I Don't Know Why We Persecute Jehovah's Witnesses: Searching for the Why

By Tom Harley

Long: Like Luke to Theophilus, here is a book that “traces everything from the start with accuracy.” Like Luke to Theophilus, here is a book that tells it from the believer’s point of view. Stripped of the red herrings that plagued Dear Mr. Putin—Jehovah’s Witnesses Write Russia, updated to the February 2021 present, and ever respectful towards the land of the bear, in most ebook forms it continues to be free, a labor of love.

Here are presented the modern-day Acts of Russia with regard to worship, the acts of believers and of those who oppose them. The acts of Russia have taken a dark and perplexing turn, puzzling even Putin. Can it be? The wizard who runs Oz doesn’t know how his contraption works? Here is a book that picks up where Baran’s Dissent on the Margins (2014) leaves off. The tale has not yet ended. But then, neither had the tale ended when Luke completed the first century Book of Acts.

Early in 2017, every Jehovah’s Witness in the world was invited to write letters to designated Russian officials, urging that justice be done in their case. I wrote one. Here is the expanded version.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Tom Harley
• Release date: Mar 13, 2021
• ISBN: 9781005940416

Tom Harley

Tom Harley lives with his wife and dog in New York State. He plays bi-weekly games of Scrabble with his brother, who cheats. Lately he has taken up playing Splendor with his wife. She lost badly at first and was getting discouraged, so he gave her some pointers. Now he can’t beat her. Why did he do that?Tom is also a practicing Jehovah’s Witness for many years. He has many an anecdote to share with regard to spiritual life and is author of two special-focus books—one a defense the faith in Russia, and one a defense of it in Western lands.In his lighter moments—and he tries to stay light throughout, even on serious topics—he loves self-deprecating humor. He also likes the kind of humor where you make fun of yourself. He loves hyperbole. He also likes wild exaggeration to make a point.

Book preview

Introduction

One reason I rewrote Dear Mr. Putin—Jehovah’s Witnesses Write Russia is that the ebook wasn’t very good. Had I not undertaken a print version, I might never have noticed it. I had moved on—far too quickly, as it turns out. Instead of proceeding with print, I withdrew the digital, and am embarrassed I ever let fly with the sloppy thing.

Another reason for the rewrite into the present I Don’t Know Why We Persecute Jehovah’s Witnesses is that at the time of the ebook, Vladimir Putin had not yet said those words—words that suggest he may even have read a few of the millions of letters sent him. Nor had the events to trigger such words yet transpired. Reports of riot-geared police invading homes, beating and arresting seemingly the most harmless people on earth had not yet become the standard fare it is today. Who could have imagined such a dark twist? Certainly not me. So a rewrite of the original in forty percent fewer words, preserving the silver and discarding the dross, with added chapters of atrocities since the April 2017 religious ban, is more than in order.

How does one recover from such an ebook debacle? The story deserved far better than my clumsy effort and still deserves it. There is no other integrated account of all that transpires in Russia today regarding Jehovah’s Witnesses. And Jehovah’s Witnesses are clearly the ones to watch. They are the ones on the front burner of persecution in that country. I bolloxed my first effort. How to recover? Is it possible?

Can I imitate Beethoven with regard to his Battle Symphony commemorating Wellington’s victory over the French? It has been called the single most awful work from a great composer. But when a contemporary critic savaged it, Beethoven raged that his excrement was better than anything you could imagine! I think it behooves me to take a more modest tack.

Can I imitate Bob Dylan’s response when meteoric stardom threatened to bury him in groupies? I wrote this one to get the hippies off my lawn, he said of one dog—one of many he deliberately wrote to cool their ardor. It didn’t work. He did get them off his lawn but they moved onto his front porch. In my case, they were never even on the lawn, so again, a more modest tack is in order. Maybe something more on the lines of Job would work: I spoke, but without understanding, that is why I take back what I said and I repent in dust and ashes. Hopefully, someone else will come along to say, Well—you didn’t really speak ‘without understanding.’ You just made a hash of the job. Don’t you know if you fall seven times you are supposed to get up?

If there was hope for Beethoven and Dylan, maybe there is hope for me, and more importantly, for the story to be told, because it is a monster of a story. The light, almost whimsical, cover of Dear Mr. Putin, depicting a child writing that president, will no longer do. Something darker is in order, something reflecting the current fight to the finish tone of Mark Noumair. Yet it cannot be so dark as to convey loss of joy among Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia, for they are a joyful people. Since they are this way everywhere, and I am one of them, I find I cannot completely forsake my light touch, sobering though the matters are. A new title and cover must accompany the new work—one must not pour new wine into old wineskins.

What should be that cover? The Matryoshka dolls were my idea after Chivchalov (more on him within) assured me they did not represent any patronizing Western view of Russia but were embraced by Russians themselves. Put the title in quotes, I told my cover artist, unless you can clearly convey otherwise that Putin said them. Don’t make him glowering, either. Our view of the king there need not be molded by the king here. Make him look benign and even somewhat puzzled.

She thought maybe a subtle watchtower in the background with a group of the dolls in the foreground and a translucent image of Putin looming over all would work. I told her it wouldn’t. Technically, in Russia, I said, Jehovah’s Witnesses are not banned. Only their organization is. The view of those who oppose the Witnesses is that they have become enslaved to a controlling organization, and by taking out that organization the people can be freed. It’s a little like how the flying monkeys are not upset when Dorothy douses the Wicked Witch. Instead, they are grateful to be liberated.

Of course, this is nonsense to Witnesses themselves. The reason they acquiesce to an organization is to get things done. It is to prevent those things from being done that their organization is opposed, much like the best way to destroy an army is to take out the supply line, after which the individuals are either scattered or assimilated.

I didn’t know whether or not she was religious, but I advised her to read Acts chapter 15 for a better feel on how Jehovah’s Witnesses view matters. There she would read of how the apostles and leading elders came together to decide policy. Decisions they made were put into writing and delivered to congregations for their coordination and benefit. The next chapter of Acts conveys this: As they traveled on through the cities, they would deliver to them for observance the decrees that had been decided on by the apostles and the elders who were in Jerusalem. Then, indeed, the congregations continued to be made firm in the faith and to increase in number day by day. (verses 4-5)

A growing movement worldwide views those of any authoritarian faith as cult members. So in the present anti-cult atmosphere, a cover that in any way conveys the image of an organization invites the interpretation that people are being controlled and as such is contrary to the spirit of the book. No, it has to be Jehovah’s Witnesses as people who are standing firm under assault, because that is how they view it. Their interpretation of the Bible is what makes them do what they do. Their organization simply supports and organizes them. That is why the watchtower had to go.

So she put the Matryoshka dolls in formation, as though battle-ready—plainly Russian and just as plainly no threat in themselves. She is so good. She represents viladesign.net. I would recommend her in a heartbeat. She has done all my covers.

Early in 2021, the daily text (members of the faith consider one brief segment of scripture each day) quoted Emily Baran’s book about withstanding persecution in Russia. It didn’t quote mine. The reason it didn’t quote mine is that mine was rubbish, but even so –. Mine was of the more intense time period. Hers, Dissent on the Margins, covers Witnesses standing firm in Russia from the mid-1900s to her book’s 2014 date of publication. Mine, more or less, picks up where hers leaves off. Her time period is no slouch, but mine is where the real action is.

Dam, dam, dam, dam! to misquote Professor Higgins. They’ve grown accustomed to my face. And I have customers to face. How am I going to face them with a new book I say is stellar when I have firmly planted the notion that I originate rubbish? Someone should have told me the ebook needed work. Then the present salvage would be unnecessary. That’s the trouble with the friends—they’re either too polite to tell you that your work stinks, or they have such a low bar of approval, happy to read anything complimentary, that they don’t think it does. And no, I did not misspell dam. I spelled it the friendly beaver way for the sake of my people. Not only does the homonym not trigger offense, but it puts in a plug for education. Everyone knows that beavers are highly educated, graduates of Dam U, every one of them.

Never again will I write a book after the fashion of Dear Mr. Putin. You’re supposed to start with an outline, and then progressively fill it out. You’re not supposed to start with hundreds of individual conversations and then shake everything you have until it all falls into one of many categories, then call each category a chapter. What a hare-brained way to write a book! My other books aren’t this way. This book has made more trouble for me by far than all my others put together!

Due to this basic structural flaw, it probably won’t be possible to redeem it 100%. But I can come pretty close. I do have advantages. One is that I know my people inside and out. Another is that I am a pretty good storyteller. Most of what witnessing I do will be in the form of storytelling—relating conversations or experiences in the ministry to illustrate this point or that, as I have done above with my cover artist. Writing in real-time, with chapters failing to anticipate events of future chapters, may create an air of authenticity. Another advantage is that there is no competition. Even in its flawed form, it is the only comprehensive record of Witness trials and integrity in the face of the Russian bear. Then too, at least one ebook version will remain free; it is a labor of love.

I can’t approach Emily Baran on scholarship. I had a disclaimer on that even in Dear Mr. Putin. Nor did I travel to Russia (I wouldn’t dare now) to interview people, as she has. I’m told she even learned Romanian and thereby spoke with ones in that language. She didn’t just rely on AI for translation like I did, a circumstance that lends portions of my work a certain Boris and Natasha feel. No offense is intended and I hope none taken. It is a reflection on me, having never outgrown the cartoons of my childhood. Rocky and Bullwinkle, which featured the Russian duo, was one of my favorites.

How much can Russians expect from a Westerner? I yet regard Ilya Kuryakin, of The Man from U.N.C.L.E. (United Network of Criminal Law Enforcement) as my Russian template. He was a Scottish actor, but they gave him an odd haircut, told him to talk funny, and for my money as a boy, he made a convincing Russian superspy, even though I recall reading in Pravda or somewhere that he was not very Russian at all and how could those ridiculous Americans think he was? He saved the day only slightly less than the American superspy he was doomed to play second fiddle to, and in real life, the actor who portrayed him came to settle in the tiny hamlet of Stanfordville N.Y, where some of my family originate. The locals would say he was just a regular guy.

I am a rank-and-file member of Jehovah’s Witness, not an insider, and certainly not a scholar. I am a foot soldier. I am a good foot soldier, and loyal. I have been around for a while and have even served as a congregation elder. Otherwise, though, I am nothing special. But I am a foot soldier who can write well, especially if one is not fussy. Foot soldiers can tell splendid history when they get around to it, but one must cut them some slack. This foot soldier looks at the established rules of scholarly writing and they seem as burdensome to him as Saul’s armor. He sets them aside and hopes for the best with his sling. Even the near mandatory this writer I will jettison on a whim. Portions of this book are deeply personal statements that will resonate with all Witnesses. I do not want to calcify them with references to this writer. Though there are accepted rules of style and format, ultimately the only rule that counts is what you can get away with.

I will even accept the derisive title given the apostle Paul by the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers who wanted to know, What is this scavenger trying to say? Literally, the word means seed-picker and it denotes a bird that picks up a seed here and poops it out there. That is all I am doing. That is all most writers do.

I am not even a thinker, really, at least, not a rigorous one. I am like Pastor Ingqvist’s substitute preacher, specifically selected for his dullness, because the pastor does not want to return from vacation and read the disappointment in the eyes of his flock. So he chooses a substitute that they will listen to and say, I’ll bet he’s good in the shepherding work. Then he comes to their home, they note the lack of eye contact and say, Maybe he’s a scholar. I am not that either. Leave the deep thinking to others—I don’t trust it anyway—but I do have a certain knack for refocusing and crafting words in ways not typically crafted. It will have to do. Only a foot soldier can relate the emotions prevailing as every Witness in the world wrote Russia.

Nor do I have any blessing from Russia Bethel, as I think Baran did—it does seem persons there rendered her some assistance. On the other hand, I have Chivchalov, who says anything he releases can be put to use, and who answers my various questions. I also have updates from several human rights and academic sources, and a string of others who bring things to my attention.

Why don’t I just wait for the Witness organization to put out a complete record? They probably will one of these days, just as the 2008 Yearbook featured a history of Jehovah’s people in that land up till that time. Even now there are archives at jw-russia.org. I guess I write for the same reason Baran did. Anything the Witnesses come out with will be spiritually on the money, but secularly maybe not so much. It will be one world leader said, one human rights organization reported, one academic professor agreed, without much sense of the interplay between them. I can offer the interplay.

After the 9/11 terrorist attacks on New York City (a genuine act of extremism) that claimed the lives of 2,753 persons, teams of Jehovah’s Witnesses, organized at the branch level, visited the scene. Branch member Gregory Bowman relates: When we were ultimately granted access to ground zero, and we started encountering the first responders, we let them know how much we appreciated their hard work, and that they had a skill-set that we didn’t have, but yet our skill set was trying to offer comfort to them. We shared a scripture with them. Immediately we could tell that that was something that caused emotion to rise up in them right away. And they expressed great appreciation for that. One of the beautiful things about the scriptures is they’re calming, soothing, comforting, and the scriptures did not let down the workers that were there at ground zero either.¹

This writer likes the expression skill set, both applied to the first responders and then to the Witness volunteers themselves. The skill set of Jehovah’s Witnesses is a familiarity with the Scriptures and a cultivated desire to share it. Witnesses are generally credited with knowing their Bibles well, even if they think many teachings of the traditional churches are off-base. Seeking to obscure the fact that President Eisenhower was raised a Witness, a family member recalls, Mother and Father knew the Bible from one end to the other. In fact, Mother was her own concordance. Without using one, she could turn to the particular scriptural passage she wanted, as they lived by the cardinal concepts of the Judaic-Christian religion.² Yes. It is usually true of Jehovah’s Witnesses. They usually know it from one end to the other. Nikolai Gordienko, of the Herzen Russian State University in St. Petersburg, went so far as to say: When the experts accuse Jehovah’s Witnesses for their teachings, they do not realize that they are actually making accusations against the Bible.³

Like those Witnesses at 9/11 Ground Zero, this writer, too, regards himself as having a skill set, and finds to his surprise, it is a somewhat unusual one. Newsmakers have little insight into the world of Jehovah’s Witnesses. In turn, Jehovah’s Witnesses often have little insight into the political doings of the greater world. I am passably familiar with both and can build a bridge between them, which can hardly be a bad thing. Even in the current political climate of distrust bordering on hostility between the United States and Russia, it is readily conceded that understanding the other’s point of view is an asset, not a liability.

Alas, I also do not have the support system Baran had. Baran’s book is published in the academic press. Mine is self-published. There are hoops of quality control that must be leapt for the commercial press. They are imposed upon you whether you like it or not, and it is all too easy to not leap them in self-publishing. Wowee! were there ever quality control issues with Dear Mr. Putin! but I have strained out those gnats here.

Books about Jehovah’s Witnesses authored by Jehovah’s Witnesses are not plentiful. This is a shame, for no outsider, even with the best of intentions, can do justice to the faith as can a Witness—they miss the nuances, and in some cases, even the facts. Three reasons account for this drought. Jehovah’s Witnesses are primarily drawn from the ranks of working people who are not inclined to write books. Pathways of publicizing their faith are already well established and few think to go beyond them—why write a book when you can and do look people in the eye and tell them what you have to say? There is also a sense of not wishing to compete with an official channel.

But let me not be one of the whiners, always blaming my problems on someone else. I could work to overcome these deficiencies if I put my back into it. The fact is, even without Covid, I am a person who does not excel at networking. With Covid, I have unchained my inner hermit, and he is doing just fine, thank you very much, but it doesn’t make for an especially good support system. Nor am I envious of Baran, much less in competition with her. I swapped emails with her a few times. She’s very nice. She probably rolled her eyes at Dear Mr. Putin. She dropped out of sight for a time to attend to family things, but now I see she is contributing anew in the academic community.

Oh—and Baran’s quote from that daily text? Commenting on Jehovah’s Witnesses in the former Soviet Union, historian Emily B. Baran said: ‘When the state told believers that they could not evangelize their faith to others, Witnesses chatted [with] their neighbors, coworkers, and friends. When these actions landed them in labor camps, Witnesses sought out converts among their fellow prisoners.’ Despite the ban, our brothers there did not stop preaching. May you have that same determination!

Notice how she is a historian and I’m not. And yet, the description is correct. It reminds me of Roy, a former companion who would go around telling people he was a historian. How do you know that? a householder would say, and he would reply it was because he was a historian. Finally, I told him to knock it off. He was a history buff, not a historian. A historian is when others recognize your expertise, not just you.

I acknowledged Baran’s work in an early Dear Mr. Putin passage that has here survived the cut: I will draw upon her book heavily for background. This particular chapter could not be written without it, and other chapters are spared many obtuse statements because of it. I also discussed how she took vigorous exception to one reviewer’s charge that hers was a hagiography, heightened to gagiography, which is not a word. I suspected it was someone expressing personal distaste for the subject, as though it made him gag. She was inclined to think it was just a typo. Either way, she was steamed about it, since it alleges lack of objectivity, the worst of all possible sins for a historian.

She is not among those who miss the nuances, and sometimes even the facts. Her work is detailed and admirable. She sidesteps the red herrings. It is not easy to write of Jehovah’s Witnesses because the subject either draws or repels; strict neutrality is very hard. It is Hebrews 4:12 at work: For the word of God is alive and exerts power and is sharper than any two-edged sword and pierces even to the dividing of soul and spirit, and of joints and [their] marrow, and [is] able to discern thoughts and intentions of [the] heart. She thanks one mentor in her preface for never asking, Why Jehovah’s Witnesses? I added, If he doesn’t have to know, then neither do I. We don’t have to know everything. Maybe I’ll find out someday. I’m patient.

Perhaps I can even be so audacious as to suggest that her book introduces mine, as though to say, Now that you have the background on Jehovah’s Witnesses, meet a real one. Of course, you can meet a real Witness whenever one knocks on your door, but the advantage of meeting a literary one is that you have only to close the book for him to disappear.

The trick with I Don’t Know Why We Persecute Jehovah’s Witnesses (one of them) is to not give in to an all roads lead to heaven abatement. A non-Witness can write that one. On the other hand, it must be neither preachy nor narrow. Strangely, in today’s atmosphere of critical thinking, the moment people embrace a cause they are considered biased, and their testimony is looked at askance. In the case of Jehovah’s Witnesses, this effectively means their detractors get to write the greater portion of the story since strictly neutral persons are uncommon.

I am not inclined to take a lot of shots at religion. Neither, of course, will I advocate for them. They can write their own defense if they like, and most do. It is the anti-cult element that plays the role of chief villain today; swiping at the church next door hardly fits the new context. Many Witnesses remain firmly convinced the Russian Orthodox Church is behind all of their woes. It is not. That is not to say some of them did not squeal with delight that April 2017 day, like kids on Christmas morning. They did and still do. But the chief villainy lies elsewhere.

Though unapologetically a Witness, I promise, more or less, not to take any cheap shots at Witness detractors. Cheap shots are in the eye of the beholder and there are intransigent foes of the faith to whom anything short of a complete renunciation of beliefs will be a cheap shot. There is little I can do about that and I won’t try. But everyone else gets a fair shake. Even the opponents themselves are not deliberately antagonized. My target audience will vary from non-Witness to current Witness to former Witness—roll with it if you can. I do not want to be like the American celebrity who blurts out something blatantly partisan and thus antagonizes half his or her audience. I have endeavored to keep it under tight control. Expect nothing but joy and love around here, with minor caveats.

Calling Baran’s work a hagiography! What is wrong with people? This account one might label a hagiography and I would dispute it only half-heartedly, but not hers. What is next for her unflattering critic? Will he label the Book of Acts a hagiography for putting Christians in a good light?

During troublesome decades of unrelenting Soviet opposition, Baran relates how many Witnesses stumbled, failed, or even betrayed their own—nothing hagiographic about that. She relates how the churn rate of Jehovah’s Witnesses was very high in Russia, higher than in the Western world, where it is also high.⁴ Witnesses lived with the prospect that they might, at any time, be arrested, fired from employment, and even have their children taken from them, all threats being revisited today. Censure from their neighbors was likely, and censure from the press a near certainty. Many left—though they were replaced by new persons—and their departure is more than offset by the fact that enthusiasm and participation among Witnesses is high. After all, with many religions, persons may not formally leave, but how would you know if they did?

Perhaps the hagiography criticism leveled at Baran stems from the palpable impression she conveys that Jehovah’s Witnesses walk the talk, not just talk the talk, and the reviewer, having not seen it before, supposes it not possible. Baran mentions the Soviets’ dismay when there appeared no difference between a Witness’s private person and his or her public person.⁵ They had just assumed the two would be different, as they always are, and that they could appeal to the private person in pursuit of their goal to undermine the faith. But with the Witnesses, they discovered essentially no difference between public and private. The description of Ezekiel’s countrymen that so universally applies seemed not to apply to them: For them you are only a singer of love songs, with a pleasant voice and a clever touch. They listen to your words, but they do not obey them.⁶ The words constitute a love song to so many persons of religion. They are inspirational—the stuff of stirring song, moving poetry, rousing prose, but as to obeying them? No. Jehovah’s Witnesses, however, to the best of their ability, obey them. It is among the reasons they are so vehemently opposed.

Jehovah’s Witnesses are fundamentalists in some respects and liberal in others. They are not easy to pigeonhole. Witnesses are Bible-believing, yet they acknowledge the creative days of Genesis are epochs, the time preceding them aeons.⁷ They are socially conservative, yet they are apolitical. Their standards are theirs alone and they do not attempt to force them through legislation upon others. Joel Engardio, a journalist and human rights advocate who was raised a Witness, says they provide an excellent example, perhaps our last hope, of how groups with strongly polarized ideas can yet coexist peacefully.⁸ They may use the metaphor of being at spiritual war, but their weapons are words only. Tell them no and they go away.

This book’s predecessor began as a modest project. I was posting snippets online of what was unfolding with my fellow Witnesses in Russia when it occurred to me to assemble them into something more permanent. A short brochure-like release was all I had in mind, headed by a somber melodramatic cover to bewail an irreligious iron curtain once again descending upon Russia. Each new report expanded the narrative. In time, I discarded the somber melodramatic cover, because what is somber for Witnesses isn’t equally somber for others, and for some it is not somber at all. The simple reality is that there are endless atrocities to choose from today and to insist that your cause is head and shoulders above all others is to invite audience fatigue.

But even for Jehovah’s Witnesses, the melodramatic iron curtain is not appropriate. In their minds and hearts, the falling curtain does not prevail. It prevails at first, of course, as it crashes upon their toes. But Witnesses are, by and large, a happy people, reflecting the nature of the God they worship, and they tend to adjust quickly to new normals. They never expected their Christian message and worship would be unopposed. This is especially true in Russia where, except for the last 26 years, their faith has been continually restricted. Non-Russian Witnesses were taken aback when their deluge of letters had so little effect on government officials. Russian Witnesses said, So what else is new?

The original posts, in some cases in their entireties, are to be found in the second and third chapters of this book. The project expanded from brochure to book when I realized the reasons for anti-Witness sentiment were for the most part absent from Court proceedings. Plainly, decisions had been made in high places and it was for the courts to provide legal cover after the fact. Some of the reasons, specifically those of cult perception, do not even originate in Russia. I decided to devote a chapter to each proffered reason, accompanied by a defense. Jehovah’s Witnesses stand practically alone in that they refuse to pick up arms against their fellow humans for any reason. How bad can they be? A goal of being essentially an apologist for the modern Christian organization gradually took shape.

Some of my initial assumptions about Russia proved questionable. Others proved flat-out wrong. No matter. Jehovah’s Witnesses are not political people—some of them barely know the stuff exists. After a period of investigation into the Bible, seldom lasting under a year, Jehovah’s Witnesses come to feel they have found something better. Most immerse themselves in it, sometimes to the point of losing touch almost completely with the day-to-day political concerns that preoccupy others.

They are not experts on the issues nor underlying philosophies that drive governments. They don’t know much about the world of kings. If some initial assumptions prove inaccurate, they never said they knew about them in the first place. This book begins with efforts to reach Russian officials as persons, not as government leaders. I like to think the best of people. Sometimes that turns out to be naïve. What I hope to do is capture the emotion, the hopes, and even the joys of those given an opportunity to identify with their brothers in a distant and unique part of the world. This will be a human story more than a political one. It will be an account not only of what happened but of what people thought was happening.

What Witnesses know most about governments is that they’d like for them to leave them be. First of all, then, I ask that supplications, prayers, petitions, and thanksgivings be offered for everyone, for kings and for all in authority, that we may lead a quiet and tranquil life in all devotion and dignity, writes the apostle Paul to Timothy. Do you wish to have no fear of authority? Then do what is good and you will receive approval from it, for it is a servant of God for your good. But if you do evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword without purpose. Okay. Got it. Jehovah’s Witnesses will not make trouble as they lead their quiet, tranquil lives of devotion and dignity. But time and again trouble searches them out.⁹

Several have thought me too charitable in my assessment of Russian officials, to which I acknowledge that my assessment is to some extent built upon wishful thinking and a distaste for imputing motive. How can anyone know for sure? I am halfway around the world, immersed in a completely different culture. Modern life molds us to ignore fundamental principles of getting along that once were as common as dirt. Always impute good motives. If it turns out you are wrong, drop a notch and see if you can get your head around how the villain became a villain; sometimes that allows you to snatch a measure of victory from defeat. But if you accuse every foe from the outset of ill motive you have lost before you have begun.

Even truth and lies have become subjective today. Everyone has his or her own. It is as from the Book of Isaiah. People say, What is bad is good and what is good is bad. It is not just true in spiritual matters. It is true in every aspect of life today—in politics, in philosophy, indeed, in the general discussion of all things slight or serious. Charles Manson’s greatest contribution to humanity, perhaps his only contribution, was to say, Once upon a time, being crazy meant something. Nowadays, everyone is crazy. This new normal adds a new relevance to Jesus’ words: And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached throughout the world as a witness to all nations, and then the end will come, an utterance always on the list of favorite Witness scriptures. As a witness is the best one can consistently hope for, a witness to another way of life in which people actually get along with one another.¹⁰

A pitfall I had to face early on involved taking care that whatever I wrote would not be banned in Russia as extremist. Of course, it is possible the whole book might be—the present federal list of writings designated extremist includes, at present, over 4,000 works,¹¹ but why ensure the fate by quoting from works already on the list? Most Watchtower-published material the Russian government has declared extremist. Even the children’s books are so labeled. Even the Bible translation they use is so labeled. Even their website is extremist and off-limits. If you are in Russia, you cannot read it. If you are anywhere else, you are okay.

I did not immediately realize the ramifications of this. In my early drafts, I linked a few times to the website. Must I remove those links? Here and there I quoted some Watchtower publications. Must I rewrite those portions? It wasn’t my only option. Early on, I imagined writing two versions: the first as I pleased and the second with offending passages redacted, highlighting the silliness of it all, for the passages are all innocuous. The cover of the public work would carry a caution at the bottom: Warning! Do Not Read in Russia. The cover of the redacted version would be typewritten and without image, as one might expect of an underground work. In the end, I settled upon a mix of both for this book’s forerunner. There were two versions with identical covers, one warning in an orange circle to not read in Russia, the other safe version with an orange circle saying it was okay. I included the warning, Watch those orange circles. Make sure you are reading the right book. You do not want to be thrown into the hoosegow, American slang for jail, and perhaps unknown outside America. It brings up connotations of the lawless Old West. Somehow that seemed to fit.

I did realize from the onset that the New World Translation would have to go. Even a quote from it is enough to designate a book as extremist. Even, in theory, might Jesus’s words about how one must love one’s enemy land you in trouble. Choice of a substitute Bible translation was not easy. Perhaps it should have been. Any of them will do. However, Jehovah’s Witnesses are accustomed to the divine name appearing in the Bible. They are frustrated by its banishment. They think that if an author puts his name in his work 7,000 times, it implies strongly that he wants it there and may not be happy with those who would obscure it. They choke when they watch The Ten Commandments movie and see the Israelites initially distraught because they do not even know their God’s name, but later pleased as punch because they have learned it—it is the LORD.

Some translations render the divine name whenever called for as Jehovah or the more Hebrew-flavored Yahweh.¹² But most of these translations are old and thereby afflicted with archaic language. Many translations, even the Russian synodal one, employ Jehovah in a few token places. The newer ones, though, are apt to remove it completely, substituting LORD in all capitals to distinguish it from Lord.