***
I was 25 years a congregation member; ten years an elder; all told, up to 18 years an appointed man; a decade or so as a full-time minister; assembly speaker, with the pinnacle giving the public discourse at a district convention.
I stopped being an active member of the congregation in November 2010, but it had been brewing for several years, with the customary gradual drifting away - all the necessary mental gymnastics as my spiritual views changed and doubts set in; quitting the Theocratic Ministry School; ceasing to answer; sitting quietly off to the side. I think the straw that broke the camel’s back was when “family worship” inevitably became “Family Worship”. I had already felt troubled by it, but I found myself swallowing back the tears when comments began to be made at the meetings about it being Jehovah’s provision. It seemed like a whole charade to change the meeting arrangement but slot in something called “family worship” - essentially a meeting at home which you were made to feel equally guilty for neglecting. Enough was enough.
I had one or two meetings with concerned elders, but pretty soon these tailed off, and for a year or more I had been left to my own devices. I was not interested in causing trouble. I was not embittered. It was simply that my spiritual outlook had changed. I was always sure not to say that I no longer was one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. I worded it carefully - I simply said I was finding it increasingly difficult to defend the Faithful and Discreet Slave.
In June or July of 2011 I experienced something of a spiritual epiphany and I decided to write about my spiritual outlook. I opened a blog - A carpenter from Nazareth - but kept it private. August/September time, after about a dozen or so articles, I decided to throw caution to the wind and go public. If by some bizarre coincidence it was discovered, so be it. Even so, I was somewhat startled when it was discovered not four weeks later. I wasn’t even told directly. A friend I work with is an active Witness. He received a phone call from a local elder. Was he aware of my website? He wasn’t - I had been sure not to tell him about it. Apparently the Coordinator had spent half-an-hour on the telephone with the Circuit Overseer discussing what to do about it.
I braced myself, but the tension was unnecessary. I heard nothing, and again it was only my friend who informed me that he doubted the elders would do anything. He had been speaking to a local elder at a recent assembly and they had decided to “maintain the status quo.”
Several months went by. It was curious the way things went. I took the extra step of sharing one or two articles on facebook, but these seemed to go by largely unnoticed. Then I wrote an article I felt particularly comfortable with. A week or so later I received a phone call from a local elder - could I meet with a couple of the elders to have a chat because, “We know about your website.”
The next evening - Monday, February 13, 2012 - I met with them and basically had the conversation I thought we were going to have several months ago. They referenced articles from back then, but when I inquired about what had changed regarding the circumstances, they declared that they had only just found out about the website. Because the website does not attack Jehovah’s Witnesses, their questions could only really address fundamental questions about Christianity, and my view of the bible. There was one reference to a comment made about Jehovah’s Witnesses being simply another religion.
Once or twice they asked if I considered myself a Witness any more. I answered that I did not want to bear witness against myself. The brothers would have to make their decision based on the information they had. I told them I did not relish the upheaval of being put outside the congregation, but it had to be their decision. I recognised it put them in something of an awkward position, but...
One of them speculated that it could be decided that they would make a simple brief announcement to the congregation that I was “no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses,” and the congregation would decide what to do. I thought this was somewhat disingenuous, as the congregation would know fine well what to do if such an announcement was made, as that is the only announcement that is made these days when someone is put outside the congregation. Still, they said they would report our discussion to the rest of the body of elders.
I haven’t heard anything since. One of the elders said that this was all new to them - what to do about a member of the congregation blogging their radically altered spiritual viewpoint, without categorically attacking the religion itself - so I can only imagine that they have decided to ask the branch office how to proceed
***
Honestly, I feel quite sorry for the local body of elders. Of course, we have known each other for years, and worked together, and now they're not sure what to do with me. I'm sure they don't want to put me through the upheaval that comes with disfellowshiping, but at the same time they have all this stuff that is contrary to most everything that the organisation teaches - how can it be anything but apostasy in their eyes? And there is that one article that walks the line between a defence of the Witnesses, and an unabashed attack*. Damning with faint praise, you might say. One of the elders that spoke to me I have known my whole time in the congregation, twenty years or so - he was genuinely sad. The other one was a newcomer to the congregation, probably paired with him so as to come from a more impersonal angle. The whole conversation was extremely amicable, but I felt very positive, and I confidently defended my position. It is curious, because I might not have been able to do that several months ago - but the extra time has been favourable to me. Having said that, it was a calm inner acceptance of the consequences that allowed me to go public with the website in the first place. I felt like the man who had built his house upon the sand - when that house falls, the collapse is great. For twenty five years I had built a faith upon the sand of another man's words, and I realised that there would be consequences for doing that. I have come to terms with the collapse, and I feel okay about it - even more so now that the rebuilding has begun with aplomb.
I do have family. My wife - born and raised a Witness - is still active in the congregation. She is being stoic, but inside I know she is hurting. Our two girls are still quite young: One is 7 and quite likes having the choice of being able to go to the meetings, or stay. The other is 4, and just likes to go out. I am not overly troubled by their association - they are free to make their own decisions on these matters, and there is still plenty of time. My wife's parents are Witnesses, so they might well follow the protocol of disfellowshiping, but I'm not too sure - they're just as likely to surprise me. She also has two sisters who we don't see too often, who I am quite sure will uphold the disfellowshiping. And, of course I will lose my workmate. He is (as I said) and active Witness, an elder in his local congregation, and he will cease association with much reticence.
That is, of course, if it all goes ahead. I must say, the lengthy silence is disarming. I'm almost inclined to think they are deciding on inaction - but I almost feel that would set a precedent: Now you can say what you want about the Witnesses and remain unpunished, as long as you are not speaking directly to congregation members. I don't think that is a message they want out there. There is a Circuit Overseer's visit in a couple of weeks time - perhaps they are waiting for that.
***
I have been invited to a second meeting with the same two elders that spoke to me five weeks ago. Sunday, March 18 at 6.30pm.
This is what the elder's handbook, Shepherd the Flock of God, has to say in chapter five under Determining Whether a Judicial Committee Should Be Formed - subheading, Offences Requiring Judicial Decisions.
Apostasy: Apostasy is a standing away true worship, a falling away, defection, rebellion, abandonment. It includes the following:
Deliberately spreading teachings contrary to Bible truth as taught by Jehovah's Witnesses: (Acts 21:21, ftn.; 2 John 7, 9, 10) Any with sincere doubts should be helped. Firm loving counsel should be given. (2 Tim. 2: 16-19, 23-26; Jude 22, 23) If one obstinately is speaking about or deliberately spreading false teachings, this may be or may lead to apostasy. If there is no response after a first and a second admonition, a judicial committee should be formed. - Titus 3:10, 11; w89 10/1 p. 19; w86 4/1 pp. 30-31; w86 3/15 p. 15.
Causing divisions and promoting sects: This would be deliberate action disrupting the unity of the congregation or undermining the confidence of the brothers in Jehovah's arrangement. It may involve or lead to apostasy. - Rom. 16:17, 18; Titus 3:10, 11; it-2 p. 886.
I'll let you know how it goes.
***
My wife is a born and bred Witness, it is true. She will be torn, but she is still "organisation first" - I can't deny that. However, my family life will survive this. We have two girls who we love very much, and we share ideals which lie outside the confines of the Society. Our marriage will not be jeopardised by this, though it will no doubt be put through the wringer. I also believe that the girls can survive this. Yes, they will have the JW ethic from their Mum, and when they attend meetings, but I believe it will be counter-balanced by my non-attendance, (and the waves that will be made from this minor furore).
I am in a good, strong, and peaceful place about all this. What I have now is better than what I had as a Witness. I have come to realise that trying to fight the organisation might be futile, but if I view this as a way to speak to individual men about the injustices and inconsistencies, it might just be enough to shake their (non-existent) foundations. They have to go through the process, too. I don't believe it is easy for them having to sit down with a man they have known for a fifth of a century. They are going to have to think about the collateral damage, too. This is a policy that they have agreed to be a part of, and they are damn well going to have to suck it up and see it through. Each of those men is going to have to make the decision to expel me from the congregation, because I am not going to disassociate myself. But I am also not going to spend my life gagged, or furtively looking over my shoulder.
***
Last night's meeting went much as imagined. This was the "second admonition", and the next stage will be a judicial hearing.
They used 2 John 10, 11 "If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, never receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him. For he that says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works," to which I was able to point out that although the Society goes to great lengths to argue that John deliberately used the simple expression (khairo) for "greeting" rather than a word which meant a much warmer greeting (aspazomai) - proving that apostates should be unequivocally shunned - Luke 1:28, 19 shows us that the two words were interchangeable. In connection with that, I also took the opportunity to ask why the Society should choose to interpret the phrase "stop associating with," at 2 Thessalonians 3:14 differently from the phrase "quit mixing in company with," at 1 Corinthians 5:11, when Paul uses exactly the same Greek phrase.
As was expected, there is no answer to these questions except, "maybe the understanding of these verses will change...how would you feel if you were on the outside looking in etc etc." I said I could not believe that the first century Christians had a policy which imitated the religion that they had left behind. It was Pharisees who threw people out of the synagogue, and shunned them - why would the Christians go on and do the same thing? Again, the only answer to that is to toe the party line and explain the need to protect the congregation.
So, there we are.
***
The judicial hearing took place on Friday, March 23, 2012.
If you would like to read the comments and replies given to this story, you can read them here.
* This article was titled "Jehovah's Witnesses and the faulty first century blueprint," and will be re-released here soon.
0 comments:
Post a Comment