What other quantum leaps in logic do you make?

I suppose you could say we, too, try to influence, if not the host governments, at least the citizens of those governments:

“We are therefore ambassadors substituting for Christ, as though God were making entreaty through us. As substitutes for Christ we beg: ‘Become reconciled to God.’” 2 Cor 5:20

All the same, it’s a thoughtful reply you’ve made, Robert. The illustration is not so “pure” as I imagined it was, or at least it does not suffer from minor qualification.

I have to respectfully disagree on your interpretation of what an ambassador is. I bet there’s not a neutral governmental ambassador on planet Earth. I would also submit that most, if not all, have very intense vested interest in the goings on of the host country, including its politics, environment, economy, and so forth. Moreover, I bet those ambassadors are specifically charged by their governments with trying to effect as much (diplomatic) influence toward mutually (or at least primarily) beneficial development of policy within the nation.

Ambassadors are much more than just goodwill folks, I think. I think ambassadors would and do take political positions. I think they do it all the time. And I think it is their business to do so. But it may be that you and I have different definitions of ambassadorial work.

Regardless, I do think your interpretation sheds light on one reason the Williams sisters say they don’t participate in civic processes. Presumably, in their church, there are no political processes either. Folks don’t gather to vote on church related issues and business, don’t lobby for church policy one way or another, don’t negotiate for management and maintenance and development.

No kings,

Robert

“We are therefore ambassadors substituting for Christ, as though God were making entreaty through us. As substitutes for Christ we beg: ‘Become reconciled to God.’” 2 Cor 5:20

If you were an ambassador from a foreign country stationed here in the U.S. (where I am), you would adapt to all laws and customs locally. You’d likely come to love the land in which you live, and its people. But when it came to the politics of your host country, you wouldn’t take a position…nor would anyone expect you to. It is not your business…your business is to represent wherever you are ambassador from. Even if heavy issues develop and positions evolve for which, since you live here, you may have some feelings, still, it is not your job to take sides. Your lack of involvement would not be because of callousness, or apathy, or lack of interest in fellowman…but it is simply not your place, representing another government, to take sides in the disputes of your host country.

Now, God’s Kingdom is a government very real to Jehovah‘s Witnesses. It is the government with which God will bring an end to human rule, unite all peoples, restore earth to it’s original paradise state, and extend everlasting life to all those under it’s rule. We view it as the only hope for mankind. No amount of tweaking of human governments will ever approach what God brings through his own rule. We believe that it rules from heaven now, and will shortly extend its rule earth wide. Those who believe in it are charged to represent it, to announce it….in effect, to act as ambassadors of that government.

It’s a role. That’s not to deny that there are other roles which people may play honorably. Though we do think ours is the role that will endure over the long run.

The Williams sisters are athletes, not JW spokespersons. They can’t be expected to give long-winded statements on religious convictions. Few want to hear it anyway. Easier to say “We don’t do it.”

Thanks for those notes, I didn’t know about previous historical context, and it’s interesting to consider 1914 as one of the years of potential ending, being as it was the start of 5+ very bad years for much of the world, but interesting still that “the world” as a unit didn’t end, war and swine flu notwithstanding. I seem to recall that there was some upheaval in Medieval Europe around 1000 c.e., many thinking that such would be indicative of the return of Christ, and then a big scramble to retcon that to 1033 c.e., because, after all, Christ supposedly died in his 30s, near as some scholars can figure.

On the cognitive dissonance front, I always wonder what the faithful think when they wake up on the first morning of 1001 c.e. (or 1034 c.e., or 1915 c.e., or 1976 c.e.). It might be interesting to learn that was when some, though maybe not many, began to look elsewhere for a lens through which to view experience.

Thanks again.

No kings,

Robert