Hello all, I think you will find this interesting:
Well the meeting took place and I have to say it had a few surprises. One of the biggest surprises was that it was truly non-confrontational in every respect. The mission this elder claimed to be on was to see if he could convince me to allow my son to resume his meeting attendance and study. True to his word, that is the path he followed. To my surprise, he did not appear to be on a fact-finding mission trying to uncover some divergent view of mine in order to DF me. In fact we came to agreement on several points.
Ultimately he was unable to show a scriptural basis for the severe shunning often associated with Dfing. I brought out that the consequences of this policy produce very unsavory things such as: parents not attending their own son’s or daughters wedding or grandparents who have never seen their own grandchildren etc. You know the horror stories; many on this board have lived or are living them even now. He attributed the severity in these cases to the imperfections among the brothers. I agreed that was indeed a factor, however I also stated and got him to agree that it was also in part rooted in such statements from the Watchtower such as:
(Paraphrased) ‘If the DF relative is not living in the same household, it may be possible to have little or no interaction with them’.
I have some of you to thank for the suggestion to take the lead and keep the conversation on track. I kept this in mind and doing so was to my advantage.
Knowing in advance that the strategy that would most likely be used by him would primarily involve Old Testament examples, (proof texts) I established very early on and got him to agree that the Gospel is the ultimate authority and anything from the Old Testament could and should be used only if it supported New Testament teachings, not supplanting these teachings. This disarmed him to a large degree, I think he had just lost most of his ammunition.
I consider this a major victory because without OT views, the scriptures supporting shunning are very small in number. Now that I had eliminated the OT as a factor, I got him to admit that it is necessary to understand the customs and meanings of the time so as to get the correct application.
I used the example of ‘go ye not from house-to-house’ as a misapplication used by some to undermine the preaching work. He knew of this and agreed it was a misapplication of the scriptures and agreed it was important to know the true meaning of what it meant to the people being spoken to.
I educated him to some degree on customs associated with worship within the early church. He already knew of some but not all the customs. I explained and showed from scripture how one part of worship back then was held in private homes, often over a meal (example Acts 20:20 in a real Bible, or an older version of the NWT with the footnote, the footnote they now don’t want you to see).
I asked, could it be that perhaps it was from this form of WORSHIP that Christians were to avoid association with DF persons and not from normal day-to-day living? I asked could it be that “not inviting them into your home”, “not saying a greeting to them” (the holy kiss), “not even sharing a meal with such a ones” etc. meant something else back then. Could it be the in-home private type of worship COMMON IN THEIR DAY and not normal day-to-day living or public form of worship that was being spoken about?
He was not sure, but admitted it was a possibility. I explained that to me, how we treat a Dfed person seems more like what the Pharisees would do, as opposed to Jesus’ example. Jesus sat with the sinners and tax collectors but did not shun them.
Perhaps I’ve planted a seed here, I know for sure I made him wonder why we don’t have funds for persons in need (widows & orphans) anymore like they did back then. We also touched on fellowship funds, worship meals, etc. all things very common back then but for some unknown reason, not practiced by Witnesses today. I don’t expect much out of this, but then you never know.
We went on to my next big objection, the issue of blood. I pointed out some of the blatant inconsistencies. He had to admit there were problems. However he blamed the apparent inconsistencies on human imperfection. I swear, inside I wanted to scream then why the hell does the Governing Body claim they speak for God, but I kept it cool. I more or less said that’s fine, nobody is perfect after all, but this is after all the life of my child, so you don’t get to change your minds in the next issue of the Watchtower after my boy is dead and now say he can have platelets, or red cells etc. or whatever was needed to save his life. No you have to have this right from the beginning.
Trying to minimize the risk of not taking blood or the forbidden fractions, he at one point said he personally never knew of anyone who died as a result of not having a transfusion. I thought of the picture in our bedroom of my wife’s now dead friend who refused needed blood components that were on the banned list and died when her cancer could not be treated without the blood. Maybe she would have died even with the cancer treatments, but without the treatments she had zero chance. She was sent home from the hospital, as they could not treat her without blood. She wanted to see her friends again in the short time she had left. I remember going to the gathering at her house. How bizarre it all was. There was much food, gifts, her husband and children and the entire congregation, including this elder, were all there for her. How sad it all was, we all new she was about to die, and so she did about a 2 months later.
Then I thought of the young father, also in this elder’s own congregation, that died just a few months ago. His leg was severed in a motorcycle accident. It was a clean cut, many bruises but no major internal injuries. He died of massive blood loss after refusing red cells. Volume was no problem, they treated that, but he needed oxygen carrying red cells, and alas they are on the banned list. Yes this one would have had lost his leg, but he would be alive today if he had received what he needed, his wife and young children would still have a husband and father if what he needed was not on the banned list.
I did not bring these cases to his attention, my reasoning was that I had affection for these people and I would have to smack him for spitting on their graves, not even remembering why they died. Also it was obvious he was in some level of disconnect, he had to be. The funeral talks were in the same hall he attends, and he was at her house at that morbid party. I just said that I did know of some that died as a result of refusing blood.
I then showed him an article showing that a JW woman was 44 times more likely to die during childbirth due to the blood issue, even with cell-savers, volume expanders etc., 44 times more likely to die then the general population. Almost no impact at all; the lights were on but nobody was at home.
I showed him a back issues from the society banning the use of vaccinations. “Thinking persons would rather have smallpox then vaccination…etc.”. He admitted he never knew that the society banned vaccinations at one time. I also pointed out that they often used the same scriptural arguments that they now use on blood and at one time organ transplants. More or less I said I think there is a possibility they could have this wrong just like they obviously had the vaccination and organ transplant issue wrong back then.
I asked him did the brothers in Brooklyn understand that the blood of identical twins who share the same placenta also share the same blood and that it is not fractions but whole blood that is shared? He never heard of such a thing. I suggested he ask an OBGYN about it. He recommended that I write the society to make sure they knew, and if the facts supported it, he could see that this may change their view on blood in the future.
NEWS FLASH: Brother inactive alerts Governing Body to unknown facts about blood. Changes in blood policy soon follow allowing all forms of blood transfusion.
OH yes I can see it now: (On bended knee) OH great and wonderful Governing Body, to you belong the power, the glory, the property deeds, and the mortgages. Let it be so that in your Devine, non-prophet wisdom you see fit to change the light of old for the light of new. To you oh great ones belong the power, the glory, the Kingdom Halls, and Paterson, forever and ever amen.”
Well I don’t think so.
At this point I said I also had a problem with being told that this blood component is MY choice and others are NOT MY choice. I said I felt as if someone else’s conscience were being imposed on me. He said he could see my point, but offered no real explanation as to why some things are allowed and others are not. He said he never fully researched it himself, but just accepted what the Governing Body said knowing they knew best.
He went on to assure me that my boy would have to fully agree with the current blood policy 100% before he would be allowed to be baptized. Translation: he would have to prove he is as brain-dead as us before we let him into the club.
He said this after I just got done showing him how goofy this blood policy was. Somehow I think at this point he was going into full JW mode because he then started pushing the idea that these “one or two minor issues” could be set aside for now as I agreed with him that for the most part JW’s were moral, honest, did nice things, paid their taxes, etc., except in France. :-)
He suggested that if I let him resume his attendance at the meetings, he would advise me when there would be a meeting part that I would have a problem with, like shunning, and my son could just not attend on that night. I was thinking to myself, this guy is like Monty Hall; he must think this is Lets Make A Deal!
I was totally shocked. But just think of it, what a great move on his part. At this point he totally lost the argument, almost on every single point, but somehow that did not matter, why let facts get in the way. As I discovered, he switched gears and was now putting everything on the endgame to achieve his objective. Yes, it was like he was reading right out of the O. J. Simpson defense team play book. Forget the mountain of evidence: “If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit”. This truly was a very clever man, I was impressed by this move!
I indicated that his suggestion would not be acceptable at this point in time but I also said things are always subject to change and more or less suggested the teaching on shunning may change like the teaching on blood and vaccinations has and is changing. I was more or less saying: give me a call when you guys get new light on this. At this point our 2 ½ hour meeting cordially ended.
I was pretty proud of myself, and you know, I was also pretty proud of him too. Here was a man of conviction, he has his entire life invested in the JW dreamland-fantasy-virus, but he was willing to question some of these off-limit things that someone else, an inactive someone I might add, brought to his attention. That takes humility.
No I don’t expect miracles, I fully expect his JW trained mindset will replace any reason and logic that may have momentarily crept in, but at least he had a glimpse, if only for a moment of something outside the JW mind control box. A momentous thing considering many in his position will never achieve even that. Sometime later, long after he left, still thinking about it, I was saddened almost to tears; I was grieving the death that is his life. Such intellect being wasted toiling as a janitor and magazine salesmen, such a waste of a precious life. God when will it end?
End of report.
Freeman