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.
