Foreclosure

When I started this blog, I occasionally discussed the possibility of opening its contents to the eyes of search engines and the general public. I've wavered in my consideration of this—some of the material here is too personal, too provocative, I feel, for public exposure. I doubt I will make a post more personal or provocative than this: a transcript of the events that occurred between 8 and 9:20 PM at my local Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses; a private meeting in which I was castigated and ultimately excommunicated for my predilection for rationalism. I should stress that, although I'm calling this a transcript, it is reconstituted from shorthand notes and my fading memory of the discussion. Nevertheless, it is an honest attempt to reconstruct the conversation to the best of my ability.

I met with three elders. In the spirit of maintaining anonymity and protecting the privacy of others, I will call these elders Λ (Lambda), Ξ (Xi), and Ψ (Psi). It's a wonderfully pompous way to depersonalize people; typical of my self-deprecative style. The discussion was conducted as politely as possible and I don't hold grudges against the elders involved: it's clear that they took time out of their lives to discuss this matter with me, and their decision that I should be expelled from the congregation, while a significant landmark in my life, may help bring closure to my past beliefs so I can progress in my appreciation for reality.

Λ opened the discussion by informing me that all three elders would be taking notes, which would be placed in a sealed envelope. Only those three in the judicial committee would read the notes, and their contents would not be made known to the general congregation. I didn't mind the note-taking. As I explained earlier, I was taking notes of my own.

At Λ's request, I offered a summarized account of my progress toward atheism; a vague summary of the story this weblog tells.

Λ continued the discussion. So you no longer believe in Jehovah. How do you feel about the Bible?

I explained that the Bible, written by human authors, contains some good ideas and some bad. I don't believe it was divinely inspired and don't believe it is inerrant.

Ξ described Jehovah's Witnesses' interpretation of the Bible's definition of apostasy: a planned deflection and deliberate rebellion; stubbornly holding onto ideas. He read 2 Corinthians 6:14,15 with the context that I am an unbeliever and the congregation could become unevenly yoked with me.

I politely pointed out that my current beliefs are the result of consulting sources cited in literature published by Jehovah's Witnesses only to find that the citations were misrepresentative of facts or original sources. This, coupled with a discovery of the actual scientific explanation for the origin of humanity. I made no rebellion or planned deflection—my past beliefs simply failed to hold up to scrutiny. Nor would I cling to my beliefs stubbornly; were reasonable doubt provided, I would abandon atheism just as I had theism. I even made particular effort to reignite the flame of theistic belief by deciding to study prophecy rather than leaping to conclusions based on scientific discoveries alone. Ξ didn't understand this, and we decided to move the discussion along.

Ψ made a comment about the scriptures always coming true, thus casually dismissing and contradicting my discovery that Jehovah's Witnesses' interpretation of Daniel's Seventy Weeks prophecy is false. He went on to cite 2 Timothy 2:16-18, adding that whatever research made me not believe can be likened to gangrene. Finally, he asked me, Do you think the organization is perfect?

Absolutely not, and nor does it claim to be.

Then why would a mistake made by the organization cause you to leap to the conclusion that God doesn't exist?

The fact is, I explained, I was researching Daniel's prophecies in an attempt to reignite a smoldering—perhaps even extinguished—faith, as was recommended to me. I had become fixated on the Genesis accounts, and decided that a thorough examination of prophecy should provide evidence for the Bible's divine inspiration. I considered Daniel's prophecy of Seventy Weeks to be a particularly powerful example of prophecy indisputably made before the events took place and having prominent archaeological support; corroboration. Upon researching, I was reminded of its controversies and later discovered misrepresentations within literature published by Jehovah's Witnesses, both of archaeological findings and of classical historians. I was moved to distrust the publications because I found misrepresentations, intentional or otherwise, when I researched matters deeply, and when my faith was already shaken by plausible scientific explanations for the origin of humanity; but also, because the actual evidence—misrepresentations removed—absolutely contradicts Jehovah's Witnesses' interpretation of Daniel's prophecy, a core doctrine of the group.

Λ asked me why I give men, instead of God, the final credit on the origin of the human race. What substantiates their opinions in my mind?

I explained that science is a very competitive field, and that scientists are eager to disprove one another's hypotheses. I vaguely explained the peer review process.

Ah, Λ interrupted, but that's according to mankind's imperfect reasoning.

Core to that argument, I explained, is the idea that, because a single human is imperfect, multiple humans freely criticizing one another's ideas are multiplicatively imperfect. This is a wrong assumption. I related the anecdote of a recent computer program produced by a shipping company and based on observation of swarm intelligence. The program helps the shipping company reduce delivery costs by plotting the most energy-efficient routes to carry deliveries. The method it uses is not a simple formula; rather, it creates many robots which run along the maze of the map, plotting their unique courses. Although individually imperfect, the result of their systematic cross-comparison of one another's work is the best practical answer available, though it is often unintuitive. Similarly, because science is a systematic study of nature, and because scientists rigorously criticize and critically analyze one another's results, their corroborative conclusions are more reliable than their imperfect individual opinions.

We all have a choice in what we believe, don't we? asked Λ. He continued, At what point did you make your decision not to believe in God, without first consulting members of the congregation?

I'm disturbed by the idea that I could wake up one day and consciously decide to change my worldview. Is this really the case for some Christians? Do they really see belief as a matter of personal preference, like a favorite color or musician? Belief is nowhere near so trivial or simple for me, and I'm still a little offended that it was suggested that I simply try believing something else, contrary to evidence or reason.

I explained that others in the congregation base their beliefs on sources I had discovered misrepresent facts. I couldn't explain my issues to them without spreading those issues to them; apostatizing by criticizing the faithful and discreet slave.

By your actions, Λ told me, You have criticized the faithful and discreet slave.

I made no comment on the accuracy of this suggestion.

Ψ spoke next: If we had a compelling conversation that convinced you God is real, someone else could come along and launch a counter-argument you found equally compelling. He then read James 1:6-8, reiterating that the Bible instructs us not to doubt, and that if we doubt, we shouldn't expect anything from Jehovah.

I could use this argument, I explained, as the foundation for any arbitrary belief whatsoever. I could apply it to any other Christian sect's Bible interpretation or non-Christian religion's Holy Book and say that doubt of that material would be wrong. I made the same point about the idea that we shouldn't accept sources that contradict God's word; I could apply exactly the same reasoning to any arbitrary text whatsoever: we shouldn't accept man's criticism of the Qur'an because God knows better than man; we shouldn't accept man's criticism of the Guru Granth Sahib because God knows better than man; etc. What's required for belief is substantial, reasonable support for trust in a source, and it turns out there is none for the Bible; what I thought was support had been misrepresented to me.

Λ read Luke 17:1,2. He explained that it is unavoidable that I should become a stumbling block. He related how, when my mother-in-law called him to divulge my atheism, she mentioned the stress this had caused her and my wife, and how she believed my folly would drive Alice over the edge.

The emotional blow, I conceded, would be hard for any spouse to bear, let alone one in Alice's fragile psychological state. But really, that blow would exist no matter what decision the judicial committee reached. It's an unfortunate but unavoidable effect of the situation.

Λ decided to wrap up the meeting at that point. The charges against me were apostasy, rejection of God, and rejection of his representation through the Faithful and Discreet Slave. He then read 2 John 7-11, which calls people apparently in my position the antichrist and, according to Jehovah's Witnesses' translation of the Bible, instructs Christians not to say a greeting to such persons. Because I oppose God, Λ explained, I should be disfellowshipped.

My Miranda rights were then read to me: I am free to make an appeal by writing within seven days, if I do not make such an appeal within seven days, the decision will be announced from the public platform at the next service meeting. They do ask that I respectfully make my presence for the announcement, sitting in the back row, facing my responsibility, and generally being a man about it.

I shouldn't discuss spiritual matters with my wife, and she will be instructed not to discuss spiritual matters with me. The same with my parents; it didn't sound as though Jehovah's Witnesses would judge my mother if she chose to stay in contact with me, but she should not discuss spiritual matters with me so that I don't subvert her faith.

Is there anything you would like to say at this point?

Not really, no. Obviously, I respect your beliefs and your interpretation of the Bible and appreciate that you feel the need to cast me out of the congregation because you believe I will advance to more and more ungodliness. From my perspective, it's unfortunate, but mostly for social reasons.

And that was that. As far as I'm concerned, this was foreclosure on my association with the Christian brotherhood of Jehovah's Witnesses. I cannot believe in God, therefore, I am not one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Such will be announced at a public meeting place.

I have to start getting ready for work in a couple of hours, so I'm off to catch forty winks on the living room floor. Although I'm about to suffer public condemnation at the hands of friends, I'm grateful for the offer of such definite and fascinating closure to my life as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. I'll make an effort to attend the meeting in which my disfellowshipping is announced; not because of the appeal Λ made to my masculine ego, but because I feel it will provide wonderful closure to an old life ruled by superstition and delusion.

---

Update 2008-06-07: corrected scriptural reference; 2 John 7, not 8, calls me the antichrist.