the billy pulpit

In an earlier blog entry (A First Step…) I spoke about how it struck me as unfair that an accident of birth (mine, in the middle of the US of A) would somehow put me more in God’s favor than if I were born in, say, central China or India. And since I believed God to be nothing if not fair, then maybe it was not just unfair, but unlikely. This was my first significant step in questioning my belief system as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. But therein be dragons, because if this basic premise was inaccurate, what else might I believe that should be challenged?

But first, a little dogma of Jehovah’s Witnesses, as taught by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (at least as I understood it).

As a Witness, I was taught a number of things as incontrovertible:
• There is a God.
• He reveals Himself to us through the Bible, His written word.
• He created us and everything else in the universe.
• Although He loves all of us, He is a just God (an eye for an eye, and all that).
• One of God’s angels (referred to in the Bible only as Satan, which means “Resistor”) rebelled, later leading Adam to sin through Eve and that’s why we all die (since Adam’s sin was before anyone on earth was conceived, all of us inherited Adam’s sin).
• God sent his son Jesus to earth to ransom us from the sin of Adam.
• He has a “chosen people” on earth doing His will, and they are Jehovah’s Witnesses.
• The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (the legal entity of the worldwide organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses) is how He reveals His will to the faithful today.
• In the very near future (like, months or years, not centuries or even decades), God is going to cleanse the earth of wickedness (through Armageddon) and re-establish a theocracy on earth with Jesus ruling from heaven as King.

While not necessarily an all-inclusive list, I think that pretty well sums up what I was taught (and believed down to my toes); I daresay few Witnesses would disagree. There are obviously a whole bunch of corollaries to these statements; for example if God reveals Himself through Jehovah’s Witnesses, then all other religions (and the people in them) are wrong and are actually being misled by Satan. And they are thus part of “this wicked system of things” doomed to destruction at Armageddon, unless they “see the light” (again, as revealed by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society) and join the faithful.

Another interesting corollary involves evolution and creation. Jehovah’s Witnesses do not accept evolution as a scientific fact; they believe in direct creation by God. But they are not anti-science; in fact a careful evaluation of their philosophy reveals no negativity toward science nor progress. So why the insistence on creation? It’s not simply a universally literal interpretation of the Bible. There’s a number of things in the Bible that Witnesses don’t accept as literal, including aspects of a Biblical creation story (Witnesses don’t believe the creative days were literal 24-hour periods, for example). The explanation is actually quite direct: the Bible states that Jesus died for all our sins. The reason it had to be him as God’s son was that all humans aside from Jesus were born with Original Sin, which we all inherited from Adam. If Jesus was without sin (as the Bible states), then Adam must have been also (for Jesus’ sacrifice to be equal). The only way that works is if there was an actual person, directly created by God (and thus without sin). Reject an actual person named Adam and the necessity of Jesus “sinlessness” goes away.

To restate: if we reject a literally created Adam, then the whole basis of Christianity’s belief in the grace of God (Jesus’ ransom sacrifice) goes away.

Houston, we have a problem.

There’s a scripture in the Bible that’s always intrigued me, even as a young Witness. In Acts 11, it is written that Paul and his companion Silas are chased out of the city of Thessolonica by the Jews in the synagogue there for stirring things up with their preaching. They left in the night for a nearby city named Berea, where they found a more receptive audience. In fact, the writer compliments the Bereans as being of a “more noble character” in verse 17, where the writer (traditionally thought to be the Apostle Luke) says “Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.” (Acts 17:11, New International Version)

For the moment, let’s accept these words at face value, and assume the “Scriptures” being referred to are in our Old Testament (or Hebrew Scriptures, as Witnesses call them). Well, actually, more likely a portion of it; it’s highly unlikely that the Old Testament as we know it is what those Jews were reading. As far as scholars today have been able to determine, the Old Testament became that around 180 CE or so when Jewish rabbis decided what to include in the canon. For those Bereans it was likely at least what today constitute the first five books of the Bible (which they believed were the writings of Moses), and maybe also some of the prophets like Daniel, Ezekiel or Jeremiah. In any case, whatever these Jews were comparing Paul’s preaching to, the writer of Acts thought that was a good thing to do, even referring to them as having a “more noble character.” Many of them converted to Christianity, according to the next couple of verses in Acts.

So why does this scripture interest me? I think it’s a clear signal that critical thinking is considered to be important in examining one’s beliefs. These Berean Jews didn’t just accept what Paul and Silas were teaching; they checked it against whatever they had as accepted Scriptural authority. This, Luke is saying, is a good thing. I wrestled with this, even as a Witness kid. Right there in plain English is the exhortation to not take was said from an authority, but to compare it to what the Bible says (at least in this example). Now it is true, we were encouraged (in fact, it was a virtual requirement) to read the Bible regularly, and the Watchtower Society quoted scriptures quite liberally in all the literature. But all the quotes were within the context of a lesson of some sort, and frequently it was a single, pithy verse that supported (or seemed to at least) the specific point that was being made. But if there was ever question, we were encouraged to “not lean upon our own understanding” (Proverbs 3:5). And what that translated to is that we were to consult the Society’s literature for our answer. So while on one hand, the Bereans were held up as examples of noble character for their critical thinking, it was clear to us that we were to let the Society determine for us how Scriptures were to be interpreted. The Society resolved this apparent dichotomy in the best way possible: as the “spokesperson” for God there is no reason to compare their writings to any higher authority, since none exists.

That’s not very conducive to critical thinking, I’d say. But I think that’s the point.

Jehovah’s witnesses believe in the Genesis account of creation, but with interesting modifications. They believe that a literal person (Adam) was created first, with another literal person (Eve) created shortly thereafter. What’s interesting is that, through a complex series of calculations and application of various other scriptures, they believe this happened in the fall (meaning September or October) of 4026 BC. The main underpinnings of this conclusion stem from the conviction that, first and foremost, the Bible is their absolute authority. If it’s in the Bible, it’s True. Of course, this raises some interesting questions since no one today has the original, but that’s a topic for another entry.

The determination of the 4026 date is a little complex, but it starts with a literal interpretation of the genealogies listed in the book of Numbers in the Old Testament (all the “begats” that seem to go on for days). They believe that those are literal, 365-day years. Combine those genealogies with other scriptures and events in the Bible, pivot everything around a couple of dates that appear to tie archeological and historical dates to Biblical events, add in a little creative thinking (I hope you’ll pardon the pun), and it brings them to four conclusions:

1. Adam was created in the fall (likely September or October) of the year 4026 BC.
2. 1914 is an important year from a Biblical perspective. Specifically, Witnesses believe that in 1914, God established His kingdom in heaven, set up Jesus as the king and kicked Satan and his evil minions from His divine presence.
3. The generation that began around the beginning of the last century would also see the end of earthly governments, and the extension of Jesus’ heavenly rule to earth. (This position has drifted slightly in the past 20 years or so as that generation got older, but the basic belief is the same.)
4. Add the 1,000-year millennial reign of Jesus over the earth foretold in the Bible, and you have 7,000 years of man’s existence on the earth

I’m not going to take the time and pixels to go into the entire line of reasoning here, but suffice to say that they believe these conclusions whole-heartedly; indeed much of Witnesses’ activities are based on them.

So where am I going with this?

Ordinarily, JWs are pretty progressive and open to science; they preach a great respect for scientific achievement (unless it in some way conflicts with how they perceive God’s laws), and in fact, go to great steps in attempts to show that there is no conflict between “true” science and the Bible. So why do they take such a strong stance in rejecting evolutionary biology, when there is a virtual worldwide scientific consensus that we got here that way?

The answer lies in the conviction of the inerrancy of the Bible. If the Bible is true (and is the word of God), then evolution cannot be true. And interestingly, it’s not related only to a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation story, because as I’ve said in other blogs Witnesses don’t believe in literal 24-hour creative days; they believe each creative day was 7,000 years long. And they allow for a very old earth. (They interpret the events of the first and second verses of Genesis as being billions of years apart.) No, it’s more related to the logic behind the whole Redemption story.

Stay tuned for part 2.

Blaise Pascal, a child prodigy who entered this world in France in 1623, accomplished a great deal in his relatively short life before he died just a couple of months past his 39th birthday in 1662. The impact he made on mathematics, physics, religion and philosophy lasts today; one of the most enduring is even named after him. Pascal’s Wager, as it’s known, has been used for centuries as a reason to believe in God. In its essence, Pascal’s Wager weighs the consequences of both believe in God and non-belief in God: if you believe in God and He doesn’t exist, no biggie; you just die at the end of your life. If you believe and He DOES exist, heaven awaits (assuming you qualify). If, on the other hand, you DON’T believe in God and he doesn’t exist, you still just die, but if you don’t believe and he DOES exist, you’re hosed: you spend eternity regretting your paucity of faith by roasting in hell (or so said Pascal).

Interestingly, there’s a similar argument made in the Bible book of Acts. Seems the apostle Peter and friends had been arrested for evangelizing; specifically they were talking in the town square about Jesus being the Messiah and how the Jewish religious leaders were responsible for having the Romans execute him. Said religious leaders (Pharisees and members of the Sanhedrin) were understandably annoyed, and had Peter and his associates arrested. One of the Pharisees, a man named Gamaliel, cautioned his colleagues against doing anything rash; he said that since Jesus was gone, likely the sect that had followed him would fade away, using situations of men named Theudas and Judas the Galilean to support his point. Theudas was killed and his band dispersed; the same thing happened to Judas. But then he said “Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.” (Acts 5:38-39) Similar enough that it makes me wonder if that’s where Pascal got an inkling of his Wager.

Pascal’s Wager (or a minor variation of it) has been brought up several times by Scott, a good friend of mine who continues to attempt to get me to accept God and thus save my soul so I don’t go to hell for all eternity. And while I appreciate his concern, I have no interest in either hell OR heaven, in spite of the fact that it’s likely a good number of my friends will end up in the former (if I accept its existence in the first place). Nope, I plan on going to Dog Heaven. If I can’t spend eternity with Calvin, Hank, Roxy and the rest, I ain’t goin.’

Back to my friend Scott and Monsieur Pascal’s Wager. Note that while it’s frequently used to convince people that God exists, it actually does nothing of the sort. While the logic of the Wager is accurate, it offers no support for the basic premise of the existence of a Supreme Being; it just lays out the reasons why one would do well to believe. And even if that were to be convincing enough, the one convinced could just as easily decide that Allah, or even Thor or Zeus should thus be worshiped, not necessarily Yahweh (or Jehovah). That aside, let’s look at the question itself.

Assuming God can read our hearts (the Bible is clear on that point: nothing is hidden from God), then what would it say to Him if I were to pretend to believe in Him when I don’t, just to save my (worthless) hide from hell? Wouldn’t that be a totally selfish reason? And if so, how would that be pleasing to God? Isn’t it very much like living an honest life, not because you believe it to be the right thing to do, but out of fear of getting caught? Granted, the law as humans administer it would never prosecute you, but that’s not the point; God can read your heart and will hold you accountable for what you think! Remember Jesus is quoted in the Bible as saying that “the law of Moses said to never commit adultery, but I say to you that even lusting after your neighbor’s wife is the same as committing adultery.” (Probably shouldn’t be in quotes, as I’m sure I’m paraphrasing, plus there’s no way to know what Jesus really said anyway, but that’s another blog entry!) In other words, God judges, not just our actions, but our intentions as well.

Hoo boy.

Growing up as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, I believed that we were God’s chosen people. Of course members of virtually every fundamentalist religion (and some not so fundamentalist) would tell you the same thing, but I was convinced it was true. Oh sure, if questioned by non-Witnesses I’d say that God is just and fair, and only He can read someone’s heart condition, and of course there’s good people everywhere. But among other Witnesses, the next comment would be that eventually (and before Armageddon), all those “good people” would become Jehovah’s Witnesses if they were to survive. We believed completely that we Witnesses would be the only ones still standing at the end of Armageddon. And when you think about, if we didn’t believe that, then how could we justify all the door-to-door proselytizing? If it didn’t matter, why bother?

I got thinking about something that shook up that attitude for me. Let me ‘splain.

At one point, Jehovah’s Witnesses were the fastest-growing religion in the world. As far as I know, they continue to grow at a rapid rate. I noticed that, by far, the bulk of that growth came from Westernized countries. In fact, the vast majority of all Witnesses live in these countries; very little of the growth and even less of the current membership comes from places like India, the Arabian peninsula or China. And yet we believed that Jesus Christ died for all mankind, and that God’s purpose is that everyone achieve salvation. We were taught that God would save those “with a good heart,” but we also were told that only JWs were going to make it. So I came to the realization that it doesn’t make sense that one’s birth location would be the primary determinant of salvation prospects. I can’t imagine a fair God stacking the deck so heavily against people who have the bad luck (from a JW perspective) to be born in a country not conducive to our particular religious belief.

Let’s put it another way. I was raised as a JW. I was 5 or so when my father starting studying the Bible with Howard Klein and Claude Gotschall, two of the members of the local congregation. I realized that I was a Witness primarily because I didn’t know anything else. I trusted my parents (as most kids do) and just kind of accepted things as they were, and made them my own. That, by the way, is one reason Witnesses don’t practice infant baptism; they figure the kid needs to get a few years under their belt, and make their own decisions. I would argue that’s true, but at 13 or 14 (the age most JWs expect their kids to get baptized, at that time), you still aren’t mature enough to have thought it through; you’re operating pretty much on autopilot. On the other hand, my father was raised a Methodist. His mother was the Methodist Sunday School teacher for something like 50 years. And yet, he switched religions and became one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. As you might expect, that raised a lot of eyebrows in Forrest, Illinois; it’s a huge step for someone to abandon their parents’ faith, even in the United States. Now, take a moment and consider if Dad had been born in central India instead of central Illinois. His parents would almost certainly have been Hindu, and he would have been raised Hindu as well. Upon reaching adulthood, what would have been the likelihood of the Indian Lloyd Shaddle switching the faith of his birth to become one of Jehovah’s Witnesses? When pretty much his entire existence is focused on growing enough food for him and his family to survive until tomorrow? Virtually zero. As difficult as it was for Dad to change his religion, Indian Dad would have been infinitely less likely to do so; yet, it was my belief that in order to experience salvation he would have had to. So again, would a fair God set up a situation that nearly guaranteed that a large percentage of the world’s populace would never have the opportunity for salvation? I think not.

That thought process was my first big step in questioning my faith.