Please Read This

By B. W. Schulz

            I’ve noted before that this is a history blog. That’s all this is. We do not engage in theological debate; we do not allow those who post here to throw temper tantrums or insult other posters.

            This essay is something of an exception. This is addressed to those Jehovah’s Witnesses who visit this blog, though I hope it benefits everyone. I am a long-serving Witness, probably older than most who visit this blog. When you visit our blog you are very much like a guest in my house. Guests have obligations to their host. Psalms 15:1 suggests this: “O Jehovah, who will be a guest in your tent? Who will reside in your holy mountain? He who is walking faultlessly and practicing righteousness and speaking the truth in his heart.” To my eye, this summarizes respect for one’s host. In the verse the host is Jehovah. Here Dr. de Vienne, my niece, and I are the hosts. On that basis, you owe respect.

            Among those issues that arise for guests is the obligation to contribute to conversation. Many of our visitors do not come from a culture that recognizes that obligation. But Witnesses may remember an article appearing in an older Awake! that says: “Of course, as an invited guest ... you have more responsibility to contribute to meaningful conversation. Try to reward your host by conversation that is enlightening and upbuilding, at the same time giving others the opportunity to express themselves. This will help to make your visit a joy and a mutual success.” Maybe you forgot this, but this is an extension of the Biblical obligation to show respect to our hosts.

            Early in this blog’s life I received emails from Witnesses, some of them elders, asking me to restrain Rachael’s opinions. Recently there has been a repeat of this folly. Rachael is not a Witness; she never was. To put it bluntly, she’s a very intelligent young [well young compared to my ancient self] woman. She is exceptionally well educated, a MENSA member based on an IQ that puts her in the top one quarter of one percent. She is entitled to her opinions. That some wish to include me in controversies with Rachael tells me that they have something less than a Biblical opinion of women.

            Some Witness men focus only on Ephesians 5:22 where Paul says wives should be in subjection to their husbands. They seem to think that in God’s eyes women are of some low class, that they are somehow less than males. But think about that. Peter says that women are equal to men in salvation. The Psalms describe the collective of faithful women as an army. In your experience, do not women predominate among the surviving members of the Body of Christ? When I was very young there were twenty-two partakers in our small congregation. Almost all of them were women. Today spread among eight local congregations there are four partakers. I am the only man in that group. That means that some of the women you may disrespect are going to rule over you. That should give you pause.

            Rachael reminds me of Jael. Certainly our Witness readers know who Jael was. She was not part of Israel but was a Kenite. Kenites were related to Israel in a very distant fashion. Jael entered Israel’s history in the days of Barak and Deborah. In that narrative the one conveying Jehovah’s word was Deborah, a woman, and when Barak failed in some respect Deborah said: “I will surely go with you. Nevertheless, the road on which you are going will not lead to your glory, for Jehovah will sell Sisera into the hand of a woman.” That woman was Jael, a non Israelite. Jael’s bravery was exceptional as was her intelligence. She was one smart cookie, an appropriate choice for God’s agent. Rachael may stand outside of what you consider ‘the truth.’ But she is dedicated to ‘truth’ when it comes to our project. I mean she is determined to write accurate history, even if it makes some of our readers uncomfortable.

            Subjection as used in the Bible, especially the New World Translation, is derived from a word for military rank. It says nothing about the worth of women. It’s about order. And note that the verses say: “A husband is head of his wife as the Christ also is head of the congregation, he being a savior of this body. Husbands, continue loving your wives, just as the Christ also loved the congregation and delivered up himself for it.” This does not extend to your relationship to women not your wife. When considering the relationship of one congregation member to another, Paul says: “Be submitting yourselves to one another in reverence of Christ.” [Berean Literal Bible] So your relationship to ‘sisters’ is determined by that. But remember Rachael isn’t your ‘sister’ in the sense you understand this term; she is a professional historian, an award wining educator. You have no business involving the men in her life – Jerome or me or anyone else – in some imagined controversy. That some have done so plainly says they have forgotten the Bible’s message.

            As I recently said to another, Rachael is an excellent self-editor. When she posts a work in progress she always warns you that it will change. As research progresses our work changes. This is as true of Rachael’s Introductory Essay as anything else. You may not like what we write, but before it makes it to print – to final form – it will change and be as honest and accurate as we can make it.

            Some Witnesses fear what others may write. They do not like even mild criticism. They feel Jehovah and their fellows need protection. What kind of God do you worship if you entertain this view? My God is eternal and all powerful and perfectly capable of defending himself and those he sees as his own. Attacking Rachael’s integrity because you think she’s questioned your faith is weakness. If you have contrary evidence, present it, do so in  a blog comment.

            Some blog readers fear controversy hoping it does not appear on the blog. History writing has always caused controversy. It is the quality of the argument that matters. In recent cases Rachael’s integrity was attacked based on what another wrote. Do you understand how incredibly misdirected this is? Those who indulged in this folly simply did not want dirty laundry aired.

            I’ve been a Witness longer than most of you have been alive. In that time I’ve seen us do some very silly things. It happens on all levels. [My mind drifts off to the annual meeting in 1954 as an example] We are not above criticism and we should accept it when merited. Also, your personal experience, especially limited experience, with another brother or sister does not mean you have a full, accurate response to something Rachael may write about that person.

            In the current version of her essay, sent to me this morning, many of the things some object to are gone, not because of your abuse but because they no longer fit the essay. As I said, she’s a very good self-editor.

            The net result of this rambling statement is that I will not act as Rachael’s parent or husband. I am neither. I will not regulate her thought or work. Appealing to me or anyone else to do so is a sin within the Biblical meaning of the word.