Failure of Leadership

My grandfather died. When he did, my father (son-in-law to the deceased) delivered the eulogy. As is common among Jehovah's Witnesses, it was considered to be a fortunate thing because the dead man now had a reputation to speak for him. I believe it to be some incomprehensible application of Ecclesiastes 7:1.

While my father told heart-warming tales of Calvin being found working in his garden or opening his home to 50 or so children and grandchildren once a year, people began to weep openly. I was admittedly among them. We mourned for the passing of the good things that he represented to us. I had good times growing up in my otherwise disjointed clan. We had a creek to swim in, bonfires to bask in, and fields to explore. It was pretty all-American.

My grandfather had also been a raging drunk in his youth. He was a poacher, though many could let that pass as it came to feeding a family of eleven people. He was also abusive to his wife and at least one of his daughters.

Yes, that kind of abusive.

But that wasn't part of the picture being painted by my father. No one in polite company would ever mention that of course. His victimized daughter certainly wouldn't. Surprisingly, the number of people who knew about his abuse probably outweighed those who didn't. Considering that the funeral parlor was filled beyond capacity, that's some feat.

He had kindness in his history, but he also had wickedness. A lot of wickedness.

After becoming one of Jehovah's Witnesses in his later years, he grew spiritually and was recommended as an elder in the congregation. There has been no shortage of references to pedophiles being cut unbelievable amounts of slack by Judicial Committees, so I won't pretend this is a surprise to some of the more jaded among you. I will, however, share that his appointment was contingent on his victim writing a letter of forgiveness to the Body of Elders and Circuit Overseer.

When I learned that, I was taken aback. It wasn't enough for them to appoint a child abuser. Arguably, his repentance should have made that history of sin a null value. But they actually pressured his daughter to put pen to paper and formally forgive him so he could pursue his own spiritual ambitions.

I can only imagine how it was impressed upon her that his value to the congregation was superlative. "Jehovah's will" could be best served if it was made perfectly clear that his victim had forgiven him. Though how that plays against the doctrine of Jesus' sacrifice leaves me a bit baffled.

I have pondered over this for some time. My gut reaction was to be disgusted, but I've found that given enough time and consideration, most emotional reactions evolve into some new understanding. This does not happen to be one of those times.

As often happens with acts of confession, the supplicant tells enough of the story to truthfully establish the error without divulging the true depth of the act. The breadth and depth of a sin, particularly child abuse, is often left undefined and secret. What it seems (from all outward appearances) that Elders do not know or take into account is that child abuse is common is families that are dysfunctional and prone to keeping secrets.

Where one secret exists, others surely follow. The aunt mentioned above was also involved in the abuse of her younger brother, who in turn abused one of their other brothers. This pattern led to instances of depression, attempted suicide, and marital infidelity among its victims over the years.

Unfortunately, this also led to the disfellowshipping of one of my uncles who himself was a victim. His emotional turmoil became so great that he committed a sin which led to his expulsion from the very religion that sought to promote the man who introduced abuse into the family into a position of spiritual leadership.

In time it became known that Calvin walked a very thin line for the rest of his life, engaging in behavior that was very close to the sin which his daughter formally forgave. Sadly, the deep and lasting impact he left on the family that he taught to follow Watchtower tenets was not a consideration in its treatment of his kin.

With almost calculated dismissal, the people most injured by his horrible flaws were disenfranchised by the Organization for their inability to recover from his abuse. With time and experience, I've come to understand the extremely unhealthy behaviors that permeated his progeny. I, being one of them, have seen the pattern of secrecy become a legacy. The capacity and inclination to lie is more ubiquitous than an appreciation for truth. Ironic considering the self-appointed superlative assigned by Witnesses.

So I have no appealing choice but to question the decision to appoint a man as an Elder when he was known to have created a criminal and spiritual prison for his children. Moreover, how can congregation leaders, in good conscience, ask a crime victim to publicly pardon their attacker so that he can be placed in a position of trust? In what other hierarchy would this be allowed to occur, or even suggested?

The questions handily outnumber the answers.

While this is all rhetoric, it still points to an institutional flaw where victims are provided no protection or justice. While Matthew 7:2 says "For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you", it is worth considering that the men who appointed him must have judged him worthy. If they were wrong, such judgement will be returned.

That being said, it seems unwise to appoint a person who had demonstrated such tendencies even though they may appear to be repentant. Deuteronomy 22:8 held people blood guilty for their negligence or lack of judgement. Similarly, a lack of judgement that leads to a crime against another could make the appointing body culpable.

Either way you look at it, it's a failure of leadership.

Inception of Dissent

French novelist Victor Hugo once wrote that "One can resist the invasion of armies; one cannot resist the invasion of ideas." He is absolutely correct because the spark of understanding has the most measurable impact on the traditions, practices, and beliefs that stifle progress. The genesis of an idea can forever change the person who first has it, along with all those with whom the idea is shared. Very often it has the power to alter the course of society, and once a genuine idea has taken root, it can be very difficult to ignore.

For me, such an idea began to form about 2011. I had been a faded Jehovah's Witness (one who becomes inactive by choice) sometime in my early twenties. I was baptized at 15 and auxiliary pioneered for a summer. By most accounts, I was a pretty passive member. There was nothing remarkable about my service. No one ever studied with me, or came to be baptized under my direction. I was not, nor did I aspire to be, appointed as a Ministerial Servant or much of anything else.

My fading was less deliberate than it was lazy. I simply liked worldly pursuits more than theocratic ones. Being a curious person, I often buried myself in research on topics of interest, and being more drawn to secular pursuits, it wasn't long before there was no time left for the Truth.

On a slow day at work, I got into a discussion about Superman comics with a coworker. He's a bona fide comic nerd and was explaining why Superman is the greatest superhero in all of comic-dom. I'll spare you the nerd-speak, but it got me curious about villains that the Man of Steel may not have overcome.

There was really only one enemy that fit that bill. He was called Doomsday and was the result of an experiment that subjected him to repeated death and regeneration. With each death, he learned to overcome what had killed him before and thus became stronger. In the end, the only option that Superman had was to take Doomsday forward in time to the end of the universe. This is called entropy.

I had never seen this word before and it piqued my curiosity. A quick search of the intrawebs led me to a number of research papers on the topic. The concept was first voiced by French physicist Lazare Carnot, who discovered that mechanical devices slowed down because of the loss of moment of activity. In short, the expenditure of useful energy and dissipation thereof was the end result of any natural process, which would then come to a halt. In 1852, Lord Kelvin (William Thompson) published his theory that all energy in the universe, as derived from the the first two laws of thermodynamics, would eventually become distributed and called this the "heat death of the universe".

Over the following decades, Greek mathematician Constantin Carathéodory linked entropy to a mathematically defined irreversibility. In other words, energy, once dissipated, cannot be un-dissipated.

For two-hundred years, physicists have understood that the Universe will eventually run out of energy. More specifically, energy will be so evenly distributed that it cannot be harnessed to power any physical process. Machines will not run. Biology will not thrive. Suns will not burn. The light bulb of creation will have burned out.

How long do we have? About 4 trillion years.

I agree that that is a difficult number to comprehend. However, for the reasons stated above, the comparatively more pressing issue is of our own sun. In 4 billion years or so, it will have advanced in age and transitioned in to a Red Giant. At that time, its size will nearly, if not completely, encompass the orbit of the Earth. Our humble little rock will no longer be inhabitable. It may no longer exist at all. That is also entropy, even if only limited to our galactic back yard.

So what idea did this spark in me, and how is that related to my former faith as one of Jehovah's Witnesses?

From my earliest memory, I was taught one immutable truth. God would make faithful humans to live forever on a paradise earth. No expiration date. No take-backs. Except this conflicts with the physical laws of the universe. From the standpoint of faith, it's easy to bridge the gap between scripture and physics by saying that God will change the laws of the Universe so that we don't die from being slowly incinerated by the expanding sun. It's equally easy to say that we don't fully understand the Universe and its functions and can therefore choose to have faith that the provision has already been made. For information on this, explore Ockham's Razor.

Working forward from that premise we can now conclude that the eventual heat death of the universe, and even the expiration of our own sun, requires Divine intervention so as not to adversely affect eternal life as promised and promoted by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. I could have accepted that as a faithful Witness. There is nothing particularly outlandish about that from a doctrinal standpoint.

Then I had another 'a-ha' moment.

Jesus Christ was sent to earth to die for our sins. That is a ubiquitous part of Christian faith and not being questioned here. The purpose of his death was to relieve us from the burden of unnatural death. We were designed to live forever but fell short of grace, and it was only through his voluntary death that we could be granted eternal life once again.

But what about the sun? Jesus didn't really save us from anything. He simply stayed the execution. Even if he paved the way for perfect life, it's still only by the good will and charity of Jehovah that we could continue. That being said, was Jesus sacrifice really even necessary? A cancellation of a debt for which the creditor must later grant a pardon from repossession isn't really relief from anything. So why murder a kind man who taught love, only to make his death ineffectual?

Additionally, the argument of Divine balance is equally ridiculous based on our own observations of the cosmos. There have been over thirty observed and documented supernovae in the history of astronomy, most of which were noted from the 1930's onward. This is well established as the end-stage of a star's life. Therefore, it can be established that entropy has been, and is, occurring in the universe, and any perpetual stability would have to be localized to our solar system at a minimum.

Even at that, perpetual stability of our sun would preclude the possibility of a Coronal Mass Ejection. In this process, a star sheds gasses which are carried off by Solar Wind. It's not a catastrophic event, but it is certainly a loss of solar matter and energy which cannot be replaced according to entropic principles. During the normal cycles of our sun, this occurs as often as three times per day or as little as once every five days.

So, a stable and self-sustaining system which would have made a convenient foundation for Jesus' sacrifice cannot be demonstrated. To assert or assume that such a thing exists simply because faith demands it is, at best, a logical fallacy. At worst, it's recklessly foolish.

It used to be that I could just comfortably be disinterested in theocratic matters. That it had been important to me at all was the product of repetition by my parents and congregation. However, this idea is something from which I cannot retreat, and against which I cannot defend. I do accept that my reasoning could be flawed and that science has erred. But I would note that the observations of scientists follow only what they can prove, and have been peer reviewed for over two-hundred years.

Jehovah's Witnesses recognize no peers and expand theories to keep disproved hypotheses on life support. It is ultimately their inflexibility of thought that led me away from them. Not a lack of love, selfishness, or even the Devil. I dissent because I have an idea, and to them that is apostasy.

Cautious as Serpents

It's difficult to be dispassionate, especially with respect to fighting against something that may have cause traumatic pain. In some way or another, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society has left each of us with a scar and it tickles us intimately to see it falter. However slight their missteps may be from time to time, it raises a cheer among the discarded and downtrodden to see their humanity laid bare.

It is beyond contesting to say that it is a human organization. Whether or not it's God's spirit directed organization can neither be proved, nor disproved, and therein we invoke Ockham's Razor and discard it as a causative force. Also beyond contesting is that they have repeatedly made mistakes at the institutional level. Doctrines shift. Policies change. Embarrassments occur.

It's easy to kick a person or organization when it's down. These exposed flaws and their attendant restructuring often appear to be gaps in the armor which we are prone to attack. This is perhaps the worst possible tactic to employ. Chinese General Sun Tzu wrote in his military strategy, The Art of War, to "fight the enemy where they are not". This philosophy meant to attack in the place where the enemy dedicated the least attention.

Events like the Australian Royal Commission inquiry may seem like the right place to attack, particularly in light of Geoffery Jackson's controversial comments about presumptuousness. However, Witnesses around the world are already viewing the inquest as proof that they God's chosen people.

Why else might they be subject to persecution? Certainly not because they negligently allowed people who had admitted to abusing children to pose a continued risk to their brethren. The humiliation of the many seemed to have outweighed the rights of the few, and there really is no rational way to justify withholding such information from secular authorities. Rendering Caesar's things to Caesar would not have violated God's law in this matter.

Justified or not, Witness will have entrenched themselves in the dogmatic position that these accounts are lies and there's no reasoning sufficient to penetrate the armor of willful ignorance.

Another worthy consideration is that they are callused against a number of technically correct attacks. Conversion of faith is an art. Whether that's toward or away from religion, it seldom works to apply pressure directly to a facet that has received repeated exercise and toughening. Witnesses are quite used to impassioned rants from apostates. They are also very familiar with many of the topics and buzzwords that appear in anti-Witness activism. Cognitive dissonance, 587 B.C.E., UN NGO, ad infinitum, all bounce off those calloused minds because the phrasing is well practice and often repeated. They know what we'll say because it's been said before and it's easily identified as apostate in origin.


I, like many apostates, have a grudge. However, it is against the doctrine rather than the people who uphold it. They are following a faith, as much as I am following the faith of non-theism, and if they do so in good conscience, then I do not fault them.

Remember that most of us were brow-beaten into conformance with the faith. That inevitable chip that we carry on our shoulders might make it seem reasonable that brow-beating people out of the faith is an effective approach. Unfortunately, their indoctrination is reinforced at every meeting, their callouses thickened, and their armor layered. They have carefully prepared for a toe-to-toe battle.

Fight them where they are not.

My father was an elder and a very good teacher. The best way he found to reach people was to approach subject from a different direction and get them to reason on it themselves. When particularly difficult concepts would come up in the Kingdom Hall or Ministry, he'd avoid providing the answer before providing the reasoning. He understood that it was often counterproductive to start with a conclusion and massage facts to fit what was believed to be true (insert ironic comment here).

My most effective conversations with Witnesses have started from the perspective of ignorance. They are instructed to teach and so they do what they're trained to do when one seeks information. And this is where I have chosen to be cautious like the serpent. I invite them to enter my space willingly and expose themselves to the exchange of information. The longer they can feel as if the ideas exchanged are in the vein of corrective instruction, the more open to discussion they will remain.

Keep in mind that they already view apostates as 'mentally diseased', so they will do as so many other have done and begin with the end. They will expect a certain behavior and cherry pick until they see what they've been trained to interpret at apostasy. Those well practice phrases and facts that were mentioned before will be our biggest weakness because they've heard them all before. Every move we telegraph will be met with a skilled riposte.

Becoming experts in our own knowledge, however, makes us far more flexible. Growing in knowledge beyond reflexive repetition of known fact allows us to approach a conversation from almost any direction and that can be one of the best ways to disassemble rote learning.

It's not enough to know that 1914 C.E. is wrong. We have to know that C.T. Russel first published in 1894 that Armageddon would end in 1910. We also have to know that in 1911, he republished his previous work with new data that pointed to 1914 as the year Armageddon would end. We have to know that his prediction was based off of measurements of the Pyramids of Giza, not the return of Jews to Jerusalem. We have to know that he was absolute in his belief that he was right. We have to know that in the same book where he published those failed predictions, he also disclaimed to have been inspired by God. We have to know that this comes from the very hand of the first Bible Student, and we have to know where to find it.

Knowledge is a beautiful tool, but understanding provides the skill to use it wisely. When dealing with people who are still captive in the Organization, brute force is going to have little impact. They're prepared for bitterness and hatred. Perhaps reaching out with finesse, understanding, and compassion will reach more people. After all, were not out to break people down. Just the system that holds them down.

Ockham's Razor and 1914

Religion is a philosophy, which is the study of the nature of something, be it thought, existence, creation, or divinity. Study usually involves the examination of evidence. Curiously, there is no evidence of deities, let alone a single Christian God. Even so, an overwhelming proportion of the human population claims a belief in a higher power. Generally speaking, this involves some loose association of moral tenets, some type of worship, and a preference for one afterlife story or another. The largest justification for this kind of devotion are holy books written by people who are dead, making claims of events for which there were no living witnesses at the time of publication, and no evidence of even cursory peer review.

In short, God is an urban legend.

Logically speaking, he's the equivalent of the Boogie Man. Everyone always knows someone who knows someone who's claimed to have seen him. If we place the bible in the construct of completely second-hand accounts, there is very little that can be proven to have occurred. Certain historical events are accurately represented, though we only know that from independent verified sources. But it's the ecumenical bits of Christianity that are suspect.

Moses, for example, was the only one present when he received instruction from God through the burning bush. He was also the only one at the top of Mount Zion to receive the Ten Commandments (and the remainder of the Mosaic Law). In fact, a lot of what Moses claimed had no witnesses. Eve was deceived by a serpent, but there was no one else around to hear it. Every prophecy that was delivered by God was written down by the only person to hear it and then delivered as fact. But the kicker here is that it's true because it's in God's word, the bible. How do we know? The bible says so.

Figure. 1

Claims that religious truth can withstand any scrutiny are common. Depending on one's particular slant, this can be either a defensive or offensive bit of rhetoric. However, when put to the test, religiosity often finds itself backed into a corner without an explanation. Whatever the matter under review is, contrary evidence sends believers running to the comfortable haven of faith, wherein they cling to their belief, confident that the real proof (that which was not made up by the Devil) will be revealed to them when the time is right. However, when even minute facts exist, they become unshakable evidence of the divine and any disagreement is heresy (see Figure. 1).

 But what if we got a fact wrong?

There's an old joke about a Cardinal at the Vatican who goes into the archives to do some research. He's found hours later weeping over an ancient text. The Legate that finds him asks what's wrong, to which he morosely responds, "It said 'celebrate'".

It's a cute story that pokes fun at the doctrinal celibacy of the Catholic clergy, but it clearly illustrates that a widely held belief, no matter how central to a faith, could be subject to revision. In this particular instance, there are many liturgical reasons why priests are to remain celibate. However, the fact of church politics is that priests who were allowed to marry passed on estates to their legitimate heirs. Celibate priests with no heirs reverted their estates to the church. Celibacy for the sake of Christ had nothing to do with it.

This brings us to Ockham's Razor, which originated, ironically, with Franciscan friar William of Ockham. He was a logical man who had a strong faith in God. Even so, he insisted that "entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily." Scientists adopted this in the centuries that followed to explain that simplicity was necessary for an honest examination of a theory.

Austrian physicist Ernst Mach coined the Principle of Economy, in which "Scientists must use the simplest means of arriving at their results and exclude everything not perceived by the senses." In his version, no distinction could be drawn between something that you could not perceive and something that did not exist. In other words, if there is no way to observe a thing, it can have no bearing on your findings. In a religious application, divinity cannot be the basis for the assumption of fact.

Why do I mention this? Well, it's simpler than this preamble would have you believe.

Jehovah's Witnesses have a belief that Jesus was enthroned in 1914. At that time, their faith says that Satan was confined to the earth to await Armageddon, and that human society has declined ever since. Their evidence is the rather conspicuous outbreak of World War I. Their originators had predicted, on more than one occasion, that there would be unprecedented events in a number of different years. 1914 happened to be the one time they were right.

Arriving at this date took a bit of simple math, and some creative interpretation of bible prophecy. In fact, the basis of one prophecy has to be derived from another. I truthfully don't even know where to begin with how wrong this is.

In broad strokes though, it is assumed that Babylon destroyed Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E. and that the prophecy would then identify 1914 C.E. as a turning point in human history. Secular research does not support this. Witnesses, as described above, retreat to two things when faced with this information.

Primarily, they question the integrity of the ancient historians Ptolemy and Borosaus, from whose records they freely accept other established dates. In fact, they are prone to answer questions with questions as proof that contradictory evidence is false.

Secondarily, they hide behind that wall of "brighter light" which requires no proof, validation, or even logic. It is a magical force field which no apostasy may penetrate. It is ignorant of reality. Period.

The truth of the matter is that there is far more evidence to support 587 B.C.E. as the date of Jerusalem's overthrow by King Nebuchadnezzar, and to say otherwise is to violate Ockham's Razor. The point of the Razor has always been to cut away unnecessary criteria, assumptions, and scotoma which blind us from reality. 1914 is far simpler than what Witnesses believe it to be. However, stubbornly clinging to proofs that cannot be found, or observed, they pervert the nature of truth. For a people so adamant about preserving and disseminating truth, their avoidance of it is ironic.

PTSD: Post Traumatic Spiritual Disorder

There it is, glaring at you like a beacon. A friend-request from a name you know well, but have not encountered in perhaps years. A person from the Kingdom Hall, and they want to connect to you.

You have a moment of intense anxiety and then ignore it until later. Admittedly, you don't have any known reason to decline the invitation, but when last you saw them, it was in a context from which have since removed yourself. There are so many possible outcomes, and you have no way to know which of them this person now represents.

One of my current connections even said to me that he was "careful" in dealing with former Witnesses. I understood that, of course. For a long time, I was hesitant to make connections with people that I knew through the Watchtower, Bible, and Tract Society of New York. Were they still active? Would they try to reinvigorate my participation? Would I have to explain why I'd left, or why I wouldn't go back?

I examined those questions quite a lot and concluded that my hesitance was chiefly due to my own uncertainty about my position. I still felt pangs of guilt over having left, even leaping to the defense of Witnesses that I felt were being misrepresented in the media or by people in idle conversation.

Since reaching out to former Witnesses through social media, I've become more aware of a pattern of Mutually Assured Distrust. I understand it entirely, of course, having been distrustful of them. However, after seeing it arise time after time, I now understand it as something more like a disease.

The people we surrounded ourselves with during our involvement in the Organization represented a singular thought process. There is no way, unfortunately, to tell from the outside if any one of them still operates to that paradigm. So, we stand at a safe distance knowing that the other person may still be deeply involved, and thus may be a person with whom we want no association. They probably think the same of us, and that is the Mutually Assured Distrust.

It is a byproduct of isolationist indoctrination. Groups that foster separation from dissimilar social groups for any number of reasons are prone to this type of post-traumatic response. If a former member encounters another person, who at last contact was still a member, there are certain logical responses that can be expected. What is also known is that the other person is aware that you were a member, and depending on the circumstances of your departure, they may be aware that you are no longer.

That presents a dilemma. You know that they know you have left the group, but you don't know if they did. So, what's the next step?

It really depends on how firm you are in your current stance. That's an understandably shaky premise, since, as we all know, we were all trained to be unshakable in a previous faith. Ultimately, no one can decide for you if that risk is a worthwhile one. You may reach out, only to find that person is extending a hand just so they can drag you back in. They may also be extending a hand because they want help being dragged out. That's a risk that only you can decide upon.

The ultimate truth is that isolationist indoctrination teaches people to be distrusting. They become afraid of everything and everyone that doesn't conform to the model. Admittedly, it's taken effort for me to reach out to people. Many of your names sat on a list for a good long time before I decided to risk exposure. Moreover, I made a specific effort not to let my upbringing define who I would and would not surround myself with.

Now, I surround myself with people of good character who are true to the only knowable thing in existence, and that is 'who we are'. If we can be faithful to that, there's no reason to distrust anything else.

Threat Warning: This Person Has Been Placed in Quarantine and is Awaiting Action

You know those warnings your computer gives you that tells you about a malicious file that will steal your information and molest your hard drive? Ever seen one applied to a person?

I have.

As one of Jehovah's Witnesses, it's likely that you would have encountered a "disfellowshipped" person, or been at a meeting where it was announced that a person was disfellowshipped. It's the Watchtower, Bible, and Tract Society of New York's version of excommunication, and is applied to unrepentant sinners.

Sparing you the intricacies and bureaucracy of how it's done, such a person is publicly announced as having been assigned this status. Implicit in this announcement is that all association with this person by those of good standing in the congregation stop. Exceptions are few and strictly enforced.

In the early 80's, Raymond Franz, a deposed member of the Governing Body of said Society, was disfellowshipped for refusing to cease his employment by a former Witness. The man for whom he worked had voluntarily cut ties with the Society and, by all other accounts, was a perfectly respectable person. But this is where that warning mentioned in the outset comes in.

The worldwide organization of Jehovah's Witnesses, in its complicated arrangements and hierarchies, serves as a buffer between its members and those it considers to be malicious people. They write all the black lists, govern all the definitions, and can quarantine anyone they deem dangerous with very little room for appeal. The computer, by comparison, at least gives you the opportunity to white-list a file if you find it useful. Witnesses don't trust your judgement to allow such a thing.

If I were to correlate this further to computers, it would be akin to McAfee exiling Microsoft Word for opening a legitimate file just because it disagreed with McAfee.

In the Witnesses methodology, the only way to cure a disease is to cut off the limb. There are inherent risks with that, however. Doctrinally, Witnesses only freely associate with people who are of good standing in the congregation. They don't fraternize with coworkers (as a general rule), unbelieving family members, or social groups not associated with the organization. So what becomes of a person quarantined from the very carefully maintained and white-listed believers?

Statistically, very few people who are disfellowshipped ever return. If they do, it's generally under some duress. That could be because of isolation from family members, or just from the loss of association with the only social group with whom they were allowed to have unrestricted contact. From personal experience, one tactic often applied by elders trying to counsel a soon-to-be disfellowshipped person is to highlight the loss of family contact, and their excruciating disappointment. It's hard to see this as anything but emotional manipulation.

It is the spiritual equivalent of the playground threat of I-won't-like-you-any-more.

I've often commented on the notion that love is sometimes a verb. It's something you do in spite of yourself. The practice mentioned above, however, is the deliberate withholding of love. Jesus Christ loved people who needed his help. He didn't preach to religious leaders, or people in good spiritual health. He ate with lepers, murderers, and thieves. He gave comfort to prostitutes, orphans, and blasphemers. He sent forth people who openly doubted him, fell short of divinity, and fought for status as his representatives.

What he did not do was tell anyone to ignore or ostracize anyone in spiritual need in the hopes that it would make them better people. He did not rely on injured an imperfect people to bring themselves up to the level of 'approved associate' before giving them recognition into the group. He helped them. He instructed others to help them. "Love your neighbor as yourself", he said. There were no caveats or conditions, and yet it is the one thing that Witnesses struggle with most.

Witnesses do this, of course, under the premise that it protects the spiritual health of the rest of the congregants. I've often wondered, though, if the health of the rest of the congregants is so shaky that one sinner can bring them all down, aren't they focused on the wrong problem?

Whatever the case may be, the dismal success rate of reintroducing disfellowshipped persons to the fold demonstrates that its an inefficient practice at best. At worst, it's patently cruel to completely cut someone off from all of their social and spiritual contacts.

Whether it comes down to cruelty or incompetence, one thing is obvious. Association with Witnesses only really serves their purposes. They do not value individuals as much as they value the system of which they are a part. Which is ironic since it takes individuals to uphold the system. This reduces individuals to worker-ants who do the labor at the direction of the Governing Body. If one becomes infirm, it's institutionally correct to walk right over the corpse of the fallen and continue with the plan.

I'm reminded though of a quote, and I don't recall who said it, that in effect says "our character is measured by how we treat those who have nothing to offer us".

So, what kind of character are you?

The Child's Burden

I grew up in a small tract house in St. Louis County. Saying it was small is much like calling the ocean 'wet'. When it was first built, it would officially be a two bedroom ranch. In all, it probably consisted of nine-hundred square feet of space on the main floor, with an unfinished basement.

For the first years of my life, I had a room of my own. The bed was a simple bunk built into the wall that was just long enough to fit a 2-4 year old child. When my sister came along, her crib was added to the room, while my older brother maintained his own bedroom at the opposite end of the house. His room was actually a walled-in dining room, which then relegated the dinner table to the middle of the kitchen.

One of my earliest memories was of attending my uncle Ricky's funeral. He had been a 30-year-old man of reasonable health who suddenly died of a massive heart attack. Certain details of the service I remember quite well, even at the age of three. I also remember it as a turning point when our quaint little house began to decline.

My mom had stayed at home to raise us kids, but returned to work when I was five. By that time, dishes began to pile in the sink regularly, and sit unattended for days. The kitchen table which had been such a regular meeting place became more of a catch-all for mail, news papers, keys, and anything else that wasn't going to be put away expeditiously. Eventually, the entire house became a tangled mess of publications, unopened mail, receipts, food containers, unwashed clothes and outright garbage.

Cleaning of any appreciable amount was reserved for when family was coming to visit. It was about the most stressful thing I can remember, not because of the sheer volume of work to be done, but the agonizing pace at which it had to be done. Every item that was left to wither in neglect suddenly became precious in the eyes of mother.

It had to be proved beyond all suspicion that the item we were about to discard was in fact useless. Very little ever made it to the trash. For years crap accumulated. Lead weights that were used to balance aircraft collected dust in our basement from time immemorial. Who in the mid-west, aside from an aircraft mechanic, has any need of aircraft balancing ingots? Every workout fad and device you can remember collected, only to go unused and serve as a place to hang discarded clothes.

Watchtower and Awake magazines (yes, my parents are Witnesses) that would never be presented to householders collected on the floor, between couch cushions, and on top of the refrigerator. Piles of Publishers Clearinghouse entries collected long after their expiration dates. Weird fashion magazines like Mirabella came to the house for no apparent reason, but then never went away.

Tools, building materials (and debris), and scads of  'useful' items made their way into the house whether we needed them or not. What we couldn't fit in the house just went in the back yard, or onto the porch for our neighbors to look upon with unending disdain.

And all of this was a secret.

We didn't tell people about it. We didn't invite people over. When they did come over with little or no warning, everything that could be hidden was shoved into a bedroom and kept out of view. My Grandpa Shug once chastised my sister for the condition of her room, blatantly telling her that God was disgusted. What he did not know is that my mom shoveled all of that shit in there mere minutes before he arrived. She never corrected him either.

Among other things, this was a cohesive element of our dysfunctional family. No one could know. I could not have friends over. I met them on the porch only. I lied to keep people from walking through our front door. I did as much as I could to hide this horrible and embarrassing reality from as many people as I could.

I hated it.

As a grown up I've never been fastidious, but I'm certainly no slob. Thanks to a vigilant wife, I've learned to be a functional adult who keeps a house livable. I have also come to realize that the 'normal' I grew up with was not all that normal.

My mother exhibited, and still does exhibit, all the signs of a hoarder. The loss of my uncle, her youngest brother, coincided conveniently with the beginnings of this behavior. The constant collection, particularly of things that would help her manage things like body image and self-esteem, and the refusal to let go of anything that had even tangential meaning are common elements to people with this illness.

I began to recognize the full scope of her issue after watching some episodes of Buried Alive. The show deals with hoarding, the families who cope with it, and the treatment of the disease. I also realized the exceptional strain that it put on me as a child.

While my mom is a hoarder, she is also an emotional manipulator. Though my brother, sister, and I never were responsible for bringing things into the house, we were told incessantly that we were the ones who responsible for leaving the house a mess. I don't deny that we didn't clean up after ourselves, but we also learned the habits from her actions, and the complicity offered by my dad.

Congregation elders would sometimes come by for what they called "Shepherding Visits". These were times when they would counsel us on proper behavior expected of Christian children, often focusing on helping parents keep a clean house. As good children of dysfunction, we took our roles in the illusion and accepted our counsel. One thing you never do with an emotional manipulator is talk back, so it was necessary, in the presence of others, to accept responsibility for something that isn't your doing.

A short time ago, a cousin posted a picture of my parents' home on Facebook. At first it was unremarkable to me, but then I took a moment to study it. The front porch was littered with belongings. I could clearly see a camp cooler, more building supplies, boxes, crates, and any number of things I couldn't identify. The side door was clearly visible, next to which a step ladder was propped instead of being stored in the garage or tool shed. The grass was unkempt and the house simply looked shabby. This is exactly what my childhood home looked like from the time I was three years old.

The reality is that my parents live in the same conditions they did before, but long after their children have gone. For those keeping score, the logical conclusion is that the blame placed on us back then was just horribly misplaced. We weren't causative.

As a child, however, these are things you don't know. You shoulder the load because you don't know what it is not to have the load. Nothing seems amiss. You don't even really question the shame of living in a house that has no floor. The full depth of this issue is impossible to address in one post, but it is important to understand that it is a behavior that encompasses a wide array of secrets and illusions from which children rarely recover in full.

These days, I carry a lot of anger. The relationship with my parents is strained. My 12-year-old daughter has not seen them in a long time, and has seldom stayed the night at their home. For more reasons than those detailed above, my wife and I don't let that happen. Even when they've invited her to stay at their home for a few weeks of the summer, I can't bring myself to make the arrangements.

The truth is that I don't consider them healthy influences. The bad habits and thinking patterns that were instilled in me are ones that I will not let my child learn. The exceptionally long reach of being the dumping ground of an emotionally injured authority figure is a burden that no child should bear. Neither is it a reasonable burden to keep family from being family. But while I can't adequately explain to my daughter now why her grandparents are not a part of her life, I would never be able to adequately explain allowing their habits to color her life or her understanding of herself. I find this to be the lesser evil.

That is the unfortunate burden I bear. To be the insulation between people I relied upon and the one who relies upon me.

Faith and Selective Blindness

As a young man, I was part of a devout splinter of the Protestant Reformation. I was also a scientifically inclined boy who was often fascinated by the mechanics of 'creation'. I took biology classes, and found great joy in physics. But looking beyond our own world, I stopped being curious. Why? Because there was nothing that I could expect to discover, as a matter of faith.

"But the universe is so HUGE", you posit. And you posit correctly. The universe is inconceivably massive. Even as I type this, astrophysicists are exploring deeper in to the history of the cosmos, discovering new galaxies, solar nurseries, black holes, and exoplanets. Every single day is a fraught with new findings that only tell us how much we don't know. And with each new discovery, there is the increasing possibility of finding intelligent life. And if there is the possibility of intelligent life, then there is the possibility of sapient life.

Except for that matter of faith.

I know, I keep poking about this faith issue. So, why is it so damned important? As a child of Christian parents, I was taught one immutable truth. God created the Earth for mankind to reside upon indefinitely, and that humans were the pinnacle of creation. Nothing stood above humans, not even God's own son. After all, He did allow his Son to be sacrificed to return the debt of a perfect human life. And when the Devil rebelled, he was cast down to the Earth and confined here until the Judgement Day. And for that, we still await.

This, in a nutshell, is the endgame of Christianity. But a couple of questions arise. Chiefly is this: If the Devil had free range of the universe (as the Bible implies), and there were other sapient species on other planets, could he not have corrupted them as he did us? Would God have permitted other creations (presumably ones made in His image) to be tarnished by the Great Deceiver?

They would, after all, have to be Christians. Would they not? And if they are, would it in fact stand to reason that God would let the same thing happen to two different (or innumerable) populations? And if he did, what kind of special star were we born under that makes us the scapegoat of all creation that we should have to bear the burden of the Devil's cohabitation?

There's really only one conclusion. There is no possible way that there is sapient life on planets other than earth, as a matter of faith. Yes. If you believe in the Bible (particularly 2 Timothy 3:16), then scientific discovery will fail. And everything you've learned up to this point is unnecessary.

My father is a very intelligent man. His IQ is likely higher than mine. So a discussion that I had with him last year left me feeling a little disheartened. We talked about the nature of the universe, and the natural life cycle of our star, Sol. In 4 billion years, it will have expanded to the point that it will encompass the orbit of the Earth. Or, at the very least, bring us so close to the face of the sun that we will be incinerated. This is a conclusion that is supported by all available science.

His answer to me was, "barring some Divine Intervention".

My dad has spoken the same faith since his late teens. I don't think he knows any other way of thinking, really. And that makes me question his regular reading of Scientific American. But aside from our own sun burning itself out, as all suns shall, there is the greater looming threat of entropy.

In 4 trillion years, all energy in the universe will be evenly distributed. Suns will fail to burn, and new ones will not be born in nebulae. Organic compounds will not have chemical energy to metabolize or reproduce. The light bulb of creation will have burned out. Which then begs the question, "If entropy is the logical, mathematical, physical conclusion to the universe, what was the purpose of an undertaking so monumental?"

Why billions of galaxies with billions of stars each?

Why countless exoplanets with the capacity for life, such as we understand it?

Why physical laws so reliable that we can fire a giant Roman Candle from Earth and land a probe on passing asteroid?

I think 'why not' is much more efficient. Why not make the sun and the earth the extent of the universe? If the Bible is right, and this is where we are supposed to have lived forever, then stars, galaxies, and all else that fills the heavens are just fancy set dressing. Nothing of any substance. Nothing that fills any need.

And still, one question remains. If the salvation of humankind lays in the hands of Divine Intervention through the cessation our our sun's self consumption, and our universe's continued operation, isn't all else that came before moot? Even the sacrifice of Jesus Christ?

Jesus' sacrifice was to offer us salvation from sin. Suppose he did that. But also suppose that the continuation of humanity simply puts it in the way of a very harsh and abrupt end at the hands of physics. That being the case, just what did Jesus accomplish? Aside from staying the execution until a date to be named later?

I guess that's something that only a person of faith can answer.

Apostate, Me

That word is one that I was taught to fear. Apostate. I learned it at a very early age and was taught to regard it with as much dread as any other child would the Boogey Man, Bloody Mary, or clowns. As one of Jehovah's Witnesses, apostates were people who would try to rob me of my faith, and my chance at eternal life. All the good that I could do as a Christian could easily be undone by a single conversation with an apostate, or by reading any of their printed material.

They were the worst of the worst. Irredeemable, untouchable, and forsaken.

Being an apostate carried the institutional definition of one who actively worked against God's organization. It wasn't enough to stop attending meetings, or going in field service. You had to actually pose an active threat to the faith of others or the organization.

Now, a lot of people become weary and inactive in the Watchtower, Bible, and Tract Society, yet never lose faith. As many remain active without ever having faith, in the hopes that surrounding themselves with spiritual brothers and sister will help it develop.

I am not here to comment either way on which action is correct, or if there even is a correct action.

I would like to correct one bit of thinking, though. Apostasy only requires that one lose faith. That is the dictionary definition, in fact, "someone whose beliefs have changed and who no longer belongs to a religious or political group". Any change in beliefs, even within the scope of your chosen doctrine, that causes you to leave makes you an apostate.

That is, after all, what made me an apostate.

I've never actively chosen to attack the faith of another, or purposely tried to undermine the foundation of their belief. I adamantly protect the right to believe in whatever faith a person finds most reasonable, uplifting, and comforting. However, I no longer believe and have left the God of my youth.

Some may wonder why. It's as simple as saying that I did not find a satisfactory answer. My former brothers and sisters would then admonish me not to "lean upon my own understanding", but there are certain realities that need to be addressed.

As I said before, I've never actively chosen to attack the faith of another, and I will not start here. I will, however, suggest many probing questions. Simply put, there are a number of areas in which Jehovah's Witnesses are more prone to act defensively than to think critically. There are matters of public record that do not conform to doctrine at the institutional level. There are also doctrines that do not withstand the scrutiny of logic.

When these issues are broached, it's standard policy to say that "Satan is trying to lead you away". I've learned, through many years of dealing with family who are still active in the faith, that there is only so much examination they will take. Once they reach their limit, they simply disagree, retreat to well practiced justifications, and break off contact.

Well, I got tired of saying 'nuh-uh' to people who questioned my faith, so I started questioning it on my own. Time after time, I ran into documented conclusions that didn't support courses of actions or dogmatic requirements. The walk just didn't match the talk.

Simple issues of the solar life cycle conflicting with the very nature of Messianic sacrifice make it impossible to take the bible for face value. The persistent short-comings and policy shifts of "God's organization" make it impossible to trust in the direction of the Governing Body. The higher standard that they should hold themselves to is really not all that high. They are just as faulty and culpable as the rest of Christendom.  In that regard they gain no distinction or honor.

And that all brings me down to one inescapable conclusion. The evidence does not match the claim, and we are either completely misled as to the nature and intent of God, or He simply doesn't exist. If it is the former, I refuse to believe that He is so petty as to hold my understandable confusion against me. Though, if He is that petty, then He's a dick and not deserving of my loyalty anyway. And if he doesn't exist, what did I really lose? A lifetime of congregants telling me that I need to do better and have more faith?

Becoming an apostate did not make me a horrible person. In fact, it allowed me to love more freely and see the value and beauty in people I once found deplorable on a scriptural level. I am more educated, more interested, and more involved in the world around me. Above all else, I have gained the self-acceptance that I could never have as a Witness.

The thing that I hope for is not that people leave their faith, but that they fully embrace it. I don't  believe that can be done without an honest examination of all the errors, faults, and gaps. The bible of course could not and did not address the flaws of God's organization, just as it could not detail the flaws of any individual adherent. To achieve complete transparency, one has to be willing to accept facts not documented in the scriptures. Measure the organization against their deeds. Don't stop the accounting at the bible and declare it good when the conditions set out in the scriptures are met. Account for all the things that are done which are not defined in the bible.

If you can get to the end of that road and truthfully say that your heart is behind it without reservation, then I will accept that and give you my blessing.  If you can't, please understand that you are not the first and you will not be the last.

You deserve to know everything about a group to whom you have pledged your life. Ask questions. Scrutinize honestly. Hold accountable. Faithfulness to falsehood is worse than honesty to emptiness.