Was I Disrespectful to Dr Singelenberg?

by slimboyfat 47 Replies latest jw friends

slimboyfat

As some may know, Richard Singelenberg is a Dutch anthropologist who studies Jehovah's Witnesses. He has produced academic articles and reviews on issues ranging from the 1975 disappointment and child custody cases to Jehovah's Witnesses in Nazi Germany and the history of the blood doctrine.
Sometimes he sides with apostates and sometimes he sides with the Witnesses on controversial issues (though I personally suspect the former impulse is greater than the latter). But that simplification is especially crude, and it is perfectly clear that Singelenberg is a gifted scholar who has made some very valuable contributions to the social scientific study of Jehovah's Witnesses without regard to partisanship.
So I was glad when he condescended to respond to my email to him. Since praising him for the many virtues of his work on Jehovah's Witnesses would be tedious, and obsequiousness does not become me, I have concentrated on some modest criticisms of details in his work in my emails.
Recently I suggested that the prohibition on blood transfusion did not begin in 1945, as he has argued, but in 1944. He now informs me that he will entertain no further correspondence with me, due to the "downgrading evaluative remarks" of my most recent message. I honestly meant no offence by the comments I made in my message. Sometimes I write things that if I were to say in person would be accompanied by a mischievous smile or a wink . I did not mean to be disrespectful. Could others on the forum tell me if they also think my message conveys that I am an incorrigible toe-rag?
Singelenberg:
>
> Ok, I've seen the whole page now and I assume you refer to par 33 since
> there's nothing else on the page. As I said in my earlier message, this
> cannot be considered, as you say, "that transfusions were forbidden
> already
> in 1944". Of course, you may try some semantic or exegetic gymnastics to
> prove your point but the bottom line is that it doesn't say that the brs &
> srs should abstain from blood transfusions. Period.
>
> Nevertheless, one may consider the statement, as others in the same
> period,
> precursors to the actual prohibition. After all, the flock has to be
> warmed
> up for such a drastic teaching.
>
> RS
>
>

Me:
Well the whole article sets out various rules 'alien residents' in Israel
lived by in order to join God's nation and separate themselves from the
gentiles. The article then states that 'antitypical' Jonadabs (the great
crowd in current parlance) need to act similarly to separate themselves
from the world and ally themselves with God's chosen ones. If mention of
the injunction against blood were intended merely to refer, in
application, to the alien residents in Israel and not to modern Jehovah's
Witnesses, then use of the term 'transfusion' would be redundant. The
insertion of the modern technique of 'transfusion' into the discussion
clearly conveyed that the command was in this respect binding upon
contemporary Jehovah's Witnesses. Call that 'gymnastics' if you like, it
is perfectly straightforward to me :-)

More to the point, I find it curious that you ridicule the suggestion that
this reference indicates blood transfusion was 'banned' already in 1944,
when the article upon the basis of which you claim transfusion was
prohibited from 1945 onward is even more vague. Far from 'introducing the
prohibition' (as you state in your 'taboo' article), the July 1st 1945
Watchtower in its discussion of blood, as I recall, does not even mention
blood transfusion. Some doctrinal proclamation that! At least my article
actually mentions 'transfusion'! On this issue, it seems to me, you have
uncritically followed secondary sources that universally and inexplicably
promote 1945 as year the 'prohibition' began. Whoever started this false
notion I do not know, but commentators have apparently been copying each
other without recourse to the original.

As for 'warming up the faithful' [:-)] I can see how you can argue this
was done over the generation, the goats, alternative service, and other
changes of recent times. But that does not seem how they operated in the
old days. Watchtower leaders were much more confident (cavalier?) back
then, and less concerned about the possible downsides of new
pronouncements. Rutherford almost seemed to delight in surprising his
devotees with shock doctrinal changes - as with the adoption of the new
name: 'Jehovah's Witnesses'. In that context I see the blood doctrine as
the ad hoc product of evolving attitudes and new situations facing the
leadership, rather than the premeditated result of a cautious doctrinal
denouement. Far from 'warming up the faithful' for the flag salute
struggle, for example, Rutherford landed the Witnesses with this battle on
the spur of the moment by his off-the-cuff answer to a single question
during a Witness assembly, as you may recall.

I do rather hope that your comment that the 'flock' was 'warmed up' for
the blood doctrine is merely a light-hearted attempt to shock me (on the
misguided assumption that I can be shocked). I would not like to believe
that you persistently inhabit such a cynical attitude with respect to the
history of Jehovah's Witnesses, while all on your lonesome.

What is an xmission? (sounds saucy)

What 'exegetic gymnastics' deprives 'good luck' of its usual sense in your
submission to the AJWRB?

Singelenberg:
I've had it with you.

I made it clear earlier that I have enough of your downgrading evaluative
remarks.

This message ends my correspondence with you.

RS

Thanks for any feedback.
Spook

Yeah, a little bit. I don't feel it was intentional. Language barrier issue? I would skip exclamation point statements in an interchange like that. You also said "ridicule" in reference to him.
That said, he seems to have over reacted. I don't know the extent of the interchange, but I wouldn't worry about it if I were you.
Scully

"Disrespect" is often in the eye of the beholder. Particularly if that "beholder" happens to have a PhD following his name, and you're questioning his life's work. If you had a PhD after your name, it might have helped... but if you don't, it's usually a matter of "who the hell do you think you are?" when you start pointing out possible inconsistencies with their research.
seattleniceguy

Hello SBF,
I don't see anything that I personally would be very offended at, but I do notice a general tendancy to use charged Watchtower-esque words and phrases in your writing, which can be tiresome in quantity. (Please don't take offense at this - I'm merely trying to give you my frank opinions.)
For example, at the beginning of this post, you observe that
Sometimes he sides with apostates and sometimes he sides with the Witnesses on controversial issues
which I find to be a rather absurd characterization. I think it would be more accurate to say that sometimes he agrees with the Witness version of history and sometimes he does not. Why introduce the Watchtower-loaded word "apostate" into the discussion?
In your actual correspondence, you say
I find it curious that you ridicule the suggestion that this reference indicates blood transfusion was 'banned' already in 1944
I used to write just like this, because it is a very Watchtowery way of writing. They love to say that people "ridicule" or "deride" or "decry" certain things, when in reality the person may simply disagree. I only bring this up because people often take offense when they feel that their position is being caricatured.
I think he might well have taken offense to this statement:
I would not like to believe that you persistently inhabit such a cynical attitude with respect to the history of Jehovah's Witnesses, while all on your lonesome.
Honestly, I don't understand the purpose of this sentence. My mind struggles to understand what you might mean, and the only plausible interpretation I come up with is that you are being protective of the Society and can't bear that others might not be as generous as you in their opinions of their motives, and that you are attempting to invoke shame over such a cynical attitude by suggesting that he is the only one that has it.
That's about it. All in all, I think it's a fairly tame letter. My comments were made without knowing the context, either, so apologies if I've gotten the whole thing wrong. Those are just my thoughts.
It is interesting to see you having this type of discussion. Hope my comments did not offend.
SNG
seattleniceguy

Hey, Spook picked up on the "ridicule" thing too! I swear I wrote that at the same time that Spook was writing his post. :-)
SNG
slimboyfat

Thanks everyone.
Thanks Seattleniceguy, your comments are very helpful. I see I should drop words like "ridicule", but I honestly felt that was what he was doing when he previously said: "you may try some semantic or exegetic gymnastics to prove your point but..."
You understood my obscure sentence correctly. I am a bit defensive about Jehovah's Witnesses, it is true... it was not so long ago that I was one myself. I think people in general are far too cynical in evaluating the actions of others who act upon the basis of beliefs that they do not share. This is especially the case with those interacting with controversial issues relating to Jehovah's Witnesses, many approaching the subject with strong opinions of their own. I have made this point before with Singelenberg in relation to his assertion that the Witness leaders' view of higher education evinces 'paranoia'.
I did not mean to try to 'shame' Singelenberg into abandoning his cynicism as such (I think). My argument was that it is historically inaccurate to assert that Witnesses in the 1940s 'warmed the faithful up' for new pronouncements. Such a strategy on the part of the Witness leadership is, in my view, a more recent development, and is symptomatic of the fact that current Witness leaders are somewhat less sure of themselves than in the heady days of the 1940s. I also happen to think that it is quite depressing and unhelpful always to approach the actions of Witness leaders (or anyone) with such cynicism.
You are right that you do no know the full context, and there seems to have been offending remarks that Singelenberg took exception to in my previous emails that are not displayed above. But I honestly do not think that anything I said previously was any worse than what I wrote here.
Maybe you apostate are not so bad after all.
Thanks again
seattleniceguy

My argument was that it is historically inaccurate to assert that Witnesses in the 1940s 'warmed the faithful up' for new pronouncements. Such a strategy on the part of the Witness leadership is, in my view, a more recent development, and is symptomatic of the fact that current Witness leaders are somewhat less sure of themselves than in the heady days of the 1940s.

Without really knowing too much about this topic, I tend to agree with you just as a gut reaction. However, in any case, any assertion regarding motives is clearly a thesis statement that would require extensive evidence to prove convincingly. It is difficult to show what a person was thinking, based only on authoritarian tracts they wrote.
I thought your statement about Rutherford delighting in shocking the faithful with New Light was interesting. That certainly seems to have some merit. Of course, no one says that he couldn't have been careful on other matters at the same time. Surely no intelligent person limits himself to a single modus operandi.
But at any rate, with regard to the whole 1944/1945 debate, I don't think I understand what the big deal is. Aren't you picking at nits here? Why is the distinction so important to you?
SNG
Scully

seattleniceguy:
with regard to the whole 1944/1945 debate, I don't think I understand what the big deal is. Aren't you picking at nits here? Why is the distinction so important to you?
I'm just guessing here, and don't want to speak for SBF at all, but in my experience with JWs if you have even just one single fact out of place, the tendency on their part is to dismiss your entire argument as a result.
They are experts at straining out the gnats while gulping down the camel.
GetBusyLiving

I don't think you were particularly disrespectful Slim.
GBL
slimboyfat

SNG,
I think one of the things that shows most clearly that the Witness leaders are less sure of themselves nowadays is the manner in which they deal with outside criticism in their literature. Rutherford would actually make public responses to his critics by name in the Watchtower. In the 1950s too, just after the release of the NWT, Franz would reference critical remarks about his translation and then counter them. As late as 1978 even Walter Martin (the prominent 'counter-cultist' in the US) got a scathing mention in the Watchtower. But after the 1980s upheaval with Ray Franz, Penton and the Gentile Times issue, the Witnesses stopped mentioning their critics by name. They continued to counter accusations made by the likes of Bergman, Penton, Franz, Bowman, White and so on, but they stopped being specific about the source of the material they were responding too, allowing readers to draw their own inferences (or not, as the case may be). This, to me, is indicative of a loss of confidence among Witness writers. I do digress.
I agree with you that there may be various ways to view Rutherford's behaviour. Although he made some bumbling mistakes due to his rashness, even admitting that he made 'an ass' of himself over 1925, he certainly must have been a pretty shrewd operator also to have maintained the devotion of many, despite his flaws.
There is no big deal about the 1944/45 thing. I just mentioned in passing that I thought Singelenberg may have got wrong the starting point for the prohibition in his article because I thought it might interest him to have some new information. I was a bit taken aback by his accusation of exegetic gymnastics and it seemed to escalate. I also suggested that he made the mistake because he was relying on secondary sources for his presentation, which would not have pleased him I am sure. We have been arguing about various issues relating to the blood issue for a while, this was just the latest. But I get the feeling that I am up against a brick wall since, from my perspective, he is not willing to budge on even the most self-evident criticisms I have made.
Scully may have a point about the Witness focus upon 'nit-picking'. I must admit that I am guilty of this, and it has been a major complaint from Singelenberg too. However, I feel inhibited from making more fundamental criticisms of judgement or methodology in Singelenberg's work for the simple fact that the more abstract the debate becomes, the more difficult it becomes to prove your point of view. At the end of the day, when I do reveal criticisms on a more fundamental theorectical level than simple facts and data, then he is understandably able to blow me out of the water with ease. I know my limitations.

Was I Disrespectful to Dr Singelenberg?

Share this