so juvenile, so adolescent, that they are hard to countenance. How could anybody think that way? No. They truly believe the theocratic side is good and the other side is, well—the dark side. Though that viewpoint is objectionable to some, it is exactly how the Bible presents matters. I don't know how you get around it, or if you even want to, though it does result in the above dilemma.

Furthermore, if the Governing Body ever 'misrepresents' the non-Witness world, it is not because they are sinister. It is because they do not know it themselves. They take their own counsel, which is that of the Bible, and they do not go there. They are lowly people who have poured themselves out and who now find themselves in places that are high for them. They are places not just 'high for them'—they are actually high. They do not puff themselves up over it. They trust in God and, like the kings of old were directed to do, and they actually read the scriptures daily. They keep away from what is 'falsely called knowledge' and from the 'empty philosophies that violate what is holy' that 'toss people about as though on the waves of the sea.' They have lived their own lives with the lesson of Haggai ever foremost: clean will be contaminated by unclean, not the reverse, and so they do not go there. Because they do not go there, they know it only through the lens of Scripture.47

If the Bible says, in effect, that the 'world will chew you up and spit you out,' they assume that it does. If they find someone who says it in exactly those words, they eat it right up and broadcast it. And who is to say the words are untrue? Some get chewed up and spit out so promptly and decisively that no one would ever deny it, but with others? Who is to say the scriptures are wrong on that point? It may just take a longer time to get chewed up and spit out. Many senior citizens have encountered calamity, even contrived calamity, and have seen everything they had worked for drained away. Even the powerful are not immune as their strength and faculties wane.

The true freedom Christians have is the hope of everlasting life on earth, which no government or religionist can take away. They can make your life most uncomfortable but generally the tribulation is 'momentary and light.' Even in the worst-case scenario that it is not, it ends with one's death, for they cannot touch one's 'soul,' the true life.48 In contrast, what do the presumably Russian guards portrayed at the Regional Convention video have? If they are atheist guards they have three or four decades, after which is a permanent death that may not be dignified. Even the head officer threatening Sergei will fare no better.

It is a challenge piloting Christianity in an increasingly irreligious world in which the very notion of ruling on morality is spun as a negative, as a scheme to manipulate people. The world pushes hard for the viewpoint that, if you must have religion, make it bland and let it not interfere with the "serious" things of life.

I do not know any Governing Body members, past or present, but I did once receive a personal letter from one. By odd coincidence, a personal friend has the same first and last name as one of that group. He entered Bethel around 1980 and there married. My wife and I sent him a card on his first wedding anniversary, and it was the Governing Body member who replied. He thanked us for our kind wishes, he related how he and his wife had been traveling, how they'd been to Australia for the District Convention, and then Africa—boy, he sure gets around for being just a year at Bethel, we thought. Funny that the wives' names didn't match. Ah, well—maybe someone has a nickname. How could we have known? Here was a Governing Body member taking time to respond to a card, writing a few chatty paragraphs to people he did not know, for fear he might hurt someone's feelings. That says it all. These are not pretentious people.

Chapter 10 endnotes

Return to Table of Contents

# Chapter 11 – Apostasy

Anton Chivchalov has described himself as an "observer of the persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia." As he covered trial, appeal, and events thereafter with a steady stream of tweets, he made many observations. Such as:

" _The active participation of apostates in the trial against Jehovah's Witnesses in the Russian Supreme Court is a vivid example of their unprincipled and indiscriminate cooperation with anyone, if only against us. And I'm not talking here about how incompetent and preposterous this participation was (none could testify anything about extremism). Only emotions, zero facts..._

" _But this activity is also utterly immoral, since they want to send innocent people to jail. They are not sincerely misled, like many others. No, apostates are well aware that Jehovah's Witnesses neither killed nor rob anyone, yet they are happy to prosecute us on criminal charges. Of course, they still consider themselves good Christians. And it is completely beyond my understanding that with all this hatred towards us they are offended that we don't want to communicate with them!"_ 1

This is why I was not nice to them on an Internet thread that was taken down for that reason. This is why I did not patiently answer their arguments, as I seem to have been expected to do. This is why, should they intrude upon my posts, I do not address their arguments; I address their motives. Let them howl about ad hominem attacks—there are times when ad hominem is clearly the way to go. After all, the best safeguard against ad hominem attacks is to cultivate an 'adhominem' that does not draw them like a magnet.

When I stumbled across three of them beating up on Job, I tried to be like Elihu and take them out. For my trouble, I found myself headlining a thread entitled 'Harley vs the Apostates.' I complained that I didn't want the job. I don't go out of my way to pick fights with these characters. My protests fell upon deaf ears. So I gradually warmed to the idea and went after them with such ferocity that the same administrator who put me on the thread yanked me off it and slapped me with an 'A' for abuse. I wore my 'A' as though an anti-typical Hester Prynne. In time, it became a plus for me, as it had for her.

There were some unusual characters on that thread, and some who were downright nasty. One person liked to dollar-sign the 'S' in Jehovah's Witnesses, and he accompanied all remarks with taunting graphics. Okay—got it. He thinks Witnesses should be like John the Baptist, living off honey and locusts. In time, whenever I referred to him, I dollar-signed every 'S' within a two-millimeter radius. When I told him that he should be nice to me because otherwise I might not stay, since I had an entire Assembly Hall full of people who liked me, he dismissed them all as 'backstabbers.' I conceded that they were, and even admitted that it was a great nuisance, but I had learned over time to whirl about and take them out like Chuck Norris with a kick to the head.

I could design graphics, too, if I allowed myself. For example, I could draw the ten who jumped from the airplane during a choppy flight. Eight are far below, with chutes open, and when they land they will resume their prior life. One or two of them may even reassess and buy a ticket to re-board at the next airport. But two have grabbed hold of a wing, and, with tangled hair, sleet, fumes and dead birds slapping them in the face, they are desperately trying to unfurl a banner for the remaining passengers, who are largely too preoccupied to notice: "Jump like us, before it's too late!" Any mental health professional will say that the inability to move on in life is a source of much distress.

Nobody has better apostates than Jehovah's Witnesses. Ours are the best. There is no contest. Ours are the most prolific. Ours are the most vitriolic. It is almost as though I am proud of them. Do the mainstream religions produce quality apostates? You're joking! Just read the comments after a typical church post: "How is the Right Reverend O'Malahan doing?" one might say. "I went to school with him back in the day. A fine fellow! Give him my best, won't you?" Only Jehovah's Witnesses generate insurmountable froth. Scientologists and Mormons may merit an honorable mention, but nothing equates, for sheer physical and audible muscle, anti-Witness tirades.

It's ridiculous. A journalist will write something about the faith, and the comment section is deluged with scores, even hundreds, of harangues to the effect that Witnesses are a cult—though that has nothing whatsoever to do with the article. Sometimes the journalist feels obliged to post a disclaimer: 'Look, I'm not a Witness. I don't agree with Witnesses. I don't even like Witnesses. I'm just trying to do a story. Is that too much to ask?' Apparently, it is. Some take to disabling their comment sections. As far as I am concerned, it all validates the faith. Any faith too milquetoast to produce grade-A apostates is too milquetoast to be given the time of day.

One cannot read the New Testament without being struck by the continuous battle against apostates. Contending with them is a pervasive theme of the first-century Christian congregation writings. If it happened then, it should happen now. Any successor worth its salt will also have contentious apostates. And if you know why it happened then, you will know why it happens today.

"For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work," writes Paul. It is indeed a mystery, for the sheer viciousness of apostates exceeds anything one might reasonably anticipate. ISIS barely generates more opposition. Does anyone think that once the wheat is separated from the weeds, the dandelions do not appear again? Ask any homeowner. No matter. Jehovah's Witnesses are nothing if not adaptable to circumstances. "A large door leading to activity has opened," says another verse, "but there are many opposers." There are indeed. There will continue to be. The harvest is great, but the weeds are great, too. Eventually, it will all turn against us in this world—Christians know that. Jesus did not say, "if they persecuted me, they will love you." He said the opposite.2

"For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work," to reiterate Paul. "But the one who restrains is to do so only for the present, until he is removed from the scene." This would be a reference to the apostles, most of them eye-witnesses to Christ. The instant they are removed—the instant human leadership falls upon those who were not eye-witnesses to Christ, it is pedal-to-the-metal for the now-unrestrained apostates. It is no more complex than the unruly pupils creating havoc for the substitute teacher.

It is the first century playing out all over again. There is not a New Testament writer who does not deal with it. The apostate issue was fueled by the same thing then as it is today—a disrespect or outright rejection of authority from those who refuse to take instruction or suffer discipline. They bristle at any attempt to 'impose morality.'3 They take umbrage at any who would direct.

It is no good stipulating that you will deal only with the one on top, in this case God. He will counter that he has underlings who can handle your complaints; surely it should be enough that he will listen to you at any time night or day. If you point out that the underlings mess things up, he will observe that you are no great shakes yourself. He will direct your attention to the verse: "Anyone claiming to love God who does not love his brother, he is a liar." Surely if you love them, you can cooperate with them, he will say, 'even if they do rub you the wrong way now and then. Do you have any idea what you do to me? Didn't my Son throw in a parable about the forgiven slave who would not forgive his fellow slaves?'4

It is most pronounced at the moment of passing the torch. It is the successor whose authority is challenged. Jesus couldn't even pass the torch to the generation beyond his eye-witnesses. At least he made it that far. Most often even the eye-witnesses are shouted down. As always, it is: 'When the cat's away the mice will play' dressed up in high-sounding language about rights so as to appeal to those of critical thought who want to do what they want to do.

Christianity is among the greatest discussion themes of all time. Battling apostates is consequently among the greatest sub-themes of all time. Even Jesus warned of the imposters who would sneak into the sheepfold—not enter straightforwardly through the gate—so as to plunder the sheep. Two entire chapters of the Bible are devoted to apostasy. The New Testament is peppered with references to them. Jude would be unknown except for them. He was just minding his own business, starting a bland letter "about our common salvation" which probably would have wound up in the dustbin of Christian history, but then circumstances forced a changed of course: "I now feel a need to write to encourage you to contend for the faith that was once for all handed down to the holy ones." With that, he penned a short letter that became part of the Bible canon.5

The first Bible chapter devoted solely to apostasy is found in Peter's second letter: _"There were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will introduce destructive heresies and even deny the Master who ransomed them,_ [by refusing to do what he says] _... Many will follow their licentious ways, and because of them the way of truth will be reviled. In their greed they will exploit you with fabrications..."_

They _"show contempt for lordship. Bold and arrogant, they are not afraid to revile glorious beings, whereas angels, despite their superior strength and power, do not bring a like judgment against them from the Lord. But these people, like irrational animals born by nature for capture and destruction, revile things that they do not understand...Thinking daytime revelry a delight, they are stains and defilements as they revel in their deceits while carousing with you. Their eyes are full of adultery and insatiable for sin. They seduce unstable people, and their hearts are trained in greed. Accursed children! Abandoning the straight road, they have gone astray..._

" _These people are waterless springs and mists driven by a gale; for them the gloom of darkness has been reserved. For, talking empty bombast, they seduce with licentious desires of the flesh those who have barely escaped from people who live in error. They promise them freedom, though they themselves are slaves of corruption, for a person is a slave of whatever overcomes him. For if they, having escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of [our] Lord and savior Jesus Christ, again become entangled and overcome by them, their last condition is worse than their first. For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment handed down to them. What is expressed in the true proverb has happened to them, 'The dog returns to its own vomit,' and 'A bathed sow returns to wallowing in the mire.'"_ 6

Plainly there was authority in the first-century congregation and it was this authority that apostates sought to undermine, if not destroy. They "revel in their deceits while carousing with you?" They have "eyes full of adultery?" They "are insatiable for sin?" How does that become a problem unless there is someone who would tell them they cannot carry on that way? Otherwise, they can just do whatever they like and tell those who disapprove to mind their own business. They want to especially "follow the flesh with its depraved desire and show contempt for lordship." The first could be easily done were it not for the authoritarian manner of the second. From therein arises the contempt.

"They promise them freedom, though they themselves are slaves of corruption?" It is spot-on for today. Do apostates truly have freedom to offer? Witnesses sacrifice some petty freedoms for the sake of the large ones; no Witness would ever say otherwise. But cast aside obedience to God and one simply switches masters. By the time they pay their new master his dues, God's congregation and the Governing Body will look like doddering indulgent grandparents in comparison. If one loses faith in God's promises, those petty freedoms suddenly become the mainstay of life, and the sacrifices required to attain the large freedoms seem for naught. It is no more complicated than that.

The second Bible chapter devoted solely to apostasy is the letter of Jude, mentioned previously. It is only a single chapter in length: _"For there have been some intruders, who long ago were designated for this condemnation, godless persons, who pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness and who deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ."_

They denied him, for the most part, by simply ignoring anything inconvenient that he said—a course that becomes easy to take now that he and his eyewitnesses are dead, and they could start interpreting his teachings any way they liked. It is always easier once the author is dead. It recalls a scene from the book _Up the Down Staircase_ wherein a high school student is given a failing grade for wrongly interpreting a poem. He protests, but the grade stands. It stands even when he brings the poet to class and the poet says: 'Yes, that's exactly what I meant.' The only victory the student attains is to trigger a change in school policy—only dead poets are to be assigned from that time on.

Jude hits on similar themes as does Peter: Remember that God brought his people out of Egypt but then destroyed those rebelling. And the angels who didn't keep their place but came down to earth for carrying on with the gorgeous women—how did it turn out with them? And what about when Michael got into a squabble with the Devil over something and yet still refrained from denunciations? Yet the apostates today denounce as readily as they breathe. They are rocks beneath the water, ready to rip the bottom out of the boat. They are waterless clouds—what a letdown is in store when they show up on a parched day! Fruitless trees in late autumn—what good are they? Stars with no set course—just try plotting your journey by them! But they do know what they want, and they do know how they feel about ones who would restrain them.

Almost always, the emphasis is on less service to God, less strictness in following his ways, never more. Frequently it is framed a plea for more love and tolerance. Discipline, particularly firm discipline, they interpret as a lack of love, even though the Word states exactly the opposite: "My son, do not disdain the discipline of the Lord or lose heart when reproved by him; for whom the Lord loves, he disciplines; he scourges every son he acknowledges."7

With those that oppose it is usually over expressed concern for individual rights. Usually congregational restrictions on individual rights are portrayed as evil. 'Yielding to the greater good' becomes a phrase triggering alarm, for haven't tyrants embarked upon their tyranny utilizing just those words? Yet it is exactly what the Bible advises Christians to do. Let new students see the drama unfold. It is Christianity 304 – 101 having to do with mastering the basics, and 201 having to do with applying them. Nowhere will one discover Jesus counseling the disciples: "Don't take any flak from anyone." Instead it will be: "Should anyone press you into service for one mile, go with him for two miles."8 Apostasy begins whenever one chooses the first dictum over the second.

Many apostates are persons who came up on the losing end of discipline and are not happy about it. They eagerly spread the report that true Christianity breaks up families, ignoring Jesus' words that that is exactly what can happen with a serious faith. It takes the European Court of Human Rights to straighten them out, and Alexander Dvorkin thereafter regards that body as a "so-called" human rights organization, and sides with those of his countrymen who would ignore it.

It is hard not to view them as the children squabbling in the back seat of the car, resentful of everything, looking up only occasionally to cry: 'Are we there yet?' Little did I realize in my boyhood that when my father thundered from up front, it was with the wisdom of the ages: "If you kids don't stop crying back there, I'll give you something to cry about!"

It is chess grandmasters crying about the rules of the game. It is football players crying because the referee has proved human. It is 'freedom fighters' preoccupied with the mundane, and thus overlooking the freedoms that truly amount to something. It is patients bickering over health care and forgetting about health. If you do not piddle away all your time on the trivial, you may hope to attain to the monumental. How does living forever on a paradise earth sound? Does anyone think it is God's purpose to live a few erratic decades and die on an earth carved up into eternally bickering sovereign powers? We can aspire to nothing greater than that?

It was a universal concern of the first century—the struggle with apostates. It is a lesson for today. If you would be in contention as 'successors to original Christianity,' you must have high-caliber apostates. Luke-warm ones will not do. You must have your hands full battling these characters if you are to fulfill the first-century congregation pattern. Revisit the themes of the first century and see them play out in the modern day, particularly the tendency to 'despise authority.' Christian moral standards are high, and they can be spun as absurdly high in a permissive world—in fact, not merely _high_ , but _wrong_ : judgmental and far too narrow.

All denominations have governing arrangements, but these are generally concerned with administrative matters. Whatever recommendations they have for the faithful are just that: recommendations. There is little stigma to disregarding them. Plainly, religions in which the year text is 'Anything Goes' are not going to have apostate issues. When you don't suffer any censure for doing whatever, you don't complain. Others will suffer from your avant-garde course, but their complaints are less tangible and can be ignored.

A world aware of the early Christian record of persecution somehow attributes it to a new idea that took some getting used to, and once this was done—why, the world embraced Christianity as one more item on its menu of offerings. It is an interpretation most naïve. Only when Christianity changed to fit the dominant world culture did it become acceptable, even a fine career path to pursue. Those who continue to observe it as its founder did continue to experience the rejection he did. "In fact, all who want to live religiously in Christ Jesus will be persecuted," says Paul.9

The apostates of the first century eventually won the day. Christianity did spread through a gradually won-over world, but it was the apostatized version that prevailed. The world remained the world and 'Christianity' adapted so as to fit in. It was only by shedding what was bedrock and incorporating then-popular ideas that the faith was accepted into the mainstream. Revelation, the final Bible book, likens religion to a prostitute, forsaking loyalty to a Husband so as to snuggle up close with "the kings of the earth," relishing the riches and power these ones bestow.10

The development is foretold in Jesus' parable of the wheat and the weeds. "The kingdom of heaven may be likened to a man who sowed good seed in his field. While everyone was asleep his enemy came and sowed weeds all through the wheat, and then went off. When the crop grew and bore fruit, the weeds appeared as well. The slaves of the householder came to him and said, 'Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? Where have the weeds come from?' He answered, 'An enemy has done this.' His slaves said to him, 'Do you want us to go and pull them up?' He replied, 'No, if you pull up the weeds you might uproot the wheat along with them. Let them grow together until harvest; then at harvest time I will say to the harvesters, 'First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles for burning; but gather the wheat into my barn.'"11

The apostates won back then. Their version became the dominant model of Christianity, but it is not to be that way in 'the harvest.' The Word is restored and presently the weeds appear once more, anticipating a repeat. This time, however, the scene has changed, and they are to lose. Collect them up and tie them in bundles for burning.

A modern Witness might draw attention to the passage of 2 Timothy 4: "For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine but, following their own desires and insatiable curiosity, will accumulate teachers and will stop listening to the truth and will be diverted to myths." Since "the time will come" and the passage was written long ago, might not the accumulated teachers, with their myths, have appeared long ago? If he does not use the passage from 2 Timothy 4, he may use one from 1 Timothy 4. "Now the Spirit explicitly says that in the last times some will turn away from the faith by paying attention to deceitful spirits and demonic instructions through the hypocrisy of liars with branded consciences. They forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth." Either passage works to convey the idea that apostasy happened long ago. A movement to restore matters was launched as men were roving about in the late 1800s, but there are now those who would countermand them.

Of the most incalcitrant of them operating in the present day, the verse does not give reason for optimism: "For it is impossible in the case of those who have once been enlightened and tasted the heavenly gift and shared in the holy Spirit and tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to bring them to repentance again, since they are recrucifying the Son of God for themselves and holding him up to contempt." Of course! They "re-crucify" the Lord. They have not fallen to discouragement or to mere inattention. They have "once been enlightened" with regard to Christ, but they have repudiated it. They repudiate what he stands for, even though some may claim to follow him still. Good luck trying to turn them around yet again. They will now be placated only by persuading others of their reestablished point of view.

They are actors playing a role written long ago. Sometimes in Hollywood, actors who have long played the villain sign on to play the hero. One cannot look into the heart; it is somewhere no human can go. Did those ones really go apostate, particularly those who were young? Or did they just become overwhelmed in the raging torrent, like the Canadian ducks of the previous chapter? The fat lady has not yet sung. One cannot really know who fits the words of Paul and who does not. Sometimes, however, you feel you can get pretty close, and expectations that 'apostates' will reassess have seldom panned out thus far.12

Current Watchtower counsel regarding apostates is to avoid them—don't argue with them in public and don't engage with them online. Though apostates invariably represent this as the Witness organization's attempt to blindfold its own people, scripturally it is so sound that it could hardly do otherwise. If apostates are not the "ones who went out from us because they were not of our sort," who are? If they are not the "blind guides" who Jesus instructs to "leave them be," who are? Are they not like the men of the Gentiles, who after rejecting correction of the congregation, members are to have nothing to do with? Do they not fit the description of ones not to even take a meal with or say a greeting to, lest one be a sharer of their sins?13 Present counsel could not be different. Don't go there just to brawl.

Sigh—sometimes this writer, despite himself, savors a good brawl. He doesn't blow theocratic counsel away as though it were nothing; he is chastened by it and would be far worse without it. He persuades himself that he, at his most dastardly, is no worse than the Witness who nods appreciatively at the reminder that God hate violence before tuning in the football game where pugilists ram each other like big dumb animals with antlers on the nature shows. He even pretends to himself that he is within the spirit of the counsel, if not the letter, for he is not addressing the apostates, trying to convince them. He knows that is impossible. He is addressing the audience behind them and lending support to less experienced Witnesses who follows the first law of human nature and venture online because they have been advised they should not. Some of them become like kids playing in the street, oblivious to the dangers of apostates swerving wildly to take out as many as possible. But sometimes you can pull a wheel off their chariot. Sometimes you can jam a stick into their spokes, sending them hurtling head over handlebars. I like to do that sometimes.

A writer can even relish online the challenge of framing things before people who he knows are going to savage it and he can take comfort in the words of Frank Sinatra: "If I can make it here, I'll make it anywhere." You remind yourself that a writer needs more than a muse—he needs a villain, and there are villains innumerable online. You even imagine it a fine test of scriptural application; can you truly keep yourself 'restrained under evil?' Sometimes you find that you cannot and then it is back to Bible 101 for you!

One might almost call it Bible 304, an elective course, where the theme scripture text is Jesus' rebuke to his clerical enemies: "Why do you put me to the test, hypocrites?" He wasn't gentle with them. He knew their motive. Like snakes, they saddled up to him with their question: "Teacher, we know that you are a truthful man and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. And you are not concerned with anyone's opinion, for you do not regard a person's status. Tell us, then, what is your opinion: Is it lawful to pay the census tax to Caesar or not?"14

They didn't give a hoot in hell about taxes. But they did know what would make it hot for Jesus. People didn't like taxes, they rarely do, and the tax collectors back then enjoyed much latitude in shaking people down. But speak against them and you had the Romans to worry about.

"Why are you testing me, you hypocrites?" Jesus shot right back to them. "Show me the coin that pays the census tax." Then they handed him the Roman coin. He said to them, "Whose image is this and whose inscription?" They replied, "Caesar's." At that he said to them, "Then repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God." A bunch of frauds they were, and Jesus played not too nice with them. Sometimes that must be done with modern-day frauds as they pose as champions of this cause or that so as to make trouble for a people they have come to despise. It worked with Jesus' enemies, for we read: "When they heard this they were amazed, and leaving him, they went away." Of course, they later returned with more potent evil intent.15

What does one learn in Bible 304? Ones sees advanced Bible themes as love for God, love for the brotherhood and Christian loyalty play out right under ones' nose. The curriculum is largely observing how some reevaluate their dedication after a time—and sometimes back out of it, and why. Some themes become most meaningful when you see live examples of them. Like the Soviet officials aghast that Witnesses thrived under the harshest imposed conditions, Witnesses today wonder at the mystery of their own apostates.

Ultimately, it is not complex and there is little mystery. The many reasons people reevaluate generally collapse into one: "Demas, enamored of the present world, deserted me." There is no reason Demas cannot do this if he likes. Just don't spin it otherwise. John wrote that many had left because "they were not of our sort." One may think their actions unwise, but they are not hypocritical if explained in those words. One should call a spade a spade.16

With the foes identified at Bible 304, individual rights invariably trump self-sacrifice. They insist upon extracting the straw from their brother's eye, oblivious to the log in their own. Some are upset that the cloud left the tabernacle just after they had finished unpacking. Some anticipated that it was about to leave and then muttered when it did not. Some tirelessly devote 90% of their time to squabble over 10% of the Scripture total. Let them squabble themselves into oblivion with their critical thinking. Jesus bypasses it all and speaks straight to the heart. One can read Obadiah, the shortest Hebrew Bible book of all, telling of God's nation under attack, and how their estranged Edomite relatives ardently joined in the attack, turning their brothers over to those who would kill them. Read how God felt about that.17

One finds those who fell even seven times and lost all desire to get up. The reward is further off than they once thought. The price to pay appears higher than anticipated. Some emerged on the losing end of the villainous deeds of Revelation 2 and 3, and one can empathize to an extent, for who likes to be wronged? Alas, sooner or later in life, circumstances or individuals will do things that will chafe; one must muster up gumption and get up. Sometimes forgiveness is required in order to get on with life. In the end, the card that must be played is that of the psalmist: "Lovers of your law have much peace; for them there is no stumbling block."18 One must love God's law.

One will encounter countless persons who spill dirt on the Witness organization. Often it is true dirt, or it is based upon something true. [redacted] says a recent Watchtower article. Same with other qualities. There will always be dirt. Opposers misrepresent, exaggerate and always impute wrong motive. Eventually, John Q Publisher comes across it, and because he has been exposed to not a hint of it, he is floored—and in some cases, he swallows it along with the negative spin added, to his spiritual detriment. Maybe exposure to a little bit of the illness, as with a vaccine by a physician, better prepares him should he later encounter it in the wild. All he will learn is that Witness headship involves people who are imperfect, and that he knew .

One cannot win online, really. "We destroy arguments and every pretension raising itself against the knowledge of God," says Paul. But once you think you have done that and the villain keeps pumping them anyway, the irresistible temptation is to skirt past the caution tape and pound him into oblivion with a baseball bat of rhetoric. It is not for Christians to do. It must be God who is the judge. "A slave of the Lord should not quarrel, but should be gentle with everyone," says Paul again, notwithstanding the appeal of slapping the malcontents.20

Bible 304 is an unadvised elective, because you cannot blow off as nothing the verses that say the unclean will rub off on the clean, and not the reverse. "Leave them be," Jesus says, not: "Let's rumble!" To one who has chosen a course involving self-sacrifice, it is not necessarily a fine thing to spend time with those who savor unrestraint. It is the same as how one determined to diet is undermined by others of the household stuffing the refrigerator with ice cream and pie. The curriculum of 304 contains material that is not readily gleaned anywhere else, but in a dose so powerful it can knock one right out of the campus. Witnesses generally stay away from them. Too many of them have become virulent in the oppostion.21

Anyone who ever attended Sunday School or has seen a TV Easter Sunday movie knows that Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt and through the Red Sea, which parted for him. They had known nothing but harsh slavery in Egypt. Thereafter, they wandered 40 years in the wilderness before entering the promised land. What is not generally known is that, after just a few months out of Egypt, the surly Israelite refugees wanted to go back, slavery or no slavery. They had misunderstood. They had assumed the promised land would come immediately. They hadn't reckoned upon the uncertainty and trials they would face in the wilderness that would test their faith in God's promise. The same Moses who had been a deliverer now became an oppressor in the eyes of many—notwithstanding that Scripture calls him the most humble man ever to have lived—he is not the Moses of movie lore who pops Pharaoh in the nose and gets the girl.24

Challenges to his authority were vehement: "Holding an assembly against Moses and Aaron, they said, "You go too far! The whole community, all of them, are holy; the LORD is in their midst. Why then should you set yourselves over the LORD's assembly?" we read in Numbers. "Are you not satisfied that you have brought us here from a land flowing with milk and honey to have us perish in the wilderness, that now you must also lord it over us? Far from bringing us to a land flowing with milk and honey, or giving us fields and vineyards for our inheritance, will you gouge out our eyes?"25

One thing stands out loud and clear in all Bible references: Trash Moses and God counts it as done to him. He has no patience with those who would claim best-buddy status with him yet would rebel against whoever he places at the helm. Later, Jesus pushed back at religious leaders of his day who decried the rebelliousness of the past, declaring they would _never_ have been like that themselves. 'You would have been worse,' Jesus tells them.26 It is little different with those who would rebel against theocratic headship today and have mostly separated themselves to do just that. To satisfy these ones, must one wait for Governing Body members to part the oceans so that they may walk wherever they have to go? Moses _did_ part the Red Sea and it won him no lasting respect.

There is hardly a reasonable basis for such contending over human authority today. The scriptural backing is acceptable and the evidence that they have put the Master's coins to good use is irrefutable. The Witness of today does not disregard the theocratic accomplishments plainly taking place today. It is not nothing that a people are gathered internationally who are entirely undivided by nationalism, by racism, by social or educational class. It happens nowhere else on any scale. Witnesses do not take it for granted. They give credit where it is due.

They will not disregard that there is one organization that will put a modern Bible without charge into the hands of whoever desires it anywhere. They must completely circumvent the world's profit-driven distribution channel to do it, inventing their own channel. And in 900 languages, no less. Given time, the Bible translation itself will approach that figure; it is already sizable, over 200. The smooth functioning and meshing of diverse peoples to attain a common and undiluted spiritual goal: there has been no greater worldwide example of: 'You received free, so give free.' It doesn't just happen. Somehow God has enabled humans to accomplish it.

Human things are not perfect? Timing has been off? That should be a shocker? Jesus said: "Keep on the watch, but don't overdo it?" I don't think so. There is fierce opposition today? As though, with a capable leadership, Jesus words would be wrong and the world would love Christians? As though the worst 'wicked thing they would falsely say' about Jesus' followers is: "They woke me up Saturday morning when I was sleeping?" No.

Are they squabbling in Bible 304 over a missed date like 1975? Witnesses got all excited over something that turned out to be a big nothingburger. Give them the short answer: 'Everyone is allowed one failed end-of-world date per lifetime—it is in the rules'—and be done with it. Let them all go away muttering, just like Jesus disposed of his enemies. Their minds were made up long before they materialized to destroy him. The tactic to blow detractors off with a quick answer is the same one Jesus used many times, both to opponents and to those who just wanted a quick fix. Later, with his faithful disciples he would explain matters in more detail.

Focus instead upon how mistakes can happen. How the prophecies of Jesus will turn out is a subject even the angels have tried to look into. Who would order them to get back to work and mind their own business? Focus on how, if they shot themselves in the foot, they nonetheless proved they were 'keeping on the watch,' and not 'sleeping at the switch.' Even crazies that go out on a limb and announce this day or that will end it all must be given credit for that.27

The eight men of the Governing Body are but eight men. They made themselves known from day one. They are not the eight crime bosses. Let us not be silly. They are doting grandparents in comparison to the authorities of this world. They are not even leaders, really, for they look to Christ as the true leader. They are not masters of anyone's faith. They parallel the authority of Moses and Aaron of Old Testament times, and the apostles and presbyters of New Testament times. Authority is unpopular today. It is distrusted. But the Governing Body ask only that members don't plow through the guardrails or pass on the double line. One must not confuse true tyranny with the traffic cop's direction to stay within the crosswalk.

There is only one significant advantage from casting off the Christian congregation that this writer can picture: the delirious freedom of going where no one can tell you what to do. You can be free! It is intoxicating, like a drug. All other considerations, material and spiritual, vanish. And yet the notion that you go where no one can tell you what to do is illusory. It may be true in the 'pecking order' sense, where fellow humans offer counsel, but that is the petty sense. By giving up upon the sure resurrection hope, old age and death will surely tell you what to do. By giving up on the 'wisdom from above,' the 'schemes and trickery of men' will surely tell you what to do, for the air has authority. By giving up on the Bible's complete explanation of suffering, the remaining vacuum will surely tell you what to do. Write on their gravestones yet again the words of Frank Sinatra: "I did it my way" but take note that the words _are_ on a gravestone.

Christianity 101 is learning the tenets. Christianity 201 is learning to apply them. Christianity 304 is the 50,000-mile checkup. It will be found that some wish to trade in the vehicle at that point. The interior comfort is not sufficient. The engine does not pack quite the punch hoped for. And the transmission—grinding spiritual gears with secular—is hopeless! Time to trade in Jehovah's chariot for that sleek new model with the gorgeous woman cooing over it, even if she is the Revelation woman. It will be no more than some variation of Demas enamored of this world, an ancient play enacted in modern times before a fresh audience. The alternative is to admit that one made a decision that did not work out personally, and people are loath to do that. Better to say that one was brainwashed or taken advantage of.

It is biblical themes displayed in real time. Sample kingdom rule for a time, then go back to human rule. Are the errors of prominent Christians exposed in Bible 304? It is no more than history repeating itself. The petty squabbling and foibles that characterize the first-century Christian record will also be seen in the modern record. However, the lack of guile and deceit of the first will be seen in the second as well. The trick is not to sanitize the present. It is to de-sanitize the past. There are places in the Bible record where it is stated that God's nation did _worse_ than its neighbors.29 It is well that such days are in the past. Still, one ought not hold one's breath and expect perfection from an organization of humans.

Chapter 11 endnotes

Return to Table of Contents

# PART III
# Chapter 12 – Money

Chivchalov reports: "The vast majority of Russians are sure that [the] Jehovah's Witnesses [religion] is a huge money-pumping machine created for the enrichment of its leaders, and that religion and the Bible are only a disguise. They think that each JW should bring to the 'sect' all their money and re-register their flats, houses, and other property for the benefit of it. We are often called in the media a 'pseudo-religious commercial sect.'"1 There are some things uniquely Russian in this statement, but similar charges have been made elsewhere by those who don't like Witnesses.

Though sometimes mischaracterized, the donation practices of Jehovah's Witnesses are among the least obtrusive of any faith. At the Kingdom Hall, a person may give 50% of his income towards religious interests or nothing at all. Nobody knows. One must go to a contribution box at the rear of the auditorium to donate. Nobody knows if you do or do not. Nobody approaches you. No collections are taken, and unless someone chooses to use checks (or credit card at large gatherings), giving is completely anonymous. Just now in the U.S. there is introduced a service to donate online for those who prefer. In contrast, a church that I attended as a boy used 'pledge envelopes' through which donations could be tracked. Like charities everywhere, each pledge constituted a floor from which to make greater pledges. I remember my non-believing father telling the pastor who had come calling and had mentioned my homemaker mother's offerings that he should not forget who really was the source of those offerings. The church an older friend attended passed offering plates mounted at the end of poles. They shook to the beat of loud music; drop in some coins and the _chink-chink-chink_ reverberated through the building. It was quiet money they wanted—folding money.

Detractors point (with glee) to Pew charts showing Jehovah's Witnesses are the poorest monetarily of all faiths2 and the 'least educated.'3 The plain intention is that those circumstances be perceived negatively, as in: 'Why should anyone listen to poor and stupid people?' So be it. It was also characteristic of the first-century Christians, the leaders of whom are specifically called 'uneducated and ordinary.'4 It also means that financial support for Jehovah's Witnesses will come from their lower rungs, since they have precious few upper rungs to draw from. Let us explore the topic of finances.

A top-secret letter from the Witness organization to bodies of elders was intercepted and posted online. Actually, it wasn't top secret. It was merely confidential. It contained the instruction: "This postscript should not be read to the congregation, and this letter should not be posted on the information board." Normally I would respect confidentiality and not reproduce the letter, but this is the age of the Internet. Why be like the Russian court that refused to look at video evidence that everyone else saw?

Not everything not made public is the smoking gun. There was a time when writing only to those concerned was not perceived as pulling the wool over the eyes of everyone else. Even as to things that actually _were_ hidden in the first century, Jesus said: "I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now."5 His would be the words of the arch-deceiver today, and opponents (if they dared) would rummage through his files to unearth and publish everything he was withholding.

The confidential postscript in the public letter read to the congregation tells how, for a certain expense, the congregation secretary "should use the number of active publishers to calculate the suggested amount to be contributed by the congregation" and "the elders may choose to raise or lower the amount based on the economic abilities of the congregation as a whole." The snitch is very excited to have posted this and gloats he has uncovered evidence to prove that they are obsessed with money at Witness headquarters.

Any organization uses money. A child knows it. The need for money is no more than common sense. It made common sense to Bible writers and it makes common sense to people who have common sense and who want to eat and do things and pay the bills. Few seek it less obtrusively or stewards it more wisely than the Witness organization. The 'leaked' letter makes the Witness organization look good, not bad, as the poster had hoped. Many outfits would say in effect, 'Repeat as necessary and do not take no for an answer.' Watchtower says: "The elders may choose to raise or lower the amount based on the economic abilities of the congregation." Should their goal come up short, they simply readjust that goal, confident that those of greater means will make up for the deficiency of those of lesser means.

The confidential note does no more than expand on the consideration already announced publicly. Witnesses are well used to hearing about how that this or that circuit expense will be met if everyone contributes such and such an amount. This is always followed by clarification that it is not thereby suggested that each member pony up that amount, but rather that the congregation in aggregate do so. The private instruction reveals that even that fair policy is not held fast to. Elders know their flock. A poor congregation can lessen their share. A well-off congregation can increase it.

Another letter was posted online, this one to bodies of elders in some congregations in Nigeria, among those "lands of limited resources." The intent of this leak is to misrepresent the Watchtower organization as working to squeeze the last dime out of poor people. It does nothing of the sort. Ten minutes of an upcoming congregation meeting is to be allotted to discussing contributions. The elders are asked to "please stress that regularity is very important when contributing." 1 Corinthians 16:1-3 forms the basis of discussion (here rendered in the NABRE, though the letter quotes NWT): "Now in regard to the collection for the holy ones, you also should do as I ordered the churches of Galatia. On the first day of the week each of you should set aside and save whatever one can afford, so that collections will not be going on when I come. And when I arrive, I shall send those whom you have approved with letters of recommendation to take your gracious gift to Jerusalem," writes the apostle Paul.

The letter to congregation elders then observes: "Paul's suggestion on the manner of contributing can be applied by congregation members today. How? Regularity is the key. If your congregation is to pay the monthly rent and maintenance expenses of your meeting place or Kingdom Hall, it will take 'contributing, not so much the amount, but the regularity of setting something aside each week or month for kingdom interests,' writes the branch office in Peru. Does this idea appeal to you? Even children can be taught to appreciate how regularity in contributing is part of their worship. We all regularly set aside money for school fees, food, rent and other necessities. How much more important it is to do so for kingdom interests. Taking advantage of whichever way is most convenient for us personally, whether electronically or by using the contribution box in our local Kingdom Hall, regularity in contribution will help us to put true worship first in our lives."

Is it greedy? Or is it simply a reminder that the light bill must be paid? The one who posts the confidential letter excitedly states: "Is this the head start to tithing? Seems so." It doesn't seem so at all to this writer. Tithing is a system of giving 10% of one's income to a religious entity. Jehovah's Witnesses don't do it. Many churches do. It was a requirement of the Old Testament. There is no basis upon which to carry it over into the New Testament, but many faiths, with an apparent eye on the cash flow, do so anyway. Ten percent is an easily manageable sum to persons well-off financially. To those who are poor it is a crushing load to bear, and Christ would not have his followers bear it. Note that contributions in the letter are likened to money for school fees, food, rent, and other necessities, not to a percentage of income.

Whoever is the opponent leaking the letter, he is either too deceitful, too driven by agenda, or possibly too stupid to notice that the Watchtower's letter to the congregation is _exactly based on the scripture quoted in the same paragraph_. In fact, the two are intertwined in the letter, so that they are seemingly impossible to separate save for someone unusually determined to do so. Moreover, the Watchtower organization shows more consideration than even Paul does to the Corinthian congregation. Paul simply says, in effect: 'I'm coming for the money. Have it ready!' without any detail as to what he will use it for. He "orders" it. The Watchtower letter simply says that members can be instructed by Paul's letter—it doesn't demand anything—and it, unlike Paul, supplies the reason for funds needed. They are mundane: rent and maintenance.

The point already made is reaffirmed: few are less intrusive about money than are Jehovah's Witnesses. Other faiths make it a per person matter, not per congregation, by thrusting an offering plate right under their noses with the whole church looking on. What if our detractor turned his rage upon the Bible itself? Could he not be outraged that Paul tells them to have his money ready for pick-up? And what of Paul's promise to take it to Jerusalem? 'Sure! He's probably going to take it to Ephesus or Corinth for some high living!' they'd say. 'He calls it a 'gift.' It sounds more like extortion! Why does God need our money, anyway? It's ours! Tell him to keep his hands off!' Tell him to do what the [insert anyone you like] religious leader did. At the interfaith conference on how to distribute collected funds, whether for 'us' or for God, one denomination head suggested throwing the money in the air and what came down on one side of a drawn line was theirs, and the other side God's. Another clergyman reversed sides of the line. But the third advised that, upon throwing all money into the air, "What God wants, he will keep."

Still another letter was posted—this place leaks like a sieve! This one was regarding the then-upcoming 2017 Annual Meeting, to be streamed from Warwick NY to 600,000 in various locations. Set up an extra contribution box or two, it said. The one who posted the letter crowed about this positive proof that they thought only of money at Watchtower central.

Again, I ask forgiveness for a bit of sarcasm, the language of you-know-who. He's the one who makes me do it. It so happened that I was one of the 600,000. The program was eventually placed on the JW.org website, where it can be viewed by anyone. Four hours! That's how long the annual meeting lasted. Four hours of experiences and refinements and the history of building the new Warwick New York headquarters followed by a dedication of those facilities. After that dedication, there were four talks of adjusted views and exhortation that might be dull to some, but they were invigorating to Witnesses.6

And then, spoiling it all, (I couldn't believe it—right in the midst of it) _30 seconds of shameless groveling for money!_ They actually (brace yourselves), they actually suggested that those present might donate if they wanted to! and (GASP!) they even specified where it might be done (at the contribution box)! Thirty seconds' mention of money in a four-hour period! Detractors are right! It's all about money with these people!

Oh, and that letter spirited out, that the poster was so excited about sharing—the one directing that extra contribution stations should be established? I looked and looked for ours (our meeting was at the Kingdom Hall) and I discovered it! That slot in the counter that used to be designated as the Kingdom Hall fund but was taped over when that fund was combined with the Worldwide Work? It was _uncovered_ again, and _also_ labeled Worldwide Work!

Witnesses will hardly rejoice to see the above three confidential letters displayed online. They will more likely be irritated, for who likes their private correspondence posted for all to peruse? Still, the confidential portions only serve to strengthen general confidence in the organization that serves its members. Bethel wrote local elders to remind local publishers to donate in a timely manner. The letter is posted online in hopes that anyone reading will be outraged at the greedy Watchtower. Instead, I feigned outrage at the greedy Bible writers, for it was clear that everything the Watchtower organization did was based upon scripture. To what degree is one willing to be 'taught by Jehovah?' The Bible includes matters ranging from the strictly spiritual into the purely practical.

If anyone want to do "blunt," let them consider instructions given to those attending the Jewish festivals. You "shall not appear before the LORD empty-handed, but each with his own gift, in proportion to the blessing which the LORD, your God, has given to you."7 It is as though Jehovah says: "There! Got it? Don't think you are going to crash the party and freeload! You can at least bring a bag of potato chips."

At a September 2017 congregation meeting, finances were atypically discussed at length. The book _God's Kingdom Rules,_ already quoted, is a history of the modern-day Witness organization. Under consideration at successive congregation meetings, the book had at last gotten around to discussing how the work is financed.8 Of long ago, it stated:

[redacted]

Yes. Of course. [redacted] That is why no collections are ever taken at the Kingdom Hall and a contribution box suffices. What seems more trusting in God: a contribution box in the back where people may or may not give anonymously, or an offering plate passed through the rows so that everyone nearby knows just how much one puts in?

Activities of Jehovah's Witnesses have greatly increased since that time, and the funds necessary have increased accordingly, but their relative place is the same. Bill Underwood compared the disaster relief efforts of several religious organizations in the aftermath of an earthquake that devastated Haiti. Most issued urgent appeals for money. Most provided only sketchy details as to what they would do with those monies. But when it came to the Watchtower:

"Well, that was refreshing. I went to watchtower.org and searched it for references to money, donations, charity. All I found were Watchtower articles such as 'Is money you master or your servant?' Try as I might, there was no way to donate any money to the organization, nor any request for donations. The only mention of money I found, in connection with Haiti, was in a public news release at jw-media.org entitled "Witnesses' relief efforts well under way for victims of earthquake in Haiti." A single line at the bottom read, 'The Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses is caring for these expenses by utilizing funds donated to the Witnesses' worldwide work.'" Not only was there no plea for money, but it was not possible to donate any at this most obvious appeal-spot.9

Few persons would argue that the Watchtower organization does not use whatever funds are donated fully for the spread of the good news. People know from experience that when those of the Witness organization travel anywhere, they will stay at the lodgings of a fellow Witness. A hotel tab is unheard of. If they dine out at restaurants, they do so at the invitation of friends or at their own expense. When they travel, it via commercial flights. There has never been a financial scandal within the Witness organization, unless you count someone wearing cufflinks or traveling first class, which a Governing Body member will do in order not to arrive at a crucial meeting having just flown around the globe with his knees in his mouth.

Oh, and I am told (somewhat to my surprise) by someone who served in Bethel 35 years ago, that it was not expected that Governing Body members lodge at branch facilities or private homes when they traveled, though many preferred to do just that, and when they did not, he (not me) strongly suspected that it was because their wives insisted upon an expense account hotel as a break from an otherwise relentless Bethel dormitory routine. It is so human how can it not be true? But I know nothing of today, though I guess it would be easy enough to find out. No matter. Stay in a hotel if you must. Those of the Governing Body are my servants. They work hard, and I benefit. Have a second cup of coffee on me. Bizarrely, the greatest financial scandal one can point to is that of Judas stealing money from the disciples' fund back in the day.10 It wouldn't happen today. A simple accounting system that would have caught the ancient scoundrel is routine among Witnesses today for congregation and circuit expenses.

At Regional Conventions one finds a standard message on the printed program, not stated verbally:

[redacted]

There are a few electronic terminals about as well to accommodate persons more modern, but nobody could ever say it is in-your-face.

The line that invariably gets the largest applause at the Regional Convention is: "Would you like to convey your greetings to Bethel?" It is obvious why that is so. People look around them and see evidence everywhere that whatever donations they have made are being spent wisely. They see a huge infrastructure that is entirely dedicated to fulfilling the Christian mission of publicizing and representing kingdom interests. They do not feel the need to monitor Bethel for crooks and they are confident that, should crooks appear, the overall upright character of the organization will handle it.

No financial scandals may have ever occurred, but to ones who would like to halt the Witnesses' work, there is always a giant one just around the corner. Occasionally these ones demand regular public accounting of the overall organization: financial reports such as a public, but not private, business would provide. Congregation members do not demand such. The accounting that matters to them, and that negates any need of their scrutinizing the higher finances, are the Kingdom Halls and Assembly Halls sprouting up like mushrooms in areas that can ill-afford them. The accounting is the disaster relief mobilization—Witnesses are ever among the first upon the scene—that promptly undertakes the project while outsiders are yet mobilizing. In 2013, a newspaper in Arkansas reported on the rapid response of Witness volunteers, and stated: "The organizational structure of the Jehovah's Witnesses has developed the disaster response volunteer service to a fine art."11

The accounting is the annual convention held hundreds of times around the globe, and televised content utilizing the latest means of video technology. The accounting is the website translated into 900 languages to facilitate a unified teaching of God's Word. Imagine the effort to accomplish such a feat of translation—Google and Apple and Wikipedia combined do not come close!12 The accounting is free Bible distribution, so that the poor family in an impoverished country can have one for free if they need one, rather than be stuck with an archaic and unaffordable 200-year-old translation that they could not understand anyway because nobody of the religious world dreams it possible to circumvent the commercial world's distribution system. Everyone else thinks it is natural that Big Business should control the distribution of God's message to humankind. Only Jehovah's Witnesses have the vision to challenge that model so completely on a worldwide scale and the determination to see that challenge through. The accounting is the lovable childlike cartoon characters Caleb and Sophia who, despite their tender years, still come off as more mature than some of those who would cry foul over this or that aspect of the Witness organization.

In the overall picture, any video or print material devoted to money represents but a tiny percent of Watchtower's output; one need only peruse the material to convince oneself. A yearly article in the Watchtower magazine covers various means in which one may give: through wills, deeds, conditional loans, and so forth. Even that yearly article is not asking for money. It is simply telling those inclined to donate the most effective ways of doing it.

One Witness says he has "found contribution methods to nearly always be a topic of interest to new ones I bring to the meeting. Not only do they expect to contribute something to costs, but they are often puzzled as to why so little is said about money. This sometimes arouses suspicion on their part as to some sort of financial 'whammy' that might be waiting in the wings should they pursue their interest. So having information on contribution methods clearly available and transparent is indeed prudent."

He is "regularly given funds by members of the public as a contribution to our work which, even if they do not belong to our movement, they see as genuine and above board. Most people I witness to quickly see that with Jehovah's Witnesses, they get much value for actually no money at all. I am happy to contribute to an organization that seeks to genuinely preach 'the good news of the kingdom,' and most of those who stick around are of the same mind."

This writer is reminded of a local man, an entrepreneur and scientist, who attended meetings for some time, but never did progress to the point of baptism. Still, he expressed a desire to leave substantial funds to the Watchtower Society upon his death. "I don't agree with everything you say," he said, "but I do know that none of my money will be wasted." It didn't happen. Members of his family raised powerful objection and he reconsidered.

I learned of this long after the fact. His name had first come to my attention when I was a schoolboy. He had purchased the beach that the city had sold by mistake. In the 1960s, Durand Beach along Lake Ontario became so polluted that it was closed to public swimming. In time, it was forgotten about, and this curmudgeonly fellow purchased it at public auction. He had planned a system of filters to screen off a portion of it for a private club. Red-faced city fathers discovered their mistake only upon reading the newspapers and leaned upon him to get 'their' beach back. As an adolescent savors evidence that the grownups are inept, just like Tom Sawyer savored his teacher losing his toupee, I savored this faux pas and did not forget the man's name.

A dozen years after I became a Witness, a letter signed by him appeared in the newspaper praising Witness youths visiting his door as unfailingly polite and well spoken. I had long forgotten about him, but with this letter my childhood memory was revived. Years after that, I gave the public talk at another Kingdom Hall and there he was in the audience! He was studying the Bible with a congregation member. My talk was on a science theme, and since he was a scientist, I asked him afterwards whether it was any good. He said it was not. It can be a fearsome thing when a Witness gets his hands on a public talk outline dealing with science, because few of them specialize. I thought I had brought myself up to speed. Silly me.

For decades, Witnesses have heard about their surpluses benefiting other lands with deficits. They know it is hopelessly out of the reach of many congregations in poor countries to afford their own Kingdom Hall, and they are thrilled to know that their funds are spent to that end. Only with organization can such equalization take place "to test the genuineness of your love by your concern for others."13 Following that biblical statement is a reminder of how the Lord Jesus Christ "for your sake... became poor although he was rich, so that by his poverty you might become rich." He thereby sets the pattern for counsel that follows: "but that as a matter of equality your surplus at the present time should supply their needs, so that their surplus may also supply your needs, that there may be equality."14

Equalizing is seen in construction of Kingdom Halls worldwide. 'Lands with Limited Resources' have been recipients of donations so as to build therein places of worship that would be beyond their means otherwise. During a fourteen-year period commencing in 1999, almost 27,000 Kingdom Halls were built that way, generally by local Witnesses working with global volunteers skilled in construction. Virtually all Kingdom Halls in Russia were built this way, says Chivchalov. After the trial, Dvorkin crowed that the Russian Supreme Court action had deprived Jehovah's Witnesses of outside funding. 'Let them exist on honey and locusts,' he said in effect. 'That ought to be a fair test of whether their version of Christianity can thrive.' To the extent the Russian complaint is correct that the Watchtower is a vast money-pumping machine, it has pumped money into, not out of, the country, which money the government has seen fit to take for itself.

In the U.S. and other Western lands, there is even a movement to consolidate congregations where underutilization of Kingdom Halls exists, selling off the surplus building so as to fund with it the construction of many Kingdom Halls in less affluent areas. Historically, Kingdom Halls were built as Witnesses living in different areas struck out from the main Hall to build ones of their own, in their own communities. Over time, some of these Halls became overcrowded and some dwindled into under-use.

Not all Kingdom Halls have burst at the seams. They were all supposed to. The pattern of the first century repeats itself. The learned ones of that time looked down upon Christianity, and the educated ones of the modern day sometimes leave the faith should they become too educated for their pants, as they exchange it for something with spiritual overtones but no practical bite, something that will spiritualize them but by no means supplant their quest for the better life in this system. It is the same with money as with education. As soon as people accumulate enough of it, they are inclined to say 'Who needs God?' the essence of Proverbs 30:8. Accordingly, the Witness faith explodes in poorer lands and holds its own in wealthier educated lands. There are even occasional reverses. Of course, one never knows what the future will hold for any given area.

Consolidation where advantageous is a responsible use of resources, even if it means a longer twice-a-week commute for some who acquiesce to this financially responsible direction. After all, shut down one dud of a Kingdom Hall in a U.S. area that has not filled it, and you can build one hundred or more in poorer nations that greatly need them, or even one in the same nation where land prices are astronomical. One of the reasons Jehovah's organization works and others do not, at least not on such a scale, is that Witnesses have come to identify with the _entire_ brotherhood, regardless of where in the world they may live, and do not obsess about their own immediate interests. They do not all figure they have to all go over to Benin or wherever and see for themselves and each ponder over the balance statement and have special sessions to discuss it and take a vote on it, thinking no one other than they themselves can be trusted—they just don't. They have decided the ones having oversight are trustworthy, as they have given no cause to think otherwise, as they adhere to the same healthful scriptural teachings, so they grin and bear it if some policy does not work to their immediate benefit.

The demand to render public accounting is but a nod to another form of human self-rule: democracy. It is faith that the people should scrutinize every nickel spent and that such a course is the only way to keep those running the show honest. By law public corporations must do it. Private corporations do not. Does that mean they keep no accounts? No. It just means they do not feel the obligation to report to the general world. With regard to the Watchtower organization, congregation members do not demand it. Their detractors will not be satisfied with it.

We will be able to smell fraud when Sam Herd upgrades to a bigger dorm room. Let there be some evidence of chicanery before ones assume that their democratic method is the be-all and end-all. It shouldn't be hard to understand. If some twist undeniably good deeds to make them seem vile, exaggerate any missteps, ignore any mitigating factors, and without exception impute bad motives, what will they do when they discover Bethel upgraded from plastic laminate to solid wood furnishings at the headquarters lobby? They are dealing with ones who simply want to take them down. If you hate the message, you will hate the messenger. That is a valid position: hating the message. Just be upfront about it. Perhaps they will one day open up their financial books in worldwide publication for all to scrutinize, but they have offered no sign of it yet.

One might consider how Paul's first letter to the Corinthians bears on the subject: "Do you not know that the holy ones will judge the world? If the world is to be judged by you, are you unqualified for the lowest law courts? Do you not know that we will judge angels? Then why not everyday matters?"15 If the 'holy ones' back then were to be entrusted with spiritual lives, were they incapable of handling 'worldly wealth?' Are they incapable of handling it today?

The Bible does not encourage of love of money. 'Give me enough of it,' says a psalmist, 'but not too much.' It has a way of corrupting. It has a way of engendering high self-esteem, which is as detrimental as low self-esteem. Money is incidental to a person's worth, not the very fabric of it. The rich young man who could not bear to part with his wealth would find it hard to gain entrance into the kingdom, Jesus said. Another who could only think of building bigger barns for his harvest failed to anticipate that he was to die that night with no spiritual wealth accumulated. "For the love of money is the root of all evils, and some people in their desire for it have strayed from the faith and have pierced themselves with many pains." Not money in itself, but the love of money is the problem.16 Accordingly, when a Watchtower article ran the life experiences of a man known to me personally, it _did not even mention_ the fact that he was a self-made millionaire;17 many religious groups would fawn over the fact. He _must_ have been a millionaire, unless he gave it all away, which is not impossible, for he was a very generous man. Tracts of homes bearing his construction firm's name appear throughout the area.

Jesus tells a quirky parable to convey the proper view of money. It involves a steward about to be fired who acts in a dishonest way: "A rich man had a steward who was reported to him for squandering his property. He summoned him and said, 'What is this I hear about you? Prepare a full account of your stewardship, because you can no longer be my steward.' The steward said to himself, 'What shall I do, now that my master is taking the position of steward away from me? I am not strong enough to dig and I am ashamed to beg. I know what I shall do so that, when I am removed from the stewardship, they may welcome me into their homes.' He called in his master's debtors one by one. To the first he said, 'How much do you owe my master?' He replied, 'One hundred measures of olive oil.' He said to him, 'Here is your promissory note. Sit down and quickly write one for fifty.' Then to another he said, 'And you, how much do you owe?' He replied, 'One hundred kors of wheat.' He said to him, 'Here is your promissory note; write one for eighty.'

"And the master commended that dishonest steward for acting prudently. For the children of this world are more prudent in dealing with their own generation than are the children of light. I tell you, make friends for yourselves with dishonest wealth, so that when it fails, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings."18

Would he really commend the dishonest steward for stealing him blind? These days, security guards escort you to the door of the company that you have been downsized out of so as to prevent that from happening. Jesus uses an illustration that doesn't exactly ring true to teach a greater point: the 'unrighteous riches' are the assets one has as a consequence of living in an unrighteous world. Use them in such a way to gain friends, primarily a certain Friend who runs the 'eternal dwellings.' Be generous with what assets you have, and if you are stingy in this you will be stingy in human qualities too.

The phrase 'dishonest wealth' is rendered in various translations as 'worldly wealth,' 'wealth of unrighteousness,' and 'mammon of iniquity.' The banned New World Translation calls it 'unrighteous riches.' Always there is a taint. It is good stuff, money is, but it is not completely above board. The financial system that awards it is absolutely amoral, and sometimes immoral. Don't let the worldly wealth go to your head, for it is wont to do that. Why _not_ feature a "dishonest" (or unrighteous) steward to drive home the point? It is not a virtue in itself that he is financially comfortable. It came about because of his master. He has learned to play the game, that's all. Others equally virtuous, or even more so, have not been so adept, or have played half-heartedly. The game is not the stuff of life. Though much of the American Protestant tradition marches financial prosperity and godliness practically in lockstep, there is little correlation between the two, and to the extent that there is, it is sometimes reverse.

It is hardly shocking that Christians today should contribute toward the spread of kingdom interests. Always, and unlike in many other religions, it is: "Let each one give privately according to what is in one's own heart, for God loves a cheerful giver." Always it is: "Each must do as already determined, without sadness or compulsion." Always it is: "When you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right is doing, so that your almsgiving may be secret. And your Father who sees in secret will repay you." Always it is: "When you give alms, do not blow a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets to win the praise of others."19 In the faith of Jehovah's Witnesses, one has not the slightest idea what anyone else is giving.

Countless persons today will say that they believe in God but decline to align themselves with organized religion. Organized anything means nothing but abuse of power, they have sadly concluded, and they want no part of it. Surely they are selling God short to assume that he would be incapable of uniting people in Christian conduct so that the inherent advantages of organization can be realized. Or perhaps they are demanding too much, by insisting they will only deal with the Top Man. God has always dealt through a human agency. The Bible record of first-century Christians is replete with persons overcoming the frictions of life to work together—even with the fishermen (John and Peter) telling the scholars (Paul, and arguably, Luke20) what to do. Insist upon face time with God exclusively and one had better be able to deliver a record more spotless than anyone has delivered so far. After all, people individually are not exactly the creampuffs they ought be if they would demand to be served by a flawless human organization. They will have to take what they can get.

To carry on and on about the donations Witnesses give to the cause they believe in—can it be any more than mere jealousy? If Jehovah's Witnesses flood the coffers in response to very little prodding, as has been seen, why should their detractors care? Can it be anything more than an intense dislike for the message preached, and so a trumped-up charge that they are somehow doing it underhandedly, crying crocodile tears with a feigned concern for ones so 'deceived'? All the evidence indicates Witnesses are quite satisfied and do not feel deceived at all. It is every other commercial interest relentlessly trying to get its hands into my pocket that I must be on guard against.

Katerina Chernova pushes back at 'money-pumping' allegations Witnesses are subjected to. Yes, they are heard all the time, she acknowledges, but "when [people] are asked to name just one victim from whom money, apartments, or something else was taken by the Witnesses, NOBODY was able to remember A SINGLE case in fact! So we asked to show us or give the address of just one cottage of a Jehovah's Witness, built with money stolen from people. And again, nobody knows a single real instance." She goes on to relate a small fact that is actually huge and says it all: with Jehovah's Witnesses, baptisms and weddings and funerals are conducted "on a cost-free basis." (It's true. I have buried many.) With the Orthodox Church? "We have heard many complaints against it regarding the impossibility of performing any ritual in the event that a person does not have money. That is, you want to be 'baptized,"—some 'donation;' you want to be 'married,'—it takes so much cash; a 'funeral,'—it is also not for free." An avaricious organization is not going to cut off these most dependable of all generators of cash.21

More than once jealousy is identified in Scripture as the true reason for underhanded means. "When the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy," and they resorted to "violent abuse," says Acts. What could fit into the pattern more nicely than stealing that gift Paul was to deliver to Jerusalem before he could get it there? The only reason one might condemn any money-raising of the Watchtower organization is the desire to eliminate that organization. It enables a powerful magnification of the kingdom proclaiming work, and to kill that work is the object.22

Chapter 13 endnotes

Return to Table of Contents

# PART III

# Chapter 13 – Earth

What's not to like about WALL-E, the 2008 American computer-animated movie? A trash compactor robot, WALL-E (Waste Allocation Load Lifter Earth-class) spends his days compacting trash with an eye on making the earth fit for rehabilitation. You see, centuries ago, humans polluted the earth to the point of ruin, and then evacuated in massive spaceships. There, they loll about in such ease that their limbs have atrophied, and they have become essentially helpless, though good-natured, blobs. Before they fled the planet they had ruined, they left robots to tidy up things, so they might eventually return. Only WALL-E remains on the job, for reasons I forget, and as one might imagine, he is lonely. All that changes when a pretty female robot (EVE) shows up. Sparks fly, as is to be expected with robots. The two save the planet, fight off the bad robots, and pave the way for the humans to return!

The film was an instant blockbuster. What menial job can garner more sympathy than that of saving the earth? "You leave WALL-E with a feeling of the rarest kind," said film critic Peter Travers. It "fills you with pure exhilaration." Saving the planet will do that. I liked the film. My wife liked it. Surely everyone must have liked it. But when she mentioned it to a co-worker, the latter lamented how sad the movie was. Sad? "What we're doing to the earth, what we're leaving behind for our children, is an absolute tragedy," she said.

Well—yes, the film would have that effect on some, wouldn't it? After all, WALL-E was a movie reminding viewers of a present that is not so rosy. "If Wall-E has anything original to say, it takes place in the first 30 minutes on a planet heaped high with junk. But the parallels between fiction and reality are almost too painful to contemplate," writes another film critic, Dorothy Woodend.

The Bible frankly states that humans will, by their self-centered activity, threaten to "destroy the earth." Believers can take comfort that the same verse says God will destroy them before they can complete their task, but if you didn't know that, it would be disheartening indeed.1

Is it beneficial for the earth short-term for people to know that? Or does it make them complacent? Why worry about the earth since God will eventually clean it up? Witnesses have had people accuse them of holding just that attitude. "This [JW belief that God's kingdom only can permanently solve earth's environmental woes] leads to the undeniable fact that Witnesses take almost no initiative towards making the world we live in a better place in any way," someone grumbled online.

Well—not to oversimplify, but if the entire population were Witnesses, there would be no need for efforts to make the world we live in better in the first place. This is because of the traits which are instilled into each Witness. They are law-abiding to the core, honest, industrious, not abusing government services, nor contributing to the criminal element operating with little hindrance in many lands. They are promoting stable, monogamous families—all of this by virtue of making the Bible their guide to life.

And to think that this writer was upbraided a few years ago, along with all his people, for not picking up the roadside trash. "Enough Jehovah's Witness preaching, already!" scolded an interlocutor, "what good is that? Do something useful, instead," said he, and then carried on about how he and his entire family took part in a local park clean-up, picking up rubbish that other slobs had tossed here, there, and everywhere. Look, no one is against cleanup days—they are undeniably a good thing—but how silly to imagine that, by thus taking part, we're saving the planet, when, in one dastardly swoop, some industrial blunder will undo the efforts of countless picker-uppers.

Just about the time of this exchange online, there was such a blunder. British Petrolium lost a rig in the Gulf of Mexico and 3-4 million gallons of oil poured out over 87 days: "the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history," it was labeled. "How to clean up the mess? And who's at blame!" cried Time Magazine's cover of June 21, 2010, against a backdrop of oil-soaked pelicans. The magazine listed a "dirty dozen," which included the prior president and his Secretary of State, a former oilman, but also the current president and some of his underlings. There were also a handful of other tycoons, needless to say, and one or two indulgent regulators. Even the ubiquitous American driver was on the list, since he fuels demand for oil in the first place. Got it? We're all to blame. There are no good guys in white hats, only bad guys in black, oily ones. President Obama declared that he was looking for "asses to kick," even while hinting that his own posterior might be among them.

Reports had it that local picker-uppers were showing up on the coast—to be told to get lost, since this was a job for pros! BP and others floated salvage ships to corral surface oil and burn it. Dire predictions were of massive environmental collapse from the oil that escaped and lined the shore. It didn't happen. Not to say that there might not be long term consequences, but, by and large, the earth is pretty good at healing itself. It really is true that the U.S. media ignores even qualified good news, preferring to focus on overwhelming devastation itself, along with who is to blame, and delighting in the President's then-combative ass-kicking tone.

No, I won't stand for it: to be told preaching is valueless and community cleanup days are the path to salvation. And do not mistake that statement as unconcern for the environment. When our children were small and we hiked the trails at Allegheny State Park, we would take trash bags with us and make a treasure hunt out of it, collecting beer and pop cans along the way. Some had been there for years. There were even some of the ancient tin types, cans that had been opened, not with pop-tops, but with can openers such as I remember from when I was a boy—extra points were awarded for such finds! And heaven help you if you are the pig dumping fast food trash out the car window and Mrs. Harley is driving behind you! She all but rams your bumper and slaps you in handcuffs, hauling you off to the sheriff under citizens' arrest.

One fellow with an Internet connection gripes about Jehovah's Witnesses: "They don't even need to recycle if they don't want to." What kind of an accusation is that? Are there groups that maintain their people _must_ recycle, whether they want to or not? Where recycling is the law of the community, Witness compliance is higher than most, no doubt, since they are well-known to be law-abiding. Where it is not the law of the land, likely Witness compliance is still higher than most, out of respect for the planet.

Sometimes financially secure, trendy neighborhoods take up recycling as their special cause. When that happens, they may outdo the average Witness. But Witnesses surely shine when compared to the population in general. When I attended a wine festival, each vendor offered samples of wine, cheese, candy, sauce, whatever, in single-use plastic cups, plates, or skewering toothpicks. Were they recycled? I don't think so; all trash was mixed together. In the medical field, everything is single-use only, disposable, in the interests of sanitation. Nothing is washed. Nothing is reused. When I once worked part-time for a retail inventory firm, reputed to be the country's largest consumer of AAA batteries, I asked whether they were recycled. They laughed at me. Into the trash those batteries went, each and every last one of them.

We are all for local clean-up-the-park days. Same with clean-up-the-roadside days. None of Jehovah's Witnesses will ever speak against such things, unless you count observations that such are, at best, a stop-gap measure, and that the lasting solution will come only when God carries out his promise to "destroy those destroying the earth." Witnesses tend to use their free time to highlight this latter solution, the one that, in the end, is the one that counts. My experience is that it is only the tiniest sliver of the population who take part in such cleanups, anyway—it is not as though Jehovah's Witnesses are thwarting the entire effort. And surely it must count for something that Witnesses aren't among those who caused the mess in the first place.

There is a hazardous waste recycling center nearby, a joint effort by the county and Waste Management. It is regularly trafficked by environmentally conscious persons who are not too weighed down by the cares of life, but it serves a 30-mile radius. What percentage of the population actually travels 30 miles to use it? Into the common landfills most stuff goes, which is admittedly an improvement over simply dumping garbage out in the back woods back in the day.

Having said all this, in Russia Jehovah's Witnesses clean up the parks. If they were to do it here, it would prove the very opposite of the Russian government's claim, for the United States Witnesses would not have told Russian Witnesses what to do, but Russian Witnesses would have told the American ones what to do. "In Russia, congregations do it all the time," Chivchalov says. "Most congregations do it. It has become a custom for them. Parks are more or less okay, other people clean them too, but still there is garbage to clean, and sometimes the authorities just lack enough workers, so there may be tons of garbage at times. We clean not only parks, but any public areas. We usually ask the city administration to assign some areas for us to clean."

It's not a bad marriage, is it? The ones who hope to live forever on a paradise earth volunteer to clean it up now. The earth is not a cheap hotel room that is not up to your standards but since you are staying only a few days you can overlook it. No. It is our permanent home. Witnesses are not one of those religions that are 'just passing through'—a few decades on the planet, then off to heavenly realms. Clean up those parks!

Might this even present opportunities to speak of God's future promises regarding the planet? I'd be surprised if it didn't. Whereas there are some denominations that teach God will one day destroy the earth with fire, what an ideal venue is a congregation park cleanup to explain that he won't. What a perfect setting in which to tell the illustration Witnesses love to tell: 'If you have built a house and rented it out to tenants who have destroyed it, you don't burn down the house. You evict the tenants and find better ones."

Extrapolating from too little data, Chivchalov says, with regard to park cleanups, that 'other people clean them too.' If they ever do it here, they certainly do not do it so commonly that one could say 'other people clean them too.' Does Russia clean up the planet more than does America, while polluting it less? You could certainly make the case that Russia has _saved_ the planet a time or two. Or three. There are that many examples of when a Russian has _literally_ saved the planet from nuclear ruin. I can think of no such examples in the West.

In 1983, Lieutenant Colonel Stanislav Petrov, in charge of the command center for the Oko nuclear early-warning system, saw that five missiles had been launched by the United States. The eyes of all his subordinates were upon him. Had he passed the information along to his superiors, it would have triggered an immediate Soviet counterstrike. He judged it was a malfunction and told underlings to forget about it. Of course, investigation later confirmed that he had been correct. Stanislav died during 2017, to relatively scant notice.2 He is one of the Ecclesiastes "princes who went on foot like slaves, while slaves rode on horseback."3

Another was Vasili Arkhipov. He was the sole one of three senior officers on the nuclear-missile equipped submarine B-59 who refused to authorize their use—authorization had to be unanimous—during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. Thomas Blanton, then director of the U.S. National Security Archives, credited him with "saving the world."4 Third was Nikita Khrushchev, mentioned in the Statecraft chapter, sending the telegram that arguably defused the Cuban tension and ended the crisis.

Nuclear attack was a very real fear in the years following World War II. I used to crouch under my school desk, as mentioned in chapter 6, with hands clasped behind neck, until my classmates and I grew too big for such "protection," at which point we filed into the hallway and leaned against our lockers. Nor was it only the United States who had to be wary of the Russians. Russians had good reasons to be wary of the U.S. Intoxicated by the decisive end to the second world war brought about by the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, American General MacArthur sought to use up to 50 of the new devices just five years later along the Chinese and Russian border, to close out the Korean War, in a strike that would have made doings in Japan look like a schoolyard brawl. President Truman wouldn't let him do it.5

Nuclear annihilation fired the popular imagination during the 1950s and 1960s. Remember how Ray Bradbury's character in The Martian Chronicles trains his telescope on earth just in time to see its final mushroom cloud? And who can forget Charlton Heston in Planet of the Apes encountering the half-buried Statue of Liberty, suddenly realizing just what planet he is on, and screaming: "They blew it up! Damn them! Damn them to hell!" Not to mention the Twilight Zone episode in which that hen-pecked fellow goes into the bank vault to read, only to have the world end while he is so occupied. Far from being put out, he is delighted, since he can now read free from the eternal nagging of his boss and wife. Unfortunately, he breaks his glasses. Thus far, none of those disasters have come about. Up till now, there is always someone to, just in the nick of time, hold the earth together, but it's one heck of a way to run a planet. Didn't they just reset the Doomsday Clock at two minutes before midnight? Many think that threat is now greater than ever, since there are more nuclear powers, and they are more unstable.

When I became one of Jehovah's Witnesses in the 1970s and came across that scripture telling how God would "destroy those destroying the earth," I read it in terms of nuclear destruction. It was really the only means of destroying the earth that anyone could envision back then. Yes, some areas were polluted then, but nobody saw such things as a threat to the entire earth. These days an endless list leaps to mind—most are some variant of man-made pollution. Taking first place has to be global warming, but through the years we've also learned to fret about global dimming, species eradication, air and water pollution, acid rain, deforestation, contamination of the food supply, and so forth. Wasn't there just some study detailing how pharmaceuticals have found their way into the water supply? In minute concentrations, of course, yet over time, and given the fact that such chemicals are specifically designed to interact with living tissue, isn't it another "destroying the earth" scenario?

The Bible uses the term 'earth' in yet another way. It doesn't always refer to the physical planet. It can refer to the society living upon it. If we broaden our definition of earth in this way, we as a consequence, add new social ways in which humans destroy the earth. In fact, when God spells out a reason for bringing the flood of Noah's time, he declares that the earth is corrupted, not by air pollution or global warming, but by human violence.6 Surely violence corrupts the earth today. Imagine hatred so intense that people delight to die if only they can take a dozen or so with them! Ever more graphic violence is a staple of television entertainment. In the wake of a school shooting, the president gathered video game makers to say that their products are too violent, and they should tone it down. The media promptly trotted out experts bristling with degrees to 'correct him.' Yes, it does make a certain intuitive sense, they conceded, but science shows that violent games provide a harmless substitute for the real thing and true violence actually decreases when people play all the games they want.7 Will they dare say it with regard to child porn?

New ways of destruction continue to surface, even as the older ones continue to simmer. Putin has declared that whoever controls artificial intelligence (AI) controls the world.8 Others say no one will control AI; in time it will control us, and will perhaps squash us one fine day, without malice, when it perceives we have somehow gotten in its way. Predictably, AI is instantly adapted to porn. Supplementing online porn and virtual-reality porn, AI-enhanced porn produces a product so enticing that it is feared people will neglect the real thing. Will God be thwarted? Will the irresistible force of sexual attraction, the key to preservation of the species, becomes a 'been there, done that' thing?

Such things are not unexpected to the student of the Bible and are just part of the accumulating 'sign' that human rulership is unfit, and that God is fully justified in bringing its end, to be replaced with his own kingdom rule. Only then will the earth ever be free of threats to its existence.

Still, even with that knowledge, trialsome conditions are trialsome conditions. Jehovah's people may see light at the end of the tunnel, but it is a tunnel nonetheless. Sometimes people give up on the light and instead focus on the tunnel. Some simply worry about it, and some try to patch it up. It is easy to wobble in faith. If Paul could speak of those who had experienced "shipwreck of their faith" in his day, much more do his words apply in our day as the whole earth wobbles insanely and all feel its effects. Doubtless that is why the Witness organization lays so much stress on 'staples' such as meetings, public ministry, and Bible study: staples that Russia seeks to deprive them of. These are the avenues—really, the only avenues—through which Christians can focus on the big picture of God's deliverance.

Danish citizen and Russian resident Dennis Christensen was picking up the public park, just like WALL-E, until the Ministry of Justice decided he was a dangerous criminal that should be jailed. Dennis is the same fellow who built a playground for the children. How extremist does that sound? His congregation has a nice certificate from the mayor. Maybe it is even mounted somewhere: "In gratitude for a good deed—garbage collection for the benefit of people and nature." Christensen's role himself was to stand in foot-deep Orlik River water to fish out bags of trash. It's his last act before losing his freedom. Someone later snapped a picture of the 23-person delegation standing behind bags upon bags of the rubbish they had collected, as though fishermen holding aloft the big ones that did not get away.9 The congregation tells of a city representative sympathetic to Jehovah's Witnesses, in the midst of their persecution, who wished them not to lose the 'power of the spirit.'

Is there anything less radical that cleaning up the park? Does ISIS do it? If they do, most would hesitate to stroll through the area afterwards for fear of booby traps. How better to expose the nonsense of an 'extremist' label than to continue cleanups of public places? Will policemen follow along and monitor Witnesses to make sure they don't witness to anyone? If they do, they may find themselves having to clean up the parks themselves—on the taxpayer's dime, no less, and not for free as the Witnesses do.

After hurricane, flood, or earthquake, an entire city becomes a park to clean up. It is here that the Witness organization excels, having developed "the disaster response volunteer service to a fine art." Their art is simple, yet unreachable for many. People's love for one another must be strong enough that it does not snap under adversity. There must be sufficient organization. It cannot be watered down by everyone wanting to be the chief. One weak link hampers all. Several weak links all but destroy it. Jehovah's Witnesses are well known to have that love for one another and, as a byproduct, they are able to effectively organize without fuss in times of natural disaster.

Even the prompt Witness response to such disaster is spun as a negative by apostates. Why do the Witnesses just help themselves, they will say, with only the spillover benefiting the greater community? Why do not they help everyone without preference? The answer is that Witness workers are volunteers taking time off from work. A project can only be as large as there are volunteers available. The solution is for all other groups to organize themselves as Witnesses do for disaster relief. Helping one another promptly and effectively should not be unattainable rocket science. Others who rise to the occasion will thereby become so busy that they will have no time to complain that the doers are doing it wrong. People without Bible education tend not to get along. They supply unexpected friction at the very moment lubricant is needed. The Watchtower organization has no idea how to organize them. They will have to organize themselves.

Consistent with cleaning up the parks is building facilities that 'understand' the earth: that sway when it sways, that breathes when it breathes, and that has the most minimal impact upon the environment possible. Watchtower branch headquarters, 70 kilometers outside of London, completed in 2017, was certified 'Outstanding' by a leading sustainability authority for green construction methods.10 This is similar to the 'Four Green Globes' rating given the new worldwide headquarters in Warwick NY by an American agency.11 The branch facility in Haiti sustained but minor damage in a 2010 earthquake that flattened Port-au-Prince; it had been built quake resistant.

In Gardiner, New York, Witnesses restored, repaired and painted that community's 143-year-old town hall. "They did amazing work," the town supervisor exclaimed at the next town-board meeting. They even combed through the archive photographs to repaint the trim a more historically authentic forest green.12 In Warwick, New York, they provided labor to repair the dam whose failure would have destroyed 200 residences downstream.13 In Patterson, New York, they landscaped the town's firehouse and even bought them a new firetruck when told it lacked a vehicle that could service the five-story buildings Witnesses were constructing.14

Before realizing it was later to call anything Witness-related extremist, the editorial board of the journal World of Design in 2015 heaped praise upon the Witness' branch headquarters in St Petersburg and its purpose.15 "The hall...is intended only for one main purpose—a thorough study of the Bible. Worship of God occurs both individually and with a large crowd of people, this is the basis of the tradition of thousands of biblical seminars."

World of Design even noted its commitment to equality, a Russian ideal. "The principles of equal opportunities are promulgated for all who came here—if something is given here, then equally and of the same quality, this refers to lighting, location, acoustic level and air ventilation. The center provides comfortable conditions for all visitors, without fail on equal terms."

The journal noted not a hint of catering to the luxurious; all was purely practical. "In this strictly functional building there are no exquisite ornaments. Nowhere is there any sense of luxury—such are the principles universally accepted in places of worship of Jehovah's Witnesses as early as the beginning of the 20th century."

As to the building itself, it "impressively combined with light, sometimes striped volumes, giving a harmonious look of the building. As the architects assumed, the building became an adornment of the city. Simultaneously attractive and elegant, it turned into some kind of architectural dominant of this area."

Russian authorities liked it so much that they took it! Did the government recognize these unique attributes as they confiscated the center, built almost exclusively by Witness volunteers? A group of Finnish investors, fretting over an investment climate they judged negative in Russia, called the confiscation of private property "a very bad signal for the market."16 At any rate, it certainly gives new meaning to a passage in Ezekiel:

"You will say, 'I will invade a land of open villages and attack a peaceful people who live in security—all of them living without city walls, bars, or gates' in order to plunder and pillage, turning your hand against resettled ruins, against a people gathered from the nations, a people whose concern is cattle and goods, dwelling at the center of the earth."17

Chapter 14 endnotes

Return to Table of Contents

# Chapter 14 – Fake News

Fake news is everywhere. Some of it surfaced about the Russian ban: 'Church members of Russia have united! They have launched massive protests against the government in behalf of the Witnesses! President Trump rebuked Russia and invited its entire Witness population to the United States! He visited a Kingdom Hall to worship with them!' All of it is fake news. It didn't happen.1

Is "the news" another one of those biblical hills that melt in the last days? Is it now a thing that people of bygone days could depend upon but now need to call in Sherlock Holmes to decipher whether or not it is genuine? Is 'reading the news' now the informational equivalent of playing Russian Roulette?

Given this apparent new normal, I will take the Trump story, fake news though it is. No, he did not speak out in favor of Jehovah's Witnesses. But the story plants the clear notion that he should have. Most fake news about Jehovah's Witnesses is derogatory. It is the 'every kind of evil' falsely said against them. It's about time something went our way. Now it is only a matter of time before some poor body of elders must deal with NBC or somebody attempting to set up shop in their foyer so that they can broadcast "Live from the Kingdom Hall."

The derogatory fake news against Jehovah's Witnesses today calls to mind the derogatory fake news against early Christians. The skeptic Caecilius of the 2nd century C.E. hurls the charge that they were "a people skulking and shunning the light, silent in public, but garrulous in corners," who "despise honours and purple robes." They "love one another almost before they know one another... and they call one another promiscuously brothers and sisters."2

"Assuredly, this confederation ought to be rooted out and execrated," Caecilius asserts. In the meantime, they were best advised to, if they had "any wisdom or modesty, cease from prying into the regions of the sky, and the destinies and secrets of the world: it is sufficient to look before your feet, especially for untaught, uncultivated, boorish, rustic people: they who have no capacity for understanding civil matters, are much more denied the ability to discuss divine."3 Then, as now, explaining God was reserved for professionals. Amateurs had no business in the house of God.

The term was unheard of just two years ago. Now the expression "fake news" is as familiar as the Lord's prayer. Outlets pledge to search for and destroy fake news so that others are not misled. Unfortunately, fake news can be in the eye of the beholder. Real news is but another manifestation of _'History is written by the_ victors'—it is written by the interests that have outmaneuvered the competition. There is often no way to tell if its real or not. A certain one online tweets: "Right now, everyone believes news which doesn't fit their preconceived agenda is fake," a situation he describes as "mental." Would anyone like to challenge him that it is, in reality, right as rain?

From the advent of filmmaking, countless dramatic movies have ended with the whistleblower testifying before _important_ people, and the mighty press finally publishing _The Truth!_ The villains have been raising mayhem throughout the film trying to prevent that outcome, but at the movie's climactic end, they are thwarted! The people come to know! _All_ of the people come to know! It is one of the most predictable plotlines of entertainment. Yet, all those movies are ridiculously dated and must be rewritten to reflect current realities. It shouldn't be hard. It requires just an addendum that can be attached to all films. The morning after, whoever has been fingered says: "It is Fake News! People, can we just move on?" No harm done.

It will only get worse. The New York Times writes about an app that makes it "relatively easy to create realistic face swaps and leave few traces of manipulation....It's not hard to imagine this technology's being used to smear politicians, create counterfeit revenge porn or frame people for crimes. Lawmakers have already begun to worry about how 'deepfakes' could be used for political sabotage and propaganda." The anonymous developer cheerfully helps the Times reporter try his own hand at it. "I've given it a lot of thought," he [says], "and ultimately I've decided I don't think it's right to condemn the technology itself."4 Of course not! They never do. It's on to the next advance of science! Let the ethicists figure out what he has just dumped in their laps, something "which can of course be used for many purposes, good and bad." It's their problem, not his. Surely we can rely upon them to form and implement responsible policy. What's that? We can't? Oh, well.

Already, news sources show an eagerness to rely upon unidentified sources, who frequently turn out to be wrong. Will they handle this new advance responsibly? Not only can we expect 'proven by video' character assassination to become routine, but the more lasting consequence of this new technological advance will be that even _genuine_ video evidence will be readily dismissed as fake news. It is Isaiah envisioned: "Ah! Those who call evil good, and good evil, who change darkness to light, and light into darkness, who change bitter to sweet, and sweet into bitter!"5 The guileless one so slandered will explode in moral indignation, and thus look guilty as hell. The professional liar will shrug it off with the feigned saddened dismay that his enemies could sink so low. It may be that "the wrath of the Lord blazes against [this] people," but not before they have enjoyed their substantial day in the sun.

Sometimes the news is so new and unanticipated that you are hard-pressed to know whether it is fake or not. From Moscow, RT.com reporter Robert Bridge lists 10 things you probably never heard of 10 years ago. They include public statues dedicated to Satan, the accepted notion that one might have been assigned the wrong gender, widespread opioid addiction, sex with robots, college campuses where students are protected from debate, legalized marijuana, taking a knee during the national anthem, pink vagina hats, Internet appliances that spy on people, and cryptocurrencies. Dastardly invaders from outer space will conclude there must be something in the air that they don't dare risk catching and will hightail it back to wherever planet they came from. One is reminded of the Dr. Seuss author's widow, lamenting another desecration that she never thought she would live to see (the commercialization of her husband's work): "If Ted could see this, he'd say 'I'm glad I'm dead.'"

Really, is it not all fake news? Is it not an absurd drama? The Bible portrays it all as an act, an unreality, not the true life at all. Consistently, the Scriptures employ the imagery of a stage play. "For the world in its present form is passing away," says NABRE, the 'house' translation for this work.6 Other translations read similarly: "Because this world in its present form is passing away." (CEB) "For the present form of this world is passing away." (ESV) "For the mode of this world passes away." (HNV) "For the fashion of this world passeth away." (KJV) "For this world in its present form is passing away." (NIV)

"The image is drawn from a shifting scene in a play represented on the stage," says the reference work Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible. Thus, the New World Translation's rendering, [redacted] is the best rendering of all, even if it is extremist.

The world is an act and the scenes are ever changing. Christians are the central actors of the play. Nearly all translations employ the word 'spectacle,' as in: "we have become a spectacle to the world, to angels and human beings alike."7 (NABRE) The New International Reader's Version dispenses with "spectacle" but still manages to nail the point with "We have been made a show for the whole creation to see." The New World Translation better defines 'spectacle' as [redacted] Angels and people are watching Christians. They are to become a [redacted] to the world? Very well. If that is to be their role, let them give the world some theater.

The world is stage to a play featuring heroes and villains. They are all actors. After 80 years, the curtain falls on the individual actor and it is off to the grave for him or her, to be succeeded by a fresh young face. This explains why Watchtower publications seldom name names. There is no reason to shame or honor the individual actors because it is not about them. It is about the play they are starring in. Take an actor out, and another one immediately steps into his shoes. Their names are not important. It can even be a distraction to know the names. Name a villain and you create the impression that removing that villain will solve matters. Instead, another villain assumes the role without fuss. It is the play we must follow, not the villains in it, or even the heroes.

The villains are even described in terms that make clear it is a play. The etymology of 'hypocrite' is that of an actor who wears a mask, just as they would do in the ancient plays. The technique served to amplify voice, hide true identity, and thereby facilitate a new role.8 Similarly, the villains in Jesus' time routinely hid what they were. When they delivered Jesus to Pilate, they feigned concern that the government might be defrauded: "They brought charges against him, saying, 'We found this man misleading our people; he opposes the payment of taxes to Caesar and maintains that he is the Messiah, a king.'" They knew Pilate didn't care about the first or the third charge, so they threw in the second to make him sit up and take notice. Opponents today of the Christian work employ similar methods.9

If the New World translators particularly identify with the image of actors on a stage, might it be because they have acted on many a stage? They are by no means Christians comfortably ensconced in academia. Every householder's front porch is a stage, and they have starred upon countless ones. They have seen rave reviews. They have seen dismal reviews. At times, the reviewers have been so unkind as to chase them right off the stage. So, yes, they know a thing or two about being a theatrical spectacle to the world. They have seen a thing or two.

Why strut around on the stage we will leave so soon, and perhaps without dignity? If people do strut nonetheless—for humans are proud actors—should they not be read the verse: "Can you then fear mortals who die, human beings who are just grass?"10 In his day, U.S. President Ronald Reagan was arguably the most important human alive. Ten years later, with Alzheimer's, he didn't know who he was.

As mentioned previously, the American newsman Charlie Rose interviewed Putin in 2015.11 "You have a popularity rating in Russia that would make every politician in the world envious. Why are you so popular?" Rose asked. "There is something that I have in common with every citizen of Russia, the love for our motherland," Putin replied. Afterwards, Charlie and his team were invited to stay and have tea. "And tea turned into dinner. And the food kept coming in," Rose said later. It was just like the state dinner of 200 years ago thrown by the czar for the fictional Horatio Hornblower and his British naval officers. It is a fine career, that of an interviewer. In an instant it was over, when Charlie was accused of sexual abuse, one of a long line of prominent men that went down in 2017. But even if it had it not ended that way, is there not an overall sad component to it? He once stated he had enjoyed a wonderful career by reason of knowing so many newsmakers. Are they really worth knowing? All they do is squabble with one another and collectively make the world a chaotic mess. I'll take the brothers and sisters in my circuit any day.

In 2015, the Irish comedian Stephen Fry abruptly became quite serious on TV. He charged: "Why should I respect a mean-spirited, capricious, stupid God who creates a world that is so full of injustice and pain?" His words did not sit well with a certain person who reported him to the police. Fry discovered that he had run afoul of a blasphemy law that he had not even known existed. It was as though he was an extremist himself, nabbed for embarrassing the church people. The Irish Defamation Act would penalize any person who publishes or utters blasphemous material, and Fry was therefore investigated.12

What would Fry say to God face-to-face if he had the chance? a show host asked him on television. He answered: "I'd say 'Bone cancer in children, what's that about?' How dare you create a world in which there is such misery that is not our fault. It's not right. It's utterly, utterly evil... Because the god who created this universe, if it was created by God, is quite clearly a maniac, an utter maniac, totally selfish."

Perhaps the Russian Orthodox Church can answer his complaint. Jehovah's Witnesses can in a heartbeat. It is even a chapter of their basic study book, _What Can the Bible Teach Us_? entitled Why So Much Suffering? an exploration of verses that effectively reason upon and answer the question. Through their unparalleled public ministry, Jehovah's Witnesses make every effort to answer Fry's grievance using the Bible, for surely its pages contain that answer. Dominant churches jealous of their own turf try to run the Witnesses off the road so that they can answer it _their_ way—with defamation laws when "God works in mysterious ways" fails to satisfy. It is well that Russian tort lawyers, if they exist, do not understand scripture, for surely it is religious malpractice to interfere with the quest for the answer as to why there is suffering.

Nonetheless, the "learned" ones have not figured it out, is the gist of 'Octavius', so what chance is there that an idiot will? 'You see,' Caecilius explains from the 2nd century, but he might just as well be speaking today, "all things in human affairs are doubtful, uncertain, and unsettled." So it is to be understood that if "some, from the weariness of thoroughly investigating truth, should rashly succumb to any sort of opinion rather than persevere in exploring it with persistent diligence." _He_ represents those who have done "persistent diligence." His uneducated Christian opponents do not.13 He later speaks with admiration of a certain philosopher who, "the longer his research continued, the obscurer the truth became to him." That being so, "in my opinion also, things which are uncertain ought to be left as they are. Nor, while so many and so great men are deliberating, should we rashly and boldly give an opinion in another direction, lest either a childish superstition should be introduced."14

The reason the great men cannot figure it out is that their wisdom has led them to make a priori assumptions that serve to screen out the true answer when it is presented to them. The ones unindoctrinated need not grapple with these red herrings—frequently they are unaware of them. It really is true that the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's eyes and that he therefore simply ignores it, giving very clear answers only to whomever is willing to extricate themselves from that quagmire.15

This explains why Witnesses of Jehovah can barely contain themselves. Fry cries out the question of the ages. There is scarcely a question more important. The great men have either argued in circles or given up. Yet his question should be answered. Jehovah's Witnesses have really put themselves out—they have fairly turned their lives upside down—to bring that answer to him, only to be blocked by 'respectable' religion. It is not a matter of snatching away church members; let them claim him if they can answer his question. Unfortunately, they cannot and they will not. They have boxed themselves in with pre-existing notions and unreasonable doctrines. So they don't try. They take cover instead behind defamation laws. Indeed, several of their doctrines would negate the answer to Fry's question, though biblically the answer be plain as day.

For example, it is common, upon the death of a young child, for a member of the clergy to explain it with the analogy of how God is picking flowers. It goes something like this: God has a garden; he grows pretty flowers, absolutely the best. But he needs one more. There's one spot that's just not right. Ah! The missing ingredient is your sole flower. He'll pick it. Surely, you'll be happy. What's that? You're not? Who would ever think such an analogy as 'picking flowers' would be comforting? It is monstrous. No wonder people go atheist. Take away the most precious thing a person has simply because you have an opening and expect him to be _comforted_ over that?

The 'picking flowers' illustration is nowhere found in the Bible. But, just once, the Bible uses an illustration parallel in all respects _except the moral_ , which is _exactly opposite_ from the flower illustration! It takes place after King David, captivated over Uriah's wife, takes her as his own, impregnates her, and silences her husband by having him killed. The passage reads:

" _The LORD sent Nathan to David, and when he came to him, he said: "Tell me how you judge this case: In a certain town there were two men, one rich, the other poor. The rich man had flocks and herds in great numbers. But the poor man had nothing at all except one little ewe lamb that he had bought. He nourished her, and she grew up with him and his children. Of what little he had she ate; from his own cup she drank; in his bosom she slept; she was like a daughter to him. Now, a visitor came to the rich man, but he spared his own flocks and herds to prepare a meal for the traveler who had come to him: he took the poor man's ewe lamb and prepared it for the one who had come to him." David grew very angry with that man and said to Nathan: "As the LORD lives, the man who has done this deserves death! He shall make fourfold restitution for the lamb because he has done this and was unsparing. Then Nathan said to David: 'You are the man!'"_ 16

Now, _this_ analogy is just! The man is not expected to be comforted that the king stole his lamb to impress his visitor. Anyone who's ever recoiled in disgust at the 'picking flowers' analogy is reacting exactly as the Bible says he should! It is the _clergyman_ who is advocating the obscene. The flower picker is not to be praised. He deserves death! Having followed the prophet Nathan's logic, the atheists take the moral high road in this instance and kill God! The condemnation of religion at Revelation 18:24: "In her was found the blood of...all the ones who have been slaughtered on the earth," is not due to her war-stoking record alone. It is not just due to her acts of commission; it is also due to her acts of omission. Such teachers swap Bible truth for junk food, and spiritually starved people forage on evolution and atheism for nourishment.

Since the illustration is slanderous toward God and not found in the Bible, why do so many clergy members use it? The answer is that they have bought into unscriptural and unreasonable doctrines that unfailingly paint them into moral corners. You make a god-awful mess trying to escape from these corners. The unscriptural doctrine here is: 'When we die we don't really die.' That is, there is some component of us, usually called the soul, that lives on. It is immortal. Have you been good? Then death is your friend. You get promoted to heaven, and how can anyone not be happy to see good people promoted? It's a win-win! The trouble is, people don't behave as though it's a win-win. People mourn at funerals, they don't rejoice. They take a long time to readjust. Some never readjust to the death of their child; children are not supposed to die before the parent. Death is not natural. It is not a friend, as most religions would have us believe. It is an enemy.17

Returning to Fry's complaint, note who takes the hit for religious negligence. It is God! Fry rails against God, not clergy persons and not religion! He should rail against the latter, for it is they that fail in their job to explain God. It should not be God who takes the hit. Fry simply assumes—what reasonable person would not?—that if there is an answer to a spiritual question, the self-proclaimed experts will have it. That they do not must mean that an answer does not exist. It does not occur to him that the experts are themselves misled, or in some cases even frauds. God's reputation suffers. Even beyond addressing Fry's righteous gripe, Jehovah's Witnesses ardently want to defend God; after all, that is the function of a witness: to defend one who is accused.

It is a stretch, but perhaps Fry will one day come across Jehovah's Witnesses and be puzzled at finding that they are in Russia a 'totalitarian sect.' It is too bad for him that they are so maligned. So fundamental are his questions of God and suffering that even if the repugnant word 'totalitarian' was true, he might decide to rethink his objection to it, for it is not as though anyone else in the field of religion has offered anything to satisfy his spiritual thirst. Slandering good people with charges of totalitarianism does not always work. Sometimes the contrast between the accusations and what people can see right before their eyes is too great, and people are drawn to what they might not otherwise have noticed. For some the best motivation to do something is to be told that they cannot do it. Might Fry be one of those people?

His words were reported to the police by "a member of the public, who asked not to be identified," and who later explained that he (this is too much—it really is) "had not personally been offended by Fry's comments—I added that I simply believed that the comments made by Fry were criminal blasphemy and that I was doing my civic duty by reporting a crime." If the incident mirrors the incidents of many countries, the "member of the public" was an infuriated clergyman, maybe even Dvorkin himself, who _was_ personally offended and therefore tried to arrest the one who had insulted him and his profession. In the end, whoever it was did not succeed. Fry was not charged. It was decided to let the law slide because "no one was hurt."

Sure, go ahead and slap down Fry, if you must. But also address his complaint. Had his complaint even once been addressed, he might not have launched his TV salvo to begin with. Few pay any attention to the Bible's explanation of suffering because it is Jehovah's Witnesses that offer it. As with most things, it is not what is said that is important. It is who says it. People look to a respectable source to answer such questions, for surely answers should come from someone trained in academia, they assume. "Wisdom cries aloud in the street, in the open squares she raises her voice," says the proverb. 'Nonsense!' the world's movers and shakers respond. 'It cries aloud in the university campuses and quadrangles. Only ignoramuses are to be found on the street.'18

How a religion can be considered a respectable source while coming up empty-handed on the fundamental questions of life is a question for others to ponder. But popular religion will ever be a reflection of what people honor most, and such fundamental questions, while they may appear on the list of concerns, do not rank as highly as does fitting in with the world's overall aims and thereby enjoying respectability.

Jehovah's Witnesses, who, at significant expense and inconvenience, have put themselves out to answer questions like Fry's, should not be impeded. Let's face it—one builds up some 'street cred' through such an unpaid public ministry. There is nothing in it for them. Sure, it can be spun in a derisive manner by persons intent on that aim: that they have a 'need' to validate themselves or a 'need' to be right. But it is better to take it at face value: as doing a good deed. Witnesses understand kingdom preaching as a Christian duty dictated by love of God, for he is the one who gets slammed—and for neighbor, for they are the ones who suffer for it. If you have knowledge, you don't just sit on it. How loving would that be? You light the lamp and put it on a lampstand.

After 45 years, I reconnected with an old friend. It was the friend who had ribbed me mercilessly about the United Nations when I had first become a Witness. Jehovah's Witnesses have a unique understanding of that world body—that it is the 'image of the wild beast' of Revelation. The wild beast is the worldwide political system and it has 'breathed life' into the image of the wild beast, which is thereby empowered to govern the entire earth as a single organization, something its individual components have proved unable to do. It represents worldwide government _by man_ instead of worldwide government _by God,_ and thus it finds itself in the crosshairs of biblical interpretation.19

It is also in its second life. Its first life was as the League of Nations, formed to maintain peace following World War I. The League failed twenty years after its inception, powerless to dissuade factions gearing up for a repeat war, but the concept was resurrected after World War II as the United Nations. Even this resurrection fits in with a Revelation verse: [redacted]20 Watchtower President Nathan Knorr predicted the 'beast's' reappearance at a 1942 convention, while the entire world was for the second time at war.21

The two diverging views over just who should govern humankind—man or God—split decisively in 1919. The newly formed League was hailed by the National Council of the Churches of Christ in America as [redacted] Jehovah's Witnesses, their head ones just released from Atlanta prison for alleged violation of the 1918 Espionage and Sedition Act, promptly regrouped and announced at a landmark convention: [redacted]22 The contrast could not have been more stark.

Now, I knew the preceding only vaguely at the time, and my friend did not know it at all. His picture of the United Nations had been forged as a child, as had mine. It was the organization that collected money for the eradication of disease. As a child I had carried one of their milk cartons modified to collect coins for just that purpose—what on earth could be wrong with that? My friend harped and harped on it and I finally told him that it was just a footnote, not a big deal, and that he should give it a rest.

The circuit overseer was to visit our congregation and there was to be a special slide presentation. I invited my friend and gave him to understand that, in view of his giving me nothing but grief about my new faith, if he attended this one meeting I would consider that he had given it a fair shake and would thereafter shut up about it. He came and was shoehorned into a crowded Kingdom Hall. All was going well, and I was happy that he was receiving 'a witness,' but toward the end of the presentation a slide displayed the U.N. building rent in two by a lightning bolt from heaven! an image that I had never seen before and do not think I have seen since. I should have invited the Soviet leaders instead of my friend, for they would have cheered—Russia routinely got shellacked in the Security Council back then, ever outvoted by the pro-West majority. Putin himself (I am playing a bit here) might even have removed and pounded his shoe in appreciation at that Kingdom Hall meeting, just as Khrushchev had done years before at the U.N itself. But I hadn't invited the Soviet leaders. I had invited my friend, and I kept my end of the bargain to witness to him no more, with but occasional relapses—for after all, I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Meanwhile, the United Nations continues to function until the world ignores it to embark upon WWIII, but since that has not yet happened, perhaps it must be granted some credit. Every once in a while, I am told, it contacts the Watchtower Society to ask them if they would please drop this 'wild beast spiel.'

Anyhow, I caught up with my friend again after 45 years. He had been a heavy smoker back in the day and he was now dependent upon an oxygen tank, which impeded his mobility. Who was it that said we spend the first third of our lives ensuring that the final third will be miserable? Once long ago I had commented on that delicious aroma of a newly lit cigarette. "Every puff is like that when you are a smoker," he replied. Yet now he crusades to dissuade others from that course.

The zealots of New York State bombard me with graphic anti-smoking TV ads, as though intent on spoiling my dinner. Visiting with my old friend was more effective. I thanked Jehovah, for it easily could have been me. I easily could have been funneled into it, for it was all the rage once and it is not to my credit that I abstained. The year I was baptized smoking became an offense for which one could be expelled from the congregation. Some had the most difficult struggle quitting. Some didn't quit and ceased association with the religion. Yet seeing my old friend, who had lived a life of both joys and sorrows, knowing it will likely be cut short due to the tobacco—it made me grateful for that firmness. Though Witness detractors today complain about many a freedom-restricting policy, I have never known any to complain of this one, which must have saved countless thousands of lives. Should a safety-conscious world ever focus on Witnesses shunning tobacco, drugs, alcohol abuse and warfare, it might mandate that everyone sign on.

My friend will die younger than otherwise, most likely. Yet, is it not but fake news that 80 years and then death is all we should expect? Those of this world settle for so little. If Google and Facebook filter out the fake news of the present, why should not Jehovah's Witnesses filter out the fake news of the future? If only the Church would do it. Then Witnesses wouldn't have to. Everlasting life on earth under kingdom rule is the Bible hope. Death in the Adamic system of things is not permanent. "We do not want you to be ignorant about those who are sleeping in death, so that you may not sorrow as the rest do who have no hope," Paul writes.23 'Yes, we do,' the Church says in effect. 'Stay ignorant.'

The overall church world will not explain about those 'sleeping in death.' They cannot. They have it all backwards and they present death as part of God's plan. They portray it as is a friend, whereas the Bible clearly says it is an enemy and not part of God's plan at all. Live a few decades on a trialsome earth, then (if you are good) get promoted to heaven, they say. It is all wrong. It is all unscriptural. Earth is our _intended_ home, the Bible says. While it is true some end up in heaven, it is a tiny group for a special purpose—to rule with Christ as 'kings over the earth.' How many nations consist of only kings?24 Religion finds the doctrine that all are heaven-bound hard to convey to young skeptics. It makes no sense to them. Why didn't God put them there in the first place if that's where he wanted them? Nor does that hope strike most of them as desirable. They like it here, they point out, or at least they would if humans would stop fouling the nest. What would they ever do with themselves in heaven?

The ban impedes Russian citizens from getting a straight answer to another one of the greatest mysteries of all time: what happens at death? Is this life all there is? Why does Genesis tell of people living 900 years back in that time? What does that portend? Is it really because they measured time differently, as the Presbyterian pastor told me? If so, why do later generations live just 500 years and later still, 200, eventually dropping to 30 or so during the Dark Ages before a reapplication of sanitation principles found in the Torah bounces lifespans back up to the present 80, like a correction in a plummeting stock market?25

Social media can induce depression. Regularly this is heard in the West. 'My online friends' lives are so exciting—always they are posting interesting things,' people say, 'but my life is so dull.' Facebook _itself_ is fake news, distorting reality! But even if it did not, even if it relayed the present life accurately, is not this entire world of human devising fake news: ever overpromising and underdelivering? Is not everything outside of spiritual matters fake news? Or at least besides-the-point news. If someone breaks through the fake news to discover the real stuff, as Jehovah's Witnesses think they have done, can anyone think that one will be satisfied with the fake news again?

Living forever on a paradise earth _sounds_ like a fairy tale. Why expect anyone to waste their time obsessing about that? But it also sounds very good. If the time involved to investigate is substantial or the cost prohibitive, one might expect people to dismiss the notion out of hand. But if the time involved is modest, and the cost is free, some will decide to look into it. They'll appreciate that someone has gone to a lot of trouble in order to bring that message to them; a free home Bible study to the general public is the signature offer of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Once a person has had the satisfaction of assembling the puzzle pieces that are the Bible, replicating the portrait of the puppy dog or mountain range on the box cover, he is immune to the critic who says he put it together wrong. He is _especially_ immune if that critic's own puzzle lies unassembled in the box on his closet shelf. Afterwards, with puzzle completed, he is even immune when he is cruising down the highway at full throttle, and the critical atheist on the radio tells him his car doesn't run.

The puzzle cannot be assembled in church. Too many pieces have been altered and they no longer fit together. It was the same in the first century. In an effort to stay popular and contemporary, the establishment tampered with the pieces, to the point where those pieces became fodder for theological rumination, but roadblocks to actual understanding. Though there were plenty of (Jewish) priests back then, it was for the nascent Christianity's Phillip to approach the traveling court official who was reading aloud Isaiah. "Do you understand what you are reading?" Philip asked him. "How can I, unless someone instructs me?" was the reply.26

The reconstructed box cover picture is the answer to everything of consequence. God wants us to have it. He wants us to seek and find him. He is "not far from any one of us."27 If you destroy the puzzle pieces, it is hard to assemble anything that makes sense. Witnesses only want to clarify and preserve the pieces so that the puzzle can be put together. They are guardians of doctrine in that regard. It hardly makes them extremist. Rather, it makes them essential.

Most church teachings are not plainly found in the Bible. The attempt to read them in causes people to throw up their hands in despair of ever understanding the book. The Trinity teaching makes God incomprehensible. The hellfire teaching makes him cruel; Isaac Asimov was not off-base when he likened the hellfire teaching to "the drooling dream of a sadist." Both doctrines are components of the fake news of religion that was carted out to the curb 100 years ago by early Watchtower associates acting as 'the messenger preparing the way.' When you 'prepare the way' for any sort of building project, carting out the trash is the first thing you must do. Thereafter you don't obsess over it. You needn't tell Waste Management why the contents of the dumpster must go. Accordingly, Watchtower publications rarely mention the trash these days. They are content to provide a toolbox containing a few specialized brochures and magazines to reason with those outside who yet hold onto the old doctrines. But for congregation members they get on with the essence of Christian living.

Christ went under the water in baptism and so did Christians. When they emerge, it is symbolically as with a new personality. He was nailed to the stake. That's what happened to the old personality of Christians as well. The symbolism helps them with their resolve to continue stripping off the old personality and donning the one that is Christ's. Squabbling over the trash will have a place so long as there are people who think it is really valuable stuff, but the true power of Christianity lies elsewhere. The verses that can be used to refute the Trinity doctrine were not written for that purpose. Reaching for maturity, the Christian explores the purposes for which they were written.28

Many a person brave on the battlefield cowers at the prospect of discussing spiritual things with a visiting Witness. He worries that his choice weapon, "I never speak of religion or politics," may not be enough to drive off the assailer. Deep down inside he may suspect that he probably should care more about spiritual things than he actually does, for he has heard, and it sounds laudable, that 'Man does not live on bread alone.' Perhaps it is even as Mathew 5:3 says: that the [redacted] are the ones who will ultimately be happy—for they will seek to fill those needs. All persons have spiritual needs, but they are not necessarily conscious of them, just as they are not necessarily conscious of the need for vitamins. Neglect them at your own peril. One gets sicker and sicker without ever quite knowing why. Strangely, few Bibles are so clear as the New World translation in rendering the expression [redacted] Most settle for an incomprehensible 'blessed are the poor in spirit,' or 'beggars of the spirit.' If you beg for something, surely you are aware that you need it. Except for the New World Translation, the passage is obscure. Russians will have to ask their relatives across the border to look that verse up for them.

I like the Peter Sellers movie Being There, in which Chauncy very slowly explains to political leaders how one season follows another. They treat him with the greatest deference and assume that he is speaking so slowly so as to allow them to grasp the economic implications of allowing the business cycle to play out. In actuality, he is a mentally challenged man who has difficulty recalling the order of the seasons. The assumptions of the learned are often fake news. The emperor often parades around in invisible clothes and only the children spot it as fake.

Is insistence upon critical thinking, all the rage today, and enjoying a resurgence from the time of Caecilius, among the greatest facilitators of fake news? Criticalthinking.org laments that "much of our thinking, left to itself, is biased, distorted, partial, uninformed, or downright prejudiced....Excellence in thought, however, must be systematically cultivated." The web writer assumes that is possible. He continues: "Critical thinking is that mode of thinking — about any subject, content, or problem — in which the thinker improves the quality of his or her thinking by skillfully analyzing, assessing, and reconstructing it. Critical thinking is self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking." Manifestly, this way of thought appeals to persons who are fond of 'self.' Critical thought "presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem-solving abilities, as well as a commitment to overcome our native egocentrism and sociocentrism."29 Is not the devil in what it "presupposes?"

Consider the role critical thinking might have played in a 2009 diplomatic spat between Britain and China. The Chinese authorities had just executed a British citizen for drug trafficking in their country, the first such execution since the 1950s. The British had wanted him spared owing to his diagnosis of bipolar disorder. They'd lobbied hard for that outcome. When it didn't happen, British Prime Minister Brown cried: "I condemn the execution of Akmal Shaikh in the strongest terms and am appalled and disappointed that our persistent requests for clemency have not been granted....I am particularly concerned that no mental health assessment was undertaken. But China would have none of it. "Nobody has the right to speak ill of China's judicial sovereignty," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu said. "We express our strong dissatisfaction and resolute opposition over the groundless British accusations. We urge the British side to mend its errors and avoid damaging China-British relations."30

What is dealt with here are differing cultural attitudes towards social policy, criminal conduct, mental illness, personal responsibility, individual rights, and drug use. These are values. Just how does 'critical thinking' sort out the interplay between them? For the most part, the two citizenries lined up with the viewpoints of their respective governments. Was critical thinking only to be found among one or the other population? If so, which one? It was China that played the 'critical thinking' card first. "We hope that the British side can view this matter rationally," Jiang said. Why didn't the Brits think of enshrouding their plea in rationality? Too late now. China beat them to it, and now the British are, by default, irrational.

For all the brouhaha over critical thinking, pigs will fly before nations give up cherished norms forged over decades, even centuries. Critical thinking has its place. There are some areas where it alone delivers. But it is never the be-all and end-all. Don't let its staunch advocates tell you that they have uncovered the nirvana to establishing truth. They are too quick to presuppose that they are the guardians thereof. From their ranks comes the too-confident person who does not suffer fools gladly—and a fool is anyone with whom he disagrees. His fake news is the most pernicious of all because he takes it as a matter of faith that his method makes him impervious to fakery.

The experience of unity is a profound draw for Jehovah's Witnesses. It is a profound "taste and see that God is good."31 There are ever so many Witness opponents online—and many of them once were Jehovah's Witnesses themselves. Judging from what they write, it is safe to say that they would not be able to tolerate one another outside of the Internet, where they have united for common cause. They can and doubtless do snipe at each other endlessly on other venues, perhaps over Trump/Hillary, or God/no God, or global warming/global denying, or medicine/alt medicine. They should embrace the world they have collectively chosen. When they see mayhem on TV—embrace it, it is theirs. They once had unity. There were once able to sacrifice some petty freedoms in order to grasp significant ones. But now it is the petty they cherish. It is the 'Dreamers' who dream only of where they can suffer the fewest people telling them what to do and where they can make the most money.

When critical thinking is turned upon the Bible itself, the book promptly disintegrates. The reason Jehovah's Witnesses can look at the Bible as they do is because they have 'tasted and seen that the LORD is good.' It is the heart molded by experience and focused effort. But if you hail from the world of criticism, you cannot conceive of unity. You have never seen it. Leave these people to their own devices and there is no Bible book written as presented. Every one of them is a hash of conflicting writers with warring agendas. It is the only reality such scholars have ever experienced, and it colors all their scholarship. Assumptions matter. The course of justice is altered when "innocent until proven guilty" becomes "guilty until proven innocent." One can demonstrate that the Bible is reasonable, but one cannot prove it. Nor can one prove the opposite. Primarily, it is 'taste and see.' In mile-high Denver, Colorado, people believe in floods. They believe in them in New Orleans, too, below sea level, but the quality of their belief differs, for _they_ have 'tasted and seen' floods.

Critical thinkers who have not seen unity, save in tyrannical settings, assume it does not exist. Their world is one of critical argument. Their vehemence in argument is emblematic of why it does not work. No attempt is made to relate to the other side. The intent is only to demolish it. Sometimes I worry that their cherished evolution is true and that they are the final product of it. If so, kiss any prospects of getting along goodbye. The trouble with critical thinking is that its proponents invariably assume that they have a lock on the stuff and that, consequently, their role is to correct others.

Some years back I conversed with one of these fellows at his door. He insisted that I define all my terms, interrupting me frequently to that end. If I said "religion," for example, he said "define religion." If I said "God," he said "define God." If I said "system," he said "define system." This happened four or five times and, in an effort to break the mood, find common ground, and simply be pleasant, I commented upon his steep driveway—that it must make for challenging driving in the winter. He corrected me! He had planned it at exactly the right pitch and composition and alignment toward the sun, so that, on days the sun appeared, ice would melt before he had to traverse it. "He even argued about his driveway!" my dumbfounded companion said, as we walked down it.

Jesus cares little about the head, and Jehovah's Witnesses are not especially 'heady.' For every appeal Jesus makes to the mind, he makes ten to the heart, spinning parables that he rarely explains. Even when he offers explanation, it is not such that it would satisfy the critical thinkers. Perhaps he does it so that the latter, too impressed with their own wisdom and demands for proof, will argue themselves right off the deck of the ship before it reaches its destination. Says the Lord: "This is why I speak to them in parables, because "they look but do not see and hear but do not listen or understand." Isaiah's prophecy is fulfilled in them, which says: "You shall indeed hear but not understand, you shall indeed look but never see. Gross is the heart of this people, they will hardly hear with their ears, they have closed their eyes, lest they see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and be converted, and I heal them."32

Cherished methods of argumentation are not the Christian priority. Jesus freely utilizes hyperbole, a device which may so frustrate the critical thinker that he is apt to label it simply an untruth. So be it. In his own way, he is as rigid as is the fundamentalist who would take the expression 'crocodile tears' to mean that (I am exaggerating here just a bit) crocodiles are the topic of consideration. Of course, one must strive to make sense, for "Paul joined them, and for three Sabbaths he entered into discussions with them from the scriptures, expounding and demonstrating that the Messiah had to suffer and rise from the dead, and that 'This is the Messiah, Jesus, whom I proclaim to you.'" One must be like the Beroeans and check that all things told really can be established.33 But one needn't feel constrained to follow the rules of a world that worships critical thinking, since it sometimes is their first rule that you can't move any of your pieces. If they shriek that you have raised a strawman, point out that Jesus wants men of all sorts to be saved—even straw men. There's nothing wrong with strawmen. They are used in the Bible frequently. They are a fine rhetorical means of telling an unreasonable person: 'Your point is too silly to merit a serious response,' just as in the Star Trek episode wherein Mr. Spock promises to give Dr. McCoy's suggestion all the attention it merits. He pauses a split second, then proceeds with his business.

The mind does not run the show. Judging from how seldom Jesus appeals to it as opposed to the heart, it never did. It is the heart that decides what it wants. It then employs the mind to cloak around its desire a veneer of respectable rationality, if such can be arranged. If it cannot, the heart just makes a grab for what it wants and charges the head to devise a rationale whenever it gets around to it.

Critical thinking cannot save us. Many things today are, for all practical purposes, unknowable, with endless permutations that can be spun in endless ways, often deliberately, by ones of vested interests who wish to muddy the waters. One must look to the heart for guidance, and even leadership. The head will catch up in time. Max Planck the physicist, surely one who appreciated critical thinking, observed: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." Even that statement presupposes that the new truths accepted after a generation truly are truths. It is not inevitable that they are. They are sometimes the mountains and hills that crumble just when you must lean upon them the most.

There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false, says John P. A. Ioannidis in an abstract to a study examining the topic. "Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias."34 Dr. Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of the Lancet, adds: "The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness."35 Dr. Marcia Angell writes similarly: "It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine."36

The devotees of reason toil away at their favorite model and do not notice when their tools are hijacked by sinister forces. Sometimes it is ego. Other times it is money. The majority team gets the ball, tilts the field against the minority team, and may even seek to obliterate them. Many things established have been established by decree. Many things proven have been proven by ignoring evidence to the contrary. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it," stated Upton Sinclair. A foremost observation of critical thinking ought to be that we are not very good at it.

Critical thinking is a tool only as good as those who would wield it. The typical person has much on his plate and cannot be expected to uncover the ruses. He is safeguarded only when he assumes that 'science,' like everything else in this world, is contaminated. It is frequently enough trumped by money or politics that it must be never be taken as an absolute. It's great stuff, science is. Pour me a double-shot of it. But it must not be relied upon as the primary means of establishing truth. One need not be overly concerned over the latest decree of contemporary science. Sometimes it changes. Even though it be a tsunami. it reverses course and goes right back into the hole from which it came.

The greater world recommends attaining wisdom. So, too, does the Bible. But the two brands are not the same. In some respects, they are polar opposites. "The wisdom from above is first of all pure, then peaceable, gentle, compliant, full of mercy and good fruits," says the Bible.36 'Peaceful and gentle?' The world would say no. 'Compliant?' It is a quality inviting contempt. 'Full of mercy and good fruits?' No. It goes where it goes and takes umbrage should anyone impose upon it standards of good or bad. The two brands are not the same. Either the wisdom of the Bible is foolish, or the wisdom of this world is.

Is this why those who accept the Bible as presented by Jehovah's Witnesses do so in the first place? They conclude that the Bible's wisdom is better. Upon investigation, they see the diverse pieces come together to reveal the vista on the box cover. They taste and see that Jehovah is good. The latter has nothing to do with critical thinking, the former only marginally so. The critical thinker would first analyze the pieces in close detail, find blemishes in each, and thereby throw them all away.

Anyone reading through the Old Testament cannot but help pick up the refrain, the rundown of God's dealing with Israel: "I let my people get beat up because they were too bad for too long. But then the nations said: 'Look! God cannot protect his own people!' So I beat them up too. And I brought my own people back just to show them." It is no more complicated than that with the great God of all creation? No. It is not. Sometimes we can overthink things. Though his wisdom surpasses all understanding and we can see only the fringe of his ways, when he chooses to relate to humans, he is breathtaking in his pedestrian common sense. He is not ashamed of it. He glorifies it.38

Chapter 15 endnotes

Return to Table of Contents

# Chapter 15 – Life

I came across a person through reading who spent all his time playing Second Life.1 It is a popular online game in which a player, represented by an avatar, interacts with other players who are represented by their avatars. There are hundreds of thousands of players of this game, and together they make up an online world, which they may occupy more than the real world. You can do everything in Second Life that you can in the real world, and a lot more, since you are unrestrained by inconveniences as family responsibilities, financial hardship, health or age infirmities, physical distance, or social inhibition. It is a dinosaur of a game in digital life—its heyday is past—but it is still played by many.

The man featured in the article I read was almost sixty years old. He discovered Second Life while recuperating from surgery. He plays it virtually every waking moment—as many as fourteen hours a day, said the article—pausing only for bathroom breaks. His avatar is a twenty-something muscular hunk, a vicarious representation of his actual sixty-year-old self. He develops shopping malls and creates designer clothes (in real life, the sixty-year-old works at a help desk). He is idolized by all his employees and when he logs on after a long absence, his workers all welcome him back and earnestly inquire as to his health. (I haven't yet figured out why anyone would play Second Life and be an employee rather than a boss.) He has an online wife, a pretty avatar he met some time ago. They set up house, they work together, shop together, and do everything a married couple might be expected to do. In real life, he's never met the woman and has no intention of doing so. In Second Life, they are inseparable.

Now, this fellow has a wife in the real world, and she's not happy. "Leave this loser," her kids urge her. It is the second marriage for both of them. But she sticks with her man, if he can really be called hers. He is a good man at heart, she maintains, who has been sucked into an online addiction. Someday he will wake to find he has squandered his whole life in a make-believe world. She brings him breakfast while he's tapping away at the keyboard. Hours later she returns. "You didn't touch your breakfast," she says. "Oh, sorry. I didn't notice it." (This writer's wife would dump his breakfast over his head at this point.)

Imagine—an online world so engrossing that some prefer it to the real world! Next to Second Life, Risk and Monopoly are mere—well, board games. Yet without too great a leap in creative thinking, one may view _this_ life as though it were a second life, which would relegate the online Second Life to Third Life. For the Bible makes clear that this life is not the "true" life. Sickness and death are not part of God's purpose for humankind. Rather, everlasting life is. An earth brought close to ruin by human activity is likewise not his purpose; a paradise earth, much like the Eden of Genesis, which literally means 'garden,' or 'paradise,' is. Neither is happiness marred by evil and suffering part of God's purpose, but instead unsullied life under Kingdom rule is. We limp along as best we can in this system of things. Some find success and overcome obstacles better than others, but in the end, there is little difference between us. A mere few decades pass and all of us are senile and in diapers, en route to the grave. That is why Paul encouraged Timothy to: "Tell the rich in the present age not to be proud and not to rely on so uncertain a thing as wealth but rather on God, who richly provides us with all things for our enjoyment. Tell them to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous, ready to share, thus accumulating as treasure a good foundation for the future, so as to win the life that is true life."2

How meaningful can life be in a system where ISIS, dementia, cancer, or simple human greed can snuff it out in a second? "Sayonara!" your longtime employer sings out, as he packs up for overseas. "Dust off that resume, why don't you? And those family and financial obligations you have? Fugedaboudit!" It is as Solomon says: He has seen footmen on horses and princes slogging through the mud. It is certainly possible to get satisfaction from life today, and most have to some degree. But many find it is like chomping down hard on cotton candy. Though it looked substantial, they ultimately find that there was never much there.

How short-sighted to throw off restraint and run to a place where no one can tell you what to do. There is nothing to stop one from doing so, but it's a poor trade-off over the 'restrictions' of a godly life, which amount to little more than guardrails on a treacherous highway. Manipulation through human scheming in the form of Big Government, Big Business or contemporary philosophy ultimately take a toll far greater than any restrictions of the Christian life.

There is some basis in viewing this life, uncertain in every aspect except its ultimate end, as a Second Life, and your real self as an avatar—and perhaps some advantage. The joys of this life one can experience fully, if the character of our article is any guide. But the hardships that this life throws at you, things not within your power to fix, you may be better able to handle with an "aw hell, it's just an avatar" attitude, which will be good for mental health. Like any board game or online game, this life comes to an end. You may have hotels on every square or you may go directly to jail—'Do not pass Go'—but the game does end decisively for all. The true life, however, does not. Jehovah's Witnesses live as happily as they can manage in this life. But it is the true life to which they look forward.

They asked popular author and futurist Robert Jastrow about living forever, and specifically, whether that would that be a blessing or a curse? He said that it all depends: "It would be a blessing to those who have curious minds and an endless appetite for learning. The thought that they have forever to absorb knowledge would be very comforting for them. But for others who feel they have learned all there is to learn and whose minds are closed, it would be a dreadful curse. They'd have no way to fill their time."

Dr. Jastrow is a thinker, and so he focused on learning. There is an apocryphal story about a Witness chancing upon him in the ministry, observing that he is quoted in the book _Life - How did it Get Here? By Creation or Evolution_ , and placing a copy of it with him on that basis. But things besides knowledge are boundless, too, such as our capacity to create and our capacity to love.

Over the last forty years or so, however, pop culture has been selling death as though it were a benefit. It is probably the atheists. They are increasing in number and buying into their thinking means settling for a final death sentence perhaps not too many years away. Pay attention and you will see the 'death is beautiful' notion a lot. For example, it surfaced in a Dr. Who episode entitled: The Lazarus Experiment.

The episode name itself is a giveaway, because Lazarus is a biblical character resurrected by Jesus, related in the eleventh chapter of John. The television Lazarus has invented a machine to make him youthful again; he steps in old and he walks out young, to the amazement of the high-brow folk invited to his gala bash. But Dr. Who, who must have crashed the party, smells something amiss. He follows the newly minted youngster, and sure enough, the machine has malfunctioned and doomed Lazarus to transforming back and forth from human to monster! (They like monsters on that show.) See, in setting back his DNA, the machine has selected ancient mutations long-ago rejected by evolution, and the result is instability. (Hmmm...yes...indeed, plausible, nod all the atheists watching the show, whereas if you mentioned anything about God, they'd throw up).

Dr. Who, a 'time lord,' lectures Lazarus before the show is done on what a curse everlasting life really is, and what a foolish, greedy thing it was for him to reach out for it. For when life drags on forever and ever and ever, you will get so tired of it. You will have been everywhere, done everything. Living will have become an endless, pointless trek to nowhere. You will long for it to end, but (fool that you were for choosing everlasting life) it will not end but will go on and on and on. Oh, the monotony! See, without death, it is impossible to savor life—and so forth.

Please. Spare me and Dr. Jastrow. This is atheist tripe. It all depends upon whether you see life as futile or not. If you do, then sure, you would want it to end. But as Dr. Jastrow stated, life is only futile if you have made it so. Of course, baked into this system of things are various ingredients to encourage that view—for example, old age and frailty, but if they could be vanquished, a much different longing would emerge.

A prime attraction of Rochester, New York, where this writer has resided, is the George Eastman House. Mr. Eastman, who invented photography for the masses and who founded the Eastman Kodak Company, turned philanthropist once he had made his fortune, and built half the city; testimony to his generosity is everywhere. His mansion on East Avenue showcases his life, his inventions, his contributions to society, and serves as the nucleus for all things photographic right up to the present. When he decided the center lounge area of his domicile was too small, he had the house cut in two, rolled apart, and a fine new addition built to link them again. Does his determination emerge from this picture? He was unstoppable. But research thoroughly and you will discover that he shot himself in the head at age 78. In the throes of old age, his health failing, one by one he saw his friends going senile, bedridden or wheelchair-bound. He left behind a note: "To my friends: My work is done. Why wait?"3

Q: Why did George Eastman take his life?

A) His work was done. Why wait?

B) He longed for the blessed release of death to finally end a futile life that had dragged on and on for far too long.

C) His health was failing and he, a lifelong bachelor, dreaded the indignities of old age with its dependence upon others.

Does anybody honestly think that, with health and youth, George Eastman would not have found more work in which to engross himself? Surely, he would not have longed for life to end. In this, Mr. Eastman is much like Leonardo da Vinci, the man who painted one of the most enduring portraits of all time—the Mona Lisa. Leonardo made his mark not only as an artist. He also contributed hugely in areas as diverse as geometry, anatomy, astronomy, architecture, and flight. Some of his sketches have been used as blueprints for devices in use today. He was a 'Renaissance man'—his life embodies the term. Yet toward the end of his life, he reportedly sought God's forgiveness for not using all the resources of his spirit and art.

Eastman and da Vinci: two men that typify Dr. Jastrow's statement. And they would be joined by just about everyone else, were we not sucked into a morass of drudgery, duty, debt, injustice and hardship. Sure, you might well long for death if you can envision only more of that. The same goes for the frailness that comes with old age. When I attended a funeral of an older friend who had been happy, content, and productive throughout life, his widow nonetheless assured me that he was quite ready to die, since he'd grown "so tired of being sick."

Faced with the skyrocketing cost of a medical regimen, equal to her entire fixed income, one person reported on in the American Association of Retired Persons publication laments that: "I'm faced with some hard decisions about whether to stay on the drug. I still have a lot of things I want to do with my life." One is tempted to ask: At one point will she say: "Okay, I've done it all. Death can come any time, now." I think she will never say it unless and until she finally acknowledges that the scoundrels have outmaneuvered her. The hucksters are having a field day with her, gleefully seizing upon missteps to further subjugate her in some way. The doctors are sucking her dry of resources, yet she is not getting better. The young people who ought to thank her as a font of wisdom have been sold a bill of goods by self-serving interests and wonder when the old fogey will finally move on. The politicians have continually made her promises that have not panned out.

It is not always pricey drugs. The U.S. is unique in the hardship it imposes over healthcare, but there is always some problematic thing, and often it is more onerous than missing out on a drug. But if the villains of life did not, at some point, succeed in their relentless attack, the woman would never reach the point of saying 'that's enough.' She would always be up for more delicious life. That is why the Bible's promise of everlasting life on a paradise earth is so appealing. It is Robert Jastrow's dream come true: unlimited time to grow, minus the very real liabilities that eventually cause most of us to tire of life. Perfect health is promised, and an economic system will be in place so that people do not feel they are toiling for nothing. Isaiah describes life under God's kingdom rule, illustrating the prayer "thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." "They shall build houses and live in them, they shall plant vineyards and eat their fruit; They shall not build and others live there; they shall not plant and others eat. As the years of a tree, so the years of my people; and my chosen ones shall long enjoy the work of their hands. They shall not toil in vain, nor beget children for sudden destruction; For they shall be a people blessed by the LORD and their descendants with them."4

Many things I would like to do. I have done a few of them. But for the most part, I have merely scratched the surface. I've spent a fair amount of time battling the iniquities of life while not accomplishing much at all. Everlasting life, should I find myself there, will not be a bad thing. Not at all. It will be a good thing.

When the world embraces atheism, many paradigms shift. All concept of waiting for God to work out his will vanishes. What counts is the here and now. Tribulation that Revelation calls 'ten days' becomes 'forever.'5 Even the perception of congregation discipline changes. Expulsion from the congregation for unrequited unchristian conduct becomes a permanent 'breaking up of families.' To the Christian, expulsion is the ultimate trump card of discipline which may move the one so chastised thereby to mend his ways and return to the fold—for the door that was closed was never locked. The trek towards everlasting life can resume. In going atheist, however, the departing one no longer worries about living forever on earth or anywhere else. He or she has gone atheistic and has reconstrued the remaining few decades as a great bargain, with no sense of being cheated from all eternity. Sigh—if they believe it, they believe it. But it hardly seems something to celebrate. Is it not a little like the fellow who loses millions in the stock market? Undeterred, he celebrates the five thousand dollars he still has left and says: 'Well, they were only paper gains anyway.' If the fellow has come to view life that way after being expelled from the congregation, his exile has become in his eyes something from which he will not return. It has become permanent.

There are many swirls and back eddies. Certainly, one can find flaws in the visible Christian organization. Some persons have been heavy-handed. Some have blundered. But the overall flow of events is in accord with what Jehovah's Witnesses have long said. The visibility of the kingdom message expands. World conditions worsen. Not all the ducks are lined up. There are yet a few stragglers. The fat lady has not yet sung. But she is clearing her throat. It is time to mend fences for anyone who has left. Everyone knows a large project needs organization, which requires leadership, and with leadership a given policy or decision can go against you. It is good not to hold on to resentment.

The older generation of the West will sometimes paint the younger as spoiled brats—overprivileged babies who lack appreciation and do little but whine. The Witness organization does not feel that way about any who have left. You never blame the younger generation for problems encountered growing up in the soil you supplied. Had you not let outside scoundrels contaminate the soil or even tainted it yourself it might not have happened. Says a tweet from a self-described "resident scholar" at the American Institute and former philosophy teacher: "Dear kids: I'm a Baby Boomer. We are getting old. But at least we had sex, drugs and rock & roll. Seems like millennials have moral panics, workshops, and grievance circles." Does not the first largely explain the second? One is supposed to pass on values that the young can build upon. What is her advice? "Time to rebel!"6 Witness parents sought to shield their kids from such influences. Some pulled too hard in the opposite direction. Some simply found the allure of those things to their offspring too great to countermand.

There is a public talk on the Watchtower's revolving list of talk outlines entitled, 'Acquiring a Heart of Wisdom.' It is a challenging talk to give and not all speakers handle it well, for it involves exposing the flaws of faithful persons, past and present, and not all speakers are comfortable doing that. Past is okay, but not so much the present. Back in the day, when I would give the talk myself, I used to lead off with the by-now-trite illustration of how treasure-seekers dig through the dirt to find the tiniest speck of diamonds and how foolish it would be to reverse the process—dig through the diamonds to find the tiniest speck of dirt. Nevertheless, I stated, we would be doing exactly that for the next 45 minutes. With any time in the faith, you are going to come across some dirt, and if you are not prepared, you will be floored, for it is the one place you did not expect to find any.

Having set those ground rules, I then reveled in tearing things apart for the talk's duration, dredging up wrongs from both the Hebrew and Greek scriptures. I hit my stride with the second and third chapters of Revelation, considering absolute basket cases of congregations, in which were found every sort of nasty deed (read the chapters yourself), and yet they were still congregations. The point is, if wrong things happened then, one needn't be shocked if they have happened today. The trick is not to sanitize the present. It is to de-sanitize the past. It is to say: "Look at those outrageous characters back then! Yet somehow God managed to pull a rabbit out of the hat even with them carrying on as they did."

Russia has been lately dealing with an avalanche of accusations—from meddling in Western democratic process, to invading foreign states, to cheating in the Olympics. It is a non-stop hate campaign of absurd charges, fumes Robert Bridge, the RT.com correspondent. He warns that the bear may only take it for so long before it responds with a bite, not just a growl.7 I know it when I see it: non-stop hate and absurd charges. We experience it ourselves. If only the kings could get along Jehovah's Witnesses might not get caught in the cross-fire between them. Actually, that was my response from the sole pedophile Russian mention, that tweet from the Embassy relaying a defamatory headline. I replied: "One would think that a country that roundly condemns slander directed against it would not so immediately swallow it when it is directed at someone else."

Three times in the modern age has Russia saved the day, averting nuclear war: Arkhipov, Petrov, and Khrushchev via letter to Kennedy. The bear growls that the U.S. bombs more countries than Russia, and yet the bear is painted as the aggressor. The bear growls that Western profit-driven corporations, not it, stir up major mayhem in an unending quest to expand markets. The bear growls and even yipes that its athletes alone are expelled from the Olympics. Who cannot feel for Russia?

Then, just at reaching that moment of sympathy, it does something to suggest it is all true and then some, that perhaps what is visible is but the tip of the iceberg. You can't just confiscate foreign-owned property worth millions—just take it—without shooting yourself in the foot image-wise. You cannot just ban a Bible—a perfectly viable Bible and everyone knows it—without suggesting that you are a nation of goons. You can't rely upon a high school math teacher scribbling verbiage off the Internet as your expert witness without suggesting that you don't really have anyone who knows anything over there. You can't chase and harass and bully people known the world over as perfectly respectable without painting yourself a nation of thugs. Why shoot oneself in the foot that way? Jehovah's Witnesses may strike some as annoying—more people would say yes than no to that—but extremist? Everybody knows what extremism is and they know that Jehovah's Witnesses are not it. Come now. It is a pretty dull life you live if they fulfill your definition of extremism.

God lays "Jerusalem a heavy stone for all peoples" down and Russia picks it up. The prophetic reference is to the 'New Jerusalem' of Revelation 21 that descends from heaven to rule, the anti-type of another Jerusalem of long ago. It is a heavy stone. The nations and their advocates want human efforts to work. The want optimistic reassurance. They want to be told that success is at hand, or at least within reach. They don't want Bible people coming around to tell them it is all for naught and that only God's kingdom will deliver. What a tiresome heavy stone that is.

Nevertheless, "all who attempt to lift it will injure themselves badly, though all the nations of the earth will gather against it." Russia is among those first to try, and it takes hits to its reputation. It makes no sense. A great country is shoved around by anti-cult zealots. It is maneuvered into harassing a perfectly harmless people. It is sad to behold. People are not always deterred by slanderous reports. Sometimes they are drawn. "It makes no sense to slam the Witnesses," some will say, "they're nice people."8

Russia bans a Bible that everyone knows is a Bible. It confiscates a property, and everyone knows it is theft. Someone will be the new occupants of the Witness Administrative Center. Will they be smitten with hemorrhoids, as happened long ago when another treasure was taken from its rightful owners and given to strangers? It is what happened when the Philistines hijacked the ark. Well—I wouldn't hold my breath. The ark is hardly the same as the Branch building, but one can always imagine. The one conceivably valid reason for banning the New World Translation in Russia (I thought) is that it employs the word [redacted] What in the world are [redacted] It is in no other translation that I can see. It is hardly that the New World Translation avoids unpleasantries elsewhere—the translation favors the literal. It was not easy to fathom. The revised New American Bible, employed for this book, says God smote them with "tumours." The King James Version says "emerods." Darby says "hemorrhoids." The old Wycliffe Bible removes all doubt: "Forsooth the hand of the LORD was made grievous upon [the] men of Ashdod, and he destroyed them, and he smote Ashdod and the coasts thereof in the privier part of [the] buttocks/in the more privy part of their tail ends." Alas, the last laugh is on me, for it turns out that [redacted] is a colloquial term for hemorrhoids and I was simply not aware of it.9

Wish Dennis Christensen well, the first Witness jailed post-ban, a Danish citizen in jail for close to a year and trial may just be finally getting underway, if nothing else intervenes. The Ministry of Justice insists he is a dangerous criminal. He is indignant to clear his name. Can the government truly pass him off as an extremist? He—the carpenter who built a playground for the children and cleaned up the park? Wasn't there another carpenter of long ago who also ran afoul of the government? His _profession_ is even the same. His _name_ is even similar! It's a good thing Witnesses no longer do types and anti-types because somebody would find latching on to this one irresistible. Pray that his God is with him as he squares off against Goliath. Pray that he downs the brute as David did his. He even must do it as did David, with limited armor. The court restricted the time his attorneys could spend reviewing the materials for his criminal case.10

It is common for politicians in the West to accuse their adversaries of launching fake news, even denouncing them as 'hit jobs.' They should view a certain video report on RT.com to see how it is done. Albeit that it has a point of view, RT.com seems to me an overall credible source, capable of fine journalism when it puts its mind to it. But it plainly did not put its mind to it on this occasion.

The three-minute 2009 video clip is entitled 'Jehovah and Out' and the host is interviewing Audrey Zolovov of Russia Profile Magazine.11 The host asks why Jehovah's Witnesses are targeted for possible ban because, after all, Russia is "pretty tolerant toward religion, isn't it? I mean, the Hare Krisnas are operating on the streets of Moscow" and his guest says that 'Well, he doesn't really know.' He agrees with the host that Witnesses are "annoying," but also agrees that should hardly suffice as a reason. They do oppose blood transfusions, and that is very bad, but many fringe sects have similar disagreeable drawbacks. Maybe it is because they have a "very good organization." After all, they are a "worldwide phenomenon," he opines, as though expounding upon motive at a crime scene. He gives an example: several years ago, his wife went to a manicurist and he thinks that the manicurist must have been a "very important asset for that group because she had this captive audience for 40 minutes or so, while she was telling them about their religion. Of course, my wife stopped going to that manicurist as soon as she found out that she is being preached." Of course! What loyal citizen would not?

Is it possible that RT.com can celebrate grownups behaving as such babies? Even if the Witness woman was tactless, something which is not alleged, an adult learns over time that there are many of such people encountered in life, and that you can handle them by making polite banter and if they become overly insistent, by telling them to shut up. You don't send your husband to RT.com where he can relate how you escaped, only by the skin of your teeth, from an encounter with a scary monster like the one that would devour Caleb and Sophia. The Witnesses not only spoke to his wife while she was "captive," but they also do "lots of these things." As though conscious that his own complaint is silly, he further explains that the Witnesses have "a very very bad image, both in the media and among the public in general."

In seeming determination to further that "very very bad image" and even add another "very" to it, the conversation takes place against a backdrop of crazies doing the most whacky things—bizarre cultish rites, pugilistic bare-chested fighting scenes, children in lock-step: very very weird scenes that have _nothing whatsoever to do with the interview_. Nor do they have anything to do with Jehovah's Witnesses, as their most virulent critics, indeed, anyone who knows anything about them, will instantly attest. Will RT.com really treat its audience with such contempt? Are they working to cultivate stupidity among ones they seem to regard as a herd for them to direct? Or did they give no pre-thought to it? Is it an anomaly, and the producer merely said to an underling: "Hey, we're doing a story on the Jehovah's Witnesses. Run down to the lunatic bin in the storeroom and fetch some footage for me. Anything will do." And will the Russian government outlet really treat the _name of God_ with such contempt: "Jehovah and Out," as in "Over and out?"

The temptation for the writer based in the West is to paint Putin as the villain behind the scenes: the instigator of the Witness persecution. To the extent one thinks of Harry Truman's utterance, "The buck stops here," that should be understandable. But let us not go there. There is nothing to paint Putin the mastermind. It is always a challenge to get the attention of the one at the top, for he has much to occupy his time. The Persian King Ahasuerus was set up to preside over the Jews' annihilation, buying into the slander that they were a menace. It was for Queen Esther to show him the evil scheme that was underfoot.12

Most likely Putin is like Pilate, who knew Jesus was innocent but also wanted to placate the religious powers-that-be, if for nothing else than to keep them out of his hair. It is a bad sign for Witnesses that Putin hails from a communist background that has no use for religion, let alone one that is unconventional. But it is a good sign that he is a man of unpretentious upbringing. As a young man, he knocked at the door of KBG Recruiting, an unlikely means of entrance, and thereafter worked his way up through the ranks. He spent his early years "working in a gloomy office filled with aging staffers," where he was "pushing papers at work and still living at home with his parents without a room of his own."13 Like a Governing Body member himself, he did not start at the top. He started at the bottom.

There may be a partial flattening of the anti-cult wave on which Mr. Dvorkin surfs. On the occasion of the 70th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, France was questioned over its sponsorship of the NGO European Federation of Centers of Research and Information on Cults and Sects (FECRIS), as that NGO "has benefitted from abusive grants that they have used to disseminate hate speech targeting some minority religious groups in the countries of the European Union and beyond." The occasion was a side event to the Universal Periodic Review of France in Geneva (January 15th, 2018) where several NGOs and an international law expert called upon President Emmanuel Macron and his Prime Minister to revise the financing of the NGO that sends a clear "open hunting season" on religious minorities.14 It is the same NGO whose role in the Witness ban was discussed in chapter 3. Alexander Dvorkin was cited by these human rights people as a prime instigator of abuse in Russia. In addition to "the ban of Jehovah's Witnesses and peaceful apolitical Muslim movements as well as the imprisonment of several Scientologists [that are] part of this religious purification strategy," he "enjoys disseminating inflammatory narratives and hate speech. Last year, in the capital city of India, Hindus have held a demonstration outside the Russian embassy to protest against the persecution of their religion and burnt an effigy of Dvorkin."

Should France, which Mr. Eric Roux of the European Interreligious Forum for Religious Freedom (EIFRF) called "the cradle of human rights" really be sponsoring NGOs that would so blatantly violate those rights with regard to religious minorities? Surely such hate sends a signal so that "other countries in the world may think that it is therefore legitimate to follow suit and they usually do worse." FECRIS is simply a hate group itself, in that it targets "any religious minority or spiritual movement not 'usually considered a religion' and view[s] the conversion to such beliefs as a psychological subjection, a 'capture of souls' and a violation of human dignity," says the law expert Patricia Duval. Its modus operandi is to "view the conversion to such beliefs as a psychological subjection, a 'capture of souls' and a violation of human dignity, collect testimonies of families or parents of converts to new religious movements who disagree with their choice to accuse such groups of destroying families, [and] compile data based on rumors, prejudices and suspicion that they use to stigmatize the concerned groups."

Look, it might be okay for Stalin to carry on in this way, but _2018 France?_ Mr. Thierry Valle, representing the French NGO Coordination des Associations et des Individus pour la Liberté de Conscience, urged France to stop sponsoring this sort of activit[y]," noting "the human consequences which are often dramatic for the members of these minorities." All these other groups mentioned: Evangelicals, Pentecostals, Baptists, Adventists, the Salvation Army, Mormons, Falun Gong practitioners, Scientologists, Muslums and Hindus—we disagree with them all, and they with us. But we would compete with them in the marketplace of ideas, not attempt to eliminate them with harassment or bans. If there is any eliminating to be done, let God do it, not any human organization. If the dominant religious status quo Dvorkin is so zealous to protect actually addressed the serious questions of life, none of these groups, Jehovah's Witnesses included, would succeed in gaining a foothold. Will this be another occasion in which the biblical 'earth' comes to the rescue of the biblical 'woman?'

Enough of this 'cult' nonsense. We will wear out the word. The word once had actual meaning, but it has been expanded in recent years to essentially embrace "people we don't like." When I answered just that in response to an anti-cult tweet, my comment was roundly condemned as being almost too stupid to acknowledge. I immediately backed off and apologized, for they were right, and I had gone too far. I was thinking only about Witnesses and had lost sight of the very strange groups who used to be the sole designates of that word. Yet these days they would include Jehovah's Witnesses in their definition.

You can overdo it with cults. The resident "cult expert," as he bills himself, invites his audience to view an "interview where I discuss how Trump exhibits characteristics of a cult leader."15 He thinks the current President is like a cult leader? Doesn't that pretty much blow his credibility? He just doesn't like him. When you think half the country has become victim to cult manipulation, it is an indication that you have drunk too much of the Kool Aid yourself. When I made this observation on an associated tweet account, I was blocked, something that has never happened to me, and I cannot even get back in there to create a proper endnote. That says it all as to how the anti-cultists process other viewpoints. And no, I wasn't abusive. I did no more than say what I have said here. The reader who has endured up to this point is in position to testify. Haven't I behaved myself? I always do.

Russian Witnesses engaging in the ministry these days will more accurately catch the flavor of Jesus' instructions from the first meeting for field service. From time to time, Watchtower publications have highlighted the 10th chapter of Matthew as being just that meeting. Note the overwhelming tone to the effect that the Christian message would not be well-received. It would be vigorously resisted. It would even cause contention within families. The NABRE online commentary, which is extensive, passes right over this bit of unpleasantness without remark, thus revealing that its translators are not overly sensitive to the preaching nature of the Christian ministry. They join and strengthen the predominate church opinion that Christ's message will find a welcome home in this world, and will, ever so gently, transform it over time. Nothing could be further from the truth. Let us consider a few segments of Jesus' instructions (in italics) at that meeting:16

" _As you enter a house, wish it peace. If the house is worthy, let your peace come upon it; if not, let your peace return to you. Whoever will not receive you or listen to your words—go outside that house or town and shake the dust from your feet."_ (vs 12-13, Be pleasant. Don't fight. If people insist upon arguing, simply take your leave without judging, for that is not your prerogative.)

" _Behold, I am sending you like sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and simple as doves. But beware of people, for they will hand you over to courts and scourge you in their synagogues, and you will be led before governors and kings for my sake as a witness before them and the pagans."_ (16-18, It is a very real possibility these days in Russia.)

" _Brother will hand over brother to death, and the father his child; children will rise up against parents and have them put to death. You will be hated by all because of my name, but whoever endures to the end will be saved_." (vs 21-22, It is another unpleasant fact that has, at times, played out in modern settings.)

" _When they persecute you in one town, flee to another. Amen, I say to you, you will not finish the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes."_ (vs 23, You're not going to get it all done. Persecution may cause you to flee with work yet remaining. Don't worry about it. Will some Russian Witnesses seek asylum in other lands? Some have. The Witness whose house was burned to the ground shortly after the ban was imposed, did so.17)

" _No disciple is above his teacher, no slave above his master... If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more those of his household!"_ (vs 24-25, They didn't like Jesus. They won't like you.)

" _Therefore do not be afraid of them. Nothing is concealed that will not be revealed, nor secret that will not be known. What I say to you in the darkness, speak in the light; what you hear whispered, proclaim on the housetops. And do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather, be afraid of the one who can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna."_ (vs 26-28, Man up where you have to. Be courageous. Even should the enemy kill you, that is all they can do. They cannot interfere with the 'true life.')

" _Are not two sparrows sold for a small coin? Yet not one of them falls to the ground without your Father's knowledge. Even all the hairs of your head are counted. So do not be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows. Everyone who acknowledges me before others I will acknowledge before my heavenly Father."_ (vs 29-32, You will not be forgotten by your heavenly father, nor by those loyal to him.)

" _And whoever gives only a cup of cold water to one of these little ones to drink because he is a disciple—amen, I say to you, he will surely not lose his reward."_ (vs 42, You will enjoy some positive response. It will come predominantly by persons of modest means, since they are in position to offer only some water and do not wine and dine you.)

Does the next chapter of Matthew still describe that first meeting for field service? Such an interpretation is pushing it, since the first verse of chapter 11 explicitly states that the Lord sent them out. But let us imagine them hanging about in the parking lot for a while, as Jehovah's Witnesses are wont to do today, much to the Governing Body's chagrin:18

Jesus continues: _"To what shall I compare this generation? It is like children who sit in marketplaces and call to one another, 'We played the flute for you, but you did not dance, we sang a dirge but you did not mourn.' For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they said, 'He is possessed by a demon.' The Son of Man came eating and drinking and they said, 'Look, he is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.'"_ (vs 16-19, In other words, you can't please them all. They'll find fault no matter what you do. Don't worry about it.)

" _But wisdom is vindicated by her works."_ (vs 19, It comes right back to the Christian organization's reluctance to engage with those who would argue. Don't do it. Critical persons will argue until the cows come home. It may seem that some of them live to argue. Don't play that game. Demonstrate the works that will speak louder than games of the head.)19

Minus any words, and through only music steadily rising to crescendo, the video starts out as in a dream. A barefoot man in casual tunic walks along the beach and his attention is caught by something afar off down the shore. Another group is picnicking on the sand. The scenes cut to vistas of the earth in all its splendor, and persons climbing, exploring, building, and savoring it. They are all people seen before, meeting various trials of faith, featured in separate videos at the 2016 Regional Conventions, hosted around the globe.20

"You won't understand all of this, but that's okay," I told one man on a return visit. "Just give me your general impression." He was especially enthused when I suggested he try writing a screenplay for it. He was the young atheist man who'd agreed that Megan could return and discuss her Bible themes at length. She had invited me to come along. Surely, the man must have assumed she'd summoned one of the big guns from the church.

He invited the two of us in and parried cautiously, unsure as to what he'd gotten himself into. "Now, just to be sure, if I should ask you to leave, you will go, right?" he queried hesitantly. Somehow I felt I had a read on this fellow and I told him that he'd be lucky to be rid of us by midnight. It was enough to break the ice and an uneasy tension was no more. I asked him how much time he had had in mind. He said an hour—longer than we had planned to stay in the first place.

I barely spoke during the first fifteen minutes. Megan said that the Bible was a scientific book and I winced inwardly because it isn't. What she _meant_ was that when the book happens to touch on matters of science it does so accurately, but Sean heard only what she had said, not what she had meant, and he seemed taken aback. Presently he brought up something about Nebuchadnezzar, and I knew he had prepped for how to speak with Witnesses, for—let us be honest—who cares about Nebuchadnezzar in this day and age? After we had jumped around into three topics, I suggested maybe we should go back to the first and discuss it thoroughly, before moving on. He agreed. After exploring that first topic, he lost all interest in Nebuchadnezzar and we both sent him off grazing to whatever pasture he had come from.21

"The greatest enemies of God are not to be found in the ranks of the atheists," I had mentioned to him. "They're to be found in the ranks of those who claim to be his friends. In fact, that's why some atheists become atheists; they have grown so thoroughly disgusted at the conduct and teachings of religious people." He liked that remark. I have been back a few times since.

"It is a lot of family scenes," he puzzled out about the video, "and they're wearing very simple, khaki-like clothing. And it's a great ending, the son runs into the arms of his dad—a big reunion. They apparently haven't seen each other in a while." No, they hadn't. The boy had died in an automobile accident, presented in a movie at that convention, and the reunion scene was one of resurrection from the dead. The entire video, shown the last hour at that convention, was of life on the other side of the great tribulation, and—wasn't that Sergey playing the violin or one like it that the Russian guard had smashed but now his wife had retrieved for him in the new system? Without mentioning the verse—for it contains no words—the video was Revelation 21:3-4 realized:

" _I also saw the holy city, a new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, 'Behold, God's dwelling is with the human race. He will dwell with them and they will be his people and God himself will always be with them [as their God]. He will wipe every tear from their eyes, and there shall be no more death or mourning, wailing or pain, [for] the old order has passed away.'"_

After thousands of years have elapsed from humankinds' start, God removes the chaos of the Devil-inspired experiment of human self–rule, after all but the most obstinate can see that it has been an utter failure. He brings about what he was going to bring about in the first place but delayed for a time so that a moral challenge could be answered.22 Ones who have sought him out in this system of things are the first to realize the fruitage of his rule in the new one, as is portrayed in the video's title: Jehovah Will Treat his Loyal One in a Special Way.

One way of countering oppressors is to outlive them. There is only so much time they have to strut about on the world stage and then they must die. Of course, you must die too, perhaps even before they. But the Witness article of faith that I have never heard anyone among them doubt is that of a resurrection on the transformed paradise earth. Witnesses may dicker about this minor point or that, agitated like particles of Brownian motion, but I have never found one having trouble with the resurrection. It affords them major staying power, and it may be for that reason that it has historically come under virulent attack. It is not merely a human game that is being played. The chief priests bribed the guards to report Jesus' disciples had stolen his body and that he had not been resurrected at all.23 A relentless attempt to water down resurrection of the dead from 'actual' to 'virtual' was a major apostasy of the first century. Some had "deviated from the truth by saying that [the] resurrection has already taken place and are upsetting the faith of some."24 And Caecilius of the 2nd century argues with ferocity against Octavius' simple faith in the resurrection, which seems to particularly get under his skin.25

The video is not intended as a tool for the ministry and it cannot be used that way—I have tried. A Witness knows the story-line and is apt to get choked up. The video portrays the culmination of every Witness's Bible-based hope. What! Does anyone think Russian Witnesses will trade it for some twaddle about breaking free of 'manipulation'—from persons who simply want to ensure that religion knows its place in today's world?

It does know its place, and that is first place. Some Russian brothers will give up, most likely, just as "Demas, enamored of the present world, deserted me and went to Thessalonica," but for every Demas, there will be the "ten people from nations of every language [who] will take hold, yes, will take hold of the cloak of every Judahite and say, 'Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you.'"26 It is perhaps a process that the Russian authorities have speeded up, forcing the world to confront the question: What is there about the Christian message so objectionable that it must be condemned? Some will conclude: Nothing at all. It is this chaotic mess of a world that should be condemned. If history is any guide, the work may lull a bit in Russia, only to return with a vengeance at a later date.

Jehovah Will Treat his Loyal One in a Special Way is but the beginning of Revelation 22, the last Bible chapter, in which water sparkling as crystal flows out from the throne of God and of the Lamb; it works as medicine for the nations. As Jehovah's Witnesses announce now, it is: "'Come.' Let the hearer say, 'Come.' Let the one who thirsts come forward, and the one who wants it receive the gift of life-giving water." Though the video has no words, it effectively ends with the words of the Bible: "The one who gives this testimony says, 'Yes, I am coming soon.' Amen! Come, Lord Jesus!"27

In the ministry one evening in upstate New York, I approached a man about to launch his hobbyist drone. I told him I had never seen one up close and he invited me to watch. It took off. He guided it up and over the street, over the rooftop of the neighbor's house, and I saw in his viewfinder what the drone saw. Yes! There it was! As he suspected, his first mini-drone had come down over the house and was stuck in the gutter. "It's just a cheap little thing," he said finally of the lost drone. He decided to let it remain just where it was. How would he retrieve it anyway? Perhaps his neighbor would be peeved at his flying a drone overhead, as though spying. He guided his big drone back and it landed obediently at his feet. I hadn't said a word as to who I was, and he hadn't asked. With mother drone safe and sound, and only a chick lost in the neighbor's gutter, he said to me: "You're a Jehovah's Witness, right? They're fine people. I never met one I didn't like." I thought I'd leave things just the way they were, like his baby drone left in the gutter. What could I have added? He had nailed it. We _are_ fine people. When searching the field of religion, look for those who are collectively maligned but individually praised.

The End

###

Chapter 16 endnotes

Return to Table of Contents

# PART IV

The following chapters originally appeared as blog posts at www.tomsheepandgoats.com. They cover events developing after publication of this book. If portions seem repetitive, that's because they are. No attempt has been made to weed out redundancies or integrate them into the rest of the book. Maybe later.

# Chapter 16 – Prison Terms and a President with Questions

At the Russian government press conference, journalists asked about the case of Dennis Christensen, who one day prior had been sentenced to over 6 years in prison for practicing his faith. Journalists asked whether Jehovah's Witnesses can really be considered an extremist organization from a common-sense point of view. The president's press secretary said: "We cannot rely on concepts of common sense for governmental purposes."1 Of course!

The knee-jerk response of any jaded person in nearly any country on earth is to chuckle and say, "Yeah, it is just like that here." But there is much more to be seen here.

The Russian government is plainly befuddled. The press secretary goes on to explain that the greater issue is not whether Jehovah's Witnesses are extremist. The greater issue is that Dennis Christensen was found guilty of violating the law that says they are.2 Surely this is kicking the can down the road. Two months ago, at another meeting, President Putin stated that he really didn't understand why Jehovah's Witnesses are persecuted, indicating that the law itself makes no sense to him as applied to Witnesses.3

To slightly misapply the words of Jesus, "something greater than Capernaum is here." What? Two scenarios can be advanced—one for all persons, and one for persons of biblical bent.

The purely human one is that a powerful and cunning anti-cult movement takes the Russian government unawares. It takes them unawares because it is a Western import, not Russian at all, finding roots in a humanist French NGO dedicated to freeing people from ideas considered socially destructive, and nothing is more destructive to them than religion that includes the concept of authority among its members. The anti-cult movement finds its counterpart in all developed lands, though its methods will differ.4

There are even divisions among them. The anti-cultists in the West consider the anti-cultists in Russia to be doing it all wrong. One of them says: "Jehovah's Witnesses need persecution for their beliefs to make sense. With their thuggish behavior that violates human rights, Russia is blowing a huge gust of wind into Watchtower's sails, fueling another generation's worth of propaganda."

Of course! They have a "persecution complex" over there—often the charge is made by Witness opposers. Why would their fellow anti-cultists—brothers in spirit if not in technique—be so stupid as to validate it by persecuting them? It is as though he says: "Look—we want what you want, the destruction of the Witness organization. But that is not the best way to do it."

***~~~***

The second scenario, for those of biblical bent, and it may not be of interest to those not, so they have permission to skip this and two succeeding paragraphs, involves the fact that the Witness organization has identified Russia as the biblical "king of the north," an entity found in the prophesy of Daniel (chapter 11). It is a complex prophesy which many students of the Bible have tackled, involving specific powers (kings) that pass their respective mantles to succeeding powers in often shifting geographical areas, commencing from Daniel's time down to the present. Does it complicate matters with the Russian government for someone to tell them that the Witness organization says that they are the northern king? Emily Baran, who wrote the book _Dissent on the Margins_ , about the persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses during Soviet times, said that it did. It genuinely confused the irreligious Soviets and enabled them in characterizing the Witnesses as a political movement masquerading as a religion.5

The Witness organization goes where it goes in furtherance of its mission to live by and advertise Bible principles, largely oblivious to ones who may think that their toes are stepped on—barely aware of it at all, because they 'don't do politics' at Witness HQ. There is a king of the south, too, these days associated with the United States, and neither king is overly friendly to the interests of Jehovah's Witnesses. However, because the concept of human rights finds soil more fertile in the West than in the East, Witnesses face few legal impediments to their work in such lands. In fact, the most frequent participant in U.S. Supreme Court proceedings has been the Witness organization itself—sometimes as plaintiff and sometimes as defendant. Of them, Justice Harlan Fiske Stone once said: "I think the Jehovah's Witnesses ought to have an endowment in view of the aid which they give in solving the legal problems of civil liberties."6

The entire prophesy as seen through Jehovah's Witnesses' eyes is most recently discussed in their 1999 publication _Pay Attention to Daniel's Prophesy_ ,7 which is a discussion of the entire Bible book, not just the chapters involving the two opposing kings. Regardless of who interprets the prophesy, and of what time interval is covered, the kings of the north and south are continually at loggerheads. What is remarkable about the present—and this is only this writer's perception—is that even when the "kings" declare that they would like to get along, outside forces intervene to keep them "on script."

"Wouldn't it be nice if we actually got along with Russia?" the current American president said during his campaign. President Putin has spoken similarly. At which point, the American press intervenes to virtually ensure that they will not.8 Today, it is widely recognized that east-west relations are subsequently more strained than in even Soviet times. This dovetails so well with certain biblical passages (Ezekiel 38:4, Revelation 17:17) to the effect that world powers will do things not of their own devising that the similarity is impossible to let pass without mention. One must wonder if former Witnesses, upon seeing unexpected world developments that violate even "common sense," yet are exactly in accord with long Witness expectations, do not think sometimes that they may have deboarded the train too soon and might look to re-board at the next station—for in the aftermath of the final contest between the kings of the north and south, a contest whose biblical role has been developing for 2500 years, the "people of the covenant" at last find deliverance.

It is to be noted that enemies of Jehovah's Witnesses present themselves, not as enemies of individual Witnesses, but of the organization that they have chosen, which they somehow portray as having "enslaved" them through various psychological techniques of "control."9 In Russia, Jehovah's Witnesses as people are not banned. Only their organization is. However, most persons are not sophisticated enough to tell the difference, because essentially there is no difference. The Witness enemy is befuddled by it and assaults members with impunity. The police stand by and do nothing because they, too, are befuddled by it. The government is befuddled by it, as noted above. The Witness him or herself is befuddled by it. Everyone is befuddled by it because it makes no sense. It is like this writer saying that he loves the Russian people—it is only the Kremlin that he seeks to destroy. It is like him saying that the Russian people are free to drive the roads—it is only the roads that are banned. It takes a while to get one's head around such a notion. Guileless ones are particularly disadvantaged because the presentation itself is steeped in guile.

It doesn't even matter the reason for opposition to the Witnesses. The anti-cultists of the West latch on to different reasons to destroy the Witness organization than do the anti-cultists of the East. A common trigger for denunciation in the West is that Jehovah's Witnesses are unsupportive of gay rights, and within their community, do not allow for gay sex. This makes them absolute heroes in Russia, which avidly persecutes gays. Just after the Russian ban was instituted, Angela Merkel even mentioned the two populations in the same breath to Putin—questioning him of his harassment of gays and Jehovah's Witnesses. (Many Western sources, such as the BBC, edited out Jehovah's Witnesses so as to focus on gays.)10 So Russia must scramble to find different reasons for persecution, since a prime Western reason is not a problem in its eyes. Some Russian sources commenting on recent Witness events mention as a specific objection only that Jehovah's Witnesses refuse blood transfusions. Even the most staunch advocate of blood transfusion will concede that the group refusing them are not to be equated with ISIS terrorists. No, on so many levels, Witness persecution defies common sense. Whenever things do that, people can be forgiven for wondering if something supernatural isn't at work, as well.

***~~~***

Dennis Christensen "has spent the last 20 months in a cold cell with suspected drug dealers and only been allowed to meet his wife, separated by bars and a corridor, twice a month. If convicted, he could spend up to a decade in jail," writes Andrew Osborn for Reuters.11 How much do you want to bet that those drug dealers now know their Bibles quite well? Alas, that may make them more unwelcome in Russia than had they landed the area distribution franchise for Drugs-R-Us.

He must have his moments of despondency. He must. But you would never know it. He is serene in appearances, and sometimes even cheerful. Jehovah's Witnesses could not have wished for better examples to face the Russian bear than he and his wife Irene. See how he typifies the spirit of 1 Peter 2:23:

"Christ suffered...leaving you a model for you to follow his steps closely....When he was being reviled, he did not go reviling in return. When he was suffering, he did not go threatening, but kept on committing himself to the one who judges righteously."

Has he wavered in his love for his adopted homeland? He "does not regret that he moved to live in Russia. 'It is one of the best decisions that I have made in my life, and it brought me much happiness,'" he tells the Reuters reporter. This despite his being anything but starry eyed. "To call me or other peaceful Jehovah's Witnesses extremists is the greatest stupidity that I have ever heard!" he says. "Of course I hope that he (the judge) will be just," he said. "But I also know which country I've been living in."12

Only a month ago, President Putin, when asked, stated that the equating of Jehovah's Witnesses with terrorists was "of course...complete nonsense," something "you need to carefully deal with," and later, "so this should be looked into" since "Jehovah's Witnesses are Christians, too." We may soon learn just how carefully he means to deal with and look at it, as the time of Dennis's sentencing has arrived. As for Irena, "I'm not afraid of anything and Dennis is not afraid either," she told Reuters.

I have never seen a picture of him in which he is not mild, and even well dressed. He actually broke into song at one hearing via Internet, before the guard told him to shut up. Could one ask for a better example? The symbolism is complete. His surname points to the one he follows. Even his carpenter profession lines up. Even his last project as a free man spotlights the idiocy of branding him an "extremist"—building a playground for the community children. Would members of the only other group in Russia officially designated "extremist," ISIS, also build a playground for the community children? Maybe, but it would be a long time gaining my trust to let my children play on it. On January 23, the prosecutor requested a sentence of 6 years and 6 months in prison. Why not add 6 days to the request to make it a nice, biblical 666?13

It's déjà vu for Jehovah's Witnesses in that country, whose period of freedom has lasted only 27 years. "The only difference is that at that time [of the Soviet Union] they were called 'enemies of the people.' Now they are called 'extremists,'" says Irena.

Journalist Osborn does what all journalists must do. He probes for the actual reason that Jehovah's Witnesses are opposed. Usually all one must do in such cases is read the charges of the prosecution, but here in the Christensen case the charges are ridiculous, and the 'crimes' easily refuted. So Osborn hits on one spot of contention after another, but presently puts his finger on the real trigger: "Russia has been the most outspoken in portraying it as an extremist cult." He refers, perhaps unknowingly, to a burgeoning anti-cult movement which finds conditions fertile in Russia for a perfect storm, but which is active everywhere. "There have been many interviews with non-JW experts at court cases over the years, and these experts indicate that the source of claims against Jehovah's Witnesses most often comes from people with a personal agenda against Jehovah's Witnesses."14

The reason that Putin declares it complete nonsense to call Witnesses "extremist" is because it is. As such, he and his in government would never have dreamt of doing such a thing. However much any of them may dislike Jehovah's Witnesses, ISIS has taught them what extremism is. They are not so stupid as to confuse the two.

Likewise, the dominant Russian Orthodox Church did not originate the ban against the Witnesses. That is not to say that some of them did not squeal with delight like kids on Christmas morning, but it was not their idea. The thinkers there are not particularly happy about it, for the same set of laws that declare it a crime to proclaim the superiority of one's religion in the case of Jehovah's Witnesses might easily be turned against them.15

No, problems with the Church and the suspicious government merely make for excellent tinder. The spark that sets it off Osborn identifies as: "Russia has been the most outspoken in portraying it as an extremist cult." It is a determined anti-cult movement that sets the match to the tinder. It is not even Russian-originated, but like Bolshevism itself, is a Western import. Religion writer Joshua Gill has outlined how a French NGO dedicated to protecting people from ideas considered socially destructive—the manifest goal of anti-cultism--sent a well-known emissary to Russia who spread that view with missionary zeal, maximizing his existing status with the Russian Orthodox Church.16

The anti-cult movement ever seeks to extend its reach. Only in Russia does it find conditions ripe for the perfect storm, but its influence is afoot everywhere. The match was even literal in 2018 Washington State, where six attacks resulted in two Kingdom Halls burnt to the ground.17 Of course, that is not the intent—to incite violence. Anti-cultists speak against it, for the most part. But when you yell "CULT!" in a crowded theater, who can say what will happen? The correct term, non-incendiary and chosen by scholars for just that reason, is "new religious movement."

Assembling material in preparation for this book, I became more and more convinced that the anti-cult movement was behind it all, and it is a conviction that has only strengthened since. In the book's introduction, I wrote:

"Does Kuraev really mean to suggest that prosecution presented no intelligible arguments at the Supreme Court trial? An observer of the trial might well think it. He might well wonder just what does the government have against Jehovah's Witnesses? There must be something, but it is not stated. At one point the judge asked the prosecution (the Ministry of Justice) whether it had prepared for the case. A decision had been plainly made somewhere from on high and it would fall upon the judge to rubber-stamp it. Of course, he did, perhaps because he wanted to remain a judge. The actual reasons behind anti-Witness hostility were never presented. So I have presented them in Part II, along with how they might be defended."

I even went on to caution members of my own faith:

"Some Witnesses, truth be told, will be uncomfortable with Part II and might best be advised to skip over it. They will love the idea of defending the faith but may be unaware of the scope of the attacks made against it, some of which are truly malicious. Deciding to sit out this or that controversy will earn them taunts of 'sticking one's head in the sand' from detractors, but it is exactly what Jesus recommends, as will be seen. Not everyone must immerse themselves in every 'fact,' for many of them will turn out to be facts of Mark Twain's variety: facts that "ain't so." You can't do everything, and most persons choose to focus on matters most directly relevant to their lives."

That caution is repeated, with even greater applicability, in the newer ebook, _TrueTom vs the Apostates!_ The book is not recommended to all Witnesses. Read it if you want a specific reply to charges laid against the faith. For those able to focus upon forward motion only, the book is not recommended. For those not, it is. The line that invariably gets the largest applause at Regional Conventions of Jehovah's Witnesses is: "Would you like to send your greetings to the brothers in Bethel [headquarters]?" The hard work and integrity of these ones is appreciated by all. So not everyone will feel the need to check out every derogatory report.

In some respects, the Witness organization appears to this writer to be out of step with regard to the attacks it faces today. With a long history of persevering in the face of religious threats to stomp it out of existence, it seems slow to acknowledge that religions are mostly licking their wounds these days, and it is the irreligious world, with anti-cultists in the vanguard, that most vehemently presses for its downfall.

***~~~***

At a December 11, 2018 meeting with the Council on Civil Society Development and Human Rights, one council member, Ekaterina Shulman, addressed President Putin: "There is a list of organizations, for which there is information that they are involved in terrorism and extremism. There are 489 of them, and 404 of them are Jehovah's Witnesses."18

Pressing her luck, she continued: "Here I will take a sinister pause. There could be an abundance of claims against Jehovah's Witnesses—they don't allow blood transfusion, don't send children to hospitals, [ed: not a charge that I have heard before] but they definitely are not calling for violence or committing it." Putin's response was: "We should treat the representatives of all religions in the same way – this is true, but still, it is also necessary to take into account the country and the society in which we live. True, this does not mean at all that we should include representatives of religious communities in some destructive, or even in terrorist organizations. Of course, this is complete nonsense, you need to carefully deal with it. Here I agree with you."

Later in the meeting, Putin returned to the topic and added: "Jehovah's Witnesses are Christians, too. I don't quite understand why they are persecuted. So this should be looked into. This must be done." The Washington Post and Time picked up on the story the next day, the Post saying that he "has pledged to look into the reported persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses."

Now, what to make of this?

Yaroslav Sivulsky, the press secretary for JWs in Russia, stated: "We have noted the president's reaction with surprise. If he knows about the whole situation, then probably his reaction could change something. We hope that he will give instructions to have the matter examined and something may happen. Though, knowing the realities of our country, there is not much optimism."19 Okay, so they're not breaking out the champagne just yet.

The online community of Jehovah's Witnesses was a cynical bunch, by and large, with many thinking Putin was just being slippery. In fact, since translating from Russian to English poses challenges, one Witness understood him to say: "Jehovah's Witnesses are also Christians, for which I do not really understand how to persecute them," as though he was searching for more effective ways to do it. Hmm. Did he say: "I really do not understand how to persecute them" or "I really do not understand how they are persecuted"? It is the six-million-dollar question. It is a little like the Twilight Zone episode in which the earthlings were relieved to find the alien's handbook "To Serve Man." 'Ahh, it means their intentions are good,' and they breathed easily, but at the show's end they discovered to their discomfort that it was a cookbook.

I tend to take President Putin's remarks at face value. There is no reason that he has to say what he does, even expanding it to 'Jehovah's Witness are also Christians,' contradicting prominent religious people who say they are not. When his Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, who was also among the officials that Witnesses contacted via a letter campaign launched in hopes of averting the 2017 ban, was asked a similar question last year, he could not have answered more harshly than he did. I think Putin is being genuine, at last waking up to something that he has barely paid attention to. Maybe it is like the hinge squeaking in the background somewhere that he has barely noticed but now it is driving him nuts. Perhaps he will even pick up his WD-40, go lubricate it himself, and subsequently vent his wrath upon whoever allowed such idiocy to take center stage in the first place, painting his country before all the world as a nation of goons—in the spirit of Ahasuerus avenging Haman.

A president is a busy man. It is popularly believed that anything that goes down in a country will have his fingerprints all over it, but this is seldom so for matters of 'low priority.' Of course, this is not low priority for Witnesses, but it can hardly be otherwise for him. At a subsequent news conference, he spoke to the danger of nuclear war, which he hopes the West does not get too cavalier about: "The danger of the situation escalating is being downplayed," he said, adding that the lowering of thresholds for nuclear capability "could really lead us to catastrophe." If he loses sleep at night, it is not over the travails of a small religion. It is over the thought of the world going up in flames.

Western media excoriates him, but it cannot be wise to let the propaganda of one king mold our view of the other. I was very careful, in writing this book not to do that. In the event it was ever read by anyone that mattered, I did not want to sabotage it by being disrespectful or accusing.

It wasn't that hard to do—for example, by spotlighting the two, likely three, times that Russia, not the United States, saved the world from certain nuclear war. Lieutenant Colonel Petrov spotted an incoming missile from the U.S. on his screen, correctly judged it a malfunction, and against orders, did not relay the report to the excitable Kremlin.20 Second-in-command Vasili Arkhipov refused to sign-off with his two fellow officers to launch a nuclear attack during the Cuban missile crisis—thwarting an attack that had to have unanimous backing.21 Nikita Khrushchev arguably brought that crisis to a close with his last-minute telegram to President Kennedy.22

However, in refraining from criticizing Putin personally, I was not just being expedient. I honestly came to feel it not likely that he was one of the instigators. I admit that feeling wavered in view of the abuses of the last few months, with Witnesses physically accosted by police, but now it intensifies. Promisingly, he is not cut from the same cloth as many in high government. He was not born to privilege in the ruling class. He started from the ground up, as a regular office worker, and lived with his parents during the early days of his working life.23 He thus probably retains a feel for the interests of the 'common man' that his co-rulers may not. In the end, it hardly matters, because 'the heart of a king is as streams of water' in Jehovah's hands. But it helps if it is neither ice cubes nor steam to begin with.

He didn't have to say it, is the point. He could have issued some boiler-plate beatitude of how 'the situation is serious and we continue to monitor it closely.' He certainly didn't have to say that Witnesses are Christian too, thus showing that he will not be shoved around by ones who insist they are not. His statement makes it much harder for Russia to thumb its nose at any upcoming ECHR verdict, indicating that he has no intention of doing that. How can his words not ease the pressure on Jehovah's Witnesses in that country? After all, if you were a Russian cop, would YOU violently accost one after what he just said? [edit: Unfortunately, it turned out that they would.]

Still, he is conscious of the majority. How much freedom of worship will be restored remains to be seen, since he observes that with 90% of the country being of a certain religious orientation, one cannot throw everything overboard so as to please the "sects." It is enough not to persecute them, which he seems inclined not to do. Maybe the brothers will have to tip-toe around for a while, and it will not necessarily be a bad thing for our people to focus on being discreet. That has long been the direction of theocratic training, anyhow. If Putin truly had evil intent, however, he would not have returned to the topic to say that he doesn't really understand why Jehovah's Witnesses are persecuted. Now let's see how well he holds up as the more devious ones labor to 'educate' him on the topic. We will see whose resolve prevails.24 Probably, JW representative Sivulsky has it just right: he is surprised and cautiously optimistic.

In some respects, it may prove a replay, with hopefully different outcome, of the situation with Pilate judging Jesus. Pilate knew that he was being set up. He knew Jesus was innocent. He worked rather hard to free him—that much is clear by reading any one of the gospel accounts, and the conclusion is inescapable upon reviewing all of them. But the scoundrels were so insistent, even hinting that to release Jesus would be treasonous, that he eventually caved. After all, it wasn't his prime concern. He had a province to run. He tried to do the right thing. That's how it is with many today. They try to do the right thing, but they only try so hard. When the going gets rough, they opt for expediency.25

The Russian Orthodox Church has insisted that it did not instigate the ban, and I am inclined to believe them. That is not to say that prominent ones were not delighted at the outcome, or that some instigators did not have Church connections. But the villainy stems from an anti-cult movement, with French connections, that is active in many lands. Conditions in Russia were ripe, that's all, just like they were ripe for Communism 100 years ago, which was also imported from abroad.

Writing this book took the better part of a year. There were few publicly available online sources that I did not read during this time, save only for those that were repetitive. The most telling report was one by Joshua Gill, a religion writer, revealing from where most of the trouble came.26

"The Russian Supreme Court's July 17 ban on the Jehovah's Witnesses was the result of a decades long conspiracy funded by the French government, blessed by the Russian Orthodox Church, and sanctioned by the Putin administration...The latest phase of that plan first garnered international attention with Russian authorities' arrest of a Danish citizen." That would be Dennis Christensen, arrested May 25, 2017 for conducting a congregation meeting after the ban had gone into effect, and still in prison at this time of writing, (December 2018) his case only recently coming to trial.

Gill spotlights the role of Alexander Dvorkin, the Russian Ministry's Expert Council for Conducting State Religious-Studies. That Council exists so as "to investigate religions that deviate from Russian Orthodox teaching and to recommend actions against those religions to the state." They have recommended taking strong action on non-majority faiths. Mr. Dvorkin is also vice president of the European Federation of Research and Information Centers on Sectarianism (FECRIS), a French NGO dedicated to identifying as a "sect/cult or a guru the organization or the individual which misuses beliefs and behavioral techniques for his own benefit." It is an organization fully funded by the French government, and it may be remembered that that government tried to eliminate Jehovah's Witnesses by imposing a 60% tax on their activities in 1998. The tax was steadfastly appealed by Jehovah's Witnesses until it was struck down by the European Court of Human Rights fourteen years later.

The Daily Caller article reveals the depth of Dvokin's misinformation and dislike of Jehovah's Witnesses. "Their adepts recruit failed university enrollees, and people on vacation as well; they have a wide range of psychological influence, especially on the unstable minds of adolescents and youths," he says of them and the Hare Krishnas. He has encouraged the public to "take part in the fight against sects, file complaints and collect raw data so that the local authorities can react quickly." In a 2009 documentary called 'Emergency Investigation: Jehovah's Witnesses,' he compared Witnesses to drug dealers. The Journal for the Study of Beliefs and Worldviews attributes instances of public violence against Russian Witness members to that documentary, just as the violence visiting Kingdom Halls in Washington State is similarly stoked by the inflammatory use of the C-word. Is the FECRIS mission of identifying as a "sect/cult or a guru the organization or the individual which misuses beliefs and behavioral techniques for his own benefit" not exactly the battle cry of the anti-cultists worldwide?"

Mine was the minority view among the Witnesses I spoke with. "You are a better Christian than I am," one said. "You always expect the best from people. I don't believe a word a politician says." Note that his distrust is of "a politician," not of Putin specifically, though he hardly sings his praises. One could even say that it is a sign of being "insular"—they are all the same to him. Having said that, they are all the same to many persons today—it is hardly an attribute of him alone. Why, long ago Mark Twain even said that politicians must be changed as frequently as a diaper—and for the same reason.

It is true that I try to think the best of people. Am I a "better Christian" in this instance? Or just a dumber one? Time will tell. [edit April 5, 2019: so far, a dumber one]

Endnotes

1. "The Kremlin announced the complexity of the situation with Jehovah's Witnesses," Interfax-Religiia, February 7, 2019, accessed March 22, 2019, http://www.interfax-religion.ru/?act=news&div=71993

2. Doug Bandow, "Persecutors Pile on Jehovah's Witnesses, in Russia and Worldwide," nationalreview.com, March 1, 2019, assessed March 21, 2019, https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/03/jehovahs-witnesses-persecuted-russia-worldwide, accessed April 4, 2019

3. Mark Bennetts, "Putin disavows crackdown on Jehovah's witnesses, giving hope to the detained," religionnews.com, January 9, 2019, accessed April 4, 2019

4. "Russia vs Jehovah's Witnesses and the influence by FECRIS," May 9, 2017, https://freedomofbelief.net/activities/russia-vs-jehovahs-witnesses-and-the-influence-by-fecris, accessed: April 4, 2019 [tell me if the accompanying photo of Dvorkin does not remind one of Rasputin himself]

5. Emily P. Baran, _Dissent on the Margins \- How Jehovah's Witnesses Defied Communism and Lived to Preach About It_ (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014) 137

6. Harlan Fiske Stone to Charles Evans Hughes, 24 March 1941, quoted by Peters, Judging Jehovah's Witnesses, 186.

7.

8. Paul Craig Roberts, Paul Craig, "America Overrules Trump: No Peace with Russia," foreignpolicyjournal.com, July 19, 2018, accessed: April 4, 2019

9. "Russia vs Jehovah's Witnesses and the influence by FECRIS," May 9, 2017, https://freedomofbelief.net/activities/russia-vs-jehovahs-witnesses-and-the-influence-by-fecris, accessed: April 4, 2019

10. Andreas Rinke and Denis Pinchuk, "Putin, Merkel, Struggle to Move Past Differences in Tense Meeting," Reuters, May 2, 2017, accessed March 22, 2018, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-germany-putin-syria/putin-merkel-struggle-to-move-past-differences-in-tense-meeting-idUSKBN17Y1JC

11. Osborn, Andrew (Reuters), Jehovah's Witness on Trial for 'Extremism' Likens Authorities to Stalin, The Moscow Times, January 22, 2019, accessed April 4, 2019, https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/01/22/cast-in-russia-as-enemy-within-jehovahs-witnesses-see-soviet-history-replay-a64238

12. Viktor Nekhezin, "Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia: How Dennis Christensen Became an Extremist, Russian Service of the BBC, January 23, 2019, see https://credo.press/222376, English translation at: https://www2.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/190123b.html

13. Maksim Kliagin, "A Very Convenient Victim": Rights Advocates See Dangerous Attack on Human Rights in Christensen Case, Orlevskie Novosti, 28 January 2019, https://newsorel.ru/fn_430772.html, see English translation: https://www2.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/190128e.html, accessed April 4: 2019

14. Peter Coyer, "(Un)Holy Alliance: Vladimir Putin, The Russian Orthodox Church And Russian Exceptionalism," Forbes.com, May 21, 2015, accessed April 4, 2019, https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/56240/is-the-russian-orthodox-church-pressing-the-government-of-russia-to-ban-jehovah,

15. Andrei Kuraev, "Prohibition of Jehovah's Witnesses Undermines Trust in Court," _To Truth_ , a project of the Tomsk Information and Consulting Center on the problems of sects and occultism, April 25, 2017

16. Joshua Gill, "The French Conspiracy With The Russian Orthodox Church That Destroyed The Jehovah's Witnesses, DailyCaller.com, July 7, 2017, accessed April 4, 2019, https://dailycaller.com/2017/07/23/the-french-connection-how-the-russian-orthodox-church-and-the-putin-administration-colluded-with-a-french-ngo-to-destroy-the-jehovahs-witnesses/

17. Tom Porter, "Jehovah's Witness Halls in Washington State Have Been Targeted in a Series of Arson Attacks," Newsweek, April 4, 2019, accessed April 4, 2019, https://www.newsweek.com/jehovahs-witness-halls-washington-state-have-been-targeted-series-arson-1251731

18. Moscow Kremlin minutes: Session of the Council for the Development of Civil Society and Human Rights, December 11, 2018, Tuesday, accessed April 5, 2019: http://kremlin.ru/events/president/news/59374, for English translation, see "fact-checked" version (with nothing corrected other than political interpretation) at: https://www.polygraph.info/a/putin-jehovahs-witnesses-in-russia-fact-check/29663600.html

19. "Putin Calls Ban of Jehovah's Witnesses Nonsense," BBC Russian Service, December 17, 2018, accessed April 5: 2019, https://www.bbc.com/russian/news-46598425

20. Simon Shuster, "Stanislav Petrov, the Russian Officer Who Averted a Nuclear War, Feared History Repeating Itself, Time, September 19, 2017, accessed March 28, 2018, http://time.com/4947879/stanislav-petrov-russia-nuclear-war-obituary/

21. Nicola Davis, "Soviet Submarine Officer Who Averted Nuclear War Honoured with Prize," October 27, 2017, accessed March 28, 2018, https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/oct/27/vasili-arkhipov-soviet-submarine-captain-who-averted-nuclear-war-awarded-future-of-life-prize

22. At the John F Kennedy Presidential Library is the 2700-word telegram Premiere Khrushchev sent to JFK, dated October 26, 1962.

23. Steven Lee Myers, _The New Tsar: The Rise and Reign of Vladimir Putin_ (New York: Knoph, 2014) 24

24. Pavel Skrylnikov, "Will Jehovah's Witnesses be Exempt From the Yarovaya Package? Vladimir Putin speaks for the first time about persecution of religious minorities," Nezavisimaia Gazeta, January 15, 2019, accessed April 5, 2019, http://www.ng.ru/problems/2019-01-15/12_457_tend2.html

25. See the final chapters, usually 2nd to the last, of each of the four gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

26. Joshua Gill, "The French Conspiracy

Return to Table of Contents

# Chapter 17 – Mistreatment and Enemy Revealed

At 6:15 AM on February 15, 2019, Timofei Zhukov and his wife were awakened by furious pounding on the door, as though someone would break it down. They didn't answer and the pounding ceased. Half an hour later their balcony door _was_ broken down. Several riot police stormed into the room. Zhukov was kicked, cuffed, and his head slammed against the wall—'the blood is still on the wallpaper,' he later told Kommersant, the business magazine. His wife cried in alarm and was cursed in consequence.1

It was part of a sting operation that netted 40 of Jehovah's Witnesses in Surgut, Siberia—a major dark turn of events that nobody had anticipated. Twelve officers jumped from three vehicles pulled over to detain 2 Witnesses who were walking alongside the street.2

Mr. Zhukov was not tortured at the police station, but he did not escape hearing the screams of those seven Witnesses who were—music turned up loud in an attempt to mask the sounds, but there was no masking them. He is a lawyer, as it turns out, who once served as assistant prosecutor in the city, and now is legal advisor to a construction firm. "Please register the exact time. Somebody is being beaten here," he shouted. An FSB agent entered the room and said, "Don't worry, they do not beat anyone here"—there was a drug addict within who was screaming his head off, he was told. And the former prosecutor believed it, only discovering the truth later from his brothers who had been on the other side of the door. He told the magazine that "until recently, he could not believe that law enforcement officers could torture believers."

Though cuffed for three hours while his home was searched, and beaten on his legs whenever they were judged to be insufficiently far apart, the handcuffs were removed for his escort to the waiting vehicle. "We won't scare people," he was told. He answered back that he preferred to wear them, for the neighbors had known him his entire life and were in good position to know whether he was a criminal or not. But off they came, and he was placed into the van—not one that said 'Police' but one that bore the markings 'Northern Roadway,' as though off for a friendly commiseration with his former colleagues in law, though his smashed-in apartment balcony must have suggested otherwise.

They must have hoped to have kept it under wraps. They must have hoped to cast a pall upon the Witness community, but otherwise not suffer their deeds to see the light of day. How else can one account for such a hurried and stupid explanation, shortly thereafter, that the Witnesses had beaten themselves up (as only a sect member could do) to thwart the police investigation? "After the arrest and searches, they, under the direction of the lawyers who arrived in Surgut, got together and during the meeting struck each other, which could then be presented as evidence of torture," one "insider" said, for ura.ru. "Well-known lawyers who specialize in representing the interests of the Jehovists throughout the country are involved in the case. Services each cost 5 million rubles. The main task is to ruin the criminal case, to attract public attention."3 Of course! They must have figured that they had to say something, and quickly, for the accounts of the victims along with undeniable photo evidence4 were promptly showcased throughout the world, and the European Court of Human Rights demanded independent investigation.5

Local hospitals told the released victims that they would be treated for their injuries, but that those injuries would not be documented.6 Plainly, they had been leaned upon by someone. Surgut, as determined by a rough atlas survey, is the 67th most populous city in Russia. Perhaps authorities hoped there wouldn't be much of any support, legal or otherwise, for Witnesses way out there, instead of one of the victims actually being a lawyer. Another victim said one agent had told him: "We had to specifically come from Moscow for this."7 Why couldn't he have just stayed in Moscow, where Jehovah's Witnesses surely are more numerous and are having just as great a challenge coping with the Orwellian law that says you can be a Jehovah's Witness just so long as you do not do any of the things Jehovah's Witnesses do, which apparently includes existing? No, to this writer, this episode has the earmarks of a deed meant to be done in a remote corner that unexpectedly turned out to be a world stage, necessitating a hasty (and clumsy) response.

Reported Znak.com: "The believers think that all of this was done with just one goal—to beat out "evidence necessary to the investigation" from those who had decided to exercise their right granted by the Russian constitution not to provide evidence against themselves and their associates." A committee spokesman in the Khanty-Mansi region, Oleg Menshikh, told TASS news agency on February 20 that no law had been violated during the interrogations. "Nobody tortured them," he said. "There was no physical or psychological pressure on them."5 But two days later there was an about face, with the same official declaring that the government had decided to probe the claim "given the agitation that has arisen after publication of this information in the media."8

That's not entirely promising, a cynic might reply, and many did. Was it not like saying: "Look, if they want an official document saying that we didn't do it, we can comply with that"? So be it. Whose version of truth will prevail? From within the Nazi death camps, Jehovah's Witnesses smuggled out detailed diagrams of their layout, and those were published in Watchtower magazines.9 They were disbelieved by other media outlets until post-liberation proved them all true. The Witnesses' veracity is well established, even by those who don't like them. On the other hand, stories of abuse, even torture, by Russian police are legion by groups of many different stripes.

Not everything pointed to a quick whitewash. Following an early meeting of the investigative committee, Vladimir Ermolaev **,** a department chief, told Znak.com: "I admit to you that what these people described at the meeting, with these horrible details, all of this shocked me....I cannot describe for you in detail, since nobody has authorized me to do so. But what they said, I registered it all, documented it. I will send all of these materials to the Investigation Department of the S.K.R. for Yugra and to the prosecutor's office of the region."10 So time will tell.*

When the young boy cries, "The emperor has no clothes!" and the latter in response just keeps on strutting his stuff, there's not much one can do about it other than thoroughly documenting his nakedness and broadcasting it far and wide. This, the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses have done, most notably through their website. No wonder the urgent need of those who oppose to deprive them of organization.

Jehovah's Witnesses are regarded by many as the canary in the coal mine. What happens to them may soon happen to others. Two American Mormon missionaries were deported in early March and there were reports that their faith might be next in line for wider persecution. However, Alexander Verkhovsky, one of the top Russian experts on extremism, xenophobia, nationalism, and human rights, wrote in March 2019, that Witnesses just might become a canary pointing in the other direction—that the excess was so blatant it might trigger a rethinking. "The growing campaign against Jehovah's Witnesses inspires horror, but it also gives a chance that this time someone will finally catch on and think," he wrote. "[The Witnesses] are too obviously not a threat to security and at the same time they are just as clearly impossible to "eradicate", since more than 100,000 people cannot be imprisoned or forced out of the country, and Jehovah's Witnesses have not given up on their faith during difficult times."11 The situation is too ludicrous, and too unambiguous. The popular mind confuses Muslim groups in a non-Muslim country, so that peaceful Muslim groups are mistaken for groups that have done very bad things. Even Mormons cannot be said to be apolitical—in the United States, they are the most politically polarized of all faiths.12 But Jehovah's Witnesses have claimed neutrality for their entire existence, and their "pacifist" stance is attested to by all—just how dangerous can they be? Maybe the recent shocker of torture directed toward a Christian group (Russians are used to it for Muslim activists suspected of "excessive radicalism," Verkhovsky speculates) will cause the government to recalibrate.

Russian Jehovah's Witnesses will hope for the best and ever be respectful of government, but they can be forgiven if they become jaded at the speculations of a quick turnaround. They have seen their country sail blithely past many buoys of ludicrousness. Did not Dennis Christensen say that he hoped the judge would be fair, "but he also [knew] what country he lived in?" Did not the country ban a Bible on the basis that it is not a Bible and the entire educated world knows that it is? Did not every interested person in the world see, via the Witness website, video evidence of Russian police in riot gear scaling fences to break down the door of a Kingdom Hall en route to arresting those inside, and the only ones refusing to see it were the ones that had a moral obligation to do so—the Russian Supreme Court? Maybe this buoy will be yet one more left in the wake of the unshamable ship.

Can the Russian authorities be shamed? Possibly not. The ban itself shames them, and they could see it come from miles away, but they embraced it anyway. The present reality harkens back to what columnist Andrew Sorokowski wrote prior to the ban: "Why would a nation of some 144,000,000 risk its international reputation to persecute a religious sect numbering no more than 175,000 followers?" Nonetheless, trash it they did and it is not so clear when or even if that course will reverse.13

Mr. Verkhovsky takes for granted that Jehovah's Witnesses will not give up on their faith. How can they? They will recall the verse about paying Caesar's things to Caesar but God's things to God. They will think of the verse that says you do not fear the one who can kill the body and afterwards do no more. The one to fear is the one who can take away the soul.14

Though ever a small minority, many have protested the treatment of Jehovah's Witnesses over the past two years. Atheists have held up banners in support of them. An activist from Kaliningradian scaled a lamppost to hang as sign proclaiming: "Jehovah's Witnesses are banned, they will also ban God."15 Perhaps he is more accurate than he knows. Nikolai Gordienko, of the Herzen Russian State University in St. Petersburg, once stated "When the experts accuse Jehovah's Witnesses for their teachings, they do not realize that they are actually making accusations against the Bible."16 "Of course they are scared," Yaroslav Sivulskiy tells a source. "But it does not mean that they will cease to be Jehovah's witnesses and do what is important to them...Jehovah's witnesses are good people, but they cannot abandon their faith when the state expects this refusal from them."17

Just to keep things in perspective—for anyone can be too close to the forest to see the trees: Virtually all of Jehovah's Witnesses were exiled to Siberia during the late 1940s and early 1950s. Today, about 200 of them are detained out of a population of 170,000. It is outrageous, of course, and for many there is a sense of waiting for the other shoe to drop. Still, terrible though it may be for those affected individuals, life goes on and most of the Russian Witnesses are not suffering. They are cautious, yes, but they have always been cautious. They know their country. They know their government. They know their police. They have had the potential for trouble for many years and have adjusted. For the vast majority, life goes on as usual—they work, they go to school, they marry, some have children, they visit family both Witnesses and non-Witnesses, they buy groceries, they play in the park.

They know they must be careful, but they have always known it. They note with approval the heightened world and national attention to their faith, even if some individuals endure more than their share of injustice. They strengthen their weak ones. A few have actually stated that the last two years have been good for them because it has strengthened their relationships with each other and with their God.

Russia is a huge country and not everyone plugs into the news. Many only vaguely know of the ban, many don't care about it, and some, as seen above, actively don't support it. Nor do they treat their JW acquaintances any differently because of it. This writer is told of one case where a school boss refused to dismiss a Witness employee, telling his superior that she is the best teacher he has, and he would hope for more like her. At a certain meeting location held in a private home, a Witnesses's unbelieving husbands says: "Everybody knows that you are not extremists." That's good to hear, for another aftermath of the Surgut episode is that one father of three, a firefighter, was thereafter dismissed from his job despite triggering no complaints over 20 years, joining many others of similar experience. "My three kids have been crying ever since the operatives barged down the door," he said. "Now I have no job, but I am certain my God will show me a way through."18

Says Sivulskiy: "law enforcement is making monstrous efforts to find clusters of Jehovah's Witnesses in their small gatherings"—large assemblies are out of the question.19 But Russia is a monstrously-sized country, and efforts have been sporadic. Will they diminish, level off, or intensify? Witnesses recently reconsidered Revelation 2:10: "Do not be afraid of anything that you are going to suffer. Indeed, the devil will throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and you will face an ordeal for ten days." "Some" does not mean "all," it was observed, as the Witnesses continue to show resolve amidst adversity. They don't like what is happening, but they always knew that it might.

***~~~***

Every religion has its apostates. The trend today is that the activism of those apostates is in direct proportion to the degree of firmness exercised within their former faith to encourage members to adhere to the path they have chosen. Apostates of the world have even united to wage common war against faiths they perceive as having such attributes. And nobody has apostates more voracious than those of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Some members of this avid JW-opposer community gloated over this new development. By far, however, the tactics of torture were condemned by that group. Make no mistake, such condemnation is noted and appreciated—however it is also substantially watered down by the recognition that their goals are nearly identical to their more violent brethern—that Jehovah's Witnesses cease being Jehovah's Witnesses. It is only in methods that they differ.

Spiritually speaking, is it not a situation of good cop/bad cop? They hope for the same outcome. The good cop is likely sincere that he does not want you to fall into the clutches of the bad cop, for he knows how bad that bad cop can be. But they both have the same goal. Physically, of course, Jehovah's Witnesses will far prefer the good cop. They are not superhuman and nobody wants to be mistreated. Spiritually, however, the good and the bad cop is the same. In fact, the good cop may even be worse. A thug is a thug is a thug. His malice is unmistakable and is on plain display. He doesn't masquerade as a friend whose only aim is to help you. He doesn't patronize you with a concocted "us versus them" scenario from which he is trying to free you.

The mutual goal is that Jehovah's Witnesses should no longer be Jehovah's Witnesses, and that their talk about the hope of God's kingdom should cease. It is that the grapes already on the vine should wither—to that end there is an effort to strangle the support organization. To be sure, their methods differ. It is as though one faction says to another, "You're going about it all wrong!" Yet the two factions are working in tandem, pressing for the same end.

As much as the saying goes that "you can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time," sometimes you can get pretty close. The majority can be fooled for the longest time. If it were not so, then the prophets of old would not have had the time that they did—a time which was revisited upon Christians of the first century, and a time which is being revisited on Christians in Russia today:

"What more shall I say?" the Bible writer asks. "I have not time to tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets, who by faith conquered kingdoms, did what was righteous, obtained the promises; they closed the mouths of lions, put out raging fires, escaped the devouring sword; out of weakness they were made powerful, became strong in battle....Some were tortured and would not accept deliverance, in order to obtain a better resurrection. Others endured mockery, scourging, even chains and imprisonment. They were stoned, sawed in two, put to death at sword's point; they went about in skins of sheep or goats, needy, afflicted, tormented. The world was not worthy of them. They wandered about in deserts and on mountains, in caves and in crevices in the earth."20

Jehovah's Witnesses will put the experience off as long as they can, thank you very much, but they do not imagine themselves outsmarting the scripture. They do not suppose that Jesus' words about his followers being hated will not be fulfilled.

Anton Chivchalov, the individual who covered court proceedings via tweet at five-minute intervals, per personal email to this writer, offers a gloomy assessment of how Russians view Jehovah's Witnesses, notwithstanding that there are some who see right through it. "In Russia there are many myths about Jehovah's Witnesses that 99% people believe," he writes. "They break up families, take people's property, kill their own children by refusing blood transfusion, American spies, want to overturn the government, etc. This is mostly the cause of the hate."

"Can the hate really be that high? what with Putin's recent statement of seeming support and at least a certain amount of favorable press? Are the human rights people, supportive journalists, and religious scholars all viewed as rabble-rousers?" I asked.

"Yes," Chivchalov answered. "They are too few. General public still hates Witnesses and approves of the repressions.21 And many people hate human rights movements too (thinking they work for the US)." Jehovah's people are not wildly popular anywhere, but it appears that in Russia they face the most unhinged opposition, against which they are standing strong. They have this writer's undying respect.

Timofei Zhukov the Jehovah's Witness hauled down to the police station where fellow congregation members were tortured, had this to say to Kommersant: "I will tell you, not as a believer, but as a lawyer—these investigators and [F.S.B agents] esfesbeshniki simply do not know what they are doing. The did not understand anything—whom they are coming to search. what kind of people these are, what they are accused of. It seems that the authorities told them: "There are bad people live there and they are corrupting the state system. Go and do what you want with them." Where did they get the idea that Jehovah's Witnesses were bad people?

After the ordeal, Mr. Zhukov spoke with some of his former colleagues, who encouraged him to desist from "such nonsense," as they termed his faith. He told them that Witnesses were doing their work for them to a great extent. "You are investigating crime, but you have a problem with prevention. And I come to people and I say: 'It is bad to steal. It is bad to lie. It is bad to smoke.'" Of course! Witnesses are not bad people. They are good people. Jerod Kushner, the U.S. President's son-in-law, well prior to his political days, said of the Jehovah's Witnesses from whom he would buy Brooklyn property that they were persons of "high integrity" with whom "a handshake deal meant something." The journalists of Present Time comment to the director of the Sova Center Alexander Verkhovsky, upon hearing his description: "Then they look like perfect citizens." "You see, they would be ideal citizens in some other country," is the latter's reply.22

They are not bad people. They are good people. So from where comes the perception that they are bad people?

It is a question that might well have been asked in the first century. The historian Tacitus writes about the persecution of Christians in the first century—after Emperor Nero pinned the blame upon them for the conflagration in Rome: "Therefore, to stop the rumor [that he himself had set Rome on fire], he [Emperor Nero] falsely charged with guilt, and punished with the most fearful tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of that name, was put to death as a criminal by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea, in the reign of Tiberius, but the pernicious superstition - repressed for a time, broke out yet again, not only through Judea, - where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, whither all things horrible and disgraceful flow from all quarters, as to a common receptacle, and where they are encouraged. Accordingly, first those were arrested who confessed they were Christians; next on their information, a vast multitude were convicted, not so much on the charge of burning the city, as of 'hating the human race.' In their very deaths they were made the subjects of sport: for they were covered with the hides of wild beasts, and worried to death by dogs, or nailed to crosses, or set fire to, and when the day waned, burned to serve for the evening lights. Nero offered his own garden players for the spectacle, and exhibited a Circensian game, indiscriminately mingling with the common people in the dress of a charioteer, or else standing in his chariot. For this cause a feeling of compassion arose towards the sufferers, though guilty and deserving of exemplary capital punishment, because they seemed not to be cut off for the public good, but were victims of the ferocity of one man."23

Note the dim view of Christians, fully shared by Tacitus. They were "hated for their enormities." They were readily thought to be persons "hating the human race." They were the deluded followers of a "pernicious superstition." The cruel wrath of Nero unleashed genuine compassion, however they were regarded "guilty and deserving of exemplary capital punishment." How could this have been perceived of Christ's followers only 35 years after his death?

Professor G. A. Wells, author of _The Jesus Myth_ , writes that "the context of Tacitus's remarks itself suggests that he relied on Christian informants."24 Who could possibly have been their "informants?" They could not have been faithful members, for these would not "inform." They could not have been non-members, for these would not have anything to "inform" about. There is little left to choose from other than former disgruntled members—today (and then) we would call them "apostates." These came to wish their former faith ill. Perhaps some of them even posed as reformers of that faith, whistleblowers to whatever upset them—particularly if they had been ousted for conduct contrary to tenets of the faith.

The parallels are too blatant to ignore. If it was they in former times, how can it not be they in present times? How else can such a manifestly good people—in the first century and in the present—be so widely portrayed as bad? It is the "apostates" that present that picture of good portrayed as bad. It is the apostates that spark the conflagration, with unrelenting and incendiary charges. Any student of human nature knows that if you repeat a charge often enough, no matter how unlikely, it impresses itself on the general populace. Surely advertising teaches us that. The match doesn't catch everywhere, but in Russia if finds the kindling just right—a government hostile for 100 years to the land in which Witness headquarters is located, at the same time in close union with the dominant house church, hostile to even traditional Christian faiths. It doesn't happen everywhere. But the apostates ever light the match to encourage conflagration, and sometime the planets align.

The religious enemies of Jesus' day had to be careful: "Then the chief priests and the elders of the people assembled...and they consulted together to arrest Jesus by treachery and put him to death. But they said: 'Not during the festival, that there may not be a riot among the people.'"25 They could have _done_ it at the festival had the festival been held in Russia. There wouldn't have been a riot—there would have been widespread approval. They could have also done it at the festival had the festival been held in Rome. There was widespread approval back then—such is the change in popular perception wrought by the then and now apostates.

Kommersant asked Mr. Zhukov why the government persecutes his people, and he told them that he didn't really know—he could speculate, but he didn't really know.26 It was the same answer as President Putin himself offered just two months ago—he didn't really know why Jehovah's Witnesses are persecuted. Mr. Zhukov did note however, that early Christians, too, were called "sectarians" and that they, too, had been persecuted.

Even the Russian president can't figure it out! Doug Bandow, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, writes that his "comments are hard to explain other than as an expression of genuine puzzlement over so much effort being expended to eliminate an evidently nonexistent threat."27 How can it not be the machinations of someone devious operating behind the scenes? What arguments does that international community of apostates/opposers to the faith make? They are settling the score, largely, in the cases of those who were disfellowshipped, spinning for an irreligious world the myth that Jehovah's Witnesses break up families, a point of view that was not accepted by the European Court of Human Rights: "It is the resistance and unwillingness of non-religious family members to accept and to respect their religious relative's freedom to manifest and practice his or her religion that is the source of conflict," that body wrote.28 Many, even most today, will look askance at any scenario in which spiritual considerations can trigger a family divide—no matter from which side it arises, but they will not think it an evil that compares with global terrorism. Families have divided since the beginning of time, often for matters far more fleeting than religion. In the West, it is not uncommon for the elderly to be abandoned in nursing homes, never to be contacted again, for no greater reason that they have become inconvenient. It is not something in which governments typically wish to meddle.

No, it makes no sense, the mass portrayal of Jehovah's Witnesses as "bad people." If they refuse blood transfusions, surely it must be acknowledged somewhere along the line that progressive doctors have learned to accommodate their point of view, and in so doing, they have devised medicine that is both safer and more cost-effective.29 And, though it has played no part in Russia, a widespread war against child sexual abuse finds Jehovah's Witness "clergy" accused of covering up pedophilia. This is an unsavory thing, yet they come off almost as knights in shining armor when compared to religious denominations in general in which the leaders _themselves_ have been the pedophile abusers.30 The "us versus them" scenario avidly advanced by apostates has caught on. Roman Silantyev of Moscow State Linguistic University complains that "this sect promotes external and inner extremism, inciting hatred to those who think and believe in a different way and bullying their own members," and even hopes that "recognizing this sect as extremist [will give] a possibility to dozens of our citizens to leave this concentration camp." He has been conditioned to misunderstand everything. Jehovah's Witnesses will continue to carry out the tenets of their religious beliefs "because they are operating out of faith rather than compulsion."31

Silantyev is "crazy" and yet his craziness has spread to influence those whom you would think would not be crazy to act in crazy ways. Writes Bandow: "Moscow denies that it is persecuting JWs for their beliefs. Rather, explained Vyacheslav Lebedev, chief justice of the Russian Supreme Court, 'the situation is actually being presented as if these people are being persecuted for their belief and religious activity. Yet the decision, which was made by the Supreme Court amongst others, is unrelated to religion. It is about a violation of the law, which religious organizations have no right to breach.' The law bans the faith, so punishing them for exercising their faith is merely punishing a violation of the law. This argument is perfectly Orwellian. Translating Lebedev: We declared your religious faith to be extremist, and you are not allowed to be extremists. So we are arresting you for being extremists. But feel free to practice your faith and have a good day."

This writer would be a wealthy individual indeed if he had a few dollars for every disgruntled ex-Witness who, upon failing to turn the JW ship in the direction of his choosing, went on scorch the JW earth with terminology from George Orwell's 1984. Witnesses practice "doublethink" and have "thought police" who sniff out ones committing "thoughtcrime," or even ones who fail to do "goodthink" (thought approved by the party). It is an intensification of a trend seen everywhere: failing to sway the other side and consequently declaring them "arrogant." Yet the first actual instance of 1984 comes, not from Jehovah's Witnesses, but from those who oppose them. If memory serves, was not Mr. O'Brien a pleasant and refined man on the surface, posing as Winston's friend, before revealing his true character—and thus combining both good cop and bad cop into a single entity?

***~~~***

*In fact, the Russian investigation into torture found, in a very short time, that there was nothing to it at all.32

#  Chapter 18 – Sticking Up For the Unrighteous

An anti-cult advocacy prevails and has been allowed to define Russia's response to any religion not on the "approved list"—which in the Christian category includes just one: the Russian Orthodox Church. One would think that the idiocy of declaring Jehovah's Witnesses extremist would collapse eventually under its own weight, but it may not—again, because it fits in with the humanistic thinking of the day. It is not so much "mind control" that anti-cultists are concerned about; it is mind-control that is not theirs. Christians have left that life "in which you once lived following the age of this world, following the ruler of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the disobedient," Paul says at Ephesians 2:2. Yes, the prevalent thinking of today surrounds us like air and has the same "power." Buck it at your own social and reputational peril.

Here is a Russian Orthodox priest33 who air-bombs a certain city with holy water as a strategy to combat the "heavy drinking and fornication" that, in his opinion, afflicts the population there. This action is not viewed as extremist. The peaceful preaching of Jehovah's Witnesses, who manage within their ranks to avoid both heavy drinking and fornication, is extremist, however. One wonders if the word will not shatter someday at the stresses placed upon it. One might easily conclude that it is this world that is extremist, and not the Witnesses at all. However, this world has the upper hand at the moment, so expect similar atrocities of reason to prevail. "Christ said that they will persecute you for your faith," said Timofei Zhukov, the Witness who escaped torture at the police station, though he did suffer his head kicked "as if [the officer] was kicking a football."34

The repressions of Jehovah's Witnesses do not even appear to be a coordinated attack, so observes Lev Ponomaryev.35 Rather, it "appears to have emerged less by design than by the desire of the siloviki to find work for themselves that would gain them preferment and promotion. Many of them grew up in Soviet times. They remember how the sects were treated. They see beating up on Witnesses as "a low risk operation that will bring those who carry it out only benefits." A joke making the rounds in Russia during 2019 goes: "A man applies to work at the Moscow Patriarchate and says he wants to head the holy inquisition. He's told he's come several centuries too late—or perhaps three or four years too soon."36

Once in a while a bone is tossed the Witnesses's way. One Witness got out of pre-trail lockup when a judge ruled that the prior judge had shown prejudicial bias.37 She had rebuked the Witness with: [redacted]. He is and he does, and the second judge ruled the first out of line to muzzle the thought.

In the course of building a case against another one of Jehovah's Witnesses, Russian "scholars" even found extremism in an Old Testament passage.38 It was not merely a passage in the New World Translation—that entire work has been declared extremist and is therefore shelved. It is a passage found in any Bible, even the one used by the Russian Orthodox Church.

The offending verse is Psalm 37:29 [36:29 in Eastern Bibles]: "The righteous will inherit the earth and will live in it forever." This verse is actually a threat toward "unrighteous persons," the experts discerned. It is "about dismissiveness (contempt, aggression) toward a group of persons on the basis of religious affiliation." It furthers the "'propaganda of inferiority' on the basis of religious identity."

In other words, they are sticking up for the unrighteous in that land! "Well—they're people, too," is their stroke of wisdom. If the "righteous" are to be favored with inheriting the earth and living there forever, then the unrighteous should be there, too.

It strikes one as breathtakingly foolish reasoning, and yet it is the reasoning that carries the day in Russia. But we should not laugh at it, because it is more evil than stupid, and it is the work of opposers who know what they are doing and will do it elsewhere when the time is right. The reasoning is the same—it is only more unmasked in Russia than elsewhere, but it may serve as a heads-up for other places.

In both places it is the reasoning of those who dislike God. They do not dislike him so long as he knows his place. If he allows societal trends and critical thinking to carry the day, he is welcome, but only then. If he tries impose upon people his own standards of "righteousness," he is not. If he allows the will of the people to prevail, he is welcome. If he says, as in John 6:45: "They shall all be taught by God," he is not—unless he means that the will of the people _is_ the will of God. He should know that his role is to sit in the back seat and keep his mouth shut.

The spectacle of opponents denouncing disfellowshipping is but a reflection of their frustration at having the window slammed shut on their fingers as they tried to break into the house with their new and improved morality—morality that is not God's. They are livid that they cannot do that, and so they rail against the tool that thwarts them, even trying to declare it illegal.

It is a God-ordained tool from the One who knows humankind better than they do themselves. Actually, humans know it well, too, but they forget it when it stands in their way. If they did not know it, there would be no such thing as advertising—the ultimate manipulative device founded on the premise that humans can be swayed any which way given sufficient propaganda. Corporate interests would not pour billions into advertising if they were not convinced human behavior could be so molded. "We made Miller the number two selling brand in the country, and everybody said: 'Nobody will drink that stuff,'" said author Mickey Spillane.

"Righteousness" is an antiquated term for those peddling a new morality that would supplant the traditional one. The term is a threat to them. It is a term that is no longer allowed in Russia, but how far behind can the West be? The new paradigm is that acceptable human conduct should be determined by group norm, not imposed by some Bully from above. The war against disfellowshipping is at root a manifestation of those who would fight against God.

Says the apostle Peter: "For the time that has passed is sufficient for doing what the Gentiles like to do: living in debauchery, evil desires, drunkenness, orgies, carousing, and wanton idolatry. They are surprised that you do not plunge into the same swamp of profligacy, and they vilify you." (1 Peter 4:3-4) As the Gentile counterparts accumulate in the "swamp of profligacy," they finally are emboldened to also say: "Water's fine here in the swamp! Who are you to judge?" The qualities Peter speaks of are simply not the anathema that they once were. Some are openly embraced.

So "righteousness" as defined by a God is an insult. To speak of a world where righteousness will prevail is extremist in Russia, and therefore illegal. For now, in the West, it is just gauche and small-minded. That is changing. If it truly is that God will allow only the righteous in the new world of his making, then anyone wanting to be found on His side does whatever he or she can to conform. Opponents today would make that illegal, or at least would make illegal the means through which it is facilitated.

The climate is not just right for Western opposers to declare that the righteous inheriting the earth is extremist, as they have in Russia, but that is what many want to do—and it will likely reach that point one day. Should it happen, it will be a development that is on script, and so thereby can be said to be okay. It will not be unexpected. The miscreants are angling for it now.

Nikolai Gordienko, of the Herzen Russian State University in St. Petersburg, once stated: "When the experts accuse Jehovah's Witnesses for their teachings, they do not realize that they are actually making accusations against the Bible." Jehovah's Witnesses represent it. They practice it as best they can. The gloves have come off in Russia. Some would say that they came off long ago with regard to human rights, but now they also come off with regard to the root intent of Witness persecution. One might conclude that it is not Witnesses that are opposed, but God—the Witnesses are just the middlemen who represent him.

Gamaliel cautioned religious leaders in the first century regarding Christians: "I tell you, have nothing to do with these men, and let them go. For if this endeavor or this activity is of human origin, it will destroy itself. It But if it comes from God, you will not be able to destroy them; you may even find yourselves fighting against God." (Acts 5:38-39) Accordingly, it is God who is in the crosshairs of opponents today—"who is He to tell us what is righteous?" they glower. Banning the Witness organization was not enough for those opponents in Russia. Banning the New World Translation was also not enough, for the same verses hateful to those demanding moral relevance are found in any translation of the Bible.

How far will opponents get in their quest to enlist the world's sympathy that they got kicked out of a religion for refusing to abide by the rules—in essence, for refusing to be "righteous?" Time will tell, but until the Lord intervenes, the playing field is tilted their way. The individual rights of those who would kick over the traces garners popular support. The individual rights of those who would impose upon themselves a force greater than they to safeguard against their own weaknesses means nothing.

During Soviet times, dissidents stated that the underlying attitude of authorities was that they didn't really care if you believed their lie or not, so long as you knuckled under to their power to define reality. Declaring the Psalm extremist—"The righteous ones will inherit the earth and they will live in it forever"—is an example of the pattern reasserting itself: "Yes, it is ridiculous, but who cares? It is what we say it is."

In the West it is still deemed necessary to believe the lie—that the "offenses" of the people who endeavor to represent God are the objection, and not God himself. That can be expected to change. The offenses are blown up and misrepresented, but they are not, in most cases, untrue. They are, however, not the issues to watch. The issues to watch are those relating to God's purpose to establish an earth in which righteousness prevails.

***~~~***

At trial's end, in a Russian court, Konstantin Bazhenov's turn at last came to make his closing statement.39 He [redacted for reader safety]

Yes. This is exactly what you do. The law is so convoluted that nobody can get their heads around it. Jehovah's Witnesses are not banned, but only their organization is? People cannot get their heads around it. President Putin says words of support, yet it makes no difference? People cannot get their heads around it. Forget those things and just give a witness to all present, a witness that embodies Christian qualities of joy even under persecution, and a determination to serve God under any circumstances.

Konstantin starts with wanting [redacted for reader safety] and he applies it to the misinformation spread about Jehovah's Witnesses. Mark Twain's version of this saying (or is this a version of his?) is: "A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth gets its pants on."

Be that as it may, Konstantin is very glad that during court hearings [redacted] but it did. He thanks his God Jehovah [redacted]

Represent His interests he does, fully getting the sense of Jesus' words: People [redacted] (Luke 21:12-13)

He has Revelation 2:10 down pat: "Do not be afraid of anything that you are going to suffer. Indeed, the devil will throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and you will face an ordeal for ten days. Remain faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life." He is a fanatic to those who have discarded God, and even to some of those who have not. But he is the very embodiment of Jesus' words to endure (with joy) under persecution, and he goes on to explain how that can be.

"In fact, all who want to live religiously in Christ Jesus will be persecuted." (2 Timothy 3:12) he cites. "{redacted]

He uses that confidence to thank participants. He thanks his wife, first of all, but also the judge for [redacted]. He thanks the investigator [redacted]. He thanks his lawyers, co-defendants, friends who came for support, and even the prosecutor [redacted]. Why throw stones? Be like the early Christians.

[long passage—his words to the court--redacted]

He then launches into what can only be described as his "Adam to Armageddon sermon"—his talk touching on basic Witness beliefs regarding the:

theme of God

authority of the Bible

role of Jesus Christ

Kingdom of God

Christ's ransom

heaven

earth

reason for God's permission of evil and suffering

what happens at death

how to find happiness as a family

our worship of God

Christian unity

our behavior as Christians

our relationships to others

Well, why not? He does have a captive audience, after all, and they made themselves captive—specifically convening to pass judgment upon him. Trust me on this: nobody said on their drive home, "That fellow doesn't know his Bible very well." Witnesses live by the Bible and make no apology for it. Should they experience reprisal, it is frequently due to a dislike of what the Bible itself says.

Commendably, the Russian court participants did not stone him to death, as the Sanhedrin did with Stephen when he pulled such a stunt. They just put him on the prison bus and off to a new assignment. I love his flexibility. I pray that I can match it should my turn come. We can't necessarily choose what our new assignment will be or what hardships it may entail.

***~~~***

The Associated Press today reports40 the torture of a member of Jehovah's Witnesses in the Russian campaign to eliminate the faith. It is the second such instance of torture coming to light. [edit—several more came within a few days] Arrests are commonplace. More commonplace are raids with the confiscation of personal property. 200 Jehovah's Witnesses were recently place of the federal list of extremists, which means that bank accounts are frozen, and they can no longer transact routine financial business.

With an active and prolific critical, at times hate, online campaign being waged against Jehovah's Witnesses, it is reasonable to think that it indirectly instigates persecution of them in Russia. It is reasonable to think that it indirectly instigates the torching of two Kingdom Halls in the United States during 2019, both of which burned to the ground.

Many groups are harassed in Russia, but it is Jehovah's Witnesses who are head-and-shoulders the primary target. Why? It boils down to Jesus' words: "If you belonged to the world, the world would love its own; but because you do not belong to the world, and I have chosen you out of the world, the world hates you." (John 15:19) It is no more complicated than that. Hatred against Witnesses may be cloaked as reports from a "whistleblower" or complaints of those who would advocate freedom from "mind control," but at root the motivation is simply disturbance that ones should choose to be "no part of the world." No villain on TV ever says, "I am the villain." Instead, he paints himself the wronged one with a merited score to settle—and the program director strives so that we all see his point of view. We must not be obtuse.

From the book _TrueTom vs the Apostates_!: "The book ' _Secular Faith - How Culture Has Trumped Religion in American Politics_ ' attempts to reassure its secular audience through examining the changing moral stands of churches on five key issues. The book points out that today's church members have more in common with atheists than they do with members of their own denominations from decades past. Essentially, the reassurance to those who would mold societal views is: 'Don't worry about it. They will come around. They always do. It may take a bit longer, but it is inevitable.' Jehovah's Witnesses have thwarted this model by not coming around."

What _Secular Faith_ is saying is that churches have in many respects ceased being "no part of the world"—and having done such, are not hated, since "the world is fond of what is its own." Jehovah's Witnesses, and almost they alone, are yet remaining "no part of the world"—and that is why they are hated. That is why they have "apostates" who are off the charts in expressing vitriol. "Apostates" (within the Christian context) can be expected to proliferate in direct proportion to how the main body stays separate from the world. As such, Jehovah's Witnesses should almost be proud of theirs, for in them they are validated. A religion that has made its peace on the "five key issues" of Secular Faith—what's to apostatize from?

Anti-Witnesses scream "Cult!" like patrons scream 'Fire!' in a crowded theater. Are Jehovah's Witnesses a cult? To the extent they are, it is because the Bible is a cult manual. The behavioral, informational, thought, and emotional "control" that anti-Witness activists complain about can be found in the urgings of the New Testament writers themselves. The words point to no more than people living by the Bible, living peaceably in this world while they look to the righteous new one to come with the arrival of the kingdom for which Jesus taught his followers to pray, the one the Bible describes as "the true life." (1 Timothy 6:19) The agenda of the virulent Witness detractors is simply that no one should think in such an "impractical" way.

A faith that remains "no part of the world" is thought socially backward, even socially harmful by some. But that hardly means it ought not be allowed to exist, particularly since it dovetails with Jesus' words. "There has only been one Christian," Mark Twain too cynically remarked. "They caught and killed him—early."

This writer is not even sure that Witnesses should run from the word. It may be well instead to highlight its origin. It is the same origin as 'cultivate'—which denotes 'caring for something'—and in a religious sense it refers to 'caring for the matters of the gods.' Okay. I'll take it. Jehovah's Witnesses 'care for the matters' of God. They trigger opposition from ones who don't want them to do that. They trigger opposition from those who have crossed over to embrace various aspects of the world—the world that Jesus says not to be part of.

This is clear in the testimony of the witness mentioned in a prior chapter, testifying for the prosecution in the Russian trial of April 2017—the trial to ban. She complained of "complete and total control of life by the Administrative Center." Asked to give an example of this, she reported her expulsion from the congregations after she "began her close, but not officially registered, relations with a man." In other words, she wants to violate, within the congregation, the Bible sanction of 'sex only within marriage.' The Witness organization does not allow it, and she spins it as "complete and total control of life," hoping to get the Russian Justices riled up.

'It is fine to adopt the standards of the world so long as one goes there to do it—don't bring it into the congregation,' the Witnesses would say. She signed on for such Bible-based standards, now she wants to change them—and when thwarted in that attempt, she seeks to get the organization that got in her way banned at the Russian Supreme Court! It is little more than revenge. It is little more than insisting the standards of the greater world be accommodated in the Christian congregation.

Disfellowshipping itself is a last-ditch attempt at discipline, when all else has failed, to ensure that a member not bring standards of the world, no matter how commonly accepted, into the congregation. Is it harsh? It certainly can be spun that way, but as ought to be clear by considering _Secular Faith_ , no denomination has succeeded in obeying Jesus' direction to remain "no part of the world" without it.

History testifies that among the reasons Christians were viciously persecuted in the first century was that their rituals were said to include cannibalism. Obviously, Jesus' followers did not do this, but from where might the charge originate? Might one look to the following passage in the sixth chapter of John, which begins by quoting Jesus?

" _I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died; this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."_

" _The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat?" Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats[a] my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day._

_Then many of his disciples who were listening said, "This saying is hard; who can accept it?"....As a result of this, many [of] his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. Jesus then said to the Twelve, "Do you also want to leave?" Simon Peter answered him, "Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God."_ (John 6:48-69)

What of the ones who did not "come to know" that Jesus was the Holy One of God? What of the ones who "went to the things behind and would no longer walk with him"? Did they thereafter leave their former co-disciples to worship in peace? Or did some of them draw from these words proof that Jesus would recommend cannibalism to his followers? And if some advanced the notion, might there not have arisen ones in the congregation who pinned the blame on Jesus himself for saying the words that got the persecution ball rolling; 'What a blunder!'—I can imagine some saying (though not in his presence).

It makes this writer think of the uproar raised over child sexual abuse within Jehovah's Witnesses today. It is a controversy that played no part in Russia's efforts to ban the Witness organization—the topic never came up—but it is huge in the West. Jehovah's Witnesses are comparatively successful at preventing it—nobody, but nobody, has gathered every single member on earth (at their 2017 Regional Conventions) to consider detailed scenarios in which child sexual abuse might take place so that parents, obviously the first line of defense, can remain vigilant. But the world has little success at preventing child sexual abuse, so it focuses on punishing it after the fact, securing the barn door after the cows have fled. Routinely, we read of individuals arrested over pedophilia-related allegations. Unless the arrest is of a member of the clergy, the one detail that never accompanies such reports is that of the individual's religious affiliation or lack thereof. Yet with Jehovah's Witnesses, that detail is never lacking. Why?

The reason is that the Witness organization attempted to do something about child sexual abuse—they did not just close their eyes to it—and now detractors are trying to spin it as though they love the stuff. Jehovah's Witnesses are well-known as a religion that "polices its own." It is an attribute once viewed favorably, but now in the eyes of critics it is spun as intolerable "control." In the course of such self-policing those taking the lead in the Witness organization came to know of individuals accused of child sexual abuse. Their "crime," if it be one, is in leaving it up to affected ones themselves to report rather than "going beyond the law" to do it themselves. Time will tell just how vile that sin is found to be, but it plainly falls far short of actually committing the abuse themselves, which is the pattern elsewhere, there being no mechanism for discovery for within the rank and file.

As with Jesus's remarks in the sixth chapter of John that can, in the scheming of dishonest ones, be spun into encouragement of cannibalism, so the Witness policy on child sexual abuse is spun by similarly dishonest ones to indicate that the organization is determined to nurture and protect it, whereas nothing could be further from the truth. Three times before the Australian Royal Commission, Geoffrey Jackson, of the Witnesses's Governing Body, pleaded for universal, mandatory reporting laws, with no exceptions—if that could only be done, it would make the job of the Witness organization in policing its own without raising the ire of those outside the congregation "so much easier," he said.

Continuing his cross-examination, Justice Angus Stewart said: "Leaving aside the question of overriding mandatory law from the civil authorities..." I almost wish that Brother Jackson would have interjected at this point, "I wish you would not leave it aside, for it would solve the problem." The greater world cannot make a dent in preventing child sexual abuse, and so it puts the onus on those who are trying to do something about it. Alas, our best lines invariably occur to us too late—had Brother Jackson picked up my line, it probably just would have got their backs up—and then (gulp) he would have looked at me with displeasure.

Endnotes:

1. Alexander Chernykh, "We are the same people as you, but now we are called criminals and extremists," _Kommersant_ , March 1, 2019, accessed March 15, 2019, https://kommersant.ru/doc/3899000

2. Oliver Carroll, "Russia's Jehovah's Witnesses Allege '21'st Century Inquistion' Amid Claims of Torture," _Independent_ , February 21, 2019, accessed March 15, 2019, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-jehovahs-witness-crackdown-surgut-religion-discrimination-a8790761.html

3. Dmity Zayayov, "Source: Jehovah's Witnesses, Khanty-Mansiysk Autonomous Okrug, are trying to ruin a criminal case with accusations against security officials," _Ura_. _News_ , February 28, 2019, accessed March 15, 2019, https://ura.news/news/1052374340

4. Lev Pomomarev, "Read and Watch," blog post for echo.msk.ru, February 26, 2019, assessed March 15, 2019, https://echo.msk.ru/blog/lev_ponomarev/2378667-echo/

5. "ECHR Imposes Interim Measures in Response to Torture Complaint From Surgut," _jw-russia.org_ , February 27, 2019

6. Matthew Luxmoore, "'Time Becomes a Blur When You're Experiencing Great Pain': Russian Jehovah's Witness Alleges Police Torture," _RadioFreeEurope_ / _RadioLiberty_ , February 22, 2019

7. Jason Lemon, "Jehovah's Witnesses Tortured With Electric Shocks and Suffocation in Russia, Church Says" _Newsweek_ , February 23, 2019

8. "Russia Says it Will Probe Jehovah's Witnesses Torture Claim," _apnews.com_ , February 23, 2019, accessed March 19, 2019, https://apnews.com/f43f396dac9c4159987493f92123a3f9

9.

10. "Stories of Surgut "Jehovah's Witnesses" about torture in the TFR shocked the Ugra Ombudsman," _Znak.com_ , February 25, 2019, accessed March 16, 2019, https://www.znak.com/2019-02-25/rasskazy_surgutskih_svideteley_iegovy_o_pytkah_v_skr_shokirovali_yugorskogo_ombudsmena

11. Alexander Verkhovsky, "The Fight Against Religious Extremism' all Widers, Need to be Narrowed Down," _ng.ru_ , March 5, 2019

12. Michael Lipka, "U.S. Religious Groups and Their Political Leanings," _Pew Research Center_ , February 23, 2016, accessed March 9, 2019

13. Andrew Sorokowski, "Witnesses to Persecution," _Religious Information Service of Ukraine_ , May 5, 2017, accessed March 23, 2018, https://risu.org.ua/article_print.php?id=66964&name=asorokowski_column&_lang=en&

14. Matthew 10:28

15. "They Will Also Ban God," _klops.ru_ , Mrch 9, 2019, accessed March 11, 2019, https://news.rambler.ru/other/41842016

16. Emily P. Baran, _Dissent on the Margins \- How Jehovah's Witnesses Defied Communism and Lived to Preach About It_ (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014) 240

17. Anna Ryzhova, "Get Rid of Witnesses," _Russian-reporter_ , February 25, 2019, accessed March 16, 2019, http://expert.ru/russian_reporter/2019/03/izbavitsya-ot-svidetelej/

18. Oliver Carroll, "Russia's Jehovah's Witnesses Allege '21'st Century Inquistion' Amid Claims of Torture," _Independent_ , February 21, 2019, accessed March 15, 2019, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-jehovahs-witness-crackdown-surgut-religion-discrimination-a8790761.html

19. Anna Ryzhova, "Get Rid of Witnesses," _Russian-reporter_ , February 25, 2019, accessed March 16, 2019, http://expert.ru/russian_reporter/2019/03/izbavitsya-ot-svidetelej/

20. Hebrews 11:32-38

21. Chivchalov's comment does not entirely square with remarks I made above (based upon the visits of a personal acquaintance who has traveled in Russia) but I believe it is a case of no one person seeing the entire picture. Plainly the '99%' is hyperbole. The title says it all in this Moscow Times article: "Many Russians Don't Know the Jehovah's Witnesses, But They Still Want Them Banned" (themoscowtimes.com, July 13, 2017). Chivchalov himself said at the time that it depends upon how the subject is breached. If it is just a matter of shooing away uninvited callers, most Russians will say yes. But if it is a matter of sending those ones to jail, they will not go that far.

22. www.currenttime.tv/a/Jehovah-witnesses-Russia/29785245.html

23. Tacitus, _Annals,_ 117 c.e.

24. G. A. Wells, _The Historical Evidence for Jesus,_ (Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1982) 17

25. Mathew 26: 3-5

26. Alexander Chernykh, "We Are the Same"

27. Bandow, Doug, "Persecutors Pile on Jehovah's Witnesses, in Russia and Worldwide," _nationalreview.com_ , March 1, 2019, assessed March 21, 2019, https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/03/jehovahs-witnesses-persecuted-russia-worldwide

28. Willie Fautre, "Cults and Religious Freedom Around the World," address to the ICSA Annual International Conference, Montreal Canada, July 5-7, 2012, accessed March 21, 2019, https://www.academia.edu/5201173/Cult_Issues_and_Religous_Freedom

29. "An Act of Faith in the Operating Room," _New_ _Scientist_ , April 26, 2008

30. See the category https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/pedophiles (by this author)

31. Doug Bandow, "Persecutors Pile"

32. "The Examination Found No Signs of Torture in the Follower of "Jehovah's Witnesses," _RIA_ _Novosti_ , Moscow, March 21, 2019

33. Emily Puckering, Priests Air Bomb Russian City with Holy Water to Stop 'Drinking' and 'Fornication.' https://twentytwowords.com

34. Alec Luhn, "'We Liked to Sing. Now We Can Only Whisper.' How Russia is Stepping Up Its Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses," _Time_ , December 19, 2019

35. Paul Goble, "2019 Year of Defeats for Religious Life and Human Rights Movement in Russia, Ponomaryev Says," _windowoneurasia2.blogspot.com,_ December 28, 2019, for Russian test, see https://credo.press/228321

36. Paul Goble, "A baker's Dozen of Russian Political Anecdotes for 2019," _windowoneurasia2.blogspot.com,_ December 30, 2019

37.

38. "Linguists of Vyatka University qualified as 'extremist' 29th verse of the 36th psalm of the Old Testament, _https://credo.press/226135,_ August 14, 2019,

39.

40. Daria Litvinova, Associated Press, "Jehovah's Witnesses report convictions, torture in Russia," _seattletimes.com,_ February. 14, 2020

Return to Table of Contents

# Final Acknowledgements

This book started as but the germ of an idea. I was posting snippets about what was unfolding with my fellow Witnesses in Russia when it occurred to me to assemble them into something more substantial. A short brochure-like release was all that I had in mind, headed by a somber melodramatic cover to bewail an irreligious iron curtain that was once again descending upon Russia. Each new report expanded the narrative as the project steadily grew. In time, I discarded the somber melodramatic cover because what is somber for us isn't equally somber for others and for some it is not somber at all. The simple fact of the matter is that there are thousands of atrocities to choose from today, and to insist that your cause is head and shoulders above all others is to invite audience fatigue.

But even for Jehovah's Witnesses the melodramatic iron curtain is not appropriate. In their minds and hearts the falling curtain does not prevail. It prevails at first, of course, as it crashes upon their toes. But Witnesses are, by and large, a happy people, reflecting the nature of the God they worship, and they tend to adjust quickly to the new normal. They never expected that their Christian message and worship would be unopposed in the first place. This is especially true in Russia where, except for the last 27 years, it has been continually outlawed. Non-Russian Witnesses were taken aback that their deluge of letters had so little effect on government officials. Russian Witnesses said: 'So what else is new?' They yet laugh a lot. They have set their sights on Jesus, who was not paraded around on the shoulders of Pilate and the Romans as Mr. Popular.

The original posts, in some cases in their entireties, are to be found in the second and third chapters of this book. The project expanded from brochure to book when I realized that the reasons for anti-Witness sentiment were for the most part absent from court proceedings. Plainly, decisions had been made in high places and it was for the courts to provide legal cover after the fact. Some of the reasons, specifically those of 'cult' perception, do not even originate in Russia. I decided to devote a chapter to each proffered reason, accompanied by a defense. Jehovah's Witnesses can hardly be as bad as some make them out to be because the Devil is not that bad. Moreover, they stand practically alone in that they refuse to pick up arms against their fellow humans for any reason. How bad can they be? A goal of being essentially an apologist for the modern Christian organization gradually took shape, not unlike the apologists of the early centuries after Christ.

A few brief thanks are in order.

Writers do not ever truly forget that of which they are writing. They are always turning it over in their heads, always weighing the advisability of this new phrasing or that redundant passage that ought to go. Their loved ones, assuming they have some, see them in their chair and it really appears that they are there. But they are not. They are miles away. The reason popular song writers suffer untimely deaths is that, as they are writing their latest love song, their significant other peers over their shoulder and asks: "Are you writing about me, dear?" It can even happen for more noble ideas that are nurtured day in and day out. I am blessed enough to have loved ones, and I begin to see why authors frequently thank, first of all, their spouses, for lovingly putting up with them. I do it too.

Several besides my wife both made helpful suggestions to the text and assisted in its proofreading. I thank Veronica Coulston, the Witness of chapter one, who visits Czechoslovakia, for her assistance with several chapters. Melinda Mills came on board late in the game as proofreader, but soon out-proofed them all. Because she came on board late, there was not too much to do, but still she would capitalize a word here, reverse subject and predicate there, and every so often, like Amadeus reviewing the chunky composition of the house musician, say "That doesn't quite work, does it?" and would fix it on the fly, making suggestions that I accepted in almost every instance. Sometimes she would even help me out when I bolloxed quotes within quotes—nested quotes, like the matryoshka dolls. In her working days, she assisted in some technical publications of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the U.N, which leads me to wonder whether I owe a debt of gratitude to the organization I called the wild beast a few pages back.

Daniel Metz has traveled in Russia as well as China, and he has served as my house translator. I must qualify that I only used his translation talents a handful of times; mostly his contribution was to keep me from saying something un-Russian and dumb. If I do not specify that he served only as occasional translator, the reader may look at my Russian quotes and surmise that _he_ must be dumb. No. That was AI doing the chunky translations, which I retained with a muddled Western sense that it 'sounds' more Russian. Of course, I risk the wrath of Russians themselves, who may say "Why are you portraying us as Boris and Natasha from the Bullwinkle cartoons?" My answer is that in some ways I never really grew up and I am still fond of those cartoons—no disrespect is intended. Besides, it is consistent with my overall subtheme that the world is play and few chapters are to be taken too seriously.

How much can Russians expect from a Westerner? These days media in the West foam with fury at Russia, and I have not gone there at all. I yet regard Ilya Kuryakin, of 'The Man from U.N.C.L.E.' (United Network of Criminal Law Enforcement) as my Russian template. He was a Scottish actor, but they gave him an odd haircut, told him to talk funny, and for my money as a child, he made a convincing Russian superspy, even though I recall reading in Pravda or somewhere that he was not very Russian at all and how could those stupid Americans think he was? He saved the day only slightly less than the American superspy he was doomed to play second fiddle to, and in real life, the actor who portrayed him came to settle in the tiny hamlet of Stanfordville N.Y, where some of my people originate, and the locals would say that he was just a regular guy.

Bill Underwood also lent me practical assistance, not with this book per se, but with ebook publishing in the first place and with periodic guidance thereafter. He is author of a pleasant tale called Resurrection Day, which plays with the notion of a character coming forth in the earthly resurrection and what he might encounter and in what order. Most Witnesses who have read the work like it, for it is a treasured theme, but a few have fretted that it "goes beyond the things written." He admits it at the outset—it is just fun educated guesswork for those in the program—and he warns persons apt to be concerned over such things that they might want to stay away.

Return to Table of Contents

Thank you for reading "Dear Mr. Putin – Jehovah's Witnesses Write Russia."

If you enjoyed it, won't you please take a moment to leave it a review at your favorite retailer? Seriously. In a reading world of endless choices, reviews help ensure that a good book survives.

# Endnotes

All endnotes to sources on the Federal List of Extremist Materials have been removed for reader safety.

## Introduction

1. "Inventing Extremists: The Impact of Russian Anti-Extremism Policies on Freedom of Religion or Belief," _United States Commission on International Religious Freedom_ , January 2018, 4

2. 'Hoosegow' is American slang for 'jail' that might not be known outside America. It brings up connotations of the lawless Old West, and that seems to me an appropriate connotation when dealing with the possible detainment of Jehovah's Witnesses on the grounds of extremism.

3. Andrei Kuraev, "Prohibition of Jehovah's Witnesses Undermines Trust in Court," _To Truth_ , a project of the Tomsk Information and Consulting Center on the problems of sects and occultism, April 25, 2017

4. John 10:18

5. Kruaev, "Prohibition of"

6.

7. "Hebrew-flavored" because the work of Nehemia Gordon suggests the name was pronounced "Yehovah." One who has worked as a translator of the Dead Sea Scrolls, he and his research team have discovered hundreds of ancient documents with that complete pronunciation. See "The Original Hebrew Name of God Re-Discovered in 1,000 Bible Manuscripts," _Religion News Service_ , January 25, 2018, accessed March 26, 2018, https://www.religionnews.com/2018/01/25/the-original-hebrew-name-of-god-re-discovered-in-1000-bible-manuscripts

8. Jason Beduhn, _Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament_ (Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 2003) 163

9. Per a letter from the Governing Body read to all congregations during 2014, where it was noted that traveling ministers of the first century directly appointed congregation elders and did not defer the job to the apostles and presbyters in Jerusalem, citing verses as Acts 14:33 and the record of Titus and Timothy.

10. Beduhn, _Truth in,_ 124-125

11. Acts 17:18

12. Thanks to American humorist Garrison Keillor here. Pastor Inqvist and his Catholic counterpart, Father Emil, were fixtures in Keillor's Tales from Lake Wobegon, his fictional Minnesota hometown, "where all the men are strong, all the women are good-looking, and all the children are above average." The gentle humor of his two-hour weekly radio show landed him on the cover of Time magazine, which he spoofed with his song: "Mr. Coverboy." He is a significant influence on my own writing.

13. Hebrews 4:12

14.

15. Joel Engardio, "Filmmaker Statements" to the 2006 documentary 'Knocking,' accessed March 26, 2018, http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/knocking/statement.html

16. Melvin Eisenhower, as quoted in Modern Maturity Magazine.

17. Gary Sloan, "A Connecticut Yankee in God's Court: Mark Twain's Covert War with Religion," _Skeptic,_ vol. 8, no. 4, 2001. See also, for a moderating view on Twain's spiritual outlook: Tom Rapsis, "It's Time to Take Mark Twain Back from the Atheists," _Wake-up Call_ , October 22, 2014, accessed March 26, 2018, http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wakeupcall/2014/10/its-time-to-take-mark-twain-back-from-the-atheists/

18. Michael Hart, _The 100- A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons of History_ (New York: Citadel Press, 1992) 3-19, 17-21

19. 1 Timothy: 21-2, Romans 13:3-4

20. The 'Two Timothy' is deliberate. In seeking to rally the religious crowd, which politicians have done since the beginning of time, Trump cited 'Two Corinthians 3:17,' rather than 2 Corinthians 3:17. This employment of verse persuaded his audience that he was indeed one of them, though they conceded perhaps he was still growing as a Christian.

21. Isaiah 5:20, Matthew 24:14

22.

23. An African-American spiritual song, first published in 1867

24. 1 Timothy 1:11

25. 1 Corinthians 4:9

26. Job 34:10

27. Leonid Bershidsky, "Jehovah's Witnesses Had Foes Before Putin," _Bloomberg.com_ , April 21, 2017, accessed March 26, 2018, https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-04-21/jehovah-s-witnesses-had-foes-before-putin

28. Exodus 4:10-16

Return to Table of Contents

## Chapter 1 – The Soviets

1. This was her expressed opinion, per personal email.

2. Emily P. Baran, _Dissent on the Margins \- How Jehovah's Witnesses Defied Communism and Lived to Preach About It_ (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014) 7

3. Ezekiel 33:32

4. Baran, _Dissent on_ , 131

5. Ibid., 170

6. Matthew 5:11

7. Ibid., 91

8. Ibid., 137

9. Ibid., 60

10. Ibid., 149

11. Christopher M. Andrew, Vasili Mitrokhin, _The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive & the Secret History of the KGB_ (New York: Basic Books, 1999) as quoted in: Elizabeth A. Clark, "Will Trump Confront Religious Repression in Russia?" _Nationalreview.com_ , May 5, 2017

12. Baran, _Dissent on_ , 87

13. Ibid., 90

14. 1 Peter 4:4

15. Baran, _Dissent on_ , 67

16. Ibid., 244

17. Ibid., 151

18. Ibid., 145

19. 2 Timothy 3:16

20. John 19:20

21. Baron, _Dissent on_ , 246

22. "Inventing Extremists: The Impact of Russian Anti-Extremism Policies on Freedom of Religion or Belief," _United States Commission of International Religious Freedom_ , January 2018, 22

23. Ibid., 19

24. The film "Espionage Under the Guise of Religion" is included in the program "Conspiracy Theory," _Television and Radio Broadcasting Company of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation "ZVEZDA"_ _TV channel Star_ , October 17, 2017. See also "TV Channel Zvezda Exposed Scientologists and Jehovah's Witnesses," _SOVA Center_ , October 23, 2017, accessed March 3, 2018 http://www.sova-center.ru/religion/news/harassment/theoretical-struggle/2017/10/d38118/ For English translation, see also, both accessed March 6, 2018, http://www2.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/171023b.html and https://www2.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/180202a.html

25. Matthew 13:45

26. Baran, _Dissent on_ , 88

27. See YouVersion, _bible.com_ , NABRE Commentary at Acts 2:42, accessed March 6, 2018, https://www.bible.com/bible/463/ACT.2.nabre

28. Acts 2:42-48

29. Baran, _Dissent on_ , 131,172. Baran's examples are Russian, not Czech, but denial of education is a staple of totalitarian regimes. I am reminded of the film "The Lives of Others," incorporating in plotline the same threat of denial from the Stassi.

30. Per conversation with Veronica Coelston, an American Witness who was born in Prague, emigrated from Czechoslovakia with her parents in 1968, and subsequently would return for summer vacations. She confirms the story through personal conversation with the one-time Coordinator of the Czech Bethel branch, who indicated it was a Br. Jiricka who witnessed to Havel.

31. Baran, _Dissent on_ , 190

32. Acts 17:20

33. See JW Monthly Programs, _JW Broadcasting_ – November 2017, accessed March 6, 2018, https://tv.jw.org/#en/mediaitems/StudioMonthly2017/pub-jwb_201711_1_VIDEO

34. Baran, _Dissent on_ , 50, 140

35. Matthew 26:52

36. _2017 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses_ (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, 2016) 42

37. Baran, _Dissent_ on, 209

38. For a Russian Orthodox example, Katerina Chernova writes in Suchan of those who "murmur" of "priests in gold and jeeps, but candles in churches are only for contributions." Katerina Chernova, "Jehovah's Witnesses: Are They Banned or Not?" _Suchan_ , April 2017, as accessed March 26, 2018 at https://www2.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/170426a.html

39. Baran, _Dissent_ on, 210

40. Tanya Lokshina, "Draconian Law Rammed Through Russian Parliament," _Huffington Post_ , June 23, 2016, Accessed March 8, 2018, https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/06/23/draconian-law-rammed-through-russian-parliament

41. Evgeny Berg, "Russia's Controversial 'Yarovaya Package' Targets Missionaries, Threatens Privacy," _Legal Dialogue - Topics from Civil Society_ , November 2016. Accessed March 8, 2018, http://legal-dialogue.org/russias-controversial-yarovaya-package-targets-missionaries-threatens-privacy

42. Roman Lunkin, "Sacred Extremism. In the Theological Dispute About the Bible, the Court Supported Unscrupulous Experts," _Slavic Center for Law and Justice_ , December 2017. Accessed March 8, 2018, http://www.sclj.ru/news/detail.php?SECTION_ID=487&ELEMENT_ID=7732 For English translation: https://www2.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/171221c.html

43. Baran, _Dissent_ on, 209

44. B. W. Shultz, Rachael de Vienne, _A Separate Identity: Organizational Identity Among Readers of Zion's Watch Tower: 1870-1887_ (Self-published, available widely: 2014) 19

45: Matthew 23:9

46. _2008 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses_ (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc, 2008), 255

47. Baran, _Dissent_ on, 237-239

48. Acts 17:6, Acts 21:28

49. Baran, _Dissent on_ , 240

50. Baran, _Dissent on_ , 222 Baran cites several surveys revealing mindsets far from Western minds: "A 2003 survey of Russians found that 78 percent considered democracy "a façade for a government controlled by rich and powerful cliques. Fifty-three percent stated that they disliked the idea of democracy." She cites another study of the same time period that found "only 11 percent of respondents would not trade their basic freedoms for stability; 29 percent would forfeit these freedoms even without a promise of order."

51. 1 Samuel chapter 8

52. "Putin says nothing can justify political persecution as Russia commemorates Stalin victims _," RT.com,_ October 30, 2017, Accessed 26, 2018, https://www.rt.com/news/408266-putin-stalin-persecution-memorial/

Return to Table of Contents

## Chapter 2 – Campaign and Trial

1. The lead character never actually implored witnesses with "just the facts, ma'am," but variations of "all we have are the facts, ma'am." I remember the former, a circumstance from which inferences may be drawn about memory (or Snopes).

2. Luke 16:8

3.

4.

5. Nathan Glover, "Russian Court Bans Jehovah's Witness Bible," _worldreligionnews.com_ , August 18, 2017, http://www.worldreligionnews.com/religion-news/russian-court-bans-jehovahs-witness-bible

6. Willy Fautré, (Human Rights Without Frontiers), _hrwf.eu_ , Russian "religious experts" hired by a court against Jehovah's Witnesses have no academic credentials August 14, 2017, accessed March 26, 2018, http://hrwf.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Russian-%C2%AB-religious-experts-%C2%BB-hired-by-a-court-against-Jehovah%E2%80%99s-Witnesses-have-no-academic-credentials.pdf

7.

8.

9. Matthew 10:28

10. Gemma Mullin, "Saved Their Bacon: Touching Footage Shows Moment Brave Firefighters Rescue 150 Pigs and their Tiny Piglets from Huge Barn Fire in Russia," _thesun.co.uk,_ January 23, 2017, accessed March 26, 2018, https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2679459/touching-footage-shows-moment-brave-firefighters-rescue-150-pigs-and-their-tiny-piglets-from-huge-barn-fire-in-russia/

11. Matthew 25:31-46

12. Matthew 10:17

13. Chloe Farand, "Russian Government Files Lawsuit Against Jehovah's Witnesses to Declare it an Extremist Group, _" indedpendent.co.uk_ , March 17, 2017, accessed March 26, 2017, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russian-government-jehovahs-witnesses-extremist-group-lawsuit-supreme-court-a7634671.html. Separately, Vasiliy Kalin testified at the trial and said he was experiencing "memories of the future."

14. Acts 28:21-22

15. Newsfeed: "the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation is..." _Portal Credo.ru_ , April 20, 2017, site accessed on March 21, 2018, http://www.portal-credo.ru/site/?act=news&id=125383. For English translation, see http://www2.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/170420a.html

15. Transcript: Corey Flintoff, Russia's Jehovah's Witnesses Fight 'Extremist' Label, Possible Ban, _All Things Considered_ , May 17, 2017, accessed March 26, 2018, https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2016/05/17/476898973/russias-jehovahs-witnesses-fight-extremist-label-possible-ban

16. 2 Thessalonians 2:2, John 10:10

17.

18. _Time Magazine_ , December 18, 1972, 98

19. Special to the New York Times: "Jehovah's Witnesses Complain They're Persecuted in Malawi," New York Times, December 6, 1975, accessed March 26, 2018, http://www.nytimes.com/1975/12/06/archives/jehovahs-witnesses-complain-theyre-persecuted-in-malawi.html

20. Revelation 1:8

21. Emily P. Baran, _Dissent on the Margins \- How Jehovah's Witnesses Defied Communism and Lived to Preach About It_ (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014) 111

22.

23. Study Guide of the Holocaust Teacher Resource Center, originally a pamphlet of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum: "Jehovah's Witnesses," _United States Holocaust Memorial Museum_ , Washington D.C. 20024-2150, accessed March 26, 2018, http://www.holocaust-trc.org/jehovahs-witnesses/

24. News Feed, _Porto-credo.ru_ , December 28, 2017, Accessed March 8, 2017, http://www.portal-credo.ru/site/?act=news&id=129229 For English translation see http://www2.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/171228a.html

25. Press release: "UN rights experts urge Russia to drop Jehovah's Witness lawsuit which threatens religious freedom," _United Nations Human Rights – Office of the High Commissioner_ , Geneva, April 4, 2017, accessed March 26, 2018, http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=21479&LangID=E

26. Elizabeth Dias, "Russian Supreme Court Considers Outlawing Jehovah's Witness Worship," Time Magazine, April 4, 2017, accessed March 26, 2018, http://time.com/4723456/jehovahs-witness-russia-supreme-court/

27. The Supreme Court Hearing commenced April 5th and concluded with a decision to liquidate the Witness organization on April 20th. It represents less 'court time' than meets the eye, as many days were adjourned. The Memorial of Christ's Death fell upon one of those days (April 10th) and Russian Witnesses were grateful to celebrate it without incident. The Memorial, observed annually, is the only meeting of Jehovah's Witnesses that might conceivably be called ceremonial.

28. Elizabeth Dias, "Russian Supreme Court"

29. Amanda Erickson, "Russia Labels 'Jehovah's Witnesses' as Extremists and Tries to Ban Them from the Country," _Washington Post_ , April 14, 2017, accessed March 26, 2018, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/04/14/russia-labels-jehovahs-witnesses-as-extremists-and-tries-to-ban-them-from-the-country/?utm_term=.506e99076f23

30. Elizabeth Dias, "Russian Supreme Court"

31.

32. Matthew 5:23

33. Acts 26:25-29

34. He caught a lot of heat for it, too. The home team ever assumes it alone is the most virtuous: Sophie Tatum, "Trump Defends Putin: 'You Think Our Country's so Innocent?'" _CNN_ , February 6, 2017, accessed March 26, 2018, https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/04/politics/donald-trump-vladimir-putin/index.html

35. The Jewish historian Josephus relates that Cyrus of the Persians was shown a portion of Scripture highlighting what he was foretold to do and was apparently much influenced by it.

36.

37. Psalm 137:7

38. Philippians 1:15-18

39. Esther 6:1-3

40. One on the list whose heart decidedly did not melt was Russian Minister Sergey Lavrov, as evidenced at a later press conference. Press Service – The Minister's Meetings, "The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation," July 12, 2017, accessed March 8, 2018, http://www.mid.ru/en/vizity-ministra/-/asset_publisher/ICoYBGcCUgTR/content/id/2981131

41. Oobleck was bad stuff, a new type of weather sent to a bellyaching king who was sick of the existing seasons and wanted something new to fall from the sky. It was green and stuck to everything, paralyzing his entire kingdom. He came to regret his rashness. It is from the 1949 Dr. Seuss (Theodor Geisel) book, _Bartholomew and the Oobleck,_ a childhood favorite.

42. An accusation made by prominent U.S. Senator John McCain. It proved to have durability for reasons having more to do with American politics than with Putin himself.

43. Andrew Buncombe, "Trump Order Missile Strike on Syria After Chemical Weapon Attack on Civilians," _Independent_ , Friday April 7, accessed March 26, 2018, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-tomahawk-missiles-syria-reports-latest-donald-trump-homs-bashar-al-assad-russia-a7671411.html

44. "War With Germany: US Enters WW1 on this Day in 1917," _RT.com_ , accessed March 26, 2018, April 6, 2017, https://www.RT.com/usa/383775-usa-enters-ww1-wilson-debs/

45. On April 3rd, a terrorist attack on the St. Petersburg metro killed 15 and injured 45. There was the Syrian missile strike related in narrative. And on almost a daily basis during that time, Kim Jung Un and Donald Trump were exchanging taunts about nuclear weapons.

46. Jeremiah 26:7-16

47. Hebrews 11: 33-38

48. Luke 23:4-5

49. Elizabeth Dias, "Russian Supreme Court Considers Outlawing Jehovah's Witness Worship," _Time Magazine_ , April 4, 2017, accessed March 26, 2018, http://time.com/4723456/jehovahs-witness-russia-supreme-court/

50. Acts 18:12-16

51. A detailed description of that first trial, proceedings updated approximately every 5 minutes, can be found in the tweets Anton Chivchalov starting April 5, 2017,

52.

53. Acts 28:22

54. Luke 21:12-13

55.

56. Acts 4:13-20

57. Acts 26:26

58. Psalm 2:2

59. 1 Peter 2:19

60. Matthew 14:13

Return to Table of Contents

## Chapter 3 – Appeal

1. Transcript: Steve Inskeep - Host, "Russia Labels Jehovah's Witnesses An Extremist Group," _Morning Edition_ , April 21, 2017, accessed March 17, 2018, http://www.npr.org/2017/04/21/525010796/russia-labels-jehovahs-witnesses-an-extremist-group

2. "Serve Jehovah With a Complete Heart," _The Watchtower – study edition,_ March 2017, 21

3. "What Do the witnesses of Jehovah Have in St. Petersburg?" _MK in Peter_ , May 5, 2017, accessed March 8, 2018, http://spb.mk.ru/print/article/1655820/ For English translation, see https://www2.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/170505b.html

4. Lisa Mullins, Interview: "Russian Government Cracking Down On Jehovah's Witnesses," _NPR_ , April 28, 2017, accessed March 22, 2018, http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2017/04/28/russia-jehovahs-witnesses

5. Lauren Markoe and Fred Weir, "Persecution in Russia and Kazakhstan worsens for Jehovah's Witnesses," _The Christian Century_ , May 23, 2017, accessed March 22, 2018, https://www.christiancentury.org/article/persecution-russia-and-kazakhstan-worsens-jehovah%E2%80%99s-witnesses

6.

7. Proverbs 22:6

8. Joel Engardio, "Russia's Bans on Jehovah's Witnesses," _American Civil Liberties Union_ , December 10, 2009, https://www.aclu.org/blog/russias-bans-jehovahs-witnesses

9. Esther 6:1-3

10. Hana M. Ryman and J. Mark Alcorn: "Pledge of Allegiance," _The First Amendment Encyclopedia_ , accessed March 22, 2018, https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1137/pledge-of-allegiance

11. Esther 4:14

12. Ray Hamilton Abrams, _Preachers Present Arms_ (Round Table Press, Incorporated, 1933) 184

13. Victoria Odissonova, "God Just has not Finished - 4 Days Before the Ban of 'Jehovah's Witnesses' in Russia," _Novaya Gazeta_ , No. 75, July 14, 2017, accessed March 22, 2018, https://www.novayagazeta.ru/articles/2017/07/13/73105-bog-prosto-esche-ne-doigral

14.

15. Ibid., 143

16. Ibid., 143-144

17. Ibid., 138-139

18. Ibid., 158-159

19. Vladimir Dergachev, Anna Kovalenko, "Majority of Russians Support Ban of Jehovah's Witnesses," _RBC News Agency_ , July 13, 2017, accessed March 8, 2018, https://www.rbc.ru/politics/13/07/2017/596650c09a79477e58e67e98?from=newsfeed. For English translation, see http://www2.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/170713d.html

20.

21. Michael Lipka, "U.S. Religious Groups and Their Political Leanings," _Pew Research Center_ , February 23, 2016, accessed March 9, 2018, http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/02/23/u-s-religious-groups-and-their-political-leanings

22. Andreas Rinke and Denis Pinchuk, "Putin, Merkel, Struggle to Move Past Differences in Tense Meeting," _Reuters_ , May 2, 2017, accessed March 22, 2018, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-germany-putin-syria/putin-merkel-struggle-to-move-past-differences-in-tense-meeting-idUSKBN17Y1JC

23. Shaun Walker, Russia Investigates 'Gay Purge' in Chechnya, _theguardian.com_ , May 26, 2017, accessed March 22, 2018, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/26/russia-investigates-gay-purge-in-chechnya

24. Joshua Gill, "The French Conspiracy With The Russian Orthodox Church That Destroyed The Jehovah's Witnesses," _The Daily Caller_ , July 23, 2017, accessed March 22, 2018, http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/23/the-french-connection-how-the-russian-orthodox-church-and-the-putin-administration-colluded-with-a-french-ngo-to-destroy-the-jehovahs-witnesses/

25. "In Moscow, Will Launch a Mobile Application With a Map of Religious Objects Before the End of the Year," _TASS News Agency_ , November 27, 2017, accessed March 9, 2018, http://tass.ru/obschestvo/4762790

26. Jason Le Miere, "Russia's Jehovah's Witnesses Ban Backed by Flourishing Satanic Church in Moscow," _Newsweek_ , May 12, 2017, accessed March 22, 2018, http://www.newsweek.com/jehovahs-witnesses-russia-ban-satanic-church-608334

27. Leonid Bershidsky, "Jehovah's Witnesses Had Foes Before Putin," _Bloomberg.com_ , April 21, 2017, https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-04-21/jehovah-s-witnesses-had-foes-before-putin

28. Mathew 5:15

29. Isaiah 43:10

30. Psalm 83;18

31. Anton Chivchalov, a tweet, December 6, 2017, accessed March 9, 2018, https://twitter.com/Chivchalov/status/938343479016554496

32. https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/jw.org One must not read too much into this, for there are constant fluctuations. Nonetheless, each spike (see the insert at web page bottom) reaches a new plateau that holds.

33. Acts 8:1-4

Return to Table of Contents

## Chapter 4 - Aftermath

1. A detailed description of the appeal, proceedings updated approximately every 5 minutes, can be found in the tweets Anton Chivchalov starting July 17, 2017

2. Galatians 1:23

3. Ephesians 6:12

4. Roman Lunkin, "'Do Not Dig a Hole to Another' ... The Ban on Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia Became a Symbol of Senseless Discrimination Against Believers," _Slavic Center for Law and Justice,_ July 19, 2017, accessed March 22, 2018, http://www.sclj.ru/news/detail.php?SECTION_ID=478&ELEMENT_ID=7649

5.

6. Psalm 2:1-5

7. Jeremiah 36:23

8. Matthew 27:19

9. Anna Bogdanova, "The Police Raided the Tent Camp on the Ob Sea - They Suspect that They are Jehovah's Witnesses," _NGS News_ , July 19, 2017, accessed March 9, 2017, http://news.ngs.ru/more/50646921/For English translation, see http://www2.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/170719e.html

10. Bogdanova, "The Police," comment section of article, assessed March 9, 2018, http://news.ngs.ru/comments/50646921/. Jason Le Miere, "Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia: Danish Citizen Faces up to 10 Years in Prison After Bible Reading," _Newsweek_ , May 30, 2017, http://www.newsweek.com/jehovahs-witnesses-russia-ban-prison-617747

11. Denis Volin, "'I Eat a Piece of Bread and Wash from a Bottle' The Regional Court Left Christensen in Custody Until the End of November," _Orel News_ , September 29, 2017, accessed March 22, 2018, http://newsorel.ru/fn_293469.html

13. Press Release, The Embassy of the Russian Federation to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: "Embassy Press Officer on Lord Ahmad's comments regarding the judicial ban of Jehova's Witnesses in Russia," July 19, 2017, accessed March 22, 2018, https://www.rusemb.org.uk/fnapr/6172

14. Matthew 5:11-12, brackets that of NABRE

15. 2 Corinthians 12:10

16. 1 Corinthians 1:19

14. John 3:19,

18. Isaiah 60:17

19.

20. Anton Chivchalov, "The trial of the Bible is resumed in Vyborg," _Porta-Credo_ , July 26, 2017, accessed March 9, 2018, http://credo.press/site/?act=news&id=126993

21. Ibid.

22. Eduard Burmistrov, Extremism in the Bible: How Does the Prosecutor's Office Prohibit the Jehovah's Writ of Scripture," _openrussia.org_ , August 10, 2017, https://openrussia.org/notes/712533

23. Alexander Dvorkin, "The Decision of the Vyborg Court to Recognize the New World Translation as a Extremist Material is a Huge Mistake," _Pravoslavie.ru_ , August 22, 2017, accessed March 22, 2018, http://pravoslavie.ru/105915.html

24. Platon Prohorov, "Moving for AntiChrist," _RelioPolis_ , August 9, 2017, accessed March 9, 2018, http://religiopolis.org/publications/11821-kovrik-dlya-antikhrista-09082017.html, For English translation, see https://www2.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/170809a.html

25. Dvorkin, Alexander, "The Decision,"

26. Ibid.

27.

28. Dvorkin, "The Decision"

29. Ibid.

30. Acts 16:4-5

31. Dvorkin, "The Decision"

32. Job 2:4-5

33. Proverbs 27:11

34. "Prominent Russian Punk Rocker Defects To U.S. Over Jehovah's Witnesses Ban," _RadioFreeEuropeRadioLiberty_ , July 31, 2017, accessed March 9, 2017, https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-punk-chistyakov-defects-u-s-jehovah-witnesses/28650645.html

35. Fedor Chistyakov: "Russia is the Freest Country - You Can Adopt the Constitution and Throw it Away," _Petersburg Internet Newspaper_ , July 31, 2017, accessed March 9, 2018, http://www.fontanka.ru/2017/07/31/127/, For English translation, see https://www2.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/170731b.html

36. "Prominent Russian," _RadioFreeEuropeRadioLiberty_

37. Leader of the Group Zero Decided Not to Return to Russia Because of the Ban on Jehovah's Witnesses, _portal-credo.ru_ , July 31, 2017, accessed March 9, 2018, http://www.portal-credo.ru/site/?act=news&id=127042, For English translation, see https://www2.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/170731b.html

38. The most complete account of Prince's JW life, to my knowledge, is found in my own book, _Tom Irregardless and Me_ (Smashwords.com Search: Tom Harley), chapter 1.

39. Jan Shenkman, "Why Fedor Chistyakov left Russia," _Novaya Gazeta_ , July 31, 2017, accessed March 23, 2018, https://www.novayagazeta.ru/articles/2017/07/31/73296-pochemu-fedor-chistyakov-pokinul-rossiyu

40. Ephesians 6:12

41. Tara Isabella Burton, "Jehovah's Witnesses are Banned in Russia. That Doesn't Stop Them From Worshipping," _Vox_ , August 24, 2017, accessed March 23, 2018, https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/8/24/16095496/jehovahs-witnesses-banned-russia-still-worshipping

42. Dmitry Matveyev, "Without Witnesses. How Will the Jehovah's Witnesses Live After the Ban in Russia," _The Telegraf_ , April 28, 2017, accessed March 10, 2018, https://rustelegraph.ru/news/2017-04-28/Bez-svidetelei-kak-budut-zhit-iegovisty-posle-zapreta-v-Rossii-73659, for English translation, see http://www2.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/170428d.html

43. Mathew 26:10

44. Burton, "Jehovah's Witnesses"

45. Burton, "Jehovah's Witnesses are"

46. Romans 13:1-7

47. Burton, "Jehovah's Witnesses are"

48. Crestnaija, "JW: Jehovah's Witnesses Arrested for Taking a Walk," _Crest Global Media_ , September 9, 2017, accessed March 23, 2018, https://crest9ja.blogspot.com/2017/09/jw-jehovahs-witnesses-arrested-for.html

49. "Mass Searches and Criminal cases against Believers in Kemerovo and Belgorod - with Reference to the Decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation," _Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia,_ February 9, 2018, accessed March 23, 2018, https://jw-russia.org/news/18020917-286.html

50. Blog Post: Anton Chivchalov Blog, September 7, 2017, Accessed March 10, 2018, https://www.facebook.com/ScandicJHWH/posts/1090342934433433

51.

Return to Table of Contents

## Chapter 5 – Endurance

1. Joel Engardio, "Russia's Bans on Jehovah's Witnesses," _ACLU_ , December 10, 2009, accessed March 23, 2018, https://www.aclu.org/blog/russias-bans-jehovahs-witnesses

2. Haig Bosmajian, _The Freedom Not to Speak_ (New York, NYU Press, 1999) 112

3. Ibid., 114

4.

5. James Alfred Moss, _Patriotism of the Flag, Moss, The Flag of the United States, Its History and Symbolism_ (Washington: The United States Flag Association, 1941) 85-86

6. W. C. Ruediger, The George Washington University, 49 Schools and Society, February 25, 1939, p. 249, as located the post: Minersville School District v Gobitis, accessed March 23,2018, https://www.leagle.com/decision/1939791108f2d6831582

7. Lauren Markoe, "Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia Intensifies and Targets Children," _Salt Lake City Tribune, Religion News Service_ , accessed March 23, 2018, June 2, 2017, http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=5358906&itype=CMSID

8. Andrew Sorokowski, "Witnesses to Persecution," _Religious Information Service of Ukraine,_ May 5, 2017, accessed March 23, 2018, https://risu.org.ua/article_print.php?id=66964&name=asorokowski_column&_lang=en&

9. Ibid.

10. Joseph Curl, "A New Low: CNN Says Russian Meddling Extended To Pokemon Go," _Daily Wire_ , October 13, 2017, accessed March 23, 2018, https://www.dailywire.com/news/22235/new-low-cnn-says-russian-meddling-extended-pokemon-joseph-curl#

11. "Coverage of Double Agent's Alleged Poisoning is Hysterical Propaganda – Lavrov," _RT.com_ , March 9, 2018, accessed March 12, 2018, https://www.RT.com/news/420842-double-agent-poisoning-skripal/

12. Press Service – The Minister's Meetings, "The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation," July 12, 2017, accessed March 8, 2018, http://www.mid.ru/en/vizity-ministra/-/asset_publisher/ICoYBGcCUgTR/content/id/2981131

13. "Laicite And Religious Freedom: A Coalition of NGOs Questions France at the United Nations," Human Rights Without Frontiers, January 16, 2018, accessed March 12, 2018, http://hrwf.eu/laicite-and-religious-freedom-a-coalition-of-ngos-questions-france-at-the-united-nations/

14. Bakanov Konstantin, "Cult Icon of Russian Rock Fedor Chistyakov Settling in the US, Recorded the Album 'Unwanted Song'," _sobesednik.ru_ , March 6, 2018, accessed March 10, 2018, https://sobesednik.ru/kultura-i-tv/20180306-okolo-nolya

15. Mathew 24:14

16. Amos 7:12-15

17. John 15:20

18. Viktor Tolochko , "OSCE PA Supports Russia's Proposed Resolution Against Religious Discrimination," _Sputnik News_ , August 8, 2017, 15. accessed March 23, 2018, https://sputniknews.com/world/201707081055363864-osce-russia-resolution/

19. Lu Daji and Gong Xuezeng, Marxism and Religion (Leiden, Kininklijke Brill N V, Ethnic Publishing House, 2014) 284

20. Viktor Rezunkov and Tatyana Voltskaya, "15 Years Later, Questions Remain About Death Of The Man Who Made Putin," _RadioFreeEurope RadioLiberty_ , February 24, 2015, accessed March 23, 2018, https://www.rferl.org/a/questions-remain-about-death-of-man-who-made-putin/26867539.html

21.

22.

23. Olga Nikitova, "Malignant Expertise," _The Agency of Political News_ , September 20, 2017, accessed March 12, 2018, http://www.apn.ru/index.php?newsid=36670

24.

25. Luke 4:22 The verse states those in the synagogue were amazed at Jesus 'gracious' words. The 2013 NWT also says gracious. But the 1981 edition says 'winsome' and it is from this choice that someone devised the winsome/wincing witticism.

26. Jeremiah 1:6-10

27. Proverbs 21:1

28. Esther 4:12-14

29. Galatians 1:23

30. 1 Timothy 1:13

31.

32.

33. Denis Korotkov, "The Paradox of the Exile of Jehovah," _Fontanka.ru_ , December 8, 2017, accessed March 23, 2018, http://www.fontanka.ru/2017/12/08/047/

34. Korotkov, "The Paradox"

35. Alexander Dvorkin, The Decision of the Vyborg Court to Recognize the New World Translation as a Extremist Material is a Huge Mistake," _Pravoslavie.ru_ , August 22, 2017, accessed March 23, 2018, http://pravoslavie.ru/105915.html

36. Anton Chivchalov, "The trial of the Bible is resumed in Vyborg," Porta-Credo, July 26, 2017, accessed March 9, 2018, http://credo.press/site/?act=news&id=126993...

37.

38. A detailed description of the proceedings, updated approximately every 5 minutes, can be found in the tweets Anton Chivchalov, starting https://twitter.com/Chivchalov/status/943447491768410114

Return to Table of Contents

## Chapter 6 – Statecraft

1. "Russia's Biggest Enemy Is U.S. — Poll," _The Moscow Times_ , January 10, 2018, accessed March 24, 2018, https://themoscowtimes.com/news/russias-biggest-enemy-is-us-poll-60146

2. "Goodbye America — Russians Suggest Names for New Nukes in Online Vote," _The Moscow Times_ , March 2, 2018, accessed March 12, 2018, https://themoscowtimes.com/news/goodbye-america-russians-suggest-names-for-new-nukes-in-online-vote-60690

3. Jacob Leibenluft, "Why Don't Jehovah's Witnesses Vote? _Slate.com_ , June 26, 2008, accessed March 24, 2018, http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2008/06/why_dont_jehovahs_witnesses_vote.html

4. 2 Corinthians 5:20

5. Emily P. Baran, _Dissent on the Margins - How Jehovah's Witnesses Defied Communism and Lived to Preach About It_ (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014) 134

6. "Helping 'Foreign Residents' to "Serve Jehovah With Rejoicing" _The Watchtower – study edition_ , May 1, 2017, 7

7.

8. 1 Corinthians 1:10

9. 1 Corinthians 12:14-18

10. 1 Corinthians 12:25-26

11. Announcement of the American Embassy of the Russian Federation Washington DC: "Vladimir Putin Gave an Interview to American Journalist Charlie Rose," _Embassy of the Russian Federation Washington DC_ , September 28, 2015, accessed March 24, 2018, Shttp://www.russianembassy.org/article/vladimir-putin-gave-an-interview-to-american-journalist-charlie-rose

12. Isaiah 26:2

13. Tobin Harshaw, "Trump, Brexit and Echoes of World War I," _Bloomberg.com_ , November 11, 2017, accessed March 24, 2018, https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-11-11/trump-brexit-and-echoes-of-world-war-i

14.

15. "Lazare Ponticelli, the Last French Foot-Soldier of the First World War, Died on March 12th, Aged 110," _The Economist_ , March 19, 2008, Obituaries, accessed March 24, 2018, http://www.economist.com/node/10875719

16. Gustave M. Gilbert, _Nuremberg Diary_ (New York: New American Library, 1961) 278 See: https://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.asp

17. Matthew 26:52

18. "The German Churches and the Nazi State," _Holocaust Encyclopedia_ , United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005206

19. Revelation 18:24

20. The issue of Jehovah's Witnesses refusing blood transfusion has been downgraded in the West (though by no means eliminated as a concern) and for that reason, I do not go into it in this book. Facilities practicing 'bloodless medicine,' either stand-alone or as departments of existing medical facilities, have become common-place. Long gone are the days when my wife, as a young girl, was administered a blood transfusion for a nosebleed – one might view it as 'topping off the tank.' Studies detailing inherent transfusion risks have become well-known. New Scientist Magazine summarized several such studies in its April 26, 2008 article entitled "An Act of Faith in the Operating Room," in which the act of faith referred to was not withholding a transfusion but administering one. See also the Watchtower-produced video: [redacted]

21. Ali's exact words: "My conscience won't let me go shoot... some poor, hungry people in the mud, for big, powerful America, and shoot them. For what? They never called me nigger, they never lynched me, they didn't put no dogs on me," recorded on a 1980 documentary by the black public affairs television program 'Like It Is.' Stefan Fatsis, "No Viet Cong Ever Called Me Nigger, slate.com, June 8, 2006, accessed March 27, 2018, http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2016/06/did_muhammad_ali_ever_say_no_viet_cong_ever_called_me_nigger.html

22. Muhammad Ali's chief attorney in 1967 was Hayden Covington, who argued many successful Supreme Court cases on behalf of Jehovah's Witnesses two decades earlier. See: Robert Lipsyte, "Politics Wins in the Ring," _New York Times_ , April 28, 1967, accessed March 25, 2018, http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/sports/year_in_sports/04.28.html

23. Victor V. Blackwell, _O'er the Ramparts They Watched_ (New York: Carlton Press, 1976) 213

24. Ibid., 236-237

25. Ibid., 239

26. Ibid., 246

27. Earnest W Barnes, _The Rise of Christianity_ (London: Longmans Green and Co, 1947) 333

28. C. J. Cadoux, _The Early Church and the World_ (T & T Clark, LTD, 1955) 275-276

29. N. Platt and M. J. Drummond _Our World Through the Ages_ (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall, 1961) 125

30. Edward Gibbon, _The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire_ (London, 1776) Vol. I, p. 416

31.

32. "There is No Sect, There are No Problems," _portal-credo.ru_ , December 28, 2017, accessed March 28, 2017, http://www.portal-credo.ru/site/?act=news&id=129229. For English Translation, see http://www2.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/171228a.html

33. Andrew Katz, "Congress Is Now Mostly A Millionaires' Club," _New York Times_ , January 9, 2014, accessed March 25, 2018, http://time.com/373/congress-is-now-mostly-a-millionaires-club/

34. Luke 4:5-6

35. "Uzbekistan: Patriarch Kirill Equates Insulting Believers' Feelings to Extremism," _Ruptly TV_ , September 29, 2017, accessed March 25, 2018, https://www.newstube.ru/media/uzbekistan-patriarch-kirill-equates-insulting-believers-feelings-to-extremism

36. Acts 17:6

37. "Giving Up on Moral & Ethical Values 'More Dangerous Than Nuclear Bomb' – Putin," _RT.com_ , October 21, 2017, accessed March 25, 2018, https://www.RT.com/news/407414-moral-ethical-values-putin-sochi/

38. The colorful slogan is preserved only on Wikipedia and a humor page or two, which might not remain. One can sometimes find memorabilia online, such as a coffee mug bearing the same words I recently saw advertised on eBay for $12. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Ventura

39. Acts 24:5.

40.

41. Daniel 2:44

42. "Russian Condemnation of Stalin's Repressions Plunges," RadioFreeEuropeRadioLibery, November 30, 2017, accessed March 28, 2018, https://www.rferl.org/a/russian-condemnation-of-stalins-repressions-plunges/28724392.html

43. Forum 18 cites examples of Jehovah's Witnesses fired from their jobs or forced to resign, solely on the basis of religion. Victoria Arnold, "Russia: Jehovah's Witnesses Now Banned," _Forum 18 News Service_ , July 18, 2017, accessed March 12, 2018, http://www.forum18.org/archive.php?article_id=2297

44. Hebrews 11:36-38

45. Hebrews 10:34

46. 1 Corinthians 2:14-15

47. Eva Hartzog and Led Gudkov, _The Week_ , October 27, 2017

48. Daniel P. Payne, "Spiritual Security, the Russian Orthodox Church, and the Russian Foreign Ministry: Collaboration or Cooptation?" _Рубрика: Статьи современников_ , February 10, 2012, accessed March 25, 2018, http://rpczmoskva.org.ru/stati/daniel-p-paynespiritual-security-the-russian-orthodox-church-and-the-russian-foreign-ministry-collaboration-or-cooptation.html

49. Ecclesiastes 8:9

50. It appears that Paul was released for a time, and was hoping to preach in Spain, and he was later rearrested and condemned to death. Since Acts makes no mention of this, I have taken it all as a needless complication and have edited it away as, in the spirit of the times, as though it were fake news

51. Acts 22:24-29 begins a narrative that continues through Acts 26 and is the source of the remaining portion of this chapter.

52. 2 Timothy 2:15

53. This is another reason The 100 from 'Introduction' rates Muhammad as a more significant figure than Jesus. The former founded a complete religion. The latter did only in tandem with Paul.

54. Acts 20:29-30

55. Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43

Return to Table of Contents

## Chapter 7 – Education

1. 1 Corinthians 3:19-20

2. August Neander, _The History of the Christian Religion and Church: During the First Three Centuries_ (London: Rivington. Collection Robarts; Toronto. Digitizing sponsor MSN. Contributor Robarts - University of Toronto, 1843) 41

3. Matthew 11:25.

4. 1 Corinthians 1:26

5. Edward D. Andrews, _Your Guide for Defending the Bible: Self-Education of the Bible Make Easy_ (Christian Publishing House 2016) 242-243

6. Acts 4:13

7. 2 Timothy 2:15

8. 2 Corinthians 11:23

9. 1 Timothy 3:16

10. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_ancient_Greece

11. Robin Osborne, _Greek History_ (Routledge, 2004), 12 online and 21.

12. Alix Spiegel, "Is Believing in God Evolutionarily Advantageous?" _All Things Considered_ , August 30, 2010, accessed March 25, 2018, https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129528196

13. Jessica Bond, "We Struggle With Monogamy – Is It Time to Abandon it Altogether?" _New Scientist_ , November 29, 2017, accessed March 25, 2018, https://www.newscientist.com/article-topic/monogamy/

14. Mairi Macleod, "Monogamy Evolved to Keep Baby-killers Away," _New Scientist_ , July 30, 2013, accessed March 25, 2018, https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23959-monogamy-evolved-to-keep-baby-killers-away/

15. Joanna Marchant, "Sex, Lies and Monogamy," _New Scientist_ , April 28, 2001, accessed March 25, 2018, https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg17022880-300-sex-lies-and-monogamy/

16. Nathan H. Lents, "Beastly Behavior - The Relationship Between Waist-Hip Ratio and Fertility, _Psychology Today_ , June 19, 2007, accessed March 25, 2018, https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beastly-behavior/201706/the-relationship-between-waist-hip-ratio-and-fertility

17. 1 Timothy 4:7. NABRE here reads "silly myths" but most translations connect it with "old women," often reading "old wives' tales." NWT says; [redacted]. Expect "silly myths" to catch on more and more, as translators imitate NABRE and endeavor to avoid being gender specific.

18. Laurie Goodstein, "A Noah's Ark in Kentucky, Dinosaurs Included," _New York Times_ , June 26, 2016, accessed March 26, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/26/us/noahs-ark-creationism-ken-ham.html

19.

20.

21.

22. See: Ephesians 4:14, 1 Timothy 6:20, Jude 1:12, Jeremiah 2:13, and Matthew 15:14

23. Acts 17:26-27

24. "Abraham Lincoln and the Bible," Lehman Institute Presents: Abraham Lincoln's Classroom, http://www.abrahamlincolnsclassroom.org/abraham-lincoln-in-depth/abraham-lincoln-and-the-bible/

25. Ibid.

26. Ibid

27. Matthew 13:30, Daniel 12:4

28. Daniel 12:9

29. 1 Corinthians 15:45

30.

31. "Russian Orthodox Against Jehovah's Witnesses," _AsiaNews_ , May 4, 2017, accessed March 13, 2018, http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Russian-Orthodox-against-Jehovahs-Witnesses-40640.html

32. Morris Kline, _Mathematics and the Search for Knowledge_ (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985) 213

33.

34. Matthew 11:19, Psalm 38:13

35.

36. Matthew 7:3-5

37. from the 1989 movie: Driving Miss Daisy

38. 'Data Team': "Over-friendly, or Sexual Harassment? It Depends Partly on Whom You Ask, _The Economist_ , November 17, 2017, March 26, 2018, https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/11/daily-chart-14?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ed/

39. Robert Wright, "Infidelity—It may be in our genes. Our Cheating Hearts," _Time Magazine_ , August 15, 1994, accessed March 26, 2018, https://canadiancrc.com/Newspaper_Articles/Time_Magazine_infidelity_in_genes_15AUG94.aspx

40. 1 Timothy 6:19

41. Luke Vander Ploeg, "Lack Of Education Leads To Lost Dreams And Low Income For Many Jehovah's Witnesses," _All Things Considered_ , February 19, 2017, accessed March 26, 2018, https://www.npr.org/2017/02/19/510585965/poor-education-leads-to-lost-dreams-and-low-income-for-many-jehovahs-witnesses

42. Dylan Love, "Instant MBA: America Needs Plumbers More Than It Needs You, _businessinsider_ , May 17, 2011, accessed March 26, 2018, http://www.businessinsider.com/instant-mba-america-needs-plumbers-more-than-it-needs-you-2011-5

43. Caryle Murphy, "The Most and Least Educated U.S. Religious Groups," _Pew Research_ , November 4, 2016, accessed March 26, 2018, http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/04/the-most-and-least-educated-u-s-religious-groups/

44. a reference to Psalm 84:10

45. Eliza Barclay, "For Best Toilet Health: Squat Or Sit?" _NPR – Health_ , September 28, 2012, accessed March 26, 2018, https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2012/09/20/161501413/for-best-toilet-health-squat-or-sit

46. For example, see Matthew 15:1-20 in which Jesus answers a question from opposers only in his own time and to his own disciples – after those opposers have taken offense, stormed off, and are no longer around to hear the answer they demanded.

47. John 6:54-66

48.

49.

Return to Table of Contents

## Chapter 8 – Brainwashing

1. "Russian Orthodox Church Supports Ban on Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia," _Religious Information Service of Ukraine_ , May 6, 2017, accessed March 27, 2018, https://risu.org.ua/en/index/all_news/state/church_state_relations/66866/

2. 2 Timothy 3:16

3. Matthew 10:34

4. Luke 21: 14-19

5. Pavel Yuryev, "From Heaven to Earth," _General Newspaper_ , October 23, 2017, Accessed March 13, 2018, https://og.ru/society/2017/10/23/92255

6. "Jehovah's Witnesses are Outraged by the Content of the Anti-Sectarian Article Published in the General Gazette" _SOVA Center,_ November 11, 2017, accessed March 13, 2018, http://www.sova-center.ru/religion/news/community-media/media-conflicts/2017/11/d38182, For English translation, see https://www2.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/171101a.html

7. Tim Rymel, "When Is A Religion 'Extremist'?" _Huffington Post_ , May 11, 2017, accessed March 27, 2018, https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/when-is-a-religion-extremist_us_590de8e3e4b046ea176aeb98

8. Neil Syson, "Teen Hormones Being Altered by Gender-bending Chemicals," _The Sun_ , February 5, 2018, accessed March 27, 2018, https://nypost.com/2018/02/05/teen-hormones-being-altered-by-gender-bending-chemicals/

9. Jason Le Miere, "Russia's Jehovah's Witnesses Ban Backed by Flourishing Satanic Church in Moscow," _Newsweek_ , May 12, 2017, accessed March 27, 2018, http://www.newsweek.com/jehovahs-witnesses-russia-ban-satanic-church-608334

10. Genesis 3:5

11. Matthew 24:14

12. John 16:2

13. "Expert: The Ban of 'Jehovah's Witnesses' in Russia Will Reduce the Number of Their Adherents," _RIA News Russia Today_ , May 17, 2017, accessed March 27, 2018, https://ria.ru/religion/20170517/1494511149.html

14. Acts 8:1-4

15. Acts 21:13

16.

17. Matthew 13:45

18. 1 Thessalonians 4:13

19. 2 Corinthians 1:3-7

20. "Lenin Returns to Russia From Exile," This Day in History, _History.com_ , accessed March 28, 2018, https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/lenin-returns-to-russia-from-exile

21. Scott Shane, "Russia Isn't the Only One Meddling in Elections. We Do It, Too," _New York Times_ , February 17, 2018, accessed March 27, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/17/sunday-review/russia-isnt-the-only-one-meddling-in-elections-we-do-it-too.html

22. http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/ch2.html

23. Fred Weir, "Jehovah's Witnesses as 'Extremists': Court Sharpens Edges of Russia's Religious Space," _Christian Science Monitor_ , May 1, 2017, accessed March 27, 2018, https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2017/0501/Jehovah-s-Witnesses-as-extremists-Court-sharpens-edges-of-Russia-s-religious-space

24. Ibid.

25. Emily B. Baran, "Jehovah's Witnesses Ban Spells End for Russia's Religious Diversity," _The Moscow Times_ , April 24, 2017, accessed March 27, 2018, https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/jehovahs-witnesses-ban-spells-end-of-russias-religious-diversity-op-ed-57793

26. Lauren Markoe, "Since Ban, Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses is 'Worse Than Ever," _Religion News Service_ , May 18, 2017, https://religionnews.com/2017/05/18/since-ban-persecution-of-jehovahs-witnesses-is-worse-than-ever/

27. Hebrews 4:12

28. Luke 11:33

29. "Supreme Court Recommends Depriving Parents Who Involve Children in Sects of Their Rights," _Human Rights Without Frontiers_ , November 14, 2017, accessed March 13, 2018, http://hrwf.eu/russia-supreme-court-threatens-parental-rights-of-for-example-jehovahs-witnesses/

30.

31. "The Survey Showed the Attitude of Russians Towards the Idea of Depriving Parental Rights of Sectarians," _RIA Novosti,_ December 4, 2017, accessed March 13, 2018, https://news.rambler.ru/sociology/38580039-rossiyane-podderzhali-ideyu-lishat-roditelskih-prav-sektantov/?updated, for English translation, see http://www2.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/171204d.html

32. "Boy Scout Movement Begins," This Day in History, _History_ , accessed March 27, 2018, https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/boy-scouts-movement-begins

33. Abe Fortas, Under Secretary of the Interior, "Enduring Peace and Social Progress," _Journal of the Biology and the Pathology of Interpersonal Relations_ , Vol 9, Number 1, February 1946

34. Libby Hill, "Kathy Griffin Shocks in Gory Photo Shoot with Donald Trump's (Fake) Head," _The Los Angeles Times_ , May 18, 2017, accessed March 27, 2018, http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-entertainment-news-updates-may-kathy-griffin-shocks-in-gory-photo-1496183372-htmlstory.html

35. Jeremiah 45: 1-5

36. Jeremiah 51:20-23

37. Ezekiel 35: 11-13

38. 2 Timothy 4:10

39. Matthew 5:11

Return to Table of Contents

## Chapter 9 – Discipline

1.

2. Deuteronomy 6:6-7

3. "The Survey Showed the Attitude of Russians Towards the Idea of Depriving Parental Rights of Sectarians," _RIA Novosti_ , December 4, 2017, accessed March 28, 2018, https://news.rambler.ru/sociology/38580039-rossiyane-podderzhali-ideyu-lishat-roditelskih-prav-sektantov/?updated. For English translation, see http://www2.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/171204d.html

4. Daniel 3:17-18

5. Exodus 20:1-17

6. Matthew 5:28

7. Kenney, C. "Bad News for Kids of Divorce" _Boston Globe_ , April 6, 1993, 64 as accessed March 28, 2018 at CYS Infopedia, Culture and Youth Studies, http://cultureandyouth.org/divorce/articles-divorce/bad-news-for-kids-of-divorce/

8. Jeremiah 5:8

9. Ezekiel 33:26

10. "The Supreme Court Spent Nine Hours in Search of Extremism Among Jehovah's Witnesses," _Caucasion Knot_ , April 13, 2017, accessed March 14, 2018, https://www.kavkaz-uzel.eu/articles/300950, for English translation, see https://www2.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/170413c.html

11. Proverbs 23:13

12. Jeff Hodson, "Did Hana's Parents 'Train' Her to Death?" _The Seattle Times_ , November 27, 2011, accessed March 27, 2018, https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/did-hanas-parents-train-her-to-death/

13. "A Violent Education - Corporal Punishment of Children in U.S. Public Schools," _Human Rights Watch and American Civil Liberties Union_ , February 2009, accessed March 27, 2018, https://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/humanrights/aviolenteducation_execsumm.pdf

14.

15. Acts 15:14

16. 2 Timothy 2:17

17. 1 Corinthians 5:12-13

18. 1 Peter 4:3

19. Romans 2:21-24

20. 2 Peter 2:1-2

21. Ronald J. Sider, _The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience_ (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2005)

22. Sider, _The Scandal_ , 53

23. Ibid., 108

24. Ibid., 111

25. Ibid., 112-113

26. Ibid., 116

27. Ibid., 111

28. Corinthians 5:9-13

29. Sider, _The Scandal_ , 114-11

30. Titus 1:11, 2 Timothy 2:17-18, 1 Timothy 1:20, Titus 1:13

31. Transcript: Joel Engardio, "Learning True Tolerance," _NPR – Weekend Edition Sunday_ , November 25, 2007, accessed March 27, 2018, https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16505529

32. 2 John 2:10-11, James 3:5-8, 2 Corinthians 10:5

33. Mark 10:28-30

33. Matthew 10:34-36.

34.

35. It is a description of Hester Prynne in 'The Scarlet Letter.'

36. Matthew 8:30-32

Return to Table of Contents

## Chapter 10 – Governing Body

1. Michael Hart, _The 100- A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons of History_ (New York: Citadel Press, 1992) 213-216

2. Genesis 12:2, Isaiah 26:2, Mathew 21:43

3. Acts 15: 6-21, Acts 16:4-5

4. Isaiah 55:9

5. Matthew 24:45-47:

6. The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon - Diakonos, Strong's Number: 1249, accessed March 28, 2018, http://biblehub.com/greek/1249.htm

7. Hart, _The 100_ , 215

8. Isaiah 48:18

9. Ezekiel 18:25

10. 1 Corinthians 1:23-29

11. 3 John 9-10

12. Revelation 5:10

13. Acts 15:26

14. Mark 12:17

15. Romans 13:4

16. 1 Timothy 2:1-2

17. 1 Timothy 2:3-4

18. Mark A. Smith, _Secular Faith: How Culture Has Trumped Religion in American Politics_ (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2015) see jacket dust cover

19. Ibid.

20.

21. Ibid., 26

22. Proverbs 4:18

23.

24. John 21:21

25. 1 Peter 4:7

26. 2 Samuel 7:2-13

27. Acts 1:7

28. Luke 19:11-21

29. Matthew 24:49-51

30. Romans 8:26

31. Ecclesiastes 11:5

32. Job 26:14

33. Isaiah 54:13

34. Titus 1:10, 1 Timothy 1:3-8, Titus 3:10

35. Acts 6:2

36.

37. Acts 23:4

38. Matthew 24:9

39. 1 Corinthians 14:20, Philippians 3:8, 1 Corinthians 2:15

38. Psalm 34:9

40. Matthew 13:52

41. Matthew 7:14, Hebrews 3:17, James 3:17, Genesis 19:14, Numbers 14:4

43. Luke 12:48

44. James 3:17

45. Revelation 14:4

46. 1 John 2:19

47. 1 Timothy 6:20, Ephesians 4:14, Haggai 2:12

48. Luke 12:4

Return to Table of Contents

## Chapter 11 – Apostasy

1. Anton Chivchalov, blog entry, see April 21, 2017 post, accessed Feb 23, 2018, https://www.facebook.com/achivchalov

2. 2 Thessalonians 2:7, 1 Corinthians 16:9, John 15:20

3. Jude 1:8

4. 1 John 4:20, Matthew 18:23-35

5. Jude 1:8

6. 2 Peter 2:1-22

7. Hebrews 12:6

8. Matthew 5:41

9. 2 Timothy 3:12

10. Revelation 17: 1-18

11. Matthew 13:24-29

12. Hebrews 6:4-6

13. 1 John 2:19, Matthew 15:14, Matthew 18:17

14. Matthew 22:16-17

15. Matthew 22:18-22

16. 2 Timothy 4:10, 1 John 2:19

17. Obadiah 1:1-14

18. Proverbs 24:6, Psalm 119:165

19. Exodus 8:15

20. 2 Corinthians 10:4-5, 2 Timothy 2: 24

21. Romans 16:17-19.

22. Alice G. Walton, "6 Ways Social Media Affects Our Mental Health, _Forbes_ , June 30, 2017, accessed March 27, 2018, https://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2017/06/30/a-run-down-of-social-medias-effects-on-our-mental-health/#69014c582e5a

23. 1 Samuel 17:34-35

24. Numbers 12:3

25. Numbers 16:3, 13-14

26. Matthew 23:30-32

27. Mark 13:37 1 Peter 1:12

28. Matthew 22:15-22

29. 2 Chronicles 33:9

Return to Table of Contents

## Chapter 13 – Money

1. via private email

2. David Masci, "How Income Varies Among U.S. Religious Groups," _Pew Research Center_ , October 11, 2016, accessed March 27, 2018, http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/11/how-income-varies-among-u-s-religious-groups/

3. Caryle Murphy, "The Most and Least Educated U.S. Religious Groups," _Pew Research_ , November 4, 2016, accessed March 27, 2018, http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/04/the-most-and-least-educated-u-s-religious-groups/

4. Acts 4:13

5. John 16:12

6.

7. Deuteronomy 16: 16-17

8.

9. Bill Underwood, "Helping Haiti - Give Generously But Wisely," _Bible Friendly Books_ , August 17, 2016, http://www.biblefriendlybooks.com/2016/08/helping-haiti-give-generously-but-wisely.html

10. John 12:6

11. Wanda Gray, "Good Samaritans Provide Relief," this article, probably from the Southwest Times Record, includes the short quote used. The quote is reproduced for the _God's Kingdom Rules_ book, page 213, and is from the year 2013. A phone call to the Fort Smith, Arkansas public library reveals that records are not yet digitalized, making an Internet search unfeasible. The article clipping itself is in my personal possession.

12. Ofer Tirosh, "What is the World's Most Translated Website?" _tomedes.com_ , July 7, 2015, accessed March 27, 2018, https://www.tomedes.com/translator-hub/most-translated-website.php

13. 2 Corinthians 8:8

14. 2 Corinthians 8:14

15. 1 Corinthians 6:2

16. Matthew 19:22, Luke 12:18, 1 Timothy 6:10

17.

18. Luke 16:1-9

19. 2 Corinthians 9:7, Matthew 6:2-4

20.

21. Katerina Chernova, "Jehovah's Witnesses: Are They Banned or Not?" _Suchan_ , April 2017, as captured at accessed March 27, 2018, https://www2.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/170426a.html

22. Acts 13:45.

Return to Table of Contents

## Chapter 14 – Earth

1. Revelation 11:18

2. Simon Shuster, "Stanislav Petrov, the Russian Officer Who Averted a Nuclear War, Feared History Repeating Itself, _Time_ , September 19, 2017, accessed March 28, 2018, http://time.com/4947879/stanislav-petrov-russia-nuclear-war-obituary/

3. Ecclesiastes 10:7

4. Nicola Davis, "Soviet Submarine Officer Who Averted Nuclear War Honoured with Prize," October 27, 2017, accessed March 28, 2018, https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/oct/27/vasili-arkhipov-soviet-submarine-captain-who-averted-nuclear-war-awarded-future-of-life-prize

5. "Texts of Accounts by Lucas and Considine on Interviews With MacArthur in 1954," _New York Times_ , April 9, 1964, accessed March 28, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/1964/04/09/texts-of-accounts-by-lucas-and-considine-on-interviews-with-macarthur-in-1954.html

6. Genesis 6:11

7. Seth Schiesel, "The Real Problem With Video Games," _The New York Times_ , March 13, 2018, accessed March 28, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/13/opinion/video-games-toxic-violence.html

8. David Meyer, "Vladimir Putin Says Whoever Leads in Artificial Intelligence Will Rule the World" _Fortune_ , September 4, 2017, accessed March 28, 2018, http://fortune.com/2017/09/04/ai-artificial-intelligence-putin-rule-world

9. "Dennis Kristensen, Who Languished in Jail, and His Co-Religionists Received Gratitude From Local Authorities," _Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia_ , June 14, 2017, accessed March 24, 2018, https://jw-russia.org/news/17061415-180.html

10.

11.

12. Frances Marion Platt, "Gardiner Town Hall Spruced Up by Watchtower Volunteers," _hudsonvalleyone.com_ , August 19, 2017, accessed March 28, 2018, https://hudsonvalleyone.com/2017/08/19/gardiner-town-hall-spruced-up-by-watchtower-volunteers

13.

14. Mary McAleer Vizard, "In the Region: Putnam County; Watchtower Project Grows in Patterson," _New York Times_ , April 18, 1993, accessed March 28, 2018, http://www.nytimes.com/1993/04/18/realestate/in-the-region-putnam-county-watchtower-project-grows-in-patterson.html

15. "The Congress Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses in St. Petersburg. Overview," _Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia_ , July 15, 2015, accessed March 28, 2018, https://jw-russia.org/news/15071514-77.html

16. Svetlana Mihaylova, "Do You Want to Attract Finnish Business, Improve Investment Climate," _fontanka.ru_ , November 1, 2016, accessed March 28, 2018, https://www.fontanka.ru/2017/12/16/038/

17. Ezekiel 38:11-12

Return to Table of Contents

## Chapter 15 – Fake News

1. Fact Check: "Did Trump Warn Russia Over Jehovah's Witnesses Ban and Urge Members to Seek Asylum in the U.S.?" _snopes.com_ , May 2, 2017, accessed March 28, 2018, https://www.snopes.com/jehovahs-witness-russia-trump-asylum/

2. _The Octavius of Minucius Felix_ , Roberts-Donaldson English [from Greek] Translation, c160-250 A.D, chapters VIII, IX, compiled by Peter Kirby, http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/octavius.html. The debate between an early Christian (Octavius) and a Roman skeptic (Caecilius) is among the oldest, possibly the oldest, of extant Christian Latin literature.

3. _The Octavius_ , XII

4. Kevin Roose, "Here Come the Fake Videos, Too," _New York Times_ , March 4, 2018

5. Isaiah 5:20-25

6. 1 Corinthians 7:31

7. 1 Corinthians 4:9

8. Word History: "The Origin of 'Hypocrite'- This Common Word Has a Dramatic Origin Story," _Merriam-Webster_ , accessed March 28, 2018, https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/hypocrite-meaning-origin

9. Luke 23:2

10. Isaiah 51:12

11. Harrison Koehli, "Sott Exclusive: Full Unedited Text of Vladimir Putin's Interview with Charlie Rose: What CBS Left Out," sott.net, September 29, 2015, accessed March 28, 2018, https://www.sott.net/article/302911-Sott-Exclusive-Full-unedited-text-of-Vladimir-Putins-interview-with-Charlie-Rose-What-CBS-left-out. It doesn't hurt to see what was left out. It reinforces perception that the media of any country pursue primarily the memes popular in that country.

12. Padraig Collins, "Stephen Fry Investigated by Irish police for Alleged Blasphemy," _The Guardian_ , May 6, 2017, accessed March 28, 2018, https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2017/may/07/stephen-fry-investigated-by-irish-police-for-alleged-blasphemy

13. _The Octavius_ , V

14. _The Octavius_ , XIII

15. 1 Corinthians 3:19

16. 2 Samuel 12:1-7

17. 1 Corinthians 15:26.

18. Proverbs 1:20

19. Revelation 13:14-15

20. Revelation 17:8

21. _Jehovah's Witnesses – Proclaimers of God's Kingdom_ (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, 1992) 262

22. Ibid., 192

23. 1 Thessalonians 4:13

24. 1 Corinthians 15:26, Revelation 5:10

25. Genesis chapters 5 and 11, Psalm 90:10

26. Acts 8:30-31

27. Acts 17:27

28. Romans 6:4-6, Colossians 3:9

29. "Our Concept and Definition of Critical Thinking," _The Foundation for Critical Thinking_ , accessed March 28, 2018, http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/our-concept-and-definition-of-critical-thinking/411

30. Associated Press, "China Confirms the Execution of British Citizen Akmal Shaikh, Despite UK Plea," _New York Daily News_ , December 29, 2009, accessed March 28, 2018, http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/china-confirms-execution-british-citizen-akmal-shaikh-uk-plea-article-1.432326

31. Psalm 34:8

32. Matthew 13:13-15

33. Acts 17:2, 11

34. John P. A. Ioannidis, "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False," _PLoS_ , August 30, 2005, accessed March 28, 2018, http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

35. Richard Horton, "Offline: What is Medicine's 5 Sigma?" _thelancet.com_ , Vol 385, April 11, 2015, accessed March 28, 2018, http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736%2815%2960696-1.pdf

36. Marcia Angell, "Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption," _The New York Review of Books_ , January 15, 2009, accessed March 28, 2018, http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2009/01/15/drug-companies-doctorsa-story-of-corruption/

37. James 3:17

38. Job 26:14

Return to Table of Contents

## Chapter 16 – Life

1. Alexandra Alter, "Is This Man Cheating on His Wife?" _Wall Street Journal_ , August 10, 2007, accessed March 28, 2018, https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB118670164592393622

2. 1 Timothy 6:17-19

3. The note is on display at the George Eastman House in Rochester N.Y. The account of separating the house by rollers to insert a midsection is related by any tour guide.

4. Isaiah 65:21-23

5. Revelation 2:10

6. Christina Sommers, Twitter feed, February 14, 2018, accessed March 28, 2018, https://twitter.com/chsommers/status/963975848540954625?lang=en

7. This is not the exact quote, which I have misplaced, but it is just as apropo. He writes the complaint frequently. See, for example, https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10213630677134011&id=1016253912. Contact him via Twitter and ask. Take note of his banner, which inspired a certain plebian (me) to say "it really puts the 'ass' into astronaut. He told me they were not astronauts, but female fighter ACES. Yeah...whatever.

8. Zechariah 12:3

9. 1 Samuel 5:6

10.

11. The interview survives only as a YouTube submission, uploaded April 26, 2012, by JW Brothers, accessed March 21, 2018, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldybL1foBE0. I would prefer the source be more precise, but it dovetails well with contemporary print RT.com articles, such as "Will Jehovah's Witnesses be Banned in Russia?" _RT.com_ , August 11, 2010, accessed March 19, 2018, https://www.rt.com/news/will-jehovah-s-witnesses-be-banned-in-russia/

12. Esther 7:1-6

13. Steven Lee Myers, _The New Tsar: The Rise and Reign of Vladimir Putin_ (New York: Knoph, 2014) 24

14. "LAÏCITÉ and Religious Freedom: A Coalition of NGOs Questions France at the United Nations," Human Rights Without Frontiers, January 16, 2018, accessed March 28, 2018, http://hrwf.eu/laicite-and-religious-freedom-a-coalition-of-ngos-questions-france-at-the-united-nations

15. See tweet of March 7, 2018, by Stephen Hassan, accessed March 21, 2018, https://twitter.com/CultExpert/status/971553486080040960

16. Matthew 10:5-42

17. Platon Prohorov, "When God is Ridnessed," _Religiopolis_ , May 10, 2017, accessed March 27, 2018, http://www.religiopolis.org/news/11474-togda-bog-otvorachivaetsya.html. For English translation, see https://www2.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/170510e.html

18. A parody of such is portrayed in an ebook by this author: _Tom Irregardless and Me_ (smashwords.com Search: Tom Harley, 2016) Chapter 12

19. Matthew 11:16-19

20.

21. Daniel 4:33 This chapter of Daniel figures prominently in Bible chronology and Witness detractors sometimes seek to undermine it on that account. There is debate among secular sources as to the date of fulfillment of this verse.

22.

23. Matthew 28:13

24. 2 Timothy 2:18

25. _The Octavius of Minucius Felix_ , Roberts-Donaldson English [from Greek] Translation, c160-250 A.D, chapters VIII, XI, XII, compiled by Peter Kirby, accessed March 28, 2018, http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/octavius.html.

26. Zechariah 8:23

27. Revelation 22:20-21

Return to Table of Contents

## Other Works by the Author

**Tom Irregardless and Me**

No Fake News but Plenty of Hogwash

TrueTom vs the Apostates!

Metadata of TrueTom vs the Apostates!

Fire leveled Rome in 64 CE. Suspicion fell upon Nero. He shifted blame to the new religion of Christianity, it's members "hated for their enormities," says Tacitus. They were hunted and killed in heinous ways, History is not now repeating itself—but under the guise of a modern "anti-cult" movement that extends the age-old derogatory C-word to new targets, it is beginning to rhyme a little.

Christians were rounded up and killed in ways most cruel, says the historian, "convicted, not so much on the charge of burning the city, as of hating the human race." How can that be? Jesus' followers—"hating the human race?"

Professor G. A. Wells, author of The Jesus Myth, writes that "the context of Tacitus' remarks itself suggests that he relied on Christian informants." No Christian is going to say: "We hate the human race," but they will say exactly the opposite. It was their "informants"—their apostates, that spread the ill report!

No New Testament writer fails to deal with then-rampant apostasy—a movement which finds its counterpart today. Two Bible chapters are entirely dedicated to it. Apostates of that time would "despise authority." How could that become a problem unless there was authority? They loved "lawlessness." How could that become a problem unless there was law? They favored acts of "brazen conduct," had "eyes full of adultery," and were "unable to desist from sin." How could that become a problem unless there was someone to tell them that they could not carry on in that way? Not only is the nature of apostates revealed in the above Bible verses, but also the nature of the Christian organization.

A faith that is "anything goes" will produce few apostates. What would they apostatize from? And a faith too bland to produce 'quality' apostates, like those of the first century, is too bland to be given the time of day.

History is not now repeating—but it is beginning to rhyme a little. A modern "anti-cult" movement takes aim at historically recent religion that veers off the mainstream and dares to heed Jesus's words to remain "no part of the world"—from that position to extend a helping hand to individuals therein.

Incensed at the "authoritarian" nature of such a faith—anti-cultists take aim, and the "haters of the human race" charge seems not too far from revival. Time was when, if you fell under the spell of a charismatic leader, withdrew from regular human society, and did strange things, you just might be part of a cult. These days simply thinking outside of the box is enough, and the C-word is expanded to include what scholars call new religions, in hopes that its vilifying connotations will extend to its new target. Acts of violence result in countries such as Russia, home of a radical anti-cult movement, but also in the West, where two Kingdom Halls of Jehovah's Witnesses were burned to the ground in 2018.

"If you were part of the world, the world would be fond of what is its own," Jesus told his followers. "Now because you are no part of the world...on this account the world hates you." Can his words reveal anything other than the "insularity" of those who would follow him?

Today, that "insularity" is deliberately mis-portrayed by anti-cultists as socially destructive. The efforts of apostates to malign their former faith should not be mischaracterized as a noble struggle for human rights. Those refusing marching orders from the mainstream should not be misrepresented as a "cult." Tragedies, both real and concocted, should not be utilized to mask what is really an attack on thinking outside-of-the-box. All of these things happen. None of them should. This book attempts to level the playing field and answer the many charges of the anti-cultists.

What Others Have Said About **Tom Irregardless and Me:**

To the outsider, Jehovah's Witnesses may seem deadly serious and preoccupied exclusively with their religion and the Society's own publications. Harley dispels this stereotype. The book is about real people and issues, although the author has changed the names of rank-and-file members to preserve name anonymity. Tom Irregardless is an elder who uses the spurious word "irregardless" liberally in his Bible talks. Other characters include John Wheatnweeds, who hinders members from their house-to-house ministry by spending inordinate amounts of time expounding the text of the day before they set out. Then there is posh brandy-sipping Bernard Strawman, who receives frequent visits from the publishers, but continues to raise facile objections to their faith. Vic Vomidog, an apostate, repeatedly seeks to hamper their work. Other chapters are about real JW celebrities such as Prince, who is the subject of an entire chapter.

Despite being light-hearted throughout, Tom Harley raises serious issues such as flag salutes, Darwinism and creationism, theocratic government, the paedophile scandals and the dangers of online grooming of minors, and the accuracy of the New World Translation of the Bible. Tom shows a remarkable breadth of knowledge and reading too – he has by no means exclusively studied Watch Tower publications.

_My favourite part of the book was the parody of Mickey Spillane near the end, where Tom Harley envisages a house-to-house publisher acting like one of Spillane's macho characters. For those who don't know, Spillane was a novelist whose books were renowned for their sex and violence, until Spillane converted to become a Jehovah's Witness in 1951 – a decision that drastically changed his writing style. -_ Ivor E. Tower

_Thought provoking and very well written. Tom has a firm grasp on the written word and how to weave a narrative in a way that makes you think, laugh, and meditate on the big picture in a thoroughly entertaining fashion. Which is something we all need to do. –_ Sean C. Beahon III

_Had me laughing out loud one minute and thinking deeply the next. Tom Harley has a great sense of humour and says a lot of things that many JW's think but don't often say. Despite writing a number of things that only witnesses would 'get', those who malign without knowing the facts would benefit by reading this light-hearted, yet serious, book.-_ GeordieGirl

_Tom Harley has a fantastic sense of humor, he says a lot of things that need to be said and a lot of things that only witnesses would truly appreciate. I haven't met any of the people in the book, yet I feel that I have. –_ Richard Kibel

Chapter 1 - Prince

Chapter 2 – Sam Herd

Chapter 3 – Tom Irregardless

Chapter 4 – The Regional Convention

Chapter 5 – Enemies

Chapter 6 – Suffering

Chapter 7 – The God of Football

Chapter 8 – Plato

Chapter 9 – Pipe Dreams

Chapter 10 – Blogging

Chapter 11 – The Pew Report

Chapter 12 – John Wheatnweeds
Chapter 13 – Joel Engardio
Chapter 14 - Joe Paterno

Chapter 15 – Dr. Mike 'Ace' Inhibitor

Chapter 16 – The New World Translation

Chapter 17 – Me

Chapter 18 – Sam Herd

Afterword – Black Mack, Slow Joe and Davey the Kid

***~~~***

No Fake News but Plenty of Hogwash:

If one has been an active Witness of Jehovah long enough, there are no end of people-watching stories to tell, and herein are many of them. Alternately zany and gentle - and deeply moving. Some themes timely. Others timeless. Essays, snippets, short stories and shorter stories clustered around central themes. A few delicious rants but not a single harangue. From screamingly funny to heart-wrenchingly poignant, and sometimes both at once. Like the weather of most towns – 'don't like the narrative just now? Stick around; it will change.

Also containing an unanticipated tribute to dear old Dad, who dominates at end-of-book. It is as the apocryphal quote of Mark Twain realized: 'When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished at how much he had learned in seven years.'

Sure to delight the preacher of the good news and the non-preacher alike. Sure to delight the scientist that can pull off the self-deprecatory humor of the author. Scientist-philosopher-atheist-cheerleaders may not like it, though. Critiques within of today's evangelistic atheists, who are not the ones of yesteryear. Sigh - if they believe it, they believe it. But it is hardly something to celebrate. Is it not a little like the fellow who loses millions in the stock market? Undeterred, he celebrates the thousand dollars he still has left and says 'Well, they were only paper gains anyway.'

The book was originally written hastily – too hastily - as an on-ramp leading into my first book, Tom Irregardless and Me. Revised, it now stands on its own. In some ways it is the better of the two, as it breaks bolder ground and it is more personal. Released at the halftime show of the 2017 Super Bowl, by Lady Gaga, while you were up getting pretzels. We worked on it for months – her people and mine. She put everything on the line, catching the football at concert's end. Had she dropped it, her career would have been toast.

Introduction

Chapter 1 – Tales of the Holiday

Chapter 2 – Tales of the Supermarket

Chapter 3 – Tales of Music

Chapter 4 – Tales of Technology

Chapter 5 – Tales of Media

Chapter 6 – Tales of Medicine

Chapter 7 – Tales of Authors

Chapter 8 – Tales of Lowlifes

Chapter 9 – Tales of Science

Chapter 10 – More Tales of Science

Chapter 11 – Tales of Family
Chapter 12 – Tales from the Group Home
Chapter 13 – Tales of Loyalty

Chapter 14 – Tales of Love

Chapter 15 – Tales from the Funeral Home

Chapter 16 – Final Tales

***~~~***

## Contact the Author

Follow Tom Harley at Twitter: http://twitter.com/truetomharley

Friend him on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100011735529077

Favorite him at Smashwords: https://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/Tomsheepandgoats

Keep an eye on the rascal at Tomsheepandgoats.com

Contact Tom at truetomharley@gmail.com

He'll try to get back but can't guarantee. He's not a debater. Sometimes people disagree. He can live with that.

Return to Table of Contents

