Of Wolves and Sheep

For a large portion of our lives, too large a portion, the virtues of being a sheep we extolled by the Society. So much so that we snidely referred to people who rejected the Good News as 'goats'. Sheep were meek, teachable, and gentle in spirit. Stuffed lambs were often gifted to newly baptized persons as a heartfelt "welcome to the flock". We accepted our place under shepherds as good sheep were supposed to do.

It was a warm and safe place to be, among the sheepfold. We were surrounded by people who understood us, and whom we understood. But there are things that we may have forgotten about what it meant to be a sheep, if in fact we ever realized it at all.

Sheep are a herd animal, the purpose of which is to gain safety in numbers. Primarily because a member is also what we typically call a prey-animal, it's common for them to become food for something larger and meaner. Such as it is, being a sheep grants you the boon of the eyes and ears of the herd. What could have slipped by the attention of one rarely escapes the attention of all. With that also goes herd-mentality. Individuality does not exist (unless the wolves are out), and what the herd does, the individual must also do for maximum benefit.

But wait... those all sound like positive benefits, do they not? That really depends on your point of view, Obi. The sheep is ultimately a self-serving animal. It's commitment to community is based on its ability to be comfortably away from the vulnerable fringe; not because they actually care about the welfare of the others in the herd. They don't gain any special access to food, shelter is unaffected, and being a sheep requires no industry.

The hum-drum of this existence is a little difficult to overstate. However, it works for some. Where sheep become really interesting is when you apply Selfish Herd Theory. Along the lines of self-service mentioned before, being part of a herd also increases the chance of subordinating a less capable member in the event of an emergency, or herd panic. First proposed by W.D. Hamilton in 1971, the theory was used to explain activities in which social groups will aggregate in stressful situations.

We've seen it happen many times. There is a mob movement where a majority of the members flee in a uniform direction. While there are a minority who flee elsewhere, the larger body of the group includes weak or infirm members who are either outrun by the majority, or trampled and left behind (presumably to their demise). The uniform flight response offers any one individual the increased probability that they can surpass a subordinate member, thus gaining an advantage in the flight towards safety.

For some of you, the light bulb may be starting to flicker.  I've written before that the goal of most active Witnesses is not to be the holiest of the holy. Rather, they aim to be be holier than the other guy. In that respect, the least capable members are run over and left behind, being allowed to drop by the wayside as the more attuned Witnesses huddle for warmth and community, thanking God for their blessings. They weren't looking out for each other at all... They only needed someone else to run a little slower, or have a little less faith.

I suddenly have a lot less respect for sheep.

Wolves are the most common predator that sheep face. They are also about as diametrically opposed to the paradigm of herd mentality as they can be. Packs of wolves have a common interest - success through cooperation.

Wolves rarely operate alone. Where only one may be visible, more wait in the wings. Yes, they have their own pecking order, but wolves are without a doubt social animals (not to be confused with herd animals). The common good can only be served through the health and vitality of the individual. Sick and weak members are a detriment to the others, so it behooves all to promote strength rather than to exploit weakness, as we see in sheep.

Packs operate under their hierarchy to successfully hunt, raise young, and maintain order. This is starkly different than a herd which simply mimics behaviors of their nearest neighbor, wherein one flees and the others follow suit. Wolves instead operate under deliberate direction, with specific goals, and discrete metrics of success. As one retreats, another advances. As one tires, another gives chase. As one group hunts, the rest guard the den.

I don't mean to undercut the importance of community. It's nice to have people with similar interests and complimentary skills. However, it's important that we not confuse community with cooperation. When it's time to face danger, being a sheep will just get you run over by the younger, stronger, faster members.

In becoming an apostate, I had to examine the nature of what I aspired to be. No matter what role a person serves in the congregation, they will always remain a sheep. Women are the least fortunate in that they are subjugated by virtue of gender. Men have opportunities to attain responsibilities, but no matter how high they climb, there is no summit. Success can only be measured by how far from the bottom one has traveled. Like sheep and other herd animals, the safest place to be is in the middle. Only the strongest and most dedicated ever get there, because you win at being a sheep by not being the slowest or the weakest.

I'm quite certain that this is the type of person I don't want to be. There are times when that mentality is appropriate to survival, but our humanity is not measured by how efficiently we flee danger. It's measured by what we do to help others who are in danger, and what we are willing to do to avert it.

The Society considers me a wolf. I think I shall thank them for the compliment.

Misapplied Faith

The book of Hebrews calls faith the "assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld." Scholarly dismissal of Hebrews from bible canon not withstanding, faith is almost always agreed to be a belief in things you can't see. The problem with discussing the bible with those who are faithful is that they often have no interest in the things they can see.

In a recent JW broadcast segment, Stephen Lett makes the erroneous claim that there is more evidence for "the Kingdom than there is for gravity." Yeah, he actually said that. Take a minute, because I sure had to...

Juxtaposed against Hebrews 11:1, Christians rely on centuries of assurances as the basis for their belief in all the things they practice. The two clauses of that scripture are not exactly polar opposites, nor are they mutually exclusive by their nature. But they almost certainly will never occupy the same space. Why is that?

Firstly, I don't think anyone will rightly contest that the "assured expectation" clause is the right of every living person, religious or not. You can hope in whatever you want, and can even be internally or externally assured of that. Whether that comes to fruition is something that only time will establish. It requires no validation, and most often requires revision after evidence to the contrary arises.

Secondly, the next clause is not faith. It's science. I'll even give you an example...

In 1781, British astronomer William Herschel discovered Uranus. Having done so without the use of both hands and a map, what had once been regarded as a star was definitively identified as a planet. Numerous astronomers then took to observing Uranus and all noted the same basic thing. There were irregularities which could not be explained by Newtonian Gravitational laws... or could they?

French astronomer Urbain Le Verrier concluded that the effect which was observed on the orbit of Uranus had to be the result of another heavenly body not yet discovered. He calculated the presence of the planet Neptune using only mathematics and the laws of gravity. To be clear, no one had yet laid eyes on Neptune through a telescope. Interestingly, English astronomer John Couch Adams had been making the same calculations independently and arrived at his conclusions just two days after Le Verrier.

On August 31, 1846, the world was publicly put on notice that another planet was believed to exist. On September 23, 1846, Johann Galle of the Berlin Observatory, having been notified by both Le Verrier and Adams independently, looked into his telescope and found Neptune just 43 arc seconds from its predicted location. Using the Sun as a starting point, La Verrier and Adams missed by 580,000 miles. Put your finger on the period at the end of this sentence; on an astronomical scale, they were closer.

That, friends, is the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld. Laws, predictable, repeatable laws that can yield the same result across independent investigations are evident demonstrations. Gravity has no form that we can measure. But it does have predictable behavior with defined values. Can the same be said of faith?

Faith is actually a belief in something for which there will eventually be proof. Heretofore, the only thing evidently demonstrated is that humans will do almost anything if they think God is behind it,  which has generally required the dismissal of science throughout history.

Watchtower takes their rise from a few well-meaning men to their current stature as evidence of God's involvement. This is their "evident demonstration". Judaism, Islam, and every branch of Christianity has endured longer and hold more adherents than Watchtower does. Multiple religious movements around the world are growing faster than Watchtower. Multiple groups are under the fire of persecution. Every religious leader mentioned in the bible was under God's direction, often with direct lines of communication (though curiously, Jesus was never depicted of hearing God's voice directly... figure that one out). The Governing Body, however, is not inspired... by their own admission.

What then has been evidently demonstrated? That a group of people who have a common goal can achieve great things? That the world at large is tired of religious abuses? In no way, shape, or form can there be said to be any evidence of Godly involvement in the Watchtower organization. It's just not there. At least no more than any other religion. They are subject to the same pitfalls and perils as everyone else on the planet, religious or not.

Gods and Dolls

I saw a play when I was in elementary school. I can't recall the title, but the premise was that the creations of a doll maker came to life and began experimenting with their own "upgrades". The first, and most rebellious of the dolls, found a heart crafted by her maker. She placed in on various parts of her body, determining that her forehead and elbow did not feel like the right place for the heart to reside. But, having placed it over her breast, she instantly became aware of its purpose and its power.

Some of the other dolls tentatively followed her lead, though one adamantly chastised the others for doing something they weren't supposed to. Their joy, however, at the discovery of this new knowledge, was intoxicating. But it still felt like they were doing something bad.

While the admonition to behave themselves was an explicit part of the script, I felt a noticeable connection with the most cautious character. Having been raised as one of Jehovah's Witnesses, I had been constantly reminded that disobedience was wrong and lead to death. The only thing worse than disobeying an authority figure was what happened if that figure found out. So, as this one character warned the others about the certainty of their maker's wrath, I felt a very real sense of dread.

As the play went on, the story line shifted from their impending punishment to the enlightenment they enjoyed as a result of their discovery. In time, the nay-sayer was proved wrong, but remained steadfast in his determination. I believe the maker eventually made it clear that the fashioned hearts were intended for all of them, but that they had simply discovered them before he had given them to the dolls. He wasn't angry. He, in fact, was also overjoyed.

The most obedient of the dolls wasn't exactly chastised by the maker, but was educated. While it had become apparent that the shift in group morality had turned the obedient one into an outcast, if not outright pariah, it wasn't proof that the obedience was actually correct. Quite the opposite.

The obviousness of this application to the apostate community can't be overstated. We've all learned something that obedient Witnesses insisted we leave alone. But we embraced that information, it was life changing and, however frustratingly, impossible to convey to the people that tried to hold us back.

Conservative, conscientious action is hard to undermine because it is usually a result of fear or caution. Unfortunately, excessive caution is really hard to identify, except in retrospect. So we are left with an audience that is reluctant to act because of repeated indoctrination that straying from the narrow path is inherently detrimental. No step is safe, so no steps are taken.

The bible is rife with examples of people who perished because of their pursuit of knowledge. Adam and Eve ate from the tree, came to "know" sin and died for their discovery. Lot's wife turned her head to witness the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and became a pillar of salt. Anyone who looked upon the contents of the Ark of the Covenant died, struck down by God's angel. The scouts that returned and reported Canaan filled with giants, sons of Anak, contracted a mysterious plague and died.

Knowledge gets you killed in the bible. Well, that, and disagreeing with the people who speak for God. People who scrape together just a little incredulity were often put to the sword, burned alive, or had their assholes fall on the ground with disease.

One can imagine why even contemplating the slightest misstep could cause anxiety. God of the Old Testament frequently killed, or had killed, people who displeased him. The body count that God has amassed by way of executive decision far exceeds anything directly attributable to the Devil. Thusly, if you have faith in religious leaders and they tell you that you're invoking God's wrath, His well established killing streak is worth noting.

It's true that pursuing knowledge is sometimes a deadly endeavor. The best known explorers are often the ones who came back from their adventures with new understanding, while those who did not are sometimes just a footnote of history. But does that mean that knowledge is intrinsically harmful? It would be hard to make such a case.

Human evolution is guided by what we don't know. Not knowing how to avoid getting eaten by a saber-tooth tiger was a good way to die if you encountered one in the ice age. Not knowing what kinds of foods are inedible is a good way to die from poisoning. Not knowing how to effectively treat a given cancer is a good way to succumb to its growth. Survivors know something that the victims did not, and that is what "worked".

Knowledge is often accidental, and some of the most useful discoveries were made in this way. X-ray Imaging and Penicillin - both accidental discoveries, and two of the most useful medical advances in history. But because God didn't bother writing it down in the bible, it falls under the umbrella of things He didn't find important enough to tell us. But should we equate that with things-He-didn't-want-us-to-know? Psalm 147:5 claims that the knowledge of God is without limit, and as all of our modern existence is technologically extra-biblical, it is accurate to say that we've already discovered much more than He let on through scripture. So why does that not raise the dander of the Governing Body?

The obvious answer is that the only knowledge to which they object is that which exposes them for what they are - men who are guessing... Knowledge which leads you away from trust in their leadership leaves them without purpose. These are people who have no secular skills, or little marketable experience. They are advanced in age and beholden to the charity of their underlings to survive. They could not see to their daily needs without the support of the flock.

They believe. They have faith. But they don't know... Everything they purvey as fact is something they have interpreted, or has been passed down by an organizational forebear. The dolls at the beginning of this entry believed that the maker may be angry at their boldness, but they didn't know. It was not until they were told explicitly what his will had been that they knew their belief to be incorrect.

Likewise, there is a wealth of information that has already been discovered, as the heart was discovered by that one intrepid doll. No one, not even the maker, could fault the doll for her discovery or again hide what had once been unknown. It is an error to assume that just because a teacher did not impart knowledge that they meant for it to remain unknown. If anything, God (being the faithful and true sort) must have intended for us to discover and know the full wonder of creation. All that He has created must be for our discovery. If it is not, then it without purpose.

God is a God of purpose. We are but His dolls.