JW Insider

.
With my usual lack of humor I present the Draft Copy of the December 2016 issue of the Watchtower which showed a Brother shaving on the cover ... it was changed before being distributed, because the Brothers responsible for the VERY GOOD and accurate article ... disappeared mysteriously.
Dec 2016 Watchtower draft article .pdf
.
 

I'm sure there are two or more sides to every story. We met Percy probably about 80 times. I was very interested in his reasons and his reasoning. He had no senility of any kind, and I like that he focused on the positive. He would show me how fast he could get up from his chair. He could walk, and even get up the stairs, but it was painfully slow. Still, he didn't want the wheelchair. It was really for people like me who were impatient to get him from point A to point B and back as quickly as possible. His complaints were usually about food, and he was very particular about how his food was cooked, but he was very appreciative. He discussed recipes with my wife, and told us both a lot of wonderful stories and experiences, some of which have probably appeared in past yearbooks and from assembly platforms.
I tried to imagine what would have happened between Percy and the elders that made him seem like such a danger. He had been in the same congregation for 50 years, and hadn't got in trouble before. Of course, I finally asked him and he was very clear about it. The elders asked him to reveal private conversations with his friends that he had discussed Bible topics with where those topics were out of harmony with current Watchtower teachings. He had made it clear to the elders that he wouldn't discuss private conversations with his friends. This is obviously an affront to the entire process because it does not show deference to the authority of the elders. He had three judicial hearings, and even went to 124 Columbia Heights for the last one.
You probably know that there was a set of questions in those days that Bethel elders were asking of persons suspected of disloyalty. One of them was the question about whether the "suspect" believed that the Watchtower Society and its Discreet Slave was the only organization Jehovah was using to feed spiritual truth on the earth today. (Don't know if Percy told this to the elders, but to me he said answered that same question with another question about how the scripture says, 'For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there I am in their midst.) He thought the question itself was not fully scriptural, which ultimately leads to the fact that he is questioning the faithful and discreet slave. As I'm sure you know, that was the true and only definition of apostasy at that time: "Do you question the faithful and discreet slave?" If the judicial committee can get you to either directly or indirectly answer that question in the affirmative, then you are an apostate.
I would never claim that Percy was exactly right in his opinion. And I would never suggest that anyone be so blunt with elders on a judicial committee, especially one with Bethel elders. At Bethel, many of the long-term elders are completely divorced from the reality of living in the real world. There was often little room for justice to be tempered with mercy inside Bethel. Every week, we had to listen to Brother Knorr and and others make loud and angry tirades about who was being kicked out of Bethel for this or that. We sometimes had to sit through the shame and embarrassing details of their sins. I heard it was much, much worse under Rutherford where he was able to dress down someone until he got them to cry in front of hundreds of people. I don't think some of these brothers were trained to think of real-world consequences to the person being judged, or the subsequent consequences to their own reputation for acting harshly.

I love it. Just a couple of nights ago, I "drove" through my old hometown in a place I hadn't been in for 30 years, to see if I could still find the places I had worked, the old territories I had worked by myself as a pioneer (my "magazine route"), schools I attended, the bowling alley, the parks, the restaurants, my studies and return visits, where all the friends from the congregation lived. It's a great way to trigger memories I might otherwise have forgotten about. I was able to make a list of about 60 names from a congregation of 70 publishers. 
Judging from his shirt, I think he's saying this:
JOGGING IS A SNARE AND A RACKET! MILLIONS NOW JOGGING WILL STILL DIE! 
But you are right that we can't make any assumptions here. In NYC there are competing voices at the same corners as the Witnesses all the time. At Union Square Park (14th St) the carts used to set up early last year, and there have been so many competing messages for the past couple years that this park hardly sees any Witnesses now except on the weekend, and even then it's in the quietest area where hardly anyone notices.   

You covered a good portion of what we called the "pendulum swing." That's what I was going to bring up next. I think the general expectation is that we will sooner or later end up, not exactly in the middle of the two extremes, but a little closer to "erring on the side of love." One reason might even be due to concerns with our reputation and legal issues. It's a shame if that's what shames us into no longer using shaming techniques in the same way we have been. But I do know that it is true that when Judah Ben was at the head of the Public Relations department, he admitted that "shunning" was one of the worst policies we had in terms of the way in which it helped create and give a voice to a community of ex-JWs. Ex-JWs could now correctly claim an injustice even when their only reason for not coming back was that they disagreed with specific policies including, ironically, the policy of shunning. 
It's of interest that we would notice the contradiction and therefore had to make exceptions for eating with disfellowshipped spouses or minor children. Yet, we would not notice (as quickly) the issues you pointed out, or that what we recommended often contradicted the example of Jehovah and Jesus and the counsel about "showing no natural affection." This does not mean that there is only one definitive way to read the specific expression "anyone called a brother." But in general, overall, I think you are making a correct point.
Personally, I agreed with Judah Ben and also believe that we would be as large as Mormons and Seventh Day Adventists (who started out defining themselves at about the same time) if we had abstained from the shunning policy. 

I felt very sorry for the duck that was about to be taped.

I felt very sorry for the duck that was about to be taped.

I am glad you brought this topic up CMP. It is something I has bothered me for a long time and a lot of the issues you raised I have also thought about. It is clear what purpose the disfellowshipping/shunning policy serves. It is to keep the congregation spiritually and morally clean. I have no problem with that. We would not be who we are if we were lax about this.
My issues are these:
Disfellowshipping is supposed to be a protective and corrective measure. Those whom Jehovah loves he disciplines. However, what about when this protective and corrective measure has lost its purpose and/or is no longer relevant?
Continuing to shun a family member, who had been disfellowshipped in the past, but is no longer practicing what they had been disfellowshipped for, but who no longer wants to be a Witness (therefore no chance of re-instatement)  has never made sense to me. It seems to be all about being slapped with the disfellowshipp label but not about what is really going on. There is something amiss there. Jehovah wants worshipers who do so willingly, because they love him, not because of their friends and family. Also, Jehovah has given everyone the right to change their mind and to break their promise, at a cost of course, that being they will no longer be in line for everlasting life. But does the cost have to include being shunned by family members in the present life? Shouldn’t that be left up to the innocent JW family members to decide  how much and to what extent they will associate? Someone once argued that associating with a family member who no longer serves Jehovah could have a detrimental effect on us and could possibly lead us out of the truth as well. That someone pointed out an experience where one of the family members became an atheist and influenced the rest of the family so much so that they too left the truth. Well I say so be it! Yes, bad association spoils useful habits, but it is still up to each individual to heed or not heed that advice. Doesn’t Jehovah give everyone the freedom to live their life as they want? So if half the congregation leaves, what difference really does it make? Jehovah wants all to be saved, but not all want to be saved.
Could someone explain this to me: "No one should be forced to worship in a way that he finds unacceptable or be made to choose between his beliefs and his family" (“Is it wrong to change your religion” Awake 7/09) Why does this apparently apply to every other religion except ours....??

You covered a good portion of what we called the "pendulum swing." That's what I was going to bring up next. I think the general expectation is that we will sooner or later end up, not exactly in the middle of the two extremes, but a little closer to "erring on the side of love." One reason might even be due to concerns with our reputation and legal issues. It's a shame if that's what shames us into no longer using shaming techniques in the same way we have been. But I do know that it is true that when Judah Ben was at the head of the Public Relations department, he admitted that "shunning" was one of the worst policies we had in terms of the way in which it helped create and give a voice to a community of ex-JWs. Ex-JWs could now correctly claim an injustice even when their only reason for not coming back was that they disagreed with specific policies including, ironically, the policy of shunning. 
It's of interest that we would notice the contradiction and therefore had to make exceptions for eating with disfellowshipped spouses or minor children. Yet, we would not notice (as quickly) the issues you pointed out, or that what we recommended often contradicted the example of Jehovah and Jesus and the counsel about "showing no natural affection." This does not mean that there is only one definitive way to read the specific expression "anyone called a brother." But in general, overall, I think you are making a correct point.
Personally, I agreed with Judah Ben and also believe that we would be as large as Mormons and Seventh Day Adventists (who started out defining themselves at about the same time) if we had abstained from the shunning policy. 

You covered a good portion of what we called the "pendulum swing." That's what I was going to bring up next. I think the general expectation is that we will sooner or later end up, not exactly in the middle of the two extremes, but a little closer to "erring on the side of love." One reason might even be due to concerns with our reputation and legal issues. It's a shame if that's what shames us into no longer using shaming techniques in the same way we have been. But I do know that it is true that when Judah Ben was at the head of the Public Relations department, he admitted that "shunning" was one of the worst policies we had in terms of the way in which it helped create and give a voice to a community of ex-JWs. Ex-JWs could now correctly claim an injustice even when their only reason for not coming back was that they disagreed with specific policies including, ironically, the policy of shunning. 
It's of interest that we would notice the contradiction and therefore had to make exceptions for eating with disfellowshipped spouses or minor children. Yet, we would not notice (as quickly) the issues you pointed out, or that what we recommended often contradicted the example of Jehovah and Jesus and the counsel about "showing no natural affection." This does not mean that there is only one definitive way to read the specific expression "anyone called a brother." But in general, overall, I think you are making a correct point.
Personally, I agreed with Judah Ben and also believe that we would be as large as Mormons and Seventh Day Adventists (who started out defining themselves at about the same time) if we had abstained from the shunning policy. 

lol.

I believe the problem is completely resolved by the Bible itself. You gave several examples of the ways in which situations either become an kind of announcement that we are fanatics, or that we have no natural affection, or that situations are created where we would need pharisaic rules to deal with all the many different possibilities. And I agree that many do come back after disfellowshipping, but that's just as much due to a method that any psychiatrist knows is the same as emotional blackmail. The combination of emotional blackmail, guilt, and personal ego, end up playing as much of a role as spiritual concern. There is also the factor of how humans love to judge and love the feeling of superiority and self-rightousness that they get through judging. The opportunity to shun a disfellowshipped person is something that some might even gloat about to themselves. 
(Luke 18:11) . . .The Pharisee stood and began to pray these things to himself, ‘O God, I thank you that I am not like everyone else—extortioners, unrighteous, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 
 
Yet, the Israelites were given a law that supposedly provides the foundation for the Christian practice of expelling someone from the congregation. I don't think we are starting in the right place if we think like this. We need to start with the words of Jesus himself. Remember that it was Jesus who said that expelling one's wife for any reason was a concession that Moses gave due to their hard hearts.
(Matthew 19:7, 8) . . .They said to him: “Why, then, did Moses direct giving a certificate of dismissal and divorcing her?” 8 He said to them: “Out of regard for your hard-heartedness, Moses made the concession to you of divorcing your wives, but that has not been the case from the beginning. 
 
But Jesus did not preach that we should have hard hearts. The Jewish law said that there was to be no punishment for a man who beat his slave to death as long as the slave suffered for more than one day before dying. (Exodus 21:20, 21)  The Jewish law allowed for the beating of children with a literal rod. The Jewish law allowed for chopping off hands and gouging out eyes and knocking out teeth.
But now we have a different kind of law that is written on our hearts. The entire law itself can be summed up in just a few words:
(Matthew 22:37-40) . . .“‘You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind.’ 38 This is the greatest and first commandment. 39 The second, like it, is this: ‘You must love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments the whole Law hangs, and the Prophets.” (Also, Luke 10:28)  . . .  keep doing this and you will get life.”
(John 15:17)  “These things I command you, that you love one another.
(Romans 13:8-10) . . .Do not owe anything to anyone except to love one another; for whoever loves his fellow man has fulfilled the law. 9 . . . whatever other commandment there is, is summed up in this saying: “You must love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does not work evil to one’s neighbor; therefore, love is the law’s fulfillment.
(Galatians 5:14) . . .For the entire Law has been fulfilled in one commandment, namely: “You must love your neighbor as yourself.”
 (1 Timothy 1:5) . . .Really, the objective of this instruction is love out of a clean heart and out of a good conscience and out of faith without hypocrisy. 
(James 2:7, 8) . . .Do they not blaspheme the fine name by which you were called? 8 If, now, you carry out the royal law according to the scripture, “You must love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing quite well. 
(Matthew 7:12) 12 “All things, therefore, that you want men to do to you, you also must do to them. This, in fact, is what the Law and the Prophets mean.
 
So I think we need to keep that primary point from all those verses in mind, when we try to understand what was going on in the earliest Christian congregations. So I'll give it a try: 
Matthew 18:7 as you quoted above says that the "expelled" person becomes just like a man of the nations and a tax collector. In other words, they are no longer thought of as "family" (brothers) or as "someone related to us in the faith." But they are now just like everyone else in the world that we generally might avoid except when necessary to speak with hospitably, or do business with. But does this refer to a temporary or a final situation? Of course, Jesus set the perfect example by associating with tax collectors, and spoke with persons who rejected him. Ideally, a person of the nations would be someone that we would continue to see as our neighbor. Within months after this comment by Jesus in Matthew 18, people of the nations would now be desired to join with them again as those related to them in the faith. Also note that Jesus used the same pairing of "tax collectors" and "people of the nations" in the following way: (Matthew 5:43-48) 43 “You heard that it was said: ‘You must love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 However, I say to you: Continue to love your enemies and to pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may prove yourselves sons of your Father who is in the heavens, since he makes his sun rise on both the wicked and the good and makes it rain on both the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 For if you love those loving you, what reward do you have? Are not also the tax collectors doing the same thing? 47 And if you greet your brothers only, what extraordinary thing are you doing? Are not also the people of the nations doing the same thing? 48 You must accordingly be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.  When we consider the logistics of disfellowshipping in the first century congregations, we should remember that some met in homes where the social consideration of hospitality was the key, where one could invite many people in, but if you were not invited you would not dare to "invade" the house. The size of the houses of most Christians would probably result in a much closer, more intimate atmosphere, and were probably usually timed to include the meal, with an exception made for the Memorial celebration. Therefore, if a person was invited in, it would be quite impossible not to associate in a close and friendly manner, which might provide the reason that some would not be invited into the house, "not even eating with such a one." Note this situation at Matthew's house (which may have been bigger than average, of course): (Matthew 9:10-13) . . .Later as he was dining in the house, look! many tax collectors and sinners came and began dining with Jesus and his disciples. 11 But on seeing this, the Pharisees said to his disciples: “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” 12 Hearing them, he said: “Healthy people do not need a physician, but those who are ill do. 13 Go, then, and learn what this means: ‘I want mercy, and not sacrifice.’ . . . As congregations began to use larger facilities, people could just come through the door and take a seat: (1 Corinthians 14:23) . . .So if the whole congregation comes together to one place and they all speak in tongues, but ordinary people or unbelievers come in, will they not say that you have lost your minds?  (James 2:2, 3) . . .For if a man with gold rings on his fingers and in splendid clothing comes into your meeting, but a poor man in filthy clothing also enters, 3 do you look with favor on the one wearing the splendid clothing and say, “You take this seat here in a fine place,” and do you say to the poor one, “You keep standing” or, “Take that seat there under my footstool”?  With those last two points in mind, now think about a key point that is rarely, if ever, explained according to the context. It's the point about the "rebuke given by the majority:"  (2 Corinthians 2:5-11) 5 Now if anyone has caused sadness, he has saddened, not me, but all of you to an extent—not to be too harsh in what I say. 6 This rebuke given by the majority is sufficient for such a man; 7 now you should instead kindly forgive and comfort him, so that he may not be overwhelmed by excessive sadness. 8 I therefore exhort you to confirm your love for him. 9 For this is also why I wrote to you: to determine whether you would give proof of your obedience in all things. 10 If you forgive anyone for anything, I do also. In fact, whatever I have forgiven (if I have forgiven anything) has been for your sake in Christ’s sight, 11 so that we may not be overreached by Satan, for we are not ignorant of his designs. The interesting point here in 2 Cor 2:5-11 is that the context is about how Paul says that "we [Paul and fellow apostles, we could assume] are not masters [governors] over your faith." (1:23-2:4) Paul says that he expects that most would agree with him in the matter of forgiveness, and that this is why he mentioned the word "obedience" (see verse 9). I think this should remind us that there would be certain situations where Paul might expect everyone to agree but that this might also mean that everyone was NOT always expected to agree. In fact Paul had already dealt with this same idea of how not everyone would be in agreement with direction that came from letters from Paul: (2 Thessalonians 3:14, 15) 14 But if anyone is not obedient to our word through this letter, keep this one marked and stop associating with him, so that he may become ashamed. 15 And yet do not consider him an enemy, but continue admonishing him as a brother. In 2 Thessalonians, the issue was withdrawing from those who were walking disorderly (3:6) and not in agreement with the instructions given by Paul in this same letter which we now know is inspired Scripture (and by extension, any apostles with the same authority to instruct). 
There is never any talk about the specific amount of time that goes by between giving a rebuke for an offense by withdrawing our hospitality and when the person is received back. A rebuke has nothing to do with trying to judge whether the person is repentant, or how much time had gone by. A rebuke can be a one-time thing. Perhaps it was never up to the elders to judge repentance. Perhaps it was not up to the elders at all, but was a matter of every individual's conscience, after hearing the instruction and guidance that Paul gave. (And no doubt the elders would provide good guidance based on showing the same spirit Paul was showing and which he made clear in his letters.) But these things give us the idea that it was still up to each individual as to whether they might agree with the need to withdraw their hospitality. That's the most likely reason, I'd think, that Paul would speak of the "rebuke of the majority." It could also mean that by the time that a majority of people in the congregation had heard about it and had an opportunity to indicate to the wrongdoer that they were now aware of his or her wrongdoing. If either case, this could just as well be something that was over and done with in a matter of a week or so, or however long it took for a majority of the members to learn of the problem. Also on this matter of timing, some were evidently too willing to continue their withdrawal of hospitality without considering the sadness of the person affected. So Paul had to remind them.
And Paul wasn't all that concerned with the fact that not every conscience would be in agreement, even when Paul knew he was right, and that he was giving the correct counsel for the situation. Paul was writing a letter that was inspired scripture (2 Thess) and he said to continue admonishing someone as a brother if they decided not to follow those instructions. How often do we hear anything like that from any of the governing authorities of religions today?  And they aren't even apostles, and are not even inspired.
It wasn't specifically about whether they were "repentant" but whether they were still practicing the wrongdoing:
(1 Corinthians 5:9, 10) 9 In my letter I wrote you to stop keeping company with sexually immoral people, 10 not meaning entirely with the sexually immoral people of this world or the greedy people or extortioners or idolaters. Otherwise, you would actually have to get out of the world.
 
And the other idea from the verse is that the persons they withdraw from are not entirely out of their lives, otherwise they would have to get out of the world, but that they would not mix with them in a friendly hospitable manner as if they were sharing with them in an approving way regarding their conduct.
The point from 2 John about not even saying a greeting is similar, but appears to be taking it even a bit farther because of a specific, dangerous teaching that there never was a real Jesus on the earth. What reason would Christians have to be friendly and hospitable with this person. It was the most insidious teaching that the entire religion was based on a lie. That all of this was being made up by liars and impostors. We might expect that after the apostles died out, but as long as the apostles were alive, they knew that this was the most dangerous of all teachings when all the eye-witnesses of Jesus were dead. The testimony of eye-witnesses and the writings of the literate associates of those eye-witnesses is the very basis for what would be accepted as Christian Scripture. That verse, according to 2 John applies only to that particular form of apostasy or falsehood where Jesus himself is being denied:
(1 John 2:22) . . .Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son.
(2 John 7-10) 7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those not acknowledging Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. 8 Look out for yourselves, so that you do not lose the things we have worked to produce, but that you may obtain a full reward. 9 Everyone who pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God. The one who does remain in this teaching is the one who has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him. 
 

Sorry about the long post. I didn't even get to some of the things I wanted to say. But what I had hoped to do is show that we can't avoid interpreting, and it's always our "foundational" views that color just how we interpret them.
I didn't want to make too much of the distinction between relatives in the flesh and relatives in the faith, because we are all brothers, and that expression should truly mean what it sounds like: that all of us are relatives, now. 
I think that our "foundational" views that color our interpretation are from the Mosaic Law, and based specifically on how nearly we can get to the harshness of that Law. We interpret by first considering the "sacrifice" side of the legal equation, and not the "mercy" side. I'm sure you already know it but our foundation for interpretation is easily seen by one of the first discussions of disfellowshipped relatives in the Watchtower. It first reminds us that we are not allowed to kill our disfellowshipped children because the law of the land forbids it:
*** w52 11/15 p. 703 Questions From Readers ***
In the case of where a father or mother or son or daughter is disfellowshiped, how should such person be treated by members of the family in their family relationship?—P. C., Ontario, Canada.
We are not living today among theocratic nations where such members of our fleshly family relationship could be exterminated for apostasy from God and his theocratic organization, as was possible and was ordered in the nation of Israel in the wilderness of Sinai and in the land of Palestine. “Thou shalt surely kill him; thy hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him to death with stones, because he hath sought to draw thee away from Jehovah thy God, . . . ”—Deut. 13:6-11, AS.
Being limited by the laws of the worldly nation in which we live and also by the laws of God through Jesus Christ, we can take action against apostates only to a certain extent, that is, consistent with both sets of laws. The law of the land and God’s law through Christ forbid us to kill apostates, even though they be members of our own flesh-and-blood family relationship. However, God’s law requires us to recognize their being disfellowshiped from his congregation, and this despite the fact that the law of the land in which we live requires us under some natural obligation to live with and have dealings with such apostates under the same roof.
 
The rest of the article showed some additional cases where the law of the land and/or God's law requires certain types of contact with relatives. For example: not being able to throw minors out of the house, not being able to divorce due to disfellowshipping/apostasy, marriage partners living and eating under the same roof, etc. 
*** w52 11/15 p. 703 Questions From Readers ***
God’s law does not allow a marriage partner to dismiss his mate because his mate becomes disfellowshiped or apostatizes. Neither will the law of the land in most cases allow a divorce to be granted on such grounds. The faithful believer and the apostate or disfellowshiped mate must legally continue to live together and render proper marriage dues one to the other. A father may not legally dismiss his minor child from his household because of apostasy or disfellowshiping, and a minor child or children may not abandon their father or their mother just because he becomes unfaithful to God and his theocratic organization. The parent must by laws of God and of man fulfill his parental obligations to the child or children as long as they are dependent minors, and the child or children must render filial submission to the parent as long as legally underage or as long as being without parental consent to depart from the home. Of course, if the children are of age, then there can be a departing and breaking of family ties in a physical way, because the spiritual ties have already snapped.
 
Because of cases mentioned such as these certain verses are said not to apply, which appears to be the correct interpretation: 
*** w52 11/15 p. 704 Questions From Readers ***
Because of being in close, indissoluble natural family ties and being of the same household under the one roof you may have to eat material food and live physically with that one at home, in which case 1 Corinthians 5:9-11 and 2 John 10 could not apply; but do not defeat the purpose of the congregation’s disfellowship order by eating spiritual or religious food with such one or receiving such one favorably in a religious way and bidding him farewell with a wish for his prosperity in his apostate course.
 
When the Watchtower said: "we can take action against apostates only to a certain extent, that is, consistent with both sets of laws" it gives away the foundation. We are looking for the extent of "sacrifice" that is possible, not the necessary minimum. We are not looking for loopholes to show how much mercy is possible.
I suspect that Percy Chapman (the branch servant in Ontario) wrote this question so that Fred Franz could submit the answer with an already written article. I have no evidence in this case, but I saw evidence in the 1970's that something like this was done for other other QFR's. So it's a bit difficult for me not to read between the lines and see the attitude of Fred Franz coming through. I could just see him giving a talk on he subject and adding "perhaps if we lived in Saudi Arabia" to that first paragraph. 

lol.

I've heard you express problems with this word before. I don't have a problem with it because, well, it's a word and it is a fair match for the Greek "a-sel'geia." The word "brazen" is a little dated, but not obsolete. Personally I would have gone with "shameless" because it fits the meaning of the original word as a negated word and "a-selgeia" is negative in the way amoral means without morals, and shameless means without shame. But the original word does include a sense of "strength" or "boldness," which could get lost in the simpler "shameless," where the sense of boldness is not always implied. Greek writers outside the Bible used it often with reference to the same idea that is heard in the cliché or hackneyed phrase: "brazen hussy" (in the sense of "wanton woman" "shameless prostitute").
 
There is another small problem in that it's the third of three primary definitions, which allows for an ambiguity or perhaps a small delay in understanding by a first time reader. But that's not an important issue here.
In any case, it was intended to fix a poor translation in the previous pre-2013 NWT where we used "loose" as in "loose" morals, "loose" conduct. (compare "loose woman" to "brazen hussy.") This is inaccurate, because someone who plays loose with the rules is not necessarily either bold or shameless. It can be like the difference between the archaic meaning of "licentious" and the current meaning. (Archaic: someone who disregards accepted conventions, as in "poetic license" and Modern: unprincipled and promiscuous.) Even the current definition is not quite strong enough to cover the bold/shameless idea of "aselgeia" well enough.
In combination with a couple of contexts about prostitution in the Hebrew Scriptures, I think "brazen" makes for a fair translation of a couple of the ideas is Hebrew, too. In those cases the idea of "boldness" is probably stronger than "shameless" and "brazen" might even be a better word to translate the Hebrew.

I've heard you express problems with this word before. I don't have a problem with it because, well, it's a word and it is a fair match for the Greek "a-sel'geia." The word "brazen" is a little dated, but not obsolete. Personally I would have gone with "shameless" because it fits the meaning of the original word as a negated word and "a-selgeia" is negative in the way amoral means without morals, and shameless means without shame. But the original word does include a sense of "strength" or "boldness," which could get lost in the simpler "shameless," where the sense of boldness is not always implied. Greek writers outside the Bible used it often with reference to the same idea that is heard in the cliché or hackneyed phrase: "brazen hussy" (in the sense of "wanton woman" "shameless prostitute").
 
There is another small problem in that it's the third of three primary definitions, which allows for an ambiguity or perhaps a small delay in understanding by a first time reader. But that's not an important issue here.
In any case, it was intended to fix a poor translation in the previous pre-2013 NWT where we used "loose" as in "loose" morals, "loose" conduct. (compare "loose woman" to "brazen hussy.") This is inaccurate, because someone who plays loose with the rules is not necessarily either bold or shameless. It can be like the difference between the archaic meaning of "licentious" and the current meaning. (Archaic: someone who disregards accepted conventions, as in "poetic license" and Modern: unprincipled and promiscuous.) Even the current definition is not quite strong enough to cover the bold/shameless idea of "aselgeia" well enough.
In combination with a couple of contexts about prostitution in the Hebrew Scriptures, I think "brazen" makes for a fair translation of a couple of the ideas is Hebrew, too. In those cases the idea of "boldness" is probably stronger than "shameless" and "brazen" might even be a better word to translate the Hebrew.

From everything I've seen on this so far, on scholarly sites, well-referenced sites, and pro-Islamic sites, it appears that this idea is merely based on a linguistic confusion from non-Muslims. I found this as the first item that came up in Google when I searched on "crescent moon Islam":
https://www.quora.com/How-did-the-new-moon-become-the-symbol-of-Islam
The hilal (Star and Crescent moon) does not, in fact represent Islam. It pre-dates Islam by about 2000 years. It appears, for instance, on the seals and decorations of the Moabites, of Israel, at about 1500BC.

In the past, it was most notably used on the flag of the Ottoman Empire - especially its navy:
 
 

So, it became emblematic of Islamic power, throughout Europe and beyond, in this period. It remains the symbol on the national flag of Turkey, for this reason.

From this, many other, largely Islamic, countries (especially many of the ones set up in the dissolution of the USSR) included the hilal in their national flags - in the same way that many European nations include the cross. It's sort-of-cultural, but not very significant. Some suggest it represents the lunar month, the period of fasting observed during Ramadan, but if does, the fact that its existence was common place throughout Arabia and across Moghul India, long before Islam, indicates that is an adoption, rather than central to that faith.

Since the 1960s, various Islamist movements have also adopted the hilal (probably because of its Ottoman connotations), and so it is often assumed to be an inherently Islamic symbol.

It is possible that there is confusion over the way its name sounds similar to 'Halal' (lawful), that many Westerners think it is in some way bound up in Islam itself.
 
This is agreed upon by sites that purport to represent the Islamic faith:
On the Ottoman flag was the crescent moon – a symbol the Turks adopted from the city of Constantinople after conquering it. Because the crescent moon was the symbol for the Ottomans, it also became the symbol for Muslims in general for many in the West. It has since been adopted by some Muslim nations – finding its way onto the flags of countries as diverse as Malaysia, Pakistan and Algeria. Although some in the Muslim community reject the crescent moon because it can be seen as a pagan symbol.  

I've heard you express problems with this word before. I don't have a problem with it because, well, it's a word and it is a fair match for the Greek "a-sel'geia." The word "brazen" is a little dated, but not obsolete. Personally I would have gone with "shameless" because it fits the meaning of the original word as a negated word and "a-selgeia" is negative in the way amoral means without morals, and shameless means without shame. But the original word does include a sense of "strength" or "boldness," which could get lost in the simpler "shameless," where the sense of boldness is not always implied. Greek writers outside the Bible used it often with reference to the same idea that is heard in the cliché or hackneyed phrase: "brazen hussy" (in the sense of "wanton woman" "shameless prostitute").
 
There is another small problem in that it's the third of three primary definitions, which allows for an ambiguity or perhaps a small delay in understanding by a first time reader. But that's not an important issue here.
In any case, it was intended to fix a poor translation in the previous pre-2013 NWT where we used "loose" as in "loose" morals, "loose" conduct. (compare "loose woman" to "brazen hussy.") This is inaccurate, because someone who plays loose with the rules is not necessarily either bold or shameless. It can be like the difference between the archaic meaning of "licentious" and the current meaning. (Archaic: someone who disregards accepted conventions, as in "poetic license" and Modern: unprincipled and promiscuous.) Even the current definition is not quite strong enough to cover the bold/shameless idea of "aselgeia" well enough.
In combination with a couple of contexts about prostitution in the Hebrew Scriptures, I think "brazen" makes for a fair translation of a couple of the ideas is Hebrew, too. In those cases the idea of "boldness" is probably stronger than "shameless" and "brazen" might even be a better word to translate the Hebrew.

Some current musings about it, that might all change tomorrow.
Interesting and prescient now that Trump is being pushed around by the CIA.  The Snowden paragraph (16th) was not as bad as I'd feared, if anything I would say it doesn't go far enough.  HUGE chunks of Silicon Valley are currently government contractors or crucially depended on being government contractors at their inception, and the CIA has been intertwined with the Internet from its foundation.  Silicon Valley is not only "complicit" with the surveillance state, it literally IS part of the surveillance state (for example see this https://surveillancevalley.com/blog/why-is-thcia-protecting-google).  My beef with Snowden is that his libertarian ideology prevented him from fully grasping the magnitude of his own revelations, (even now https://surveillancevalley.com/blog/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-tor-project) which is that the private "free-market" spying is a bigger and more pervasive problem in most people's daily lives than government spying on terrorists and criminals.  The libertarian notion of "internet freedom" is a tool used by the USA State Department for regime change around the world.  (Again, Tor is a perfect example https://surveillancevalley.com/blog/tor-project-the-super-secure-anonymity-network-built-on-deception-false-promises-and-heaps-of-libertarian-bullshit)  

Ultimately the term "deep state" is not well defined enough even here.  This article, to me does a good job of describing the circumstances of why the term is popular, but the nailing down a precise and useful meaning is tricky.  Was Alexander Hamilton an agent of the "deep state" when he established military sovereignty violently against the native nations and Whiskey Rebellion in the 1790s?  Or did he and George Washington form the USA's "deep state" through western land speculation/conquest?  When did USA's "deep state" take form?  Under what possible circumstances could any society advanced enough to have an intelligence apparatus NOT have a "deep state"?  The spies of any nation are usually fanatical supporters of that nation, but that alone doesn't prove that they can actually control what that nation does.  

Yes, evidence has piled up since the 1970's that the USA's spies are a "class unto themselves" in the sense that spying is an industry autonomous from the government (https://www.thenation.com/article/five-corporations-now-dominate-our-privatized-intelligence-industry/) but ... so what?  You could say that about all defense contracting in general (see: the F-35).  Is the network of capitalist interests behind the building and maintenance of firepower really so important in the decision-making process of the deployment of that firepower?  Or are they merely loyal servants of politicians who are just greedy careless murder-happy imperialists?  This is the crucial question posed by the term "deep state" and the article doesn't directly answer it.  If anything, I'm leaning towards the latter hypothesis, and if that's true, then there is no deep state, just a plain old classical Marxist ruling class.

To argue by analogy, Hollywood is an industry autonomous from the government too (even though, just like Silicon Valley, it grew out of the machinery of war - early WWI-era propaganda techniques laid the material basis for the modern advertising, movie and recording industries), controlled by interlocking rings of capital who profit from it.  These capitalists make similar products, and the industry has become dominated by monopoly and oligopoly over time.  Do we need the concept of "deep script" to explain why the new Star Wars movie is basically Al Qaeda propaganda?  I don't think so, at least not necessarily.  Seems to me that media act as state propaganda because that's what's materially profitable (Like Chomsky and Herman said https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model), as plain and simple as that.  When private actors work in concert to serve state ends, it can be explained by shared material class interests... the question is what exactly are those interests?

Since inception the USA's spy-state it has served the interests of capital around the world by systematically attacking and destroying secular multi-ethnic nationalism and communism everywhere.  The CIA's very first job was overthrowing the 1948 Italian election results.  The entire purpose of NATO was to prevent the spread of communism west, and the CIA immediately picked up on anti-communist counter-insurgency techniques from the Nazis, and recruited collaborators into the highest positions of government (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip).  NATO has never had a problem with working with terrorists whether the Islamic Jihadist or the European Fascist.  We (US) invaded Iraq and destroyed Libya for the same reasons we (US) helped destroy Yugoslavia and pressured the Soviet Union to fall apart - our ruling class WANTS large secular non-racist governments to fall into chaos so they can buy off the remains after the collapse for cheap.  No need for a "deep state" explanation; it's simple class interest.  Same goes for our cooperation with Arabian oligarchies, Central and Latin American juntas, Turkey, Israel, criminal militias in the Congo, etc.  Class interests, and a material need for cheap resources.

Got to love the state of political discourse.

Hope you are feeling well, and will feel even better soon. 

I love it. Just a couple of nights ago, I "drove" through my old hometown in a place I hadn't been in for 30 years, to see if I could still find the places I had worked, the old territories I had worked by myself as a pioneer (my "magazine route"), schools I attended, the bowling alley, the parks, the restaurants, my studies and return visits, where all the friends from the congregation lived. It's a great way to trigger memories I might otherwise have forgotten about. I was able to make a list of about 60 names from a congregation of 70 publishers. 
Judging from his shirt, I think he's saying this:
JOGGING IS A SNARE AND A RACKET! MILLIONS NOW JOGGING WILL STILL DIE! 
But you are right that we can't make any assumptions here. In NYC there are competing voices at the same corners as the Witnesses all the time. At Union Square Park (14th St) the carts used to set up early last year, and there have been so many competing messages for the past couple years that this park hardly sees any Witnesses now except on the weekend, and even then it's in the quietest area where hardly anyone notices.   

The first man seems to have got some kind of terrible news; his blood pressure shoots up and he has a stroke - now in hospital. Helps us to remember Jesus's words about not being anxious.
 
The second part of the picture seems to me to be some kind of emergency. The man seems to be warning the community to flee from the area. Hence the lady with the injured or sick child, trying to flee. Could be a warning of unsafe shelter/building after a bombing or earthquake event.
Many scenarios are possible - and all bring anxiety of the worst possible kind. Critical times hard on everyone.
 

I'll try a naive take on this in view of all the "wiseguy" comments above.
We have an anxious man in the foreground. In addition to his own personal anxieties, he could be beleaguered by worries regarding sickness, disasters, breakdown of law and order (speaker guy), whether situations are real or imagined, and regardless of whether they are personally experienced or the general experience of others. This relates to the climate of "the last days" described in the Bible at, for example, 2Tim.3:1-5; Luke 21:9-28; Rev.12:9-12, and experienced by all mankind. In the midst of these "critical times", those seeking to serve the true God acceptably experience many anxiety-inducing pressures. The WT article accompanying the illustration presents a range of strategies that God's servants might employ in managing the situation .  

I love it. Just a couple of nights ago, I "drove" through my old hometown in a place I hadn't been in for 30 years, to see if I could still find the places I had worked, the old territories I had worked by myself as a pioneer (my "magazine route"), schools I attended, the bowling alley, the parks, the restaurants, my studies and return visits, where all the friends from the congregation lived. It's a great way to trigger memories I might otherwise have forgotten about. I was able to make a list of about 60 names from a congregation of 70 publishers. 
Judging from his shirt, I think he's saying this:
JOGGING IS A SNARE AND A RACKET! MILLIONS NOW JOGGING WILL STILL DIE! 
But you are right that we can't make any assumptions here. In NYC there are competing voices at the same corners as the Witnesses all the time. At Union Square Park (14th St) the carts used to set up early last year, and there have been so many competing messages for the past couple years that this park hardly sees any Witnesses now except on the weekend, and even then it's in the quietest area where hardly anyone notices.   

Sorry about the long post. I didn't even get to some of the things I wanted to say. But what I had hoped to do is show that we can't avoid interpreting, and it's always our "foundational" views that color just how we interpret them.
I didn't want to make too much of the distinction between relatives in the flesh and relatives in the faith, because we are all brothers, and that expression should truly mean what it sounds like: that all of us are relatives, now. 
I think that our "foundational" views that color our interpretation are from the Mosaic Law, and based specifically on how nearly we can get to the harshness of that Law. We interpret by first considering the "sacrifice" side of the legal equation, and not the "mercy" side. I'm sure you already know it but our foundation for interpretation is easily seen by one of the first discussions of disfellowshipped relatives in the Watchtower. It first reminds us that we are not allowed to kill our disfellowshipped children because the law of the land forbids it:
*** w52 11/15 p. 703 Questions From Readers ***
In the case of where a father or mother or son or daughter is disfellowshiped, how should such person be treated by members of the family in their family relationship?—P. C., Ontario, Canada.
We are not living today among theocratic nations where such members of our fleshly family relationship could be exterminated for apostasy from God and his theocratic organization, as was possible and was ordered in the nation of Israel in the wilderness of Sinai and in the land of Palestine. “Thou shalt surely kill him; thy hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him to death with stones, because he hath sought to draw thee away from Jehovah thy God, . . . ”—Deut. 13:6-11, AS.
Being limited by the laws of the worldly nation in which we live and also by the laws of God through Jesus Christ, we can take action against apostates only to a certain extent, that is, consistent with both sets of laws. The law of the land and God’s law through Christ forbid us to kill apostates, even though they be members of our own flesh-and-blood family relationship. However, God’s law requires us to recognize their being disfellowshiped from his congregation, and this despite the fact that the law of the land in which we live requires us under some natural obligation to live with and have dealings with such apostates under the same roof.
 
The rest of the article showed some additional cases where the law of the land and/or God's law requires certain types of contact with relatives. For example: not being able to throw minors out of the house, not being able to divorce due to disfellowshipping/apostasy, marriage partners living and eating under the same roof, etc. 
*** w52 11/15 p. 703 Questions From Readers ***
God’s law does not allow a marriage partner to dismiss his mate because his mate becomes disfellowshiped or apostatizes. Neither will the law of the land in most cases allow a divorce to be granted on such grounds. The faithful believer and the apostate or disfellowshiped mate must legally continue to live together and render proper marriage dues one to the other. A father may not legally dismiss his minor child from his household because of apostasy or disfellowshiping, and a minor child or children may not abandon their father or their mother just because he becomes unfaithful to God and his theocratic organization. The parent must by laws of God and of man fulfill his parental obligations to the child or children as long as they are dependent minors, and the child or children must render filial submission to the parent as long as legally underage or as long as being without parental consent to depart from the home. Of course, if the children are of age, then there can be a departing and breaking of family ties in a physical way, because the spiritual ties have already snapped.
 
Because of cases mentioned such as these certain verses are said not to apply, which appears to be the correct interpretation: 
*** w52 11/15 p. 704 Questions From Readers ***
Because of being in close, indissoluble natural family ties and being of the same household under the one roof you may have to eat material food and live physically with that one at home, in which case 1 Corinthians 5:9-11 and 2 John 10 could not apply; but do not defeat the purpose of the congregation’s disfellowship order by eating spiritual or religious food with such one or receiving such one favorably in a religious way and bidding him farewell with a wish for his prosperity in his apostate course.
 
When the Watchtower said: "we can take action against apostates only to a certain extent, that is, consistent with both sets of laws" it gives away the foundation. We are looking for the extent of "sacrifice" that is possible, not the necessary minimum. We are not looking for loopholes to show how much mercy is possible.
I suspect that Percy Chapman (the branch servant in Ontario) wrote this question so that Fred Franz could submit the answer with an already written article. I have no evidence in this case, but I saw evidence in the 1970's that something like this was done for other other QFR's. So it's a bit difficult for me not to read between the lines and see the attitude of Fred Franz coming through. I could just see him giving a talk on he subject and adding "perhaps if we lived in Saudi Arabia" to that first paragraph.