Ethics

Blacks and the Watchtower

2009-01-17T01:06:47Z

reprint of July\Aug 1988 Bethel Ministries Newsletter

Few religious organizations have escaped being tainted by racial prejudice at one time or another. While the Watchtower has not been alone in its preferential treatment of the Caucasian, its history is perhaps a little more interesting and at times amusing in regards to the black man. It is all the more fascinating when you discover how few people really know what the Watchtower has taught regarding racial inferiority.

Taking a glimpse back in time to the beginnings of the Watchtower organization, we find more than just silent prejudice at work. Several statements were put in print regarding the alleged inferiority of the black man! Let's examine a few of these statements from the past, and then we'll examine their present view of blacks and even Hispanics in the Governing Body.

From the beginning, President C. T. Russell believed that the millennial kingdom was about to break upon mankind, accompanied by life in paradise and a restoration of the earth to the condition as found in the garden of Eden. Though in this present life the black man was found to be inferior, Russell argues, this will work to his advantage during the millennium. Humility, promoted by a position of inferiority, would breed strength of character to the "colored" if they are so rightly exercised by it (in other words, if they remain humble and not challenge the status quo). Note the following from the April 1, 1914 Watchtower:

If nature favors the colored brethren and sisters in the exercise of humility it is that much to their advantage, if they are rightly exercised by it. A little while, and our humility will work out for our good. A little while, and those who have been faithful to their Covenant of Sacrifice will be granted new bodies, spiritual, beyond the veil, where color and sex distinctions will be no more. A little while, and the Millennial kingdom will be inaugurated, which will bring restitution to all mankind - restitution to the perfection of mind and body, feature and color, to the grand original standard, which God declared "very good," and which was lost for a time through sin, but which is soon to be restored by the powerful kingdom of Messiah. (p. 105-106)
All men privileged to live in that "new world" would return to man's original state, including man's original color and language. And what was that color and language? White and Hebrew, according to the Watchtower.

Under the subheading, "CAN THE ETHIOPIAN CHANGE HIS SKIN?", the Feb. 15, 1904 Watch Tower responds,

We answer, No. But all will admit that what the Ethiopian cannot do for himself God could readily do for him. The difference between the races of men and the differences between their languages have long been arguments against the solidarity of the human family. The doctrine of restitution has also raised the question. How could all men be brought to perfection and which color of skin was the original? The answer is now provided. God can change the Ethiopian's skin in his own due time.

Prof. H. A. Edwards, Supt. of Schools in Slater, Mo., has written for the public press an elaborate description of how Julius Jackson, of New Frankfurt, Mo., a negro boy of nine years, began to grow white in September, 1901, and is now fully nine-tenths white. He assures us that this is no whitish skin disease; but that the new white skin is as healthy as that of any white boy, and that the changed boy has never been sick and never has taken medicines. (p.52-53)

The reason for printing such a story, of course, is to demonstrate that God can and will change the "Ethiopian" (black man) into a white man in the New World. The obvious question to ask at this point is, Why does the black man need to change? The reason they gave revealed their true feelings, as we see from the following excerpts:

...The negro race is supposed to be descended from Ham, whose special degradation is mentioned in Gen. 9:22, 25. (Zion's Watch Tower, August 1, 1898, p. 230)

Noah declared, prophetically, that Ham's characteristics which had led him to unseemly conduct disrespectful to his father, would be found cropping out later, inherited by his son,and prophetically he foretold that this degeneracy would mark the posterity of Canaan, degrading him, making him servile. We are not able to determine to a certainty that the sons of Ham and Canaan are the negroes; but we consider that general view as probable as any other. (Zion's Watch Tower, July 15, 1902, p. 216)

The change was needed as a sign of removal of the curse; black skin was a blemish, so to speak. Yet the skin color of the black man was not the only thing about him that was apparently cursed. In an article attempting to prove the bigots of the day to be in error, an article was written entitled, "The Negro Not A Beast." The Negro was declared to be indeed human, yet with the following qualification:

While it is true that the white race exhibits some qualities of superiority over any other, we are to remember that there are wide differences in the same Caucasian (Semitic and Aryan) family; and also we should remember that some of the qualities which have given this branch of the human family its preeminence in the world are not such as can be pointed to as in all respects admirable....The secret of the greater intelligence and aptitude of the Caucasian undoubtedly in great measure is to be attributed to the commingling of blood amongst its various branches; and this was evidently forced in large measure by circumstances under divine control. (Zion's Watch Tower, July 15, 1902, p.215-216)

In an effort to provide hope for the Negro, the following story was related in the Zion's Watch Tower of October 1, 1900, p. 296-297:

CAN RESTITUTION CHANGE THE ETHIOPIAN'S SKIN?
The following, from the New York World, is the third we have seen reported. These suggest and illustrate the process of restitution soon due. The item reads:
"From Black to White He Slowly Turned"
Parkersburg, W. Va., Sept. 8.It has fallen to the lot of the Rev. William H. Draper, pastor of the Logan Memorial church, of Washington Conference, A.M.E. church, of this town, to give a living affirmative answer to the famous Biblical question, "Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots?" Though once as black as charcoal, the Rev. Mr. Draper is now white. His people say that his color was changed in answer to prayer. Many years ago Draper was employed by a fair-skinned man, and he was often heard to remark that if he could only be white like his employer, he would be happy. While in the white man's service Draper `experienced' religion.
From that day forward he prayed constantly and fervently that he might become white. Thirty years ago his prayer began to be answered. He first experienced a prickling sensation on his face, and upon close investigation found a number of small white spots scarcely larger than the point of a pin. He became alarmed, thinking he had some peculiar disease but he did not suffer and aside from the prickling sensation felt nothing unusual. Gradually the white spots became larger and extended themselves, until now, after the change has been in progress for over thirty years, Draper has not a single dark spot on his body.

The advantage of being viewed as inferior supposedly made one a good servant, and The Golden Age magazine (now Awake!), comments:

It is generally believed that the curse which Noah pronounced upon Canaan was the origin of the black race. Certain it is that when Noah said, "Cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren," he pictured the future of the Colored race. They have been and are a race of servants, but now in the dawn of the twentieth century, we are all coming to see this matter of service in its true light and to find that the only real joy in life is in serving others; not bossing them. There is no servant in the world as good as a good Colored servant, and the joy that he gets from rendering faithful service is one of the purest joys there is in the world. (The Golden Age, July 24, 1929, p. 702)

Even as recent as 1952, the Watchtower extols the "teachableness" of the Negro:

Really, our colored brothers have a great cause for rejoicing. Their race is meek and teachable, and from it comes a high percentage of the theocratic increase. (The Watchtower, Feb. 1, 1952, p. 95)

Segregation was practiced during the days of C. T. Russell and even into Rutherford's term as president of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.

This excerpt is taken from The Watch Tower of April 1, 1914, p. 105:

Recognizing that it meant either the success or the failure of the enterprise of the [Photo] Drama as respects the whites, we have been compelled to assign the colored friends to the gallery, which, however, is just as good for seeing and hearing as any other part of The Temple. Some were offended at this arrangement. We have received numerous letters from the colored friends, some claiming that it is not right to make a difference, others indignantly and bitterly denouncing us as enemies of the colored people. Some, confident that Brother Russell had never sanctioned such a discrimination, told that they believe it would be duty to stand up for equal rights and always to help the oppressed, etc. We were obliged to explain the facts, assuring all of our loving interest in the colored people, and of our desire to do them good, and not injury. We again suggested that if a suitable place could be found in which the Drama could be presented for the benefit of the colored people alone, we would be glad to make such arrangements, or to cooperate with any others in doing so.

Intellectual Ability

Even more fascinating is the Watchtower's early view of the lesser interest and intelligence of the Black and Hispanic races concerning the deeper things of the Bible. The Watchtower of April 15, 1900 said the following regarding blacks not participating in the "pioneer" work:

There are probably as many as a hundred colored brethren on the Watch Tower lists, some of them very clear in the truth, and very earnest in its service, financially and otherwise. We have received letters from several of these, who had intended engaging in the volunteer work, expressing surprise that in the call for volunteers in the March 1st issue we restricted the inquiry to white Protestant churches. They rightly realized that we have not the slightest of race prejudice, and that we love the colored brethren with just the same warmth of heart that we love the white, and they queried therefore why such a distinction should be made in the call. The reason is that so far as we are able to judge, colored people have less education than whites - many of them quite insufficient to permit them to profit by such reading as we have to give forth. Our conclusion therefore is based upon the supposition that reading matter distributed to a colored congregation would more than half of it be utterly wasted, and a very small percentage indeed likely to yield good results. (p. 122)

The average Jehovah's Witness today that is confronted with this information would probably excuse the organization of being in error because "the light was dim" back then but that now the "light has gotten brighter and brighter," and those days are long gone. It is true that times and attitudes have changed. Yet we should not be too hasty in concluding that the Watchtower has fully abandoned their old mentality. It was made known to me in 1977 while I was in charge of the printing of the Watchtower's large Bible encyclopedia, the Aid to Bible Understanding, that it was not translated and printed in Spanish partly due to the lack of interest of the Spanish brothers in the deeper things of the Word! The feeling was that all that work would only go to waste among Hispanics.

Typical of the "Watchtower amnesia" regarding their own past history, they act today as if they never taught any prejudicial views, and that only the churches of Christendom are guilty of such things. Yet even the Catholic Church surpasses them in this regard! The Watchtower of Oct. 8, 1977 states:

Even up to a hundred years ago the Catholic Church held the view that blacks were cursed by God. Maxwell explains that this view "apparently survived until 1873 when Pope Pius IX attached an indulgence to a prayer for the `wretched Ethiopians in Central Africa that almighty God may at length remove the curse of Cham [Ham] from their hearts." (p. 29. See also the 2/8/82 WT, p.14-15.)
According to what the Watchtower is saying, the Catholic Church dropped their official prejudice against the black man at least 40 years before they did! Of course, they are banking on the fact that few Witnesses really know the history of the Watchtower organization. As has been demonstrated earlier, they viewed the curse of Ham as applying to the Negro as late as 1929!

Have Old Things Really Passed Away?

The Watchtower of modern times prides itself on its supposed freedom from racial prejudice as an organization (it does acknowledge individuals who have problems from time to time). It takes great delight in quoting the news media as they observe and comment on the massive assemblies across the world each year, with peoples from all races attending in harmony. One observer they repeatedly quoted was G. Norman Eddy, who comments on Jehovah's Witnesses:

I am struck with their genuine high regard for the people of all races. Unlike some who pay lip service to the doctrine of racial brotherhood, the Witnesses welcome all to their society - even to places of outstanding leadership - without reference to color or feature. (Journal of Bible and Religion, as quoted in the Jan. 15, 1973 WT, p. 37)

It is true that the assemblies of Jehovah's Witnesses are remarkable in this regard, but so are many modern church groups across the country, especially among the charismatic persuasions. Yet unlike the churches, the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses has never had a non-Caucasian in its membership, Negro, Hispanic or otherwise.

Further, there are likely more subtle reasons behind the reluctance of the Governing Body to take in minorities. The unspoken requirements of serving as a member of the Governing Body apparently include having the same eccentricities and Victorian attitudes as the men already serving in such capacities, which are somewhat peculiar to certain older Caucasians of English-American descent. Any aspiring brother must put on the same attitudes in order to be trusted. While the Watchtower does have a few blacks in high position, including Circuit Overseers and members of the Service Department at Bethel, such ones have been promoted no higher, in spite of their adopting "white" attitudes. Perhaps with increased public pressure and the passing away of the older die-hards, a black may be appointed to the Governing Body - time will tell. One thing for sure, they will have to lose their "soul" in order to do so!

Who Pays the Ferry Man?

2009-03-20T06:04:55Z

French philosopher Blaise Pascal once noted, "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." A case study for this statement can clearly be evidenced by the Governing Body Of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Lying in Court and Religion: An Analysis of the Theocratic Warfare Doctrine of the Jehovah's Witnesses

2009-01-17T19:59:41Z

Lying in Court and Religion: An Analysis of the Theocratic Warfare Doctrine of the Jehovah's Witnesses

Jerry Bergman , Ph.D., Northwest State College , Archbold , Ohio

Abstract

This review of the problem of religious justified lying in court focuses on the Jehovah’s Witnesses and their theocratic war doctrine. The history of the development of this doctrine and the problems of lying in society are reviewed. Also discussed are examples of the use of this doctrine in court and a survey of active and former Witnesses designed to determine the awareness level of this doctrine among the average Witness. It is concluded that the longer someone is a Witness, and the higher the attained rank in the Watchtower, the more likely the person is to understand and to use the doctrine.

Introduction

Honesty is a central Western value, and so important that fully 95% of Americans agree with the statement, “a primary goal of schools is to teach honesty and the importance of telling the truth” (Johnson and Immerwhr, 1994, p. 24). Honesty is also critical for the court process to function properly, and one of the most common impediments to determining truth is lying by court witnesses. In Judge Schwelb’s (1989, p. 3) words, “if witnesses lie successfully, the blindfold over the eyes of Justice will not serve its intended benign purpose.” Judge Schwelb stated he has encountered “many hundreds of instances of perjury or deception” in his thirty years as a lawyer (1989, p.3). He found that lying is especially common in domestic cases and if the deception is not exposed, liars can profit from their fabrications.

Cases involving other motivations for lying are more complex, such as when lying defined as a violation of the oath to tell “the whole truth and nothing but the truth” occurs because of deeply held religious convictions. Even lying that is exposed requires evaluating a variety of issues, such as whether so-called white lies, stretching the truth, or exaggerations constitute perjury (Stewart, 1986, p. 84). Lying also normally includes employing words “to obscure communication” so as to “manipulate” others for one’s own advantage (Wolk and Henley 1970 pp. 90-94, 232). The whole truth and nothing but the truth requirement in court was historically designed to avoid the problem of a court witness, for example, claiming that he honestly "didn't steal" from his employer when in his mind he meant he "didn't steal” from him yesterday , but to listeners he implied that he never stole because the yesterday remains unsaid. The whole truth is that he has stolen from his employer in the past (Bok, 1978).

The Case of Jehovah’s Witnesses

Until recently the Jehovah’s Witnesses were one of the fastest growing religions in the world. Their ruling body, the Watchtower Society, claims that almost 15.4 million people are now associated with the church (Watchtower, Jan. 1, 2002, p. 22), and according to their Dun and Bradstreet report (a credit report available only from Dun and Bradstreet by request), their American income in 1992 alone was over 1.2 billion dollars. Founded in 1879 by C. T. Russell, they are best known for their legal conflicts over the flag salute and other government requirements.

Among the unique Watchtower doctrines is a prohibition against blood transfusions and a teaching called theocratic war strategy that justifies “lying” in court and elsewhere. Only three religions could be located that openly teach this doctrine. One is the Aryan Brotherhood, a white supremacist group that teaches it is appropriate to lie in order to further its interests (W. Caughey, personal interview, Feb. 3, 1991). Another is the Unification Church , which critics claim practices a similar doctrine they call Heavenly Deception (Levine, 1980; Elkins, 1980). Boettcher claims that

One of the central tenets of the [Unificationists] faith is the Doctrine of Heavenly Deception. Good must deceive evil. The non-Moon world is evil. It must be lied to so it can help Moon take over. Then it can become good under Moon’s control. In the Bible, Jacob lied to Isaac. God rewarded Jacob by making him the father of the nation of Israel . (Boettcher, 1980, pp. 343-344)

The third is the Watchtower Theocratic War doctrine, which teaches that it is appropriate to withhold the truth from “people who are not entitled to it” if it will further the Watchtower’s interests (Reed, 1992; Reed, 1997, p. 129; see also Franz, 1971, pp. 1060-1061, and Raines, 1996c). In the Watchtower’s words, Witnesses are required to “use Theocratic War Strategy” against any and all persons who have a “wolf-like disposition,” defined as anyone who does not accept the Watchtower as God’s organization and the head of God’s people. All other religions are defined as evil and of Satan (Franz 1991; Watchtower May 1,1957, pp. 285-286 and p. 288 — this latter article was censored in new Watchtower reprints).

Reed defines Theocratic War Strategy as “hiding truth from persons not entitled to it—i.e., lying to outsiders when deemed necessary” (Reed, 1995, p. 40). He adds the Watchtower defines lying as “. . . deceiving outsiders to advance the organization’s interests. Falsehoods presented to God’s enemies are not considered lies, due to the state of war existing between God’s forces (the JWs) and Satan’s (the rest of the world).” In the words of Kotwall (1997, pp. 1-2) the Watchtower’s teaching “to lie and deceive in the interest of their religion is Scripturally approved. They call such lying theocratic war strategy.” Wilson says:

although a basic belief of Jehovah’s Witnesses is that liars will receive eternal death with no hope of a resurrection, exception is made when it comes to lying or pretending to be someone one is not if the purpose is for the good of the organization. An example of this sort of deception that I had personally experienced was the time a Witness friend invited me and several other Witnesses to her house when a Witness missionary was visiting her, as he was to give a slide presentation about his work in Israel … To protect the facility and the other Witnesses who were to live there, the Society instructed this missionary to pose as an eccentric millionaire who has a fetish about being clean, and to inform any inquirers that this was his own house that was being built. This story was fabricated to cover up the real purpose of the building—that of being a Watchtower factory having bedrooms with sinks in them to house the factory workers. This incident was another example of theocratic war strategy (Wilson, 2002, p. 249).

Jehovah’s Witnesses do not always lie outright, but they often lie according to the court’s definition—not telling “the whole truth and nothing but the truth,” which means the court requires the whole story, not half-truths or deception. The Watchtower claims to condemn lying, but only lying as they define it, namely “saying something false to a person who is entitled to know the truth and doing so with the intent to deceive or to injure him or another person” (Franz, Vol. 2, 1988, p. 244, emphasis mine). The purpose of the oath is to discourage evading the truth by being truthful only in a narrow way. In a popular discussion designed to define lying to the lay public, Savant explains that when witnesses are asked to tell “the truth” in court, it means that they are not to lie and are also required:

... to tell “the whole truth.” … For example, if a governor says that “in my state, we’ve moved 17,000 people from welfare to work” and omits adding the fact that in his state, 25,000 other people moved from work to welfare at the same time, he has told “the truth” but he hasn’t told “the whole truth.” That is, the net effect was that 8,000 more people were on welfare, not 17,000 fewer … Third, witnesses are asked to tell “nothing but the truth.” This is yet another concept. For example, if a person tells the truth in response to a question and then adds a lie, he or she has told “the truth” but hasn’t told “nothing but the truth.” And although none of this will stop truly dishonest people, at least it gives us good ammunition to charge them with perjury. (Savant, 1996, p. 12)

In the words of Raines, theocratic warfare in practice means “deceiving” or misdirecting the “enemy” with untrue and misleading information to protect and advance the interests of “God’s people” and his “organization” (1996, p. 20). Magnani added that the Watchtower

has a special policy towards outsiders. Those who question its teachings are considered “opposers” and are treated in a special way. The Watchtower actually teaches Jehovah’s Witnesses to cover up or LIE about certain facts. This tactic is called THEOCRATIC WAR STRATEGY. (1979, p. 1, emphasis his).

The Watchtower tries to clarify its stand by adding that, although

malicious lying is definitely condemned in the Bible, this does not mean that a person is under obligation to divulge truthful information to people who are not entitled to it … Jesus on certain occasions refrained from giving full information or direct answers to certain questions when doing so could have brought unnecessary harm (Matt 15:1-6; 21:23-27; John 7:3-10). Evidently, the course of Abraham, Isaac, Rahab, and Elisha in misdirecting or in withholding full facts from nonworshipers of Jehovah must be viewed in the same light—Gen 12:10-19; chapter 20; 26:1-10; Josh 2:1-6; Jas 2:25; 2 Ki 6:11-23 (Franz, 1971 p. 245).

An example of how this doctrine is in fact applied is explained by Reed as follows:

When a Witness knocks at a door, gives a brief sales pitch, and sells a small book for a dollar, local laws may require him or her to collect sales tax. (A credit report on the Watchtower of New York, Inc., revealed $1.25 billion corporate sales figures for 1991, up from just over $1 billion in 1990.). To evade this obligation the organization instructs JWs to say they did not sell the book; rather, they placed it. They did not receive the dollar in payment; rather, the money was received coincidentally as an unrelated donation. Another illegal activity covered by cloaking expressions relates to violating child welfare laws and ignoring court orders regarding medical treatment. When taking such drastic steps to prevent blood transfusions for sick or injured children JWs commonly refer to their actions as keeping integrity or putting God first … Cloaking expressions [with] obscure words … to conceal information from outsiders unfamiliar with the sect. Witnesses resort to such devices when organizational instructions require them to violate tax laws, refuse military conscription, evade child welfare laws, and so on. Falsifications on these matters are not considered lies, but theocratic war strategy (1997, pp. 22, 28).

Yet another assessment of this doctrine by a long-time, once high-ranking Witness:

They [the Watchtower] adamantly teach that it is okay to “hide the truth from your enemies,” since they are in “Theocratic warfare,” which is taken as permission to lie. And who are their enemies? Everyone but themselves...Lying has been described in their literature as permissible, especially to your “enemies” (which is everyone except the elitist governing body). It depends on whom you’re lying to. They give the example of Abraham, in a life threatening situation, misrepresenting his wife’s status, calling her his sister instead of his wife. So, do they reason it is a little thing for us to lie to the “other sheep,” to tell them that they are “Christians,” and can preach, that Holy Spirit will protect them, etc? What difference does it really make? (Ford, 1996, pp .7, 84)

The Watchtower teaches that lying to “God’s enemies” is not really lying but theocratic “war strategy” and that:

God’s Word commands: “Speak truth each of you with his neighbor” (Eph. 4:25 ). This command, however, does not mean that we should tell everyone who asks us all he wants to know. We must tell the truth to one who is entitled to know, but if one is not so entitled we may be evasive. ( Watchtower, June 1, 1960, pp. 351-352)

The Watchtower then adds “we may not tell a falsehood,” but this again refers to their definition of a falsehood. This Watchtower (1960, p. 352) also states that if a Watchtower adherent takes the witness stand in court and swears “to tell the truth, then, if he speaks at all, he must utter the truth.” This “truth,” though, is what the court defines as truth, but it is overshadowed by the focus on “hiding the truth” from God’s enemies. Other articles and the actual practice of Witnesses both show that this latter advice is not strictly followed. For example, the May 1, 1957, Watchtower adds:

Lies are untruths told for selfish reasons and which work injury to others. Satan told a lie to Eve that worked great harm to her and all the human race. Ananias and Sapphira told lies for selfish reasons. But hiding the truth, which he is not entitled to know, from an enemy does not harm him, especially when he would use such information to harm others who are innocent … So in time of spiritual warfare it is proper to misdirect the enemy by hiding the truth. It is done unselfishly; it does not harm anyone; on the contrary, it does much good. (pp. 284-285).

As William Blake once said “ the truth that is told with bad intent beats all the lies you can invent.” The doctrine is best summarized by, The Measures Taken , a play by Bertolt Brecht:

Whoever fights for communism must be prepared to fight or not to fight, to tell the truth or not to tell the truth, to give his services or to refuse them, to be recognized or to be disguised. Who fights for communism, has only one single virtue, that he fights for communism (Quoted in Perutz, 1989, p. 139).

Wilson gives an example of how the doctrine is used today:

the elders asked this young man to call our daughter and fabricate a reason to get her to come over to the house. Under the guise of “theocratic warfare,” lying was acceptable if it served the needs of the organization. Consequently, the truthfulness of the reason he gave her to get her to agree to meet him at the house was insignificant. He feigned helplessness about some aspect of taking care of things at the house, asking her to meet him there at a specified time so she could help him out. Trusting that he would never betray her, she agreed (2000, p. 118).

That the Watchtower specifically teaches their followers to lie as the word is normally used in English is illustrated by their discussion about when Abraham told Sarah to “hide the fact” that she was his wife ( Watchtower , Feb. 1, 1956, p. 78). The Watchtower notes that years later when Abraham was in the Philistine country of Gerar, Abraham repeated the lie about Sarah, blatantly claiming that his wife “is my sister.” This, the Watchtower Society concludes, is not lying because Abraham represented Sarah as his sister for a laudable reason, namely:

to prevent violent controversy over his wife. Sarah recognized Abraham as her Lord and agreed to the arrangement, willing to take the consequences … She was willing to do her part to preserve the life of Jehovah’s prophet … But critics ... view Abraham wholly as a lying, prevaricating, weakling coward. (Feb. 1, 1956, p. 79)

Ironically, this example that the Watchtower Society uses to justify lying backfired because of lying. The Pharaoh, thinking Sarah was Abraham’s unmarried sister, took her for his wife, causing a plague on “Pharaoh and his house.” When Pharaoh found out about Abraham’s lie and returned Abraham’s wife, he protested to Abraham, stating that what happened would have been prevented if only Abraham had told the truth (Gen. 12:10-20). Thus, instead of being an example that justifies lying, this scriptural example actually condemns lying by showing that it can seriously backfire. Abraham also lied about his wife to Abimelech and as a result nearly caused him a disaster (Genesis 20). The latest discussion appeared in the Feb. 8, 2000 Awake!, which, under the title “Cautious as Serpents,” notes:

Of course, being truthful does not mean that we are obligated to divulge all information to anyone who asks it of us. “Do not give what is holy to dogs, neither throw your pearls before swine, that they may never ... turn around and rip you open,” warned Jesus, at Matthew 7:6. For example, individuals with wicked intent may have no right to know certain things. Christians understand that they are living in a hostile world. Thus, Jesus advised his disciples to be “cautious as serpents” while remaining “innocent as doves.” (Matthew 10:16; John 15:19) Jesus did not always disclose the full truth, especially when revealing all the facts could have brought unnecessary harm to himself or his disciples. Still, even at such times, he did not lie. Instead, he chose either to say nothing or to divert the conversation in another direction.–Matthew 15:1-6; 21:23 -27; John 7:3-10 (Feb. 8, 2000, p. 21).

The Watchtower Society claims that they condemn direct lying and advocate only hiding the truth. But their using Abraham’s case as an example to emulate in situations where doing so can protect the Watchtower indicates that they in fact advocate direct lying. Reed comments on this doctrine:

By instructing Witness kids to testify in court to say the opposite of what they are really taught to believe, the Watchtower Society requires them to engage in a form of double-talk that most people would consider lying. And unless the youngsters are to consciously see themselves as liars, they must also engage in doublethink, the mental gymnastics described in George Orwell’s novel … where people are forced by a totalitarian society to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies. (1996, pp. 230-231)

Yet another example shows that the application of the doctrine involves open lying:

While doing this research ... I met a woman who showed me a scar on her upper arm that she said was caused by an acid burn. She explained that bribing a doctor to produce a scar on a child’s arm that mimicked the scar left from a smallpox vaccination, and then signing a certificate of vaccination [certifying that they were vaccinated] to enable the child to go to school, was a common practice among the Witnesses during the years of the Society’s ban on vaccinations. One can only imagine how many Witnesses or their children died of smallpox due to this practice of theocratic warfare to avoid vaccinations (Wilson, 2002, p. 180).

A detailed discussion of the doctrine and how it is applied was included in the court testimony in the case Gouvitsa v. Gouvitsa in which the sworn expert witness said, in answer to the question “What is within Jehovah’s Witness’ theocratic war strategy?”:

Theocratic war strategy is very common among Jehovah’s Witnesses. It’s on different levels . . . first, one has to understand the definition of what a lie is. And because it’s so important, I’d like to just read it ... “In the Aid to Bible Understanding,” which is their encyclopedia, it says, “Lying generally involves saying something false to a person who is entitled to know the truth.”

... Now, the reason I emphasize the word “entitled” is because Witnesses … look at the world in two types of people ... the sheep and the goats ... the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the non-Christians being the rest of the world ... God’s people and Satan’s people ... The only people that are entitled to know the truth 100 percent of the time are Jehovah’s Witnesses. The people that are opposing God’s Word, according to the Jehovah’s Witnesses, are people in Christendom … They are in opposition, so consequently they are not entitled to know the truth all the time … We have met people in our own work and heard of many cases, the one that comes to mind is a gentleman who had written a pamphlet exposing the Watchtower organization as a cult. And he met up with a Jehovah’s Witness. And somehow they got into a dialogue on this particular pamphlet ... And the Jehovah’s Witness was downing the pamphlet as being totally false, and not only that he was claiming that he knew the writer of the pamphlet and that the writer of the pamphlet was immoral and he had been kicked out of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, was an apostate and so forth, and the information in the pamphlet could not be reliable.

Then this individual told the Jehovah’s Witness that he was, in fact, the writer of the pamphlet ... That is an example called theocratic war strategy. In other words, the Jehovah’s Witness [felt] ... what was important was to downgrade the information to make the organization look better. Theocratic war strategy is basically a method employed in many, many different ways. Not just outright lying, but sometimes evading the truth, sometimes telling half truths … the organization employs it [theocratic warfare] not only to the general public, but also on Jehovah’s Witnesses ( Joy Hutton Gouvitsa Arnold plaintiff, v. Gus Konstantine Gouvitsa , Testimony of Duane Magnani, pp. 109-113 ).

The History and Development of the Doctrine

The earliest printed reference to the Theocratic Warfare doctrine in official Watchtower publications dates from 1936 in a book titled Riches ( Rutherford , 1936):

A lie is a false statement made by one to another one who is entitled to hear and to know the truth, and which false statement tends to work injury to the other. A false statement made for the purpose of deceiving and working injury to another is a deliberate and malicious lie. (Rutherford, 1936, p. 177)

Raines concludes that the quote above implies some people are not “entitled” to

… know the truth and that if a person makes a false statement without intending to “work injury” to another, it isn’t a lie, but what Goodrich called a “Rahab technique.” Otherwise, why didn’t Rutherford simply say a lie is a knowingly false statement, period? Goodrich viewed it this way and this is the way the Society has since defined lies versus using “theocratic war strategy.” (Raines, 1996, p. 20).

An early example of the use of theocratic warfare by one Witness on another Witness that occurred in the early 1940’s involved Roy Goodrich, a former science teacher and for many years a congregation overseer. Goodrich sent a letter to a Mr. M. A. Howlett at the Watchtower world headquarters expressing his concern about the Watchtower’s use of the E.R.A. machine to treat illness. E.R.A. is an “oscilloclast machine” invented by Dr. Abrams, a notorious quack well known to historians of science quackery (Warner, 1941). Goodrich was concerned because he concluded the E.R.A. technique involved demonism. For this reason he wrote Howlett to determine if the rumors he heard about the E.R.A. machine still being used at Bethel (the Watchtower headquarters) were true.

Howlett answered Goodrich as follows “You have evidently been misinformed regarding my connection with E.R.A. I know nothing of it and have never used it. There is none such in Bethel ” (Goodrich, 1944). Goodrich knew that Howlett’s claim was erroneous because he possessed firsthand knowledge that a Chester Nicholson was “treated” with the E.R.A. machine by Howlett. Goodrich also knew that the E.R.A. had been used by a “Dr.” Work at Bethel since 1922. Furthermore, since Howlett started working at Bethel before 1922, Goodrich knew Howlett’s claim about not having “even heard of the ERA” was absurd because Howlett was a Bethel doctor. Consequently, “Goodrich therefore believed that Howlett lied to him” (Raines, 1996, p. 20).

In response to Howlett’s letter, Goodrich wrote a lengthy letter to both the Watchtower board of directors and Watchtower’s president, Nathan Knorr. Goodrich, who was then a Witness in good standing, wrote specifically about what he believed was Howlett’s misuse of theocratic war strategy (in the 1940s the doctrine was called the Rahab technique, after Rahab who lied to protect the spies). Raines notes this technique involved “misdirecting” someone with “false information,” a response that “most people would call … lying” (Raines, 1996, p. 20). Goodrich was nonplused because, as he explained to Howlett

the one possible import of those words [from Howlett] conveys an impression entirely contrary to the fundamental facts as I know them. I must believe, however, that your motive in writing them is the highest—a desire to honor Jehovah’s name. Remembering Rahab’s approval and the statements at the top of Page 177 in RICHES, you have seemingly clear and logical justification, no doubt, in your own mind [to lie]. (Goodrich, 1944, p. 1)

What Goodrich was concerned about was that the doctrine justifies lying only to those who are not entitled to know the truth , and Goodrich felt as a fellow Jehovah’s Witness, and for many years a presiding overseer, he did have a right to know the truth in this matter. Raines comments that the Theocratic War doctrine

implies there are some who are simply not “entitled” to know the truth and that if a person makes a false statement without intending to “work injury” to another, it isn’t a lie, but … a “Rahab technique.” Otherwise why didn’t Rutherford simply say a lie is a knowingly false statement, period? Goodrich viewed it this way, and this is why the Society has since defined lies according to their “theocratic war strategy” doctrine. (Raines, 1996, p. 20)

Goodrich responded charitably, concluding that Howlett

did in fact intend a faithful Rahab technique … in all kindness then, Bro. Howlett, the inescapable logic of fact is that your postal to me, must be one or the other of the two following things, to wit: (1) A potentially malicious lie; or (2) an admission before the Lord that you have been practicing demonism and “fibbing” out of it. (Goodrich, 1943, p. 1)

Goodrich’s efforts to bring his concerns to the Watchtower’s attention eventually resulted in his disfellowshipping (forced explosion from the Watchtower Society, which denied him almost all contact with members in good standing). Interestingly, a decade later The Watchtower drew the same conclusion about E.R.A. for which Goodrich had been disfellowshipped (Raines, 1996, p. 20). Some details on the development of this now infamous Watchtower doctrine were related in a study by Frakes:

In his Sunday-morning discourse on “Cautious as Serpents among Wolves,” … Franz interpreted certain Old Testament passages as proving that when it meant preservation of his own, Jehovah approved lying to one’s enemies; hence, such lying is not to be condemned so long as it is addressed to outsiders. Thereupon the chairman thanked him as the agent of the Watchtower Society for the “new light” he had brought. (1955, p. 819)

In Sherrill’s words this new doctrine meant that “Lying is part of ‘theocratic war strategy.’ A JW can lie to someone if they are not entitled to know the truth” (1995, p. 56). The Watchtower teaching that “the truth should be told” only to those who have “a right to know,” means that Watchtower “opposers” (the term the Watchtower uses for knowledgeable critics; see Reed, 1997, p. 101) and critics do not have a right to know the truth:

As a soldier of Christ [a Witness is] ... in theocratic warfare and he must exercise added caution when dealing with God’s foes. Thus the Scriptures show that for the purpose of protecting the interests of God’s cause, it is proper to hide the truth from God’s enemies. … This would come under the term “war strategy,” ... and is in keeping with Jesus’ counsel that when among wolves we must be as “cautious as serpents.” Should circumstances require a Christian to take the witness stand and swear to tell the truth; then ... the mature Christian will put the welfare of his brothers ahead of his own, remembering Jesus’ words: “No one has greater love than this, that someone should surrender his [life] in behalf of his friends”—Matt. 10:16; John 15:13. ( Watchtower, June 1, 1960, p. 352 See also Feb. 1, 1956, p. 78)

All critics and opposers of the Watchtower are considered “wolves” who have declared war on the Watchtower, all of whose followers are labeled “sheep.” Furthermore, it is “proper for the inoffensive ‘sheep’ to use war strategy toward the wolves in the interests of God’s work” ( Watchtower , Feb. 1, 1956, p. 86).

The case of Elsa Abt (see Watchtower , May 1, 1957, p. 285) is a good example of how the Watchtower teaches more than hiding the truth, namely, openly lying. According to the Watchtower account, when she was questioned by the police about the whereabouts of a mimeograph machine and “the identity of the one taking the lead in carrying on the underground preaching work,” she answered contrary to the truth and “pretended not to know anything.” Her openly lying here is provided as a good example that Witnesses are to emulate. In an entire chapter title “Justified Lying,” Thomas concluded that Witnesses

… are permitted by the Society to lie ... in the interest of their religion. The JWs, of course, do not call this lying. ... [the Watchtower leadership has] invented a new name for this kind of deception, they call it practicing “Theocratic War Strategy” (Thomas, 1972, p. 95).

Thomas then quotes the Watchtower (May 1, 1951), which he claims “clearly shows that JWs do indeed lie whenever it suits their purpose.” This article discusses a Witness who, while going from house to house to proselytize, met a Watchtower opponent:

… Knowing at once what to expect she changed her red blouse for a green one in the very next hallway. No sooner had she appeared on the street than a Communist officer asked her if she had seen a woman with a red blouse. No, she replied, and went on her way. Did she tell a lie? No, she did not. She was not a liar. Rather, she was using theocratic war strategy, hiding the truth by action and word for the sake of the ministry. (p. 285)

Thomas concludes that in this case the Witness “lied to save her own skin” and

the Watchtower’s bold attempt to use this incident as an excuse for all JW’s to deceive and lie in the interest of their religion [should be condemned]. Instead of feeling sorry for one of their own kind, who lied about the fact that she was the JW in the red blouse, the Watchtower congratulates her for acting wisely! (1972, p. 95).

Explaining who a proper target for theocratic war strategy is, The Watchtower (April 15, 1957 p. 256) specifically states any enemy of “God’s organization” (meaning the Watchtower Society) and those who “hate what it teaches” and “want to stop others from learning (about the Watchtower) … to keep the ‘wolves’ from hindering efforts to aid sheep like people who are hungering for knowledge of truth and righteousness. Upon meeting ‘wolves’ Christians will use [war] strategy, being wise as serpents yet innocent as doves.” In other words, a Witness is justified in using theocratic war strategy against anyone who interferes with the Watchtower’s work, including Watchtower critics who are themselves Witnesses, as the Goodrich example above shows.

That the Watchtower openly teaches lying is proper as a deception to defend their interests is indicated in the following exchange that occurred between Watchtower attorney Carolyn Wah and Duane Magnani, who was being deposed in the case of Marcus Reyes (C ase 6939-C. Abilene , TX . In the District Court of Taylor County , TX , 326th Judicial Court ):

Magnani: … [Witnesses teach that they are] in theocratic warfare and he must exercise added caution when dealing with God's foes. Thus the Scriptures show that for the purpose of protecting the interests of God's cause, it is proper to hide the truth from God's enemies.
Wah: Thanks. Would that suggestion be any different than a soldier supporting a government who is captured by an opposing Army?
Magnani: Yes.
Wah: How so?
Magnani: Well, in this situation, when we are talking about hiding the truth ... in terms of theocratic warfare or spiritual warfare Jehovah's Witnesses believe that all non-Jehovah's Witnesses are in the camp of Satan and all Jehovah's Witnesses are in God's camp …
Wah: So then you are saying in a war, that during World War II, for example, that German soldiers captured by American soldiers would not have a problem with lying between the two?
Magnani: It depends on the circumstance. With Jehovah's Witnesses, their main motivation in life is to present whatever the Watchtower organization desires them to present. If the organization has said something which an opposer, i.e., a non-Jehovah's Witness wants to discuss, then it is the duty of the Jehovah's Witness, in our experience and from the documentation that we have, to, in essence, cover up, lie, [or] distort ... to make the Society look good ...” (R.T. p. 47).

After a study of Watchtower policies and practices, Attorney Thad Nugent concluded that the Watchtower recommends

the giving of testimony under oath which is known to be untrue. ... By the statutory definitions, that is perjury [and] … it is very clear that [the Watchtower] instructs the “Jehovah’s Witnesses, who find themselves involved in custody cases, how to avoid getting themselves into a position [in which] ... they have to say what it is they are really practicing with respect to their kids, with respect to the way that their children live, and with respect to the limitations that are placed on those children for their psychological and emotional and social development [and this conclusion is] real clear!. (Witness, Inc., 1994, taped interview with T. Nugent).

In one case , which is evidently not atypical, the Watchtower attorney allegedly informed a Witness trying to achieve custody that the court “may be biased against Witnesses because of their religion. Therefore, any example of abuse that you can recall would be very helpful to your case.” After the Witness stated that she could not think of any, the Watchtower attorney allegedly then coached her to mislead the court with the following words: “If you cannot [think of an example of abuse], it is going to be far more difficult to prevail in your case. Think hard, and I am sure you can come up with an incident when you at least felt frightened of your husband.” The attorney allegedly encouraged lying by explaining to the Witness that the outcome of this trial meant her children’s everlasting life and emphasized that giving custody to her husband, an opposer, would surely mean their destruction at Armageddon, arguing as follows:

Would you want your children to die the horrible death at Armageddon? Don’t you want them in the New World with you? Their life is in your hands, and you must do what you can to insure that you receive custody. If a deranged man, foaming at the mouth, came to your door asking for your mother, would you openly tell him that your mother was upstairs, allow him to force his way in and go up there and harm her? No, of course not; you would say anything to mislead him. After all, he has no right to the truth. Likewise, in this situation the court has no right to the truth. (From a taped transcribed transcript with a former JW, source not identified due to client confidentiality. The author was a consultant to this case.)

In another case in which the author was a consultant the Witness claimed that her husband only “mouthed” that he wanted to harm her, yet in court he was accused of physical abuse, quite in contrast to her earlier claims. By using such tactics the Watchtower attorneys may prevail upon their client to use theocratic war strategy in court. The Watchtower also not uncommonly uses unscrupulous ad hominem attacks, presenting wholly inaccurate evidence against the people who testify in these kinds of cases.

An earlier example of the Watchtower's use of theocratic war strategy was provided by a Watchtower official in Sweden , a Johan Henrick Eneroth, who states that during World War II it “became necessary to use theocratic war strategy in order to maintain desired contact with occupied countries.” He then explained he had to deceive the government and misrepresent his purpose in order to obtain a visa. Specifically Eneroth misrepresented himself as “a wholesale dealer in guts” ( Watchtower Feb. 1, 1965 p. 94). He then used theocratic warfare again in order to smuggle contraband Watchtower literature into Norway by sending food packages, especially eggs, with “each individual egg wrapped with several sheets of The Watchtower [magazine].” He adds, “when this was finally discovered by the Germans, we found another way” (The Watchtower Feb. 1, 1965 p. 94). This other way involved packing Watchtower magazines in food stuffs that were then taken to the military airport at Aalborg , Denmark to be “carried by Hitler's own aircraft into Norway !” ( Watchtower Feb. 1, 1965 p. 95). The author then relates several other similar methods he used to smuggle contraband literature into other countries.

Another case that occurred in the Netherlands was related by Robert A.Winkler. When he was threatened with interrogation, he “... knew this meant the use of theocratic war strategy for the sake of the Kingdom work and the protection of my Christian brothers” ( Watchtower March 15, 1967, pp. 188-189). This statement shows how intimately the theocratic warfare doctrine is connected to Watchtower theology.

The importance of theocratic warfare was again repeated in another Watchtower article, (May 15, 1988, p. 20) that relates that Winkler used theocratic warfare strategy to protect his fellow Witnesses and that Witnesses must at times use this technique to defend the Watchtower organization. The expression using theocratic war “for the sake of the Kingdom work and for the protection of Christian brothers” here refers to withholding the truth to protect the Watchtower organization and its activities. The doctrine covers not only lying, but also deception. The Watchtower put it this way:

In warding off the immediate threat, Hezekiah agreed to pay tribute to Sennacherib, and he even cut off the overlaid doors and doorposts from Jehovah’s temple, in order to make this payment (2 Ki. 18: 13-16). No doubt this was part of Hezekiah’s theocratic war strategy, a move to gain time, and to put him in a better position to grapple with the enemy. Likewise, today, there are occasions when Jehovah’s Witnesses have to move cautiously in preserving their God-given right to true worship (March 15, 1968, p. 170).

The article teaches that Witnesses can violate the government’s laws either by finding loopholes in the law or by skirting the law. The Watchtower tends to prefer this focus instead of working lawfully to change what they consider unjust laws, as do most churches.

Applications of Theocratic Warfare by the Watchtower Administration

A good example of lying at the highest administrative Watchtower levels reportedly occurred in Europe as a result of a July 23, 1993 , burglary at the Watchtower branch office in Holbaek , Denmark . The case relates to a Danish ruling called the Registertilsyn that declared on September 14, 1992 , that the Watchtower practice of keeping certain confidential information about its members is in violation of Danish law. As a result of this ruling, the Watchtower agreed to destroy all personal and confidential information related to disciplinary cases by November of 1992. A short time before this deadline, the Watchtower branch office stated that “they had carried out the order of the registertilsyn” (Henricksen, 1993, p. 2).

Whether the Danish law, which is similar to the American Privacy Act, is a just law is another question. The concern here is the honesty of the Watchtower’s statement that the relevant files were destroyed. The branch office is required to specifically follow the policy book called The Branch Office Procedure , which outlines the official Watchtower policy . This volume teaches theocratic war strategy, noting that the branch leaders are to use their judgment to determine if it is in the best interest of the Watchtower Society to be honest, noting that “sometimes it is best not to say certain things, even though they are true” (Henricksen, 1993, p. 3). The burglary uncovered documents that revealed that the

Watchtower applied the rule in this case, and openly lied about destroying the documents. In Henricksen’s words:

From a typed transcript of interview with the client and his attorney. The case is not cited because of lawyer-client confidentiality. The author was a consultant in this case.

The fact that the JWs will tell lies if necessary—also in order to cover up things that are embarrassing to them—has been shown by this “file case” several times. At times the organization denied the existence of such files when the newspapers reported it stolen. Jorgen Larsen and Erik Jorgensen (both from the branch office in Holbaek) have spoken lies several times in newspapers and on the news program of Denmark ’s channel 2. They denied several facts that later became public knowledge (1993, p. 3).

Other dishonesty in this case includes the Watchtower claim that a file was kept for only five years after a person is readmitted following their disfellowshipment. The Copenhagen Politiken uncovered a document showing that “several of the registered cases were more than forty years old and were stamped ‘must not be destroyed’” and also included cases in which the expelled Witnesses had been readmitted (Henricksen, 1993, pp. 3-4). The Watchtower further claimed that the number of cases in each local storage site is limited to between 0 and “maybe” 7 or 10. Henricksen’s investigation concluded that local files on the average contain far more cases than this.

Many other cases of lying have been well documented, but the above is a recent case that is not related to church doctrine, but to secular law, and is evidently an example of direct lying to government authorities in violation of the law. This well documented case cannot be claimed to be due to a misunderstanding or poor communication.

Magnani also claims that the Watchtower uses the doctrine on their own members. An example he gives is as follows:

When curious people examine the Watchtower’s history, they find numerous facts that the present day Society tries to cover up. For instance, Watchtower leaders are very embarrassed that the Society’s founder, Charles Taze Russell, was nearly worshipped by Watchtower followers for many years. Since the Watchtower believes that Russell taught many false doctrines, they go to extremes to cover up his history. (R.T. p.47 Marcus Reyes. Case 6936-C, Abilene , TX ).

One example Magnani gives is as follows: They deny ever having written a biography of Russell’s life. In the Watchtower’s history book, Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Divine Purpose , Page 63, we read this question:

… is it true YOU HAVE NEVER published a biography of Pastor Russell?

The answer: THAT’S RIGHT. Jehovah’s Witnesses admire the qualities he possessed as a man, but were we to give the honor and credit to Pastor Russell, we would be saying that the works and successes were his.

This is a good example of the Watchtower’s own use of Theocratic War Strategy, NOT ONLY ON THE PUBLIC BUT ALSO ON JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES THEMSELVES. Because when we check the record we find that the Watchtower DID publish the BIOGRAPHY OF PASTOR RUSSELL in three successive years: 1925, 1926, and 1927! (R.T. p.47 Marcus Reyes, Case 6936-C, Abilene ).

Lying In Court

The Watchtower has a long history of using the theocratic warfare doctrine in court–from the first president, C.T. Russell, in his divorce testimony and elsewhere, to Fred Franz, a previous Watchtower president. A now half-century-old example in which less than full honesty is self-evident is the following exchange between Franz and the prosecutor:

Prosecutor:
Have you also made yourself familiar with Hebrew?

Franz:
Yes …

Prosecutor:
So that you have a substantial linguistic apparatus at your command?

Franz:
Yes, for use in my biblical work.

Prosecutor:
I think you are able to read and follow the Bible in Hebrew, Greek, Spanish, Portuguese, German, French.

Franz:
Yes. . .

Prosecutor:
Can you, yourself translate that into Hebrew?

Franz:
Which?

Prosecutor:
That fourth verse of the second chapter of Genesis?

Franz:
No.

(Cross Examination of Fred Franz. Pursuer’s Proof of Douglas Walsh v. The Right Honorable James Latham, Clyde , Scottish Court of Sessions, Wednesday, November 24, 1954 , p.7, pars. A-B. and p. 102, par. F.)

Another example is the testimony by Hayden C. Covington, a former vice president and lead Watchtower attorney, who stated that Witnesses must accept a “false prophecy” as true.

Prosecutor:
… A false prophecy was promulgated?

Answer:
I agree [to] that.

Prosecutor:
It had to be accepted by Jehovah’s Witnesses?

Answer:
That is correct.

Prosecutor:
If [a] member of Jehovah’s Witnesses took the view himself that that prophecy was wrong and said so he would be disfellowshipped?

Answer:
Yes … Our purpose is to have unity.

Prosecutor:
Unity at all costs?

Answer:
Unity at all costs …

Prosecutor:
And unity based upon an enforced acceptance of false prophecy?

Answer:
That is conceded to be true.

Prosecutor:
And the person who expressed his view … that it was wrong, and was disfellowshipped, would be in breach of the covenant if he was baptized.

Answer:
That is correct.

Prosecutor:
And as you said yesterday expressly, would be worthy of death …

Answer:
I will answer that yes, unhesitatingly.

Prosecutor:
Do you call that religion?

Answer:
It certainly is.

Prosecutor:
Do you call it Christianity?

Answer:
I certainly do.

(Douglas Walsh v. The Right Honorable James Latham Clyde Scottish Court of Sessions, November, 1954, p.347-348, Cross Examination of Fred Franz; also see entire testimony for other examples).

The Preparing for Child Custody Booklet

Watchtower legal battles have “become so common [that] they offer its followers a pamphlet entitled ‘Preparing for Child Custody Cases’ (Montgomery, 1992, p. 14)” intended for Witnesses facing court custody battles. The booklet, which openly advocates deception and advises Witnesses to deceive the court, was

… designed for their internal use in helping their members prepare to discuss custody matters in divorce hearings [and] encourages Witness children, under oath, to present a distorted view of the opportunities that a Witness child has to assume a place in the larger world. An example of this is the comment in this publication that Witness children could become journalists (a vocation requiring a college degree), when attending college is at best strongly discouraged, and at worst condemned by the Witnesses as a vehicle by which Witness children can lose their faith and be subjected to immoral association (Duron, 1991, p. 18).

Court testimony states:

Watchtower attorney Wah also stated under oath that she assisted the Society in writing the booklet Preparing for Child Custody Cases in about 1986, and admitted the booklet was produced because of a growing concern about articles published in the social science and psychological literature by Watchtower critics that were detrimental to the Society’s interests. ( Hetrick v. Hetrick, Blair Court Common Pleas No 2240 CP 1991 p. 259, Wah testimony)..

The Watchtower legal department is now to be contacted by the congregation elders in all custody and other cases involving individual Witnesses and religion (Confidential Watchtower letters dated 1989, 1991). Not uncommonly, even if the Witness hires a secular attorney, the Watchtower Society will provide extensive free-of-charge legal services and assistance by the Watchtower legal staff (see Watch Tower, Our Kingdom Ministry , Aug. 1992, Vol. 35, No. 8, p. 7 and Feb, 1996 p. 3). Because several of the Watchtower’s full-time attorneys focus on defending Witnesses in custody cases, they have developed an enormous amount of experience and expertise in this area, and they know how to deal with the courts to their advantage.

Walker (1990) concludes from his study of the custody booklet and the Watchtower's letters relating to this issue that the Watchtower advises Witnesses to paint a decidedly untrue picture in court to the extent that they are in certain situations “to say in court the exact opposite of what they would normally say in a Kingdom Hal l” (p. 7). An example is the Watchtower booklet, School and Jehovah’s Witnesses , and official teachings that for years have openly condemned involvement of Witness children in organized sports and all after school activities, hobbies, and higher education, concluding that this time should be used principally to pursue Watchtower interests. The Watchtower, though, instructs Witnesses to imply exactly the opposite in court of what they actually believe (Walker, 1990, p. 23). In Tanya A. Stevens v. Max P. Stevens (District Court of the 5th Judicial Court of the state of Idaho , in the county of Blaine , Case no. CV-96-2858 Judgment 10-17-96 for Max Stevens, defendant) the Judge ruled:

It is detrimental to the best interest or welfare of the children to teach them that their father, as a non-Jehovah’s Witness, is not entitled to the whole truth, or that it is proper to hide the truth from God’s enemies (particularly in a courtroom situation). Neither Tanya nor any other person or party may do so. (p. 42)

Judge Bouska of Kansas City concluded from his review of this Watchtower booklet as part of a case before his court, that the booklet “was designed, and encourages, the Jehovah’s Witness to cover up some of their true beliefs and mislead the court as to what their beliefs and practices are with reference to children.” He also concluded that the Watchtower teaches that “There is nothing wrong under the religion, as I understand it, in misleading or even lying to somebody that is not a Jehovah’s Witness” (Witness, Inc., 1994). In short, the Watchtower “encourages its faithful to fudge their testimony” (quoted in Montgomery , 1992, p. 14). The concern, as Raines notes, is that:

Judges have ruled in favor of allowing custody and visitation rights to the non-JW parent or grandparent once the damaging and restricting nature, i.e., “cult-like” behavior and methods of the group are freely discussed and documented in court.

This includes the use of “theocratic warfare” by JWs in court. The Society in their Preparing for Child Custody Cases booklet clearly advocates JWs to in effect perjure themselves in court by giving false and misleading information to the court on Witness beliefs and practices. This is easily documented ... much to the chagrin of the Watchtower. Because of this, the Watchtower Society is being forced to change their positions. Courts do not look favorably on groups that limit growth potential in children such as forbidding or discouraging higher education and involvement in sports and after school clubs and organizations (Raines, 1996, p. 30).

Witnesses justify this deception in court by the theocratic warfare doctrine discussed above in which lying (or, in Watchtower words, withholding the truth) is proper if it defends the interests of the Watchtower. This justification includes efforts to deny their past doctrine, a tactic that will likely have some effect on their current teaching. For example, the Watchtower may de-emphasize certain past views, such as only Jehovah’s Witnesses can please God and earn the gift of life, and that all governments, religions, and businesses except their own are controlled by Satan.

When asked if people of other religions will survive Armageddon, the Watchtower suggests this answer: “Jehovah makes those judgments, not we.” In actuality, although they attempt not to alienate potential converts and others, the Watchtower teaches that only baptized members of the Watchtower who are in good standing will survive Armageddon (Bergman, 1999). The official Watchtower book You Can Live Forever in Paradise Earth, clearly teaches that only one religion is true, all others are false, and all persons in false religions will soon be annihilated:

Did Jehovah ever use more than one organization during any period of time? In Noah’s day only Noah and those with him inside the ark had God’s protection and survived the floodwaters. (1 Peter 3:20) Also, in the first century there were not two or more Christian organizations. God dealt with just the one. There was just the “one Lord, one faith , one baptism.” (Ephesians 4:5) Likewise in our day Jesus Christ foretold that there would be only one source of spiritual instruction for God’s people. ... there are [not] different roads, or ways, that you can follow to gain life in God’s new system. There is only one. There was just the one ark that survived the Flood, not a number of boats. And there will be only one organization—God’s visible organization—that will survive the fast approaching “great tribulation.” It is simply not true that all religions lead to the same goal. … You must be part of Jehovah’s organization, doing God’s will, in order to receive his blessing of everlasting life (Watch Tower, 1982, pp. 192, 193, 255-256).

In an excellent summary of the Preparing for Child Custody Cases booklet, former Watchtower governing body member Raymond Franz notes the 60-page booklet is a guide for Witnesses who may testify in court. The booklet reviews questions that

may be presented by the opposing side and then offering suggested sample responses … Watchtower … [teaching] on honesty ... [is to] respect the truth, [not] ... willing to twist the truth a little bit, to get out of an inconvenient circumstance, or to get something we want … Compare that with some of the responses suggested in the Society’s manual. Under “APPROACH BY WITNESS PARENT TO CROSS-EXAMINATION ,” we find this question ... Will all Catholics (or other) be destroyed? … [and the suggested answer on Page 12 is]: Jehovah makes those judgments, not we. This sounds good, implies freedom from a dogmatic, judgmental attitude. Yet the Witness so responding knows that his organization’s publications clearly teach that only those who are in association with “Jehovah’s organization” will survive the “great tribulation,” and that all those who fail to come to that organization face destruction. (Franz, 1991, p. 283)

Franz then evaluates the section “DIRECT EXAMINATION AND RESPONSES FOR LOCAL ELDER,” in which the booklet presents the “proper” responses in parenthesis to common questions:

What view does ... [the Witness religion] take toward people of other religions? (Jesus taught love neighbor as self, includes all; we respect others’ rights to worship as they choose) … [Do Witnesses] teach that young people should learn only about religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses? (No. Consider following objective consideration of other religions in our publications). (Franz, 1991, pp. 29-31)

In response to this section of the booklet, Franz notes that the Watchtower implies an attitude of considerable tolerance about religion but

… the Witness elder responding knows that his religion teaches that “people of other religions” are all within “ Babylon the Great,” the empire of false religion, depicted as a “great harlot” in Scripture, that the worship they have chosen is considered unchristian and if continuing in it, they face destruction. He also knows that Witnesses are urged not to have social relations with such “people of other religions,” since such would have a “corrupting” effect, the only approved association with such being in “witnessing” to them in the hope of changing their religion. He knows that all the articles set out in the brochure’s list emphasize negative aspects of the “other religions” discussed and that the organization discourages reading literature directly proceeding from other religions; only what it itself publishes about such religions is viewed as safe reading (Franz, 1991, p. 284).

In summary, Franz concludes that people counseled to respond in this way

...must know that they are being asked to present an outlook that is very different from the one urged upon them in Watchtower publications. If they are speaking the truth, without “twisting it a bit,” they would not have to be told to speak differently from the way they would in a circuit assembly—or anywhere else for that matter (Franz, 1991, p. 285).

In this writer’s experience, the Witnesses and their attorneys regularly and routinely follow the booklet’s advice to deceive the court on the stand. MacGregor, who has consulted in many Witness custody cases, concludes:

Your J.W. mate (or ex-mate) will desperately try and get custody of the children. Be prepared for the worst. Many have faced false charges difficult to defend. They want to prove you “unfit” as a parent. You will need strong character witnesses who have observed you with your own children. ... At their disposal will be their own legal experts, and your mate and children will be coached in what to say in court. Lack of preparation on your part or your lawyer’s will lose you your children!

... They will have no hesitation about lying, even under oath. They have a doctrine called “Justified Lying,” teaching that you only have to tell the truth to those “who are entitled to it.” The courts, legal system, family care workers, the ex-mates, etc., because of their resistance to, or not being part of “Jehovah’s” organization, do not deserve to know the truth. In Jehovah’s Witness thinking, they are of Satan and it’s okay to lie to him or his people to protect “Jehovah” and his organization on earth [The Watchtower Society]. ... All sorts of things will be told to the children to scare them away from any involvement with “evil” you. They will be coached on what to say about you in court. Even if the courts forbid religious things being taught to the kids during visitation times, the children will be instructed to “hate” you because you are opposing ... God’s organization (MacGregor, 1994, p. 4).

An example of the use of this doctrine in court by a non-Witness to support her friend follows:

I knew the Watchtower Society controlled very carefully what was said in courtrooms. … I had seen the brochure about Child Custody cases that they put together. But until I actually spent two weeks this last July, every day, in court … in a child custody case, I didn’t realize the extent to which the JWs take their Spiritual Warfare tactics … I came in to both be a moral support to the family, and to transcribe the proceedings so that the family could refer to them later. … I couldn’t believe what my fingers had to type, so stunningly bold were their lies. Since the JWs believe that anyone who is an enemy of the Jehovah is not “entitled to know the truth,” which basically includes anyone who is not a JW and all governments and representatives of governments, like judges, they proceeded to lie, lie lied LIE and tell semi -and “half” truths under oath in front of that judge! … Two solid weeks of it … People going against the JWs in court should assume NOTHING—especially do not assume that the JWs will play fair or shoot straight. They believe this is war and that to lie to “God’s enemies” is what he [God] wants them to do—and God’s enemies in this case and all cases—is anyone that is not a JW. (Anonymous, letter published in Comments from the Friends, 1999, p. 9)

Witnesses may, for example, swear under oath that they have no problem allowing their children to celebrate the holidays, play with “worldly children,” participate in school sports, attend college, or have a blood transfusion if it meant the child’s life, even at times falsely claiming that this is not a disfellowshipping offense (Bergman, 1994). Some state they would at the least permit their non-Witness ex-spouse to make the decision (that would in essence allow the child to have a blood transfusion) even though this is contrary to Watchtower policy that must be followed under pain of total expulsion:

If a Christian is asked to submit to something that would be a violation of God’s higher law, the divine law comes first; it takes precedence [and if a court] ... authorized the forcing of a blood transfusion on a Christian ... Christians must take the same stand that the apostle Peter did; “we must obey God as ruler rather than men”--Acts 5:29 ... [and must be] absolutely determined to obey God even if a government directed them otherwise ( Watchtower June 15, 1991, p. 31).

The Society stresses the degree to which this Watchtower rule is to be enforced by citing the example of a twelve year old who:

left no doubt that “she would fight any court-authorized transfusion with all the strength she could muster, that she would scream and struggle, that she would pull the injecting device out of her arm and would attempt to destroy the blood in the bag over her bed.” She was firmly resolved to obey the [Watchtower’s ruling on] divine law. ( Watchtower June 15, 1991, p. 31)

A problem for the Watchtower is that no Scripture exists that clearly and directly condemns the medical use of blood or any other organ transplant, and many Scriptures condone their use to save lives (Bergman, 1999). Even the Society has historically allowed blood transfusion—it was not a disfellowshipping offense until 1961, almost a century after the Society’s founding ( Watchtower , Jan. 15, 1961, pp. 63-64). The average Witness accepts these doctrinal changes because of the “new light” doctrine, meaning that they believe God’s will is progressively revealed through the Watchtower. The necessity of avoiding transfusions includes prohibiting placing oneself in the position where a transfusion could occur, and if a court ordered transfusion seems likely, a Witness must:

put forth strenuous efforts to avoid a violation of God’s law on blood [and if] authorities ... consider him a law-breaker or make him liable to prosecution ... the Christian could view it as suffering for the sake of righteousness ( Watchtower , June 15, 1991, p. 31).

As Duron notes, Witnesses are instructed to die rather than submit to a transfusion:

Witnesses seldom actually state succinctly that they would not hesitate to allow their minor children to die rather than to allow the child to receive a blood transfusion” (1991, p. 18).

Watchtower attorney Wah said under oath that she has represented adults in two situations:

… who, while conscious and competent, a court order was obtained authorizing physicians to transfuse them. It would be my position that such an order was illegally obtained and the Christian, as an adult, would certainly fight it and that could include physically. … It is in my mind, and the best analogy would be compared to rape. For myself, as an adult, to be raped by court order, the presence of a court order is no justification for it. But that becomes quite a different situation if I had a minor child who was under court’s order, just as it would be a different situation for self-defense. … ( Hetrick v. Hetrick, Court of Common pleas of Blair County, PA, No. 2240 CP, 1991, p. 234, Wah Testimony).

If a blood transfusion is equal in seriousness to rape as Wah maintains, one would hardly allow a person to “rape” your child!

Another deceptive line of reasoning the Watchtower not uncommonly uses to argue that their refusing a blood transfusion is rational is the risk of AIDS and that their choice is medically wise in the long run. They often cite cases of people who obtained AIDS from blood transfusions, but typically grossly distort the evidence and deliberately try to frighten their followers. American blood banks began screening blood for AIDS in March of 1985, and since then of the “more than 120-million blood transfusions ... only 21 people appear to have been infected with HIV” and the relationship between HIV and AIDS is not yet understood (Nixon, 1993, p. 3). The probability of contracting HIV from a single blood transfusion in the United States is now considered roughly one out of one-quarter million transfusions, and new testing procedures have “dramatically lowered the risk of post-transfusion hepatitis C virus” (Carlson, 1996; Rutherford and Kaplan, 1995). The safety level is now so high in the United States that autologous transfusions are now rarely recommended over allogenic (donor) blood (Rutherford and Kaplan, 1995).

Is the Doctrine Used by the Average Witness?

Many historical studies of the Witnesses movement record examples of common Witnesses using theocratic warfare. To convict a person for being a member of an illegal organization in Canada requires documentary proof, such as a membership card, or a confession. Kaplan (1988, p. 70) found that in Canada Jehovah’s Witnesses “generally refused to admit membership” in the Watchtower after it was banned. Nonetheless, “almost all Jehovah’s Witnesses who were charged were convicted” (Kaplan, 1988, p. 72).

Jehovah’s Witnesses who are caught in the act of distributing their literature often tried to claim that they “had found packages of the tract on their doorstep and became so interested in the contents that they felt the urge to go out and share the material” (Kaplan, 1988, p. 75). This explanation was likely not readily believed. Furthermore, in hunting Jehovah’s Witnesses down, individuals were often interrogated who were assumed to be Witnesses, including people who sympathized with some of their ideas. In many cases, claims by a person that he or she was not a Witness were not believed, partly because so many Witnesses themselves lied about being members that the courts became very skeptical of the testimony of all persons who they believed were Witnesses.

This widespread practice of lying to defend the interest of the Watchtower Society has similarly unfortunate repercussions today—it is still commonly seen in court cases, especially child custody or wrongful death cases related to blood transfusions. Witnesses or their attorneys often openly stated in court that Jehovah’s Witnesses do not approve of letting their children die for lack of a blood transfusion (R. Reed, personal interview [Reed was a high-ranking Witness and is now an attorney], March 3, 1999).

Kotwall (1997, p. 1) claims that “many Jehovah’s Witnesses … are unaware that the Watchtower … encourages them to lie.” To evaluate how many Witnesses are aware of this doctrine and how it is applied, the author surveyed 92 Americans and 39 Italians, most of whom were ex-Witnesses and volunteered to fill out the survey. The responses of the two groups were so similar that they were combined. The respondents learned about the survey from various advertisements in magazines and on the Internet. The three pages of questions included several on the “theocratic war strategy doctrine.” The responses in table I printed below resulted.

These data indicate that a majority of Witnesses are aware of the doctrine. These data also indicate a clear relationship exists between the level of activity in the Watchtower and awareness of the doctrine. All of the former circuit overseers were fully aware of it, and over half admitted that they used it. Although 37 persons (28% of the entire sample) claimed they never heard of the doctrine, only 3 persons (2%) chose the incorrect definition of the doctrine, response “A.”

Table I. Number of Witnesses who have heard of the Theocratic Warfare Doctrine

Response

Member
Pioneer
Ministerial

Servant; Elder
Circuit

Overseer

A.
Never heard of it
37
7
3
0

B.
Vaguely
19
2
3
0

C.
Fairly familiar with it.
11
3
7
1

D.
Very familiar with it.7
7
5
7
2

E.
Very familiar and applied it in some situations.
2
1
4
2

F.
Very familiar and applied it in many situations.
0
1
6
3

Total
74
19
30
8

The next question—“How would you best describe the theocratic war doctrine?”—was answered as follows (the numbers do not add to 131 because the respondents could select more than one response) is reproduced in table II

Table II. Definition of the Theocratic Warfare Doctrine

Response
Member
Pioneer
Ministerial

Servant;

Elder
Circuit

Overseer

A.
The court’s definition of truth “One must tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth” must be strictly adhered to.
3
1
0
0

B.
We do not have to follow the rule, i.e., they can withhold the truth from those who have no right to know it.
38
10
14
4

C.
To protect the interests of the Watchtower and God’s organization, it is appropriate to tell what the world might conclude are little white lies.
38
10
11
4

D.
One must use words in such a way to defend God’s organization--even if this means lying in worldly terms.
23
8
10
4

An examination of the questionnaires of those who claimed they were not aware of the doctrine shows they were far less involved in the Watchtower—some were at best nominal Witnesses who attended meetings often as a result of family pressure. Dedicated Witnesses who held administrative positions were, with only one exception, very aware of the doctrine and its significance (elders and circuit overseers). Most (98%) knew of the practice or could define it, but some Witnesses did not recognize it by the proper term. Some may have still thought of the doctrine by the old term “Rahab technique.” Some persons may not be aware of the term because the word “theocratic” is used less often now than formerly, but is still common. An example is their official songbook Singing Praises to Jehovah (1984), which is used at all meetings and lists 13 songs under “Theocratic Warfare.”

The Religious Rationale Behind Watchtower Lying

The Watchtower uses several Scriptures to justify lying aside from those already discussed. As Thomas comments, the Watchtower attempts to justify lying by noting that

… in the Bible, Rahab the harlot lied to the King of Jericho in order to protect the Israelites spies. The JW’s argue that when Jericho was destroyed, Rahab was spared because she lied to protect the spies. The Bible reveals, however, that Rahab was spared because she acknowledged Israel’s God to be the true God (Josh. 2:11). God spared Rahab’s life not because she lied, but in spite of the fact that she lied. The Watchtower further points out that Abraham, Isaac, and David also hid the truth at times. But all this proves is that even the best of men have had their failings. Surely one cannot use the mistakes of any man (no matter how great he may be) as an excuse for wrong-doing. The command of the New Testament is clear: “Wherefore putting away lying, SPEAK EVERY MAN TRUTH WITH HIS NEIGHBOR” (Eph. 4:25 ). Jehovah’s Witnesses, by their own admission, do not speak the truth with their neighbor if it is in their interest not to do so. If they deem it advantageous, the JW’s will deliberately lie to their neighbor! (emphasis in original, Thomas, 1972, p. 96)

On the use of the Rahab strategy to justify lying, Robbins concluded:

Scripture does not praise Rahab for lying; that is an invalid inference… It would be odd if the Bible, which repeatedly condemns lying, were to praise someone for lying. Given [this] ... why ... infer that God commends Rahab for lying alone? Her prostitution was equally important in the saving of the Jewish spies, and inferring that the Bible therefore endorses prostitution would be just as valid. ... [Yet some persons] suggests that Rahab and [others] … are adequate precedents for lying when needed. (1994, pp. 1-4)

The position that lying is justified if it misleads only those who have “no right to know the truth” was never taught by any Christian church as a formal doctrine, and Thomas concludes that many Christian martyrs could have saved their lives

... if only they had employed the so-called “Theocratic War Strategy” of JW’s. With many of them their very lives hung on the answer to this one question. “Are you a Christian?” If they dared to answer “yes,” terrible torture awaited them. All they had to do, in many cases, was to deny being a Christian and their lives would be spared. But these great stalwarts of the Christian Faith ... did not stoop to Watchtower trickery to escape “the tyrant’s brandished steel or the lion’s gory mane.” They lost their earthly lives for the cause of Christ but gained everlasting life and eternal honor. This is our Christian heritage and we have every right to be proud of it. (Thomas, 1972, pp. 97-98)

The Watchtower’s stand on lying is actually inconsistent. A good example occurred during World War II involving Witnesses in the Nazi concentration camps. In order to be released from some camps, Witnesses merely had to sign a paper renouncing their allegiance to the Watchtower—yet the Society instructed them not to, even teaching that to deny the Watchtower in order to protect themselves would dash their hopes of everlasting life. They were instructed to lie only to protect the Watchtower, not themselves (Buber, 1946). As may be expected, though, Witnesses’ lying tends to extend into other areas. Thomas relates an experience that allegedly occurred when he offered a Witness one of his tracts that critiqued Watchtower beliefs:

This JW did not know me personally, but he said that he knew the writer of the tract personally. (He was lying!) Thinking that I was someone else, he began defaming the writer stating that “yours truly” had been booted out of the Watchtower Society in the East for stealing funds from them. (I have never been a JW.) He then sneeringly began denouncing me as an idiot, claiming that I must be really stupid to allow this tract writer to dupe me into handing out his pamphlets. As this JW was venting his spleen against the tract writer ..., I showed him my driver’s license which proved that I was the tract writer in question. I demanded an apology from this lying JW. ... The Watchtower gospel had so twisted this man’s mind that he couldn’t even blush for shame, let alone apologize. This is an example of JW theocratic war strategy—deliberately lying in the interest of their religion. This JW thought that by lying about the author of the anti-JW tracts that he could discourage Christians from giving them out. Certainly this JW knew that he was lying, but it did not bother him! For had not the Watchtower taught him that it was scriptural for JW’s to deceive and lie in the interest of their religion? ... It is well known that the policy of evil and unscrupulous men is that the end justifies the means. Seemingly the JWs have adopted this policy. (Thomas, 1972, pp. 96-97)

Of course, it is difficult to determine if a person is consciously using Theocratic War Strategy or just playing loose with the facts to escape an embarrassing situation. The situation Thomas recounts may include a bit of both (Raines, 1998, p. 30).

The Ultimate Harm of Lying

The teaching of the Watchtower theocratic war strategy doctrine that it is appropriate to withhold the truth from those who could use it to harm the Watchtower is intended to further their interests (Bergman, 1994). Evidently, with only two exceptions that I know of, they are the only religious group that directly teaches, as part of official doctrine, that it is appropriate to lie, according to the court’s definition. While this doctrine may be advantageous in the short run, in the long run it will harm the Watchtower’s interests far more than help them.

Probably the major effect of the doctrine of theocratic war is the psychological harm it causes Witnesses when they become aware of the Watchtower’s record of deception (Bergman, 1996). This was clear in the interviews of 92 Americans and 39 Italians completed for the study cited earlier. Awareness of the Watchtower’s lack of full honesty is often disillusioning, resulting in members leaving the sect. Leaving is incredibly traumatic for many people–especially those who are highly committed. As Duron states:

I was a third generation Jehovah’s Witness before my departure from that religion in 1975. I am married to a second generation former Witness. My husband and I, with a combined total of nearly sixty years of exposure to Witness beliefs and activities, have spent many hours, both separately and together, searching for rationality in our lives. The focus of that search, aside from trying to learn how to rebuild our lives after living through the intense spiritual upheaval of rethinking all of our moral, religious, social, and personal values and beliefs, was to deal rationally with “who gets the kid?” We had two children to think about (Duron, 1991, pp. 16-17).

The example Witnesses use of Abraham lying to Pharaoh, stating that Sarah was his sister and not his wife, may prove to be prophetic here. Watchtower dissidents widely cite the doctrine as an issue that was part of their decision to leave the Watchtower, and opposers commonly tout this doctrine as partial justification for their condemnation of the Watchtower. Their lack of honesty is often noted by their critics (for example see Branden, 1988, and Dahlin, 1988, and most of the references noted in this paper).

Openly reversing the doctrine is unlikely because a reversal will support the conclusion that it was taught and commonly practiced. Furthermore, and most important, reversing it would also be an admission that it was wrong. The Watchtower, in view of their expectation of the imminent Armageddon, is hoping that this predicted battle will save them from having to deal with this problem. No need will exist for the theocratic warfare doctrine in the new world since there will be no opposition to the Watchtower because all non-Witnesses will be destroyed at Armageddon. In view of the repeated failure of the Watchtower’s prediction of the “great day of God the Almighty,” they may be forced to face the doctrine and either quietly let it fade away (which does not seem to be the case—the doctrine has been reiterated in the most current Watchtower publications) or face up to their exegetical mistakes and develop policies involving functional ethics.

The Ohio Supreme Court Rules on Lying for Religious Reasons

The author served as an expert witness in a case in which a jury agreed with a family’s claim for reversal of the will of their family member, Otterbein Duesler, who unexpectedly and abruptly changed his will and left most of his $338,000 estate to the Watchtower Society ( Redman et.al., vs. WTBTS Appeals No. 91 WDO 71, Trial Number C-88-835). Duesler was not a Witness, and had expressed some dissatisfaction about the Watchtower when alive. The family claimed that he left his money to the Watchtower Society because they convinced him that if he did not, he might lose out on everlasting life (W. Caughey, personal interview, Feb. 3, 1991).

The Wood County Court of Appeals reversed this decision (Court of Appeals for Wood County, No 91-WD-07 Decided Aug. 14, 1992). The appeals court ruled that the expert witness's “testimony would allow one to conclude that: (1) Attorney Walter Kobil was a believer (2) the church theology encourages perjury to protect the church (3) Attorney Kobil was willing to lie to protect the church and (4) therefore Attorney Kobil is not credible. Evid. R. 610 prohibits this type of attack on the credibility of a witness. The admission of the evidence was, therefore, error" (p. 11) and "required a new trial" (p. A-19). The appeals court ruled that if a church teaches its members to lie or withhold the truth in order to defend the interests of the church, and if this fact is brought out in court, it is a reversible error.

The Wood County Court of Appeals decision was upheld by the Ohio Supreme Court ( Redman v. Watchtower Bible and Tract Soc. of Penn . 69 Ohio St.3d 98, 630 N.E.2nd 676 reh. denied, 69 Ohio St. 3d 1445 (1994) 632 N.E.2d 913). The Ohio Supreme Court ruled that “Questions concerning a witness’s religious beliefs [including if his religion teaches its members to lie] are not an additional permissible method to test truthfulness” ( Redman v. Watchtower , supra, p. 101). The court also appeared to question the existences of the theocratic war doctrine even though the Watchtower authorities in this case admitted it exists, as will be explained below. On its face, then, this ruling openly protects lying if it is done for religious reasons and if this doctrine is noted in court by the opposing party.

The case involved an older mentally borderline-functioning man, Otterbein Duesler, who also had emotional problems. According to Mr. Caughey, the attorney for the family, the Jehovah Witnesses would not accept Mr. Duesler as a member because his behavior violated Watchtower policy, and they concluded that he would not convey the image the Watchtower is trying to present to the public. Had they genuinely endeavored to help him as a person, the family would have been less concerned about his bequest to the Watchtower. In short, they felt angry and exploited by the Watchtower (W. Caughey, personal interview, Feb. 3, 1991).

The family’s attorney was aware of the “theocratic warfare” doctrine as a result of his own research, and the author was retained as an expert witness to discuss its application. He explained that, in contrast to the court requirement that one tell only “the whole truth and nothing but the truth,” the Watchtower teaches that it is proper to withhold the truth from those who they believe have no right to know it, specifically those that are part of Satan’s system of things, which include all Watchtower opposers, all churches, and the secular governments, including the court system.

This information was related in court to aid the jury in understanding the motives of Jehovah's Witness Elder and attorney (but not the attorney for the case) Mr. Walter Kobil and others in allegedly influencing Mr. Duesler to change his will. The concern of the family was that Mr. Duesler was inappropriately coerced into changing his will. Concern over a changing of a will after a lonely elderly person becomes involved in the Watchtower is not an uncommon event.

The appeals court ruled on “the question of the admissibility of evidence of a witness’s religious beliefs or opinions,” in this case the theocratic warfare doctrine. The court concluded that “no analysis is necessary; the evidence is simply not admissible by virtue of evid.r.610.” This rule reads: “Evidence of the beliefs or opinions of a witness on matters of religion is not admissible for the purpose of showing that by reason of their nature his credibility is impaired or enhanced.”

The Ohio Supreme Court said that the plaintiff elicited expert testimony at the trial, “concerning the beliefs and practices of the Jehovah’s Witnesses” and that the plaintiff’s expert witness “testified that the church engaged in a practice he termed ‘theocratic warfare.’ This practice allegedly includes a church policy to encourage members to perjure themselves in order to protect the church and its followers” (emphasis mine). The court also concluded that much of plaintiff's case centered on the expert witness’s “testimony concerning theocratic warfare and his allegations that Jehovah’s Witnesses would lie to protect the congregation” ( Redman v. Watchtower , supra, p. 100, 69 Ohio St. 3rd, p. 98, 100-101, emphasis mine).

The court also claimed that “most of plaintiff's case was controverted by the defense. Kobil (a Toledo attorney who, at the time of this case, claimed that he had practiced law for 35 years and was, according to the court records, a Witness for 60 years) testified that he was a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, but that lying under oath was not a tenet of their teachings. Kobil’s testimony was corroborated by John Schabow, an elder in a local Jehovah’s Witness congregation.” As documented below Kobil did not deny the existence of the doctrine, but only the specifics of its application.

John Schabow testified that he became involved with the Jehovah’s Witnesses in 1944 and was an elder in the local congregation (Schabow testimony court transcript, p. 750). When asked by Mr. Kolb, the attorney for the Watchtower in this case (not to be confused with attorney Kobil, a witness in the case), if he “ever heard of the doctrine of theocratic warfare before this case,” he avoided the question by answering, “I don’t know what that refers to. It’s not something that we teach in the congregation or that we study.” In the next question Shabow indicated that he did know what the doctrine referred to. Specifically, Mr. Kolb asked, “does it [the theocratic war doctrine] appear regularly in your writings?” Schabow then denied that it appears regularly, and added that the Watchtower magazine “is distributed freely to the public around the world, and anyone would see that. I don’t see that [doctrine] in the Watchtower magazines.” The concern is if the doctrine is taught, not if it appears “regularly.” Answering no to the question “does the doctrine appear in your writings” would be against the facts.

The term “theocratic warfare” is the term that the Watchtower Society itself coined and regularly uses. In the 1930-1985 Watchtower Publications Index , the term “theocratic warfare” refers the reader to the main topic, “warfare, spiritual.” The official Watchtower teachings, such as in the official Watchtower reference book Insight on the Scriptures , (1988) plus many articles in The Watchtower (e.g. June 1, 1960, p. 351, May 1, 1957, p. 284, and February 1, 1956, p. 78) show that this teaching is officially required dogma. To deny the existence of the doctrine is an illustration of its application. In answer to the question if a person is justified in not telling the truth under some circumstances, Mr. Schabow avoided the question by answering, “we hold highly to telling the truth” (Schabow’s testimony, p. 762-763).

Another witness for the Watchtower, Walter Kobil, in answer to the question “had you, in your 60 years of being a Jehovah’s Witness, ever heard of that doctrine [theocratic warfare] before?,” said “no, I hadn’t.” Mr. Kolb then asked Mr. Kobil, “is it preached? Is it discussed in your literature extensively ?” (note again the use of the word extensively ) In answer, Kobil stated “no, it isn’t.” Then, in answer to the question about the testimony on this doctrine “two days ago” the attorney asked “have you researched that topic?” Kobil said

Yes, I have. . .I was curious about what he was talking about, so I did extensive research and I located a question and answer to. . .from the readers in Watchtower , June the 1st 1960, which is 30 years ago, and. . .those two words appear together, theocratic warfare and. . .the question was: if testifying in court or dealing with officials, must we always speak the truth? And the. . . answer was that we must always speak the truth. The only variation. . .in court or dealing with public officials. . .was that in the case of one of the people in our church who's lives are in jeopardy, that we would avoid giving all of the truth. . . so the article had applications to living under totalitarian governments, and it only had to do with saving lives. . . our beliefs are that we must tell the truth, and this was only that we didn’t have to tell all the truth if it put. . .somebody’s life in jeopardy” (Court transcript, pp. 823-825).

Note, Mr. Kobil did not deny the existence of the doctrine, only the specifics as to when it is appropriate to apply it. This is something quite different than stating the doctrine does not exist as the court implied. Actually, the article says nothing about saving lives or that theocratic warfare is to be used only under totalitarian governments. As the article makes clear, it applies to all governments (see Reed, 1997). Furthermore, the attorney for the appellee, Richard Kolb, in his closing argument, admitted that the appellants do “ not deny the existence of the controversial church [theocratic] war strategy doctrine ” (Appellants’ Reply Brief p. 2; emphasis mine).

In the closing argument, counsel for appellee conceded that the theocratic war doctrine exists, but said that the jury should conclude that it did not apply to Kobil’s or Schabow’s testimony in this case (Court Transcript, pp. 1037-1038). Why it would not apply was never documented. Mr. Kolb contended in his closing argument that the doctrine taught Witnesses don’t have to “squeal on your friends,” (Court Transcript, pp. 1037-1038), meaning you need not tell “the whole truth” in court in contrast to the court oath that requires “the whole truth.” Furthermore, appellant stated

Mr. Kobil’s been a Jehovah’s Witness all of his life, [and has] never heard of the doctrine, and neither did Schabow, but when Kobil looked it up, they found that under certain circumstances such as when your member’s life is in jeopardy. . .if you’re supposed to testify and squeal on your friends then you don’t have to do that. Is that such a terrible thing? Wouldn’t you do the same thing? (emphasis mine). (Court Transcript, pp. 1037-1038)

Kobil also testified in opposition to the expert witness’s claim that Jehovah’s Witnesses are taught to withhold the truth and hence are less credible. Contrary to what is taught by the Watchtower, Kobil stated that the “appellant takes exception” to testimony of the plaintiff’s expert witness “regarding the concept of theocratic warfare” (page 29 of the Kobil's appellant memorandum, written in opposition to plaintiffs’ memorandum). The appellate court evidently agreed in part with Kobil and concluded that the expert witness

was also allowed to testify, over objections, about the alleged doctrine of theocratic warfare. According to [the expert witness]..., the church was an adherent of isolationism. This is a belief held by many church members that their own church is favored by God over others. However, [the expert witness]... testified that the alleged doctrine of the Jehovah’s Witnesses goes further in that the church allegedly teaches its members that at a ‘theocratic ministry school’ that, because the church is favored by God, it is permissible to lie to nonbelievers in court in order to protect the church (entry decided August 14,1992, p. A15 emphasis mine ).

The court’s use of the term “alleged doctrine” implies that the plaintiff, in the court’s view, didn’t convincingly demonstrate that the doctrine exists and that, even if the court had been so convinced, it would have disallowed testimony about the Theocratic War Doctrine because of rule 610, even though that theocratic Warfare is taught by the Watchtower was admitted by Kobil and the Appellants (See appellents' reply brief pp. 2-3 and trial transcript pp. 1037-1038).

The appeals court ruling concluded that the admission of the testimony “regarding the alleged doctrine of theocratic warfare” requires a new trial (p. A19, emphasis mine). The specific testimony at issue, which was close to word for word from the official Watchtower publications, was that Jehovah’s Witnesses consider themselves “more like foreigners or sojourners in this country” and non-Witnesses

are considered evil, at least until they become Jehovah’s Witnesses, so therefore, they feel that they are. . . in a war situation with people in this country, and in every country, and part of the strategy of a war situation is if someone brings you on the stand or asks you a question and answering that question honestly would hurt the Watchtower Society, . . .the Watchtower has ruled very explicitly that if what you are going to say is going to hurt the Watchtower society in any way, then you are to, as they say, withhold the truth. You are not to reveal the truth, in their words, to one who doesn’t deserve to know the truth or learn the truth (R.T. p. 412).

To clarify this, in answer to the question how this doctrine applies to the court, the expert witness testified that

if, in a court room, you are asked a question which could incriminate or hurt the Watchtower society, you are to, in their words, withhold the information. You are not to reveal information which could hurt the Watchtower society. You are to do whatever you can to protect the Watchtower society, and, of course under the oath, you are to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth , and by that definition, of course, that would be lying (R.T. pp. 413-414 emphasis mine).

The Watchtower doctrine (which must be followed by all Witnesses under pain of expulsion) was elaborated by providing situations in which a person has a right to know, such as giving full disclosure to the Watchtower elders, or a prospective mate. The Watchtower notes an exception to the rule that one should provide full disclosure is one

that the Christian must ever bear in mind. As a soldier of Christ he is in theocratic warfare and he must exercise added caution when dealing with God’s foes . Thus the scriptures show that for the purpose of protecting the interests of God’s cause , it is proper to hide the truth from God’s enemies. ( Watchtower January 1, 1960, emphasis mine).

The Watchtower article adds that in a court situation “when faced with the alternative of speaking and betraying his brothers or not speaking and being held in contempt of court, the ... [Watchtower follower] will put the welfare of his brothers ahead of his own ” ( Watchtower January 1, 1960, emphasis mine). The Watchtower defines lies as “untruths told for selfish reasons and which work injury to others” ( Watchtower May 1, 1957). This article says nothing about life and death situations as claimed by Kobil, but speaks only about “betraying his brothers.”

The expert witnesses possessed copies of these Watchtower publications on the stand and paraphrased from one of them. They indicate, given the court’s definition of lying: “the whole truth and nothing but the truth and using words with an intent to deceive,” that lying was involved in this case (Lewis and Saarni, 1993, p. 156).

A review of the background of the rule the court used to reverse the juries decision, rule No. 610, indicates that this rule has little bearing on this case. The rule historically refers to, for example, using the belief that one was healed of an illness to ridicule a court witness’s personal faith in areas not related to the case, or the belief of an atheist that some may try to use to impugn the credibility of a court witness who happens to hold this belief (Ratcliffe, 1941). The testimony in this case involved not a belief or opinion, but a doctrine openly taught in official Watchtower publications, a doctrine that must be accepted and practiced under pain of being cut off from the church (Franz, 1983). Of note is the fact that Mr. Kobil ridiculed Emma Kriston’s religious beliefs in his brief as witness for the plaintiff, stating her testimony “reached the incredible” because she claimed her “45 year emphysema was cured by a prayer request to the Wings of Hearing [sic-healing] radio station” (Kobil testimony, pp. 23-24). Kobil added that her testimony “was so far out that it did not satisfy the basic requirement of competent, credible testimony.” Today millions of people believe that faith can heal, and this kind of response appears to be exactly what evid. 610 is designed to prevent (Ratcliffe, 1941).

This rule derives from the once common belief that only a fear of supernatural punishment can make a witness faithful to his oath (Ratcliffe, 1941, p. 339). It is for this reason that a line of questioning that reveals a witness is an atheist (or professes another religion) is forbidden ( Malek v. Federal Ins. Co. 994 F.2d 49 (2nd Cir. 1993). In this case, the religious beliefs of both Kobil and Schabow were a major part of the case that had to be raised in the court trial.

A Utah statute and a New York court opinion provided that persons shall not be excluded from testimony on account of their opinions on religion, but those opinions can be used to question the credibility of a witness (Ratcliffe, 1941, pp. 336-337). Although in Stanbro v. Hopkins (28 Barb (N.Y.) 265 (1859)), the court ruled that questions on religion can be asked to help evaluate a witness’s character and honesty, more recently the courts have usually held that religious beliefs or unbeliefs cannot be used as part of cross examination to question a witness’s credibility (Ratcliffe, 1941; Chadbourn, 1930). The justification often given for this rule is that theological orthodoxy is not to be used as a test of truth, and if a witness holds views different from the jury, this line of questioning could cause the jury to discount the testimony presented.

The court also implied that one of the Jehovah’s Witness elders who testified in this case claimed that the Watchtower does not teach the theocratic warfare doctrine. If this had occurred and the theocratic warfare doctrine was indeed JW teaching, then the elder would have been applying the doctrine to defend the Watchtower. In fact, however, this Elder did not dispute the doctrine in court, but claimed only that it is no longer applied in contemporary court cases in America . The other elder was evasive and claimed the highly unlikely situation that he was unfamiliar with the doctrine even though he was an active Witness for about a half a century.

As noted, the Watchtower teaches in print that it is proper to withhold information from those who they feel have no right to know if such knowledge could damage the Watchtower’s interests. This is in direct violation of the court oath that requires one to tell “the whole truth and nothing but the truth.” Watchtower religious beliefs were critical in this case, and there is no purpose in having a trial in these types of cases unless the effects of the theocratic warfare belief can be evaluated. Furthermore, if asked about this doctrine, the proper response is to tell the truth as required by the court oath, but a JW following Watchtower teachings would not necessarily honor that oath because the court is part of Satan’s system.

The court appears to have concluded — incorrectly in my view — that the theocratic warfare doctrine did not influence JW witnesses to a degree that would make their testimonies suspect. Moreover, the court seems to have implied that even if it had been convinced that the theocratic warfare doctrine was currently operative and influencing testimony, it still would have disallowed expert testimony on the matter because “evidence of the beliefs or opinions of a witness on matters of religion is not admissible for the purpose of showing that by reason of their nature his credibility is impaired or enhanced.” Both of these rulings, in my view, invite serious abuses in future court cases and ought not to have been made in Redman .

Consider for example, the Yahweh Ben Yahweh sect, which teaches that it is proper to murder to defend their church ( U.S. v. Beasley 72 F.3d (11th Cir. 1996)). To be fully consistent with the Ohio Supreme court ruling, if the prosecutors note this religious teaching in court, evidence rule No. 610 would indicate that the murder conviction would be reversed on appeal. The court ruled that the followers of Yahweh Ben Yahweh were involved in at least 14 murders, and that their religious beliefs were critical in establishing the motivations for the murders, a decision that the courts have upheld ( U.S. v. Beasley, 72 F. 3d 1518 (11th Cir. 1996) cert. denied, James v. United States , 518 U.S. 1027, subseq. appeal, United States v. Yahweh , 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 24977 (11th Cer.), and cert. denied, Yahweh v. United States , 519 U.S. 866 (1996)).

The courts also ruled that teaching that promotes or justifies murdering dissidents (Yahweh Ben Yahweh’s religious teaching) was a proper area of inquiry. Furthermore, the reasons for a death must be established to determine if a murder or a manslaughter conviction is most appropriate. The circuit court also ruled that one cannot hide behind one’s religion in committing illegal acts, in harmony with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the American Indian Religious use of Peyote case ( Employment Division, Dept. of Human Resources v. Smith 494 U.S. 872 (1990)). The court in the Redman case has condoned hiding behind the theocratic war beliefs. Other commentators have concluded that both the appellate court decision and the Ohio Supreme Court decision would appear to give carte blanche permission to lie when lying is based on religious beliefs if the religious belief is brought out in court by the prosecution:

The Ohio Supreme Court in April, 1994, ruled that evidence that Jehovah’s Witnesses use “theocratic war strategy” (i.e., deceive or lie, even in court if necessary to protect the interests of the organization) cannot be used in court. This ruling, in effect, seems to allow JWs to use deception in Ohio courts in the name of religious freedom (Raines, 1996, pp. 29-30).

Summary

The Watchtower theocratic war doctrine teaching may result in rather blatant dishonesty if the Witness perceives that this approach will benefit the Watchtower's interests. Numerous examples were given that illustrate how the doctrine is interpreted and applied by active Witnesses in a wide variety of situations. Bias and slanting of information in court to favor one’s position is not unusual in the American judicial system. A major distinction is that the Watchtower institutionally supports and condones what many people regard as dishonesty. Furthermore, many of the cases cited here were custody cases, and in custody cases lack of candor and open dishonesty are more of a problem than in many other types of court cases. This is partly because of the bitterness commonly observed in divorce and custody cases. The application of the doctrine is not limited to custody cases, though, and is used in a wide variety of situations, sometime those that benefit the Witness more than the Watchtower society.

References

Anonymous. (1999). Letter. Comments from the friends . 18(1), 9.

Bergman, J. (1994). Theocratic war strategy: Why Witnesses lie in court. Free Minds Journal , 13(2), 1-5.

Bergman, J. (1996). Why Jehovah's Witnesses have a high mental illness level. Christian Research Journal . 19(1), 36-41.

Bergman, J. (1999). Jehovah’s Witnesses: A comprehensive and selectively annotated bibliography . Westport , CT : Greenwood Press.

Boettcher, R. (1980). Gifts of d eceit. New York : Holt Rinehart & Winston.

Branden, V. (1988, Autumn). Lying for God’s sake. Humanists in Canada , 18-19.

Bok, S. (1978). Lying: Moral choice in public and private life . New York : Pantheon.

Bowyer, B. J. (1982). Cheating . New York : St. Martin ’s Press.

Buber, M. (1946). Under two dictators. New York : Dodd and Mead.

Carelli, R. (1998, Jan. 21). U.S. agencies can punish workers for lying in court. Chicago Daily Law Bulletin , 144(14), 1.

Carlson, B. (1996). The Risk of HIV transmission by screened blood. New England Journal of Medicine , 334(15), 993.

Carrizosa, P. (1997, July 3). S.F. criminal defense attorney is suspended for lying to court. The Los Angeles Daily Journal , 110(128) , 3.

Chadbourn, J. (1930). Evidence–impeaching witness by showing religious belief. North Carolina Law Review , 9 , 77-82.

Dahlin, J. (1988, April-June). Watchtower teaches youngsters to give false testimony in court The Discerner, 13(10), 15.

Duron, R. (1991, Sept/Oct.). We don’t want to see you anymore. Liberty , 86(5), 16-18.

Ekman, P. (1985). Telling lies . New York : Norton.

Ekman, P. (1989). Why kids lie . New York : Penguin.

Elkins, C. (1980). Heavenly d eception . Wheaton , IL : Tyndale.

Ford, E. (1996). Untitled. Unpublished Manuscript.

Frakes, M. (1955, July 13). The Witnesses come to town. The Christian Century ,. 818-820.

Franz, F. (Ed.). (1971). Aid to Bible Understanding. Brooklyn , NY : Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.

Franz, F. (1988). Insight on the Scriptures . Brooklyn , NY : Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.

Franz, R. (1983). Crisis of conscience . Atlanta , GA : Commentary Press.

Franz, R. (1991). In search of Christian freedom. Atlanta , GA : Commentary Press.

Furse, M. L. (1981). Nothing but the truth? Nashville : Abingdon.

Goodrich, R.. (1944). Letter to M.A. Howlett. Letter reprinted in (1993, June 9), Bethel rides the broom. Ft. Lauderdale , FL : The Bible Way Publications.

Goodrich, R. (1969). Demonism and the Watch Tower . Ft. Lauderdale , FL : The Bible Way Publications.

Henricksen, S. B. (1993). Secret files of the Watchtower: Deceiving the authorities.” The Free Minds Journal, 12(6) , 2-4.

Johnson, Jean and John Immerwahr. 1994. First Things First; What Americans Expect from the Public Schools. New York : Public Agenda.

Kaplan, W. (1988). State and salvation: Jehovah's Witnesses and their fight for civil rights. Toronto , Canada : University of Toronto Press.

Kosmin, B., & Lachman, S. P. (1993). One n ation u nder God . New York : Harmony Books.

Kotwall, B. J. (1997). The Watchtower Society encourages lying. The Investigator Magazine (reprint).

Levine, E. M. (1980). Deprogramming without tears. Society , 17(3), 125.

Lewis, M., & Saarni, C. (Eds.). (1993). Lying and deception in everyday life . New York : Guilford .

Lipset, S. M. (1964). The sources of the radical right. In D. Bell (Ed.), Radical right. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.

Lutes, C. (1986, Nov. 7). Former staff pastor says Faith Assembly is a cult. Christianity Today. 28.

MacGregor, L. (1994, Oct. 30). Fractured families. MacGregor Ministries News and Views , 30 ,3-5.

Magnani, D. (1979). Theocratic war strategy or lying to the public. Clayton , CA : Witness Inc.

Magnani, D. (1986). Cruel and u nusual p unishment . Clayton , CA : Witness Inc.

Montgomery, R. (1992, Feb. 9). A Matter of faith, hope and custody. The Kansas City Star , 1, 14.

Nixon, S. (Ed.). (1993, March). Blood transfusions: New findings, new alternatives. University of Texas Lifetime Health Letter , 5(3) . pp. 3, 5.

Perutz, M. F. (1989). Is science necessary? New York : E.P. Dutton.

Raines, K. (1996a). Deception by JWs in court, OK with judge?” JW Research Journal. 3(2) ,29-30.

Raines, K. (1996b). The ERA ouija board (part II): Roy D. Goodrich and the E.R.A. JW Research Journal. 3(2), 17-20.

Raines, K. (1996c). Review of the book The theocratic war doctrine: Why Jehovah’s Witnesses lie in court . JW Research Journal, 5(2), 30.

Ratcliffe, A. (1941). Impeachment of non-religious witnesses. Rocky Mountain Law Review , 336-351.

Reed, D. (1992). Court rules; Watchtower booklet recommends “untrue” testimony under oath. Comments from the Friends , 11(2) , 15.

Reed, D. (1995). Dictionary of J.W. eez: The loaded language Jehovah’s Witnesses speak. Assonet , MA : Comments From the Friends.

Reed, D. (1996). Blood on the altar . Amherst , N.Y. : Prometheus Books.

Reed, D. (1997). Jehovah-Talk: The mind control language of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Grand Rapids , MI : Baker Books.

Robbins, J. W. (1994, Feb.). The counterfeit gospel of Charles Colson, Pt. 2. The Trinity Review , 1-4.

Rutherford , C.J., & Kaplan, H.S. (1995). Autologous blood donation--can we bank on it? New England Journal of Medicine , 332(11), 740-742.

Rutherford , J.F. (1936). Riches. Brooklyn , NY : Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.

Savant, M. V. (1996, Sept. 29). Ask Marilyn. Parade Magazine , 12.

Sherrill, D. (1995). Quick quotes from the Watchtower. Sioux City , IA : Cult Research Publications

Scheflin, A., & Van Dyke, J. (1991). Merciful juries: The resilience of jury nullification. Washington and Lee Law Review, 48 , 165-183.

Schwelb, F. E. (1989). Lying In court. Litigation , 15(2) , 3.

Sellers, R. (1990). How Americans view various religious groups. Gledale , CA : Barna Research Group .

Stewart, D. O. (1986, May). Drawing the line at lying. ABA Journal , 72 , 84.

Thomas, F.W. (1972). Masters of deception. Grand Rapids , MI : Baker Book House.

Walker, J. K. (1990). Deception in court: Jehovah’s Witnesses on the witness stand. Watchman Expositor , 7(10) , 7.

Warner, C. W. (1941). Quacks . Jackson , MS : Charles Warner Publishers.

Watchtower Form Letter—sent to all congregations in 1989 and 1991.

Watch Tower . (n.d.). Branch Office Procedure . Brooklyn , NY .

Watch Tower . (1959). Jehovah’s Witnesses in the divine purpose . Brooklyn , NY.: Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society.

Watch Tower . (1982). You can live forever in paradise on Earth . Brooklyn , NY : Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society.

Watch Tower . (1983). School and Jehovah’s Witnesses . Brooklyn , NY : Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society.

Watch Tower . (1988). Insight on the Scriptures. Vol. 2: Jehovah to Zuzim . Brooklyn , NY : Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society.

Watch Tower . (1992, Aug.). Untitled. Our Kingdom Ministry, 35(8) , 7.

Watch Tower . (1996, Feb.). Our Kingdom Ministry, 39(2) , 3.

The Watchtower (Magazine). (1951, May 1). Planning now for the time to come. 72(9) , 283-285.

The Watchtower (Magazine). (1956, Feb. 1). Cautious as serpents among wolves. 77(3) , 76-90.

The Watchtower (Magazine). (1957, May 1). Use theocratic war strategy. 78(9) , 285-286.

The Watchtower (Magazine). (1957, Apr. 15). Announcements: The use of theocratic war strategy. 78(8) , 256.

The Watchtower (Magazine). (1960, June 1). Questions from readers. 81(11) , 351-352.

The Watchtower (Magazine). (1961, Jan. 15). Questions from Readers. 82(2) , 63.

The Watchtower (Magazine). (1965, Feb. 1). Serving as a soldier of Christ. 86(3) , 92-95.

The Watchtower (Magazine). (1967, Mar. 15). Happy is the nation whose God is Jehovah. 88(6) , 186-190.

The Watchtower (Magazine). (1968, Mar. 15). True worship under challenge. 89(6) , 169-175.

The Watchtower (Magazine). (1988. May 15). Serve Jehovah with one accord. 109(10) , 15-20.

he Watchtower (Magazine). (1991, June 15). Questions from readers: How strenuously should a Christian resist a blood transfusion that has been ordered or authorized by a court? 112(12), 31.

The Watchtower (Magazine). (2002, Jan. 1). The blessings of the good news. 123(1) , 13-22.

Wilson , D. (2002). Awakening of a Jehovah’s Witness: Escape from the Watchtower Society . Amherst , NY : Prometheus Books.

Witness, Inc. (Producer). (1994). Battling over the children (videotaped interview with Judge Bouska).

Witness, Inc. (Producer). (1994). Battling over the children (videotaped interview with T. Nugent, a Kansas City attorney who has been involved in Watchtower cases).

Wolk, R. L., & Henley, A. (1970). The right to lie . New York : Peter H. Wyden.

Northwest State College

Archbold , Ohio
Reprinted from: Cultic Studies Review:

An Internet Journal of Research, News, and Opinion

2002, Vol. 1, No. 2

www.culticstudiesreview.org

AFF P.O. Box 2265 Bonita Springs , FL 34133 239-514-3081 aff@affcultinfoserve.com

Jerry Bergman , Ph.D. earned a Ph.D. in evaluation and measurement (minor in psychology) from Wayne State University in Detroit and two masters degrees from Medical college of Ohio . He currently teaches in the life science and social science area at Northwest State College in Ohio . He is a licensed professional clinical therapist and has worked at psychological clinics in Toledo , Ohio and other cities for several years. He has also published widely on the Jehovah's Witnesses and similar groups. He has so far published 20 books and several hundred articles and his work has been translated into 12 languages.

War, Evil and Self Defense

2008-12-24T19:07:54Z

reprinted from the book, Refuting Jehovah's Witnesses

A Biblical Overview

God's Response To Evil

Looking over six thousand years of human history, it is clear why some people are agnostic or atheist. "If there is a loving God," they say, "then why does he allow evil?" God's moral character is called into question, and because there seems to be no satisfactory answers, many thinkers have concluded that God, as a personal Being, must not exist; or at least he is not concerned with his creation.

The Bible has much to say about God's character, as well as the issues at stake in determining God's response to evil. However, when all is said that can be said, there is a suspicion that we are not fully capable of understanding the whole picture; and therefore we MUST trust the character of God to come through in the end, or we are all lost! Faith must enter the picture; faith that believes in what we DO know about God's character, and therefore trusts that He will come through in unfamiliar areas. This trust in God's character is the kind of faith that agnostics and atheists fall short of possessing.

There are three basic explanations that the Judeo-Christian religions offer for God's allowance of evil. They are:

FIRST VIEW: God is not all-powerful, therefore he cannot fully curtail evil (though evil may be eliminated in the future). This view is typified by Rabbi Harold Kushner in his bestseller Why Bad Things Happen to Good People.

SECOND VIEW: God does not have or did not choose to use foreknowledge to know the outcome of evil. Because the free choice of his creatures must be respected and not interfered with, He must not know the future so as not to share responsibility in it. This is the view of Jehovah's Witnesses. They say that since the universal issue is said to be the vindication of God's character, He is obligated to allow the Devil to rule for a time, so that all may see that God is right. Otherwise, doubts of God's goodness might persist.

THIRD VIEW: God knew everything that would happen before the beginning of time, and purposely chose to create a world where his creatures would possess full moral freedom of choice for good or evil, because He saw it as having the best possible outcome (rather than creating a world where man would not or could not sin). He knew that man would fall, and He knew that much pain and suffering would exist in such a world before he even created it. In fact, he knew that he himself would suffer with it. Because He is God, by definition he must know all things from beginning to end, though he is not responsible for evil.1 God evidently sees farther than we do in our small reasonings, and sees the most glorious outcome in this kind of a world. This view is widely held among Christians, and is typified by Norman Geisler's book, The Roots of Evil (Zondervan).

Though the author seeks to avoid judging others as to their views in these matters, he will advocate the third view of God's allowance of evil, as he personally feels this to be the correct one. This view allows for God's being in full control of every matter from the beginning to the end. Additionally, he would express that he believes God has chosen to suffer along with man as part of his purpose in creating such a world.

Yahweh, the God of the Bible, is pictured as possessing full control of all situations. He can change the hearts of people for good or bad (Ex. 4:21; Ps. 51:10), he can create evil or good circumstances in the lives of people (Isa. 45:7), frustrate the devil or encourage him on (Job 1:12; Jude 9), motivate pagan kings for good or bad (Isa. 44:28; Jer. 27:5,6), and even lead the devil's servants about by a hook in their jaws (Eze. 38:16).

To outsiders, the Bible seems obscure or unbelievable in its presentation of Yahweh and his servants. His own people often fail to be a force for good in the world (Rom. 2:24; Rev. 2:20); falling short of God's character, and seeming to lack the power to change things. The nonbeliever often even sees the life of Jesus Christ as a defeat! (Matt. 27:3944) Ah, but that is where the secret lies.

Sooner or later, the Christian learns something that the nonbeliever does not understand - that there are superior ways to overcome the evil in the world. It is true that Christ could have prevented his death (and could have ruled the world at the time!), but he chose a course that appeared to be a defeat by most standards. Yet, though humans could not see the victory then, the actual result was far superior to mere physical force (Acts 2:22-36). Jesus' use of force to take charge of the world at that time would have, in fact, been undesirable in the long run. It would convey the impression that God created a world where full freedom of choice was allowed, yet he was obligated to step in and force people to serve him (since it didn't work).

FACING REALITY

Regardless of one's view of God, one thing cannot be argued. No matter how much we try to ignore it or deny it, God allows sin, suffering, warfare and death. The Bible itself is full of the same, and that is one of the reasons it is accepted as history, because its record is honest and plausible regarding man's imperfection. Attempts to make the Bible more palatable by "toning down" the judgments of God against other nations, the conducting of aggressive warfare against the Canaanites, and God's occasional strong hand against his own people are simply wishful thinking. It is easier to accept the God of the Bible, because of what we see around us, than to believe that God is like a kindly old grandfather that would never get angry or have harsh words. The God of liberal theology exists outside of reality! Furthermore, a God who is not in absolute control and having full foresight of the future is not really "God" at all; just a powerful being with limitations.

RECOGNIZING SIN AND EVIL

Society often ignores the nature of sin and evil. Especially is this true in our court system. Rather than hardened criminals being diagnosed as wicked or incorrigible, psychiatrists often diagnose them as "ill," as if there is some kind of treatment that, when found, will make them whole again. It is increasingly popular to believe that if such people can understand themselves or get "in touch" with themselves, that they will be healed of their criminality.

However, not all people yield to gentle persuasion. Many learn life's lessons the hard way, through much suffering and loss, because of stubbornness or pride (Prov. 1:32; 16:18). Though the Spirit of God has transformed the lives of millions, the coming of the kingdom of God must include the destruction of those who refuse to change; as their continued presence works against good. Sadly, untold greater numbers must someday be resurrected to face the throne of judgment without hope (Rev. 20:11-15).

EVIL AND TOTALITARIAN NATIONS

It is easy to forget the nature of evil during times of prosperity. Many of those who object to a country being militarily prepared for defense are often those who deny the nature of evil, let alone the reality of sin. In studying the aims of Communism, for instance (which have not changed in decades), it amazes me how naive the Free World is regarding totalitarian governments. We seem to be eager to believe that totalitarian nations will keep their word, or that they really have our good in mind; but a study of history shows this to be far from true.

An article in The Review of the News of Dec. 26, 1984 (p. 53-54) reveals that a team of historians did a study (at a cost of over one million dollars) of all the disarmament agreements of the last 1000 years of Western history, and found that in every recorded instance, the disarmament agreements led to war. The study shows that without exception the "honest" side that actually disarmed was attacked by the "dishonest" side, and was usually conquered. These agreements have always given aggressors a superior position while putting peace-seeking nations in a state of fatal weakness. Even Ghandi, noted for his hunger strikes and peaceful demonstrations, admitted that his tactics would not work with totalitarian governments.

BIBLICAL VIEW OF SELF DEFENSE AND WARFARE

(The following represents one view towards the issue of self-defense and secular responsibilities. This material is submitted for the purpose of providing a defense for those who believe that self-defense is a moral obligation, both for one's families and one's neighbors who seek to live in peace, but who are threatened by godless aggressors who seek their destruction. This essay does not particularly represent the author's personal view on involvement in politics, government and the military. This essay is merely intended to establish a government's right to use military force to protect themselves against totalitarian systems, and the individual's right to involve himself in this function at times.)

Self-defense is not something that needs to be taught to people, but is part of man's natural reaction to imminent danger. Not only evident among humans, self-defense comes natural to all animals and even some plants. Accordingly, it was not usually necessary for Yahweh to teach his people how to defend themselves, but rather, in the time of Moses, he lays down laws governing the limitations of self-defense (Ex. 21:12 through 22:3). Since warfare is often a form of self-defense, the two are often connected.

Long before the nation of Israel was established, war was sanctioned by Yahweh for just causes. In Genesis chapter 14, due to the capture of his nephew Lot, Abraham goes to war against Chedorlaomer king of Elam. There is no mention of Yahweh directing this action, but he does afterwards have Melchizedek king of Salem bless Abraham, saying, "Blessed be Abram of God Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth; and blessed be God Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand." In chapter 15, God further blesses him in a vision. Abraham believed in self-defense as well as aggressive warfare, and trusted in God's blessing in war even though there is no evidence that he petitioned God for victory first. He simply did what he knew to be proper.

In giving the Law to the nation of Israel, Yahweh tells them he is a Warrior God (Ex. 15:3) and that He would go before them to defeat their enemies. This was not a matter of self-defense, but aggressive warfare with a view to claiming their promised land. Yahweh directed them to either take the captives as slaves (condoning slavery) or to destroy every able-bodied man; and in some cases women and children as well (Deut. 20:10-18). Here is where God's understanding of evil transcends man's response to it. While the Israelites often objected to this approach due to its "inhumanity" (which disobedience later proved to be their undoing), God knew that it was necessary to destroy evil people rather than to allow them to corrupt his own children (Deut. 20:18). Over and over in the OT, as the Israelites went to war, "there was left no one who breathed." These would be labeled as wars of aggression by modern standards, similar to the modern nation of Israel nearly capturing Egypt during the Six Day War.

Yahweh warned his people that if they did not destroy all the Canaanites in their victories, that they would later become a snare to Israel. This would bring about a reverse effect, for God would then inspire the pagan nations to war against Israel (Deut. 28:15-37). Israel would then naturally respond in self-defense (even though their God was the one who inspired the war against them!) God would then respond by raising up judges to help his people in this warfare, implying that he certainly expected them to fight their enemies (even when he inspired their enemies to war against them in the first place - Joshua 23:12-16; Judges 2:14 through 3:12). God apparently felt that war served to keep his people on their toes, so to speak, and that extended times of peace resulted in apostasy due to their sin nature (Judges 2:18-19).

We find in Hebrews chapter eleven that these very judges who used assassinations, terrorism, sabotage and guerrilla warfare are praised as examples of faith and courage for Christians, because they were willing to risk their lives and die for a just cause. It is no wonder that many critics of the OT consider Yahweh as a "tribal God," different from the New Testament Christ!

NEW TESTAMENT TIMES

In the first century, we find believing Israelites who were soldiers (they may have been Romans who converted to Judaism, or Jews under the service of Herod Antipas). When the people came to be baptized by John, they would ask him questions about whether they should make changes in their lives (Luke 3:10-18), and he would give them the same kind of advice that Jesus later gave. When soldiers asked him, "And what about us, what shall we do?" he answered, "Do not take money from anyone by force, or accuse anyone falsely, and be content with your wages." (Luke 3:14). This would have been John's perfect opportunity to tell them to resign from the military, but he counseled them instead to be content with their jobs.

In Acts chapter 10 we find Cornelius, who is a centurion of the Roman army, described as a devout man who feared God and prayed continually. In verse 35, the apostle Peter implies that he is a doer of what is right. He becomes a believer in Jesus and is baptized, apparently remaining a centurion in the army. There is no mention in the NT of any soldiers who were admonished to leave their profession to become a Christian. The apostle Paul, in fact, counsels new converts to "remain in that condition in which he was called" (1 Cor. 7:24).

The Lord Jesus only appears to have said two things that deal directly with self-defense and warfare, and these statements appear to be contradictory at first glance. On the night of his betrayal, knowing that he would soon be parted from his disciples, he told them,

And he said to them, "When I sent you out without purse and bag and sandals, you did not lack anything, did you?" And they said, "No, nothing." And he said to them, "But now, let him who has a purse take it along, likewise also a bag, and let him who has no sword sell his robe and buy one." (Luke 22:35, 36)

The second statement he made later that night, when Peter struck at the slave of the high priest with his sword:

Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword. Or do you think that I cannot appeal to My Father, and He will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? How then shall the Scripture be fulfilled that it must happen this way? (Matt. 26:52-54)

Why did Jesus tell them to take up provisions that would equip them for new conditions in the ministry, including a sword for self-defense, and then shortly thereafter tell Peter not to use the sword?

The key lies in the context of each statement. Peter was told not to use the sword, because he was acting in the flesh, forgetting that Jesus told him he would have to be arrested and suffer death. Peter did not see the purpose in Jesus' arrest and death. He was acting out of his flesh rather than from wisdom. Those who live out of their flesh, Jesus intimated, with its violent and unbridled passions, will die at the hands of the same. Yet, Peter and the others were told to take up swords and money pouches and an outer garment for specific reasons (not just out of symbolism; as he would have only mentioned swords and not pouches if this was the case).

Yet, other statements of Jesus that seem to bear on the issue of self-defense seem pacifistic, such as in Matthew 5:39, where Jesus says "not to resist the one who is evil; but to him who slaps you on the cheek, to offer him your other cheek." How are we to understand this?

Matthew 5:39 is part of a larger sermon of Jesus, where he advocates giving everything you have to those who ask it of you, doing favors for any who ask them, and allowing yourself to suffer loss in lawsuits others may bring against you. Do we accept such statements without qualification? Was Jesus contradicting the Proverbs (Prov. 22:26,27; 25:26)? To accept this advice without qualification would make one an unusual person, indeed! Most Christians believe that there are other Biblical truths that qualify, or limit, the application of this advice, such as in 2 Thes. 3:10, where a brother who asks for a meal should be turned down if he refuses to work. Robert D. Culver has this to say about passages such as Matthew 5:39:

It is surely a mistake to interpret Jesus' sayings as if they must have unconditional application - that is, apart from other biblical revelation and apart from all interpretation.

Especially, attention must be given to hyperbole as a technique to capture attention and enforce a point. Jesus used it often. How else can we understand such a saying as: "If any . . . hateth not his own father, and mother, and wife, and children and brethren and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple" (Luke 14:26). Jesus did not intend us to apply his sayings about lending, accompanying guests, presenting a cheek for smiting, and so on, without respect to common sense and care for family and others who are neither borrowers nor guests nor having temper tantrums.

The Old Testament is not wanting in instructions very similar to Jesus' famous sermon. Strack and Billerbeck provide sufficient evidence of parallels to one verse (Matt. 5:25, "agree with thine adversary quickly") to cover most of three pages - and so on through the Sermon on the Mount Jewish scholars rightly protest that Jesus' ethical sayings were not unique to him among ancient rabbis. Pacifist writers sometimes find what they think are their own pacifist teachings in the Old Testament, but when they do so the divinely commanded (not merely permitted) wars do not fit the scheme. ("Justice Is Something Worth Fighting For", Christianity Today, Nov. 7, 1980, pages 17, 20)

KINGDOM NOT OF THIS WORLD

Jesus said that his kingdom was no part of this world; otherwise his servants would fight that he not be delivered up to the Jews (John 18:36). Jesus made it plain that the real hope of believers was in the future literal kingdom of God, to be established on the earth (at his return). He continually emphasized this to his followers, who erroneously believed they would somehow bring about the existence of the kingdom through physical force or revolution (Acts 1:6).

Such cannot happen, due to man's sinful nature and the influence of evil. Armed resistance is not proper in resolving spiritual issues, such as when you are being persecuted for your faith (compare Rom. 12:14). In contrast to this, though, Jesus did not hesitate to use aggressive force in clearing out the temple area of the moneychangers (Matt. 21:12; John 2:15). His use of a whip of cords and the violence of his actions stands out; revealing that Jesus (at least once) condoned the just use of force. Yet he never appears to advocate it.

Rather than suggesting that we cease resisting evil and simply give in to its demands, Jesus redirected the nature of warfare for the believer. Of much greater importance and significance is spiritual warfare; the ability to recognize evil at its source and put on the appropriate weapons of battle to combat it. The apostle Paul gives a stirring description of the armor that Christians are to put on to war against evil in Ephesians 6:10-17:

Finally, be strong in the Lord, and in the strength of His might. Put on the full armor of God, that you may be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.

Therefore take up the full armor of God, that you may be able to resist in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm. Stand firm therefore, having girded your loins with truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace; in addition to all, taking up the shield of faith with which you will be able to extinguish all the flaming missiles of the evil one. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

Spiritual warfare is where the Christian has the greatest advantage. Paul reveals that the long-range effects of such warfare are so far superior to what man can do in the flesh, that every Christian should be spending his or her energies in this direction (2 Cor. 10:36). While one's obligations to "Caesar" may, to some extent, slow down our movement towards this goal, they should never be viewed as a substitute for aggressive Christian ministry.

ROMANS 13:1 AND CHRISTIAN RESPONSIBILITY

Since neither Jesus nor his apostles addressed issues such as the morality of war, nuclear weapons, disarmament treaties, serving on a police force, etc., we must consider the principles involved in each issue.

Jesus made it clear that Christians will suffer persecution for their faith, but said that such persecution will prove to be a witness to others. God would reward them for their tolerance of injustice in matters of their faith. It is vital that Christians have a peace-loving attitude, not desiring conflict or struggle. A disposition to glory in mortal combat is clearly of the devil (James 4:1, 2). Yet in the face of sudden or imminent evil, wisdom is required to know the best course to take, as situations can be complicated. War is not an unmixed evil, or God would not have commanded the Israelites to war, nor would Michael and his angels war against the devil and his angels (Rev. 12:7). Though war is an evil, it is a moral necessity.

In times and places where Christians are not suffering as a whole, such as in most of the Western world, they must carry on life as usual, dividing their time between secular and spiritual responsibilities. In Romans 13:17 Paul tells Christians to "be in subjection to the governing authorities, for God has set up the authorities for our sake" to provide law and order in the midst of a hostile world. However, as in the case of Matthew 5:39 (as mentioned before), there are qualifying statements one must consider, realizing that we are not to be obedient to governments in ALL situations. Peter elsewhere says that we are to "obey God as ruler rather than man" (Acts 5:29), and Jesus said that we "are to render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's" (Matt. 22:21). Clearly, conflicting issues could develop over which a difficult choice must be made by the Christian.

The state, the church and the family all have different spheres of responsibility, each functioning in its own divinely appointed tasks. The leadership in each sphere has authority so long as it functions as intended, not seeking to dominate the other spheres. Yet, at no point are we to expect perfection in the performance of any of these spheres, and then purposely deny the authorities their due because they aren't doing things just right. Similarly, it is not right for children to disobey their parents because the parents make mistakes or show stupidity at times. Christians are not to discredit the church because something isn't done just the way they think it should be done or taught. Citizens are not to stop paying taxes because they feel the government is spending the money foolishly, or spending it on military equipment. Why? Because each one is functioning within their God-given realm of operation; and unless they require us to disobey God, we are to support them, knowing that even though they make mistakes, we must choose the lesser of two evils and respect this arrangement so as to carry on our lives (Rom. 13:4).

PEACE NOT ALWAYS POSSIBLE

Christians do not believe that utopia will come on the earth apart from God's direct intervention. In his discussion about not paying back evil for evil and the taking of vengeance, Paul says, "If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men." (Romans 12:18) If there is something we can do to ward off arguments or violence with others, then we are to seek this foremost. This does not mean, however, that we are to consistently allow evil people to use us for their own ends (Prov. 25:26). If we are aware of evil intentions on their part that will bring harm to others, we would not logically seek "peace" by giving in to their demands. You do not turn over your child to a child molester just to "keep peace."

By the same token, many Christians feel that the Free World is not to disarm so that totalitarian countries can take over and destroy the lives of millions. They see it as the same kind of issue, one of self-defense, rather than an issue of the faith. Clearly, there are going to be situations where maintaining peace will be impractical, unlivable, and even impossible. Even when we are not motivated by a desire for vengeance, peace will still be impossible at times.

Consequently, "peace" cannot always be the Christian's response, because of the malevolent intent of others. Paul did not allow the fornicator to continue influencing the Corinthians (though they felt it would keep the peace to allow him to remain), but said to disfellowship him (1 Cor. 5:13). It is hard for us to deny a brother a meal; but if he refuses to work, we are to deny him food (2 Thes. 3:10), and deny him fellowship. The apostle John tells us that we are to refuse to make peace with a "brother" who is teaching a different Christ, not even giving him a greeting (2 John 9,10).

In summary of the above, peace is not the only option for Christians. The above mentioned Scriptures qualify our being peacemakers, because making peace in those situations would result in far greater evils! That is the main point. That is why a refusal to defend your own family from a sex criminal or a murderer can result in much greater evil than physically resisting such a one. Peace isn't always maintained by giving in to deliberate evil.

HARD DECISIONS and THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS

Even to the non-Pacifist, the issue of self defense and warfare is rarely black and white. It is a matter of which principles to follow in any given situation, obligations to one's fellow man, preserving one's faith, and often choosing between the lesser of two evils. It has been said that once we admit the justice of killing a murderer for his crime, then, in principle, we will have to admit the justice of destroying an entire army under certain conditions. Gleason Archer says:

Is it really a manifestation of goodness to furnish no opposition to evil? Can we say that a truly good surgeon should do nothing to cut away cancerous tissue from his patient and simply allow him to go on suffering until finally he dies? Can we praise a police force that stands idly by and offers no slightest resistance to the armed robber, the rapist, the arsonist, or any other criminal who preys on society? How could God be called "good" if He forbade His people to protect their wives from ravishment and strangulation by drunken marauders, or to resist invaders who have come to pick up their children and dash out their brains against the wall?

. . . No nation could retain its liberty or preserve the lives of its citizens if it were prevented from maintaining any sort of army for its defense. It is therefore incumbent on a "good God" to include the right of self-defense as the prerogative of His people. He would not be good at all if He were to turn the world over to the horrors of unbridled cruelty perpetrated by violent and bloody criminals or unchecked aggression of invading armies. (Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, p. 219, 220.)

At the same time, however, Christians must realize that there will be no permanent victory in self-defense or warfare. Evil will continue to abound in the world, and any victories are usually of a temporary nature. All major civilizations have eventually fallen and have been replaced with others, and this will continue to occur until the Lord comes.

ON SEPARATISM

While there are a few religions (as well as Christian denominations) that believe in living physically separate from all worldly affairs, most Christians believe that if we are to be a "light to the world," then we must share some degree of corporate responsibility in the community in which we live. Christians do not claim that they are thereby helping to bring God's kingdom to the earth, nor do they consider God's "weapons" to be primarily secular. It is simply a matter of fulfilling secular obligations; however unpleasant they may be. As John Wenham says,

Living Christianity is a force of truth and love which influences the whole of a man's life and all his relationships. Inevitably and inescapably a Christian group has a social (and eventually a political) power directly proportional to its spiritual power. No matter how otherworldly the emphasis of the movement and how averse in theory to any partnership between church and state, it cannot (if genuine) remain passive in the face of social injustice, when it alone has the power effectively to challenge it. So the Quakers worked to reform the prisons, the Methodists built up the trades unions, the Clapham sect fought slavery, Shaftesbury battled against the horrors of the Industrial Revolution, the Salvation Army worked among the dropouts and the Pentecostalists among the drug addicts. But involvement in the real world means a partial Christianizing of society, bringing with it an outward approval of Christian ideals. (The Enigma of Evil, p. 142)

QUESTION: What if, in going to war with another country, a Christian was to unknowingly kill another Christian?

Hypothetically, the question could also be asked, "What if an errant Christian tried to rape or even kill one's wife or children?" There are, after all, Christians who have embarked on a wrong course, and find themselves in jail at times. In such a case, God will allow them to fall under the full weight of secular law as a penalty for their actions. As Christians, when we find ourselves in situations of personal or corporate guilt, we must face the secular consequences, even if God forgives us.

To illustrate: A Christian in Nazi Germany may not have realized that Hitler's plans were evil from the start of the war, and thus felt an obligation to enter the military. Later, if he realized what was really going on, his conscience should have moved him to get out. If he did not become aware of the facts for some reason, and faced death even at the hand of a British or American Christian soldier, it could be said that he suffered for the corporate sin of his nation. But death is not the end of a matter in God's eyes, and God can resurrect him.

Some will object, saying that Christians are not part of a nation chosen by God, like Israel was. Therefore, we are not to defend a nation for the cause of Christianity. That is true! But although we do not do it for the faith, we do it for our children and loved ones - it is not a spiritual issue, but one of secular self-defense. Let's examine a similar situation in the time of the judges of Israel.

A CLASSIC EXAMPLE

Israel was one nation; all were believers in Yahweh; all were brothers in the faith. (Today, though Christians are scattered in all nations, they are all brothers.) In Judges chapter 20, we find leading men from the tribe of Benjamin falling into gross sexual practices, arousing the ire of the other eleven tribes, who proceed to congregate for war against their own brothers of the tribe of Benjamin. Yahweh himself gives them a battle plan when they later inquire how to fight, though the war was THEIR IDEA, not God's, in the first place. They suffer defeat twice and lose 40,000 men, to Benjamin's 25,000. On the third try, Yahweh promised them the victory, and they won out, leaving Benjamin with a handful of soldiers left.

NOTE THE ISSUES INVOLVED: This was not primarily a religious issue, but a moral one. Yahweh allowed and even later directed brother against brother to fight to the death, and over a moral issue! While far from being desirable, warfare is at times impossible to avoid. A Christian, like the Israelite, believes that God will judge us and that death is not the end of the matter.

VIEW OF THE EARLY CHRISTIANS ON WAR

In reviewing the records of the early church fathers up to about 170 A.D., no mention is made of Christians being enrolled in the military. Of course, no mention is made up until the time of Tertullian (A.D. 145-220) that it was wrong to serve in the military, either. Christians apparently refrained from military service for a number of obvious reasons. The most significant was the fact that the Romans often persecuted Christians, thusly offering them no encouragement to become a Roman soldier! The Roman government was not only corrupt but required a soldier to take an oath of allegiance to the emperor as his god. It would be rare, indeed, for a Christian to even desire to enlist in the Roman army under such conditions. Additionally, there was no universal conscription into the army, no pressure to serve; so citizens had a choice to join or not.

None of the earliest writers, such as Polycarp (A.D. 70-155) mention anything for or against military service. The writings of St. Clement (A.D. 30-100), Mathetes (A.D. 130), Ignatius (A.D. 30-107), Papias (A.D. 70-155), Justin Martyr (A.D. 110-165), the epistles of Barnabus (A.D. 100), Ireneas (A.D. 120-202), the Shepherd of Hermas (A.D. 160), Tatian (A.D. 110-172), Athenagoras (A.D. 177), and Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 153-217) do not discuss whether war is justifiable or whether Christians can be involved in war.

However, the fathers said many things dealing with personal ethics. When these statements are examined in their context, war was not being discussed, nor the Christian's attitude towards the military. One revealed that Christians could be found in all walks of life, including military service. Clement of Alexandria wrote:

Practice husbandry, we say, if you are a husbandman; but while you till the fields, know God. Sail the sea, you who are devoted to navigation, yet call the whilst on the heavenly pilot. Has (saving) knowledge taken hold of you while engaged in military service? Listen to the commander who orders what is right. (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. II, p. 200))

Pacifists often claim that the apostolic period began with pure pacifism, continuing until the time of Constantine. During Constantine's time, they say, the church strayed from the faith and joined the military in order to support the first Christian emperor. Often they do not consider the difference in circumstances that had come about by Constantine's time. Christians were no longer being persecuted by the Romans. Christians no longer had to worship the emperor. An attempt was made to unite the empire under Christian principles and ethics. Serving in the military was no longer an issue of idolatry for the Christian, and so many joined. Some of the bishops objected, but for various reasons. R. G. Clouse, writing in the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, tells us:

It would be helpful if statements about war had been preserved from this early period, but because the Romans did not have universal conscription there was no pressure on Christians to serve; thus they did not seem to comment on the subject. The closing years of the second century brought changes in the situation, and there is evidence of Christians in the imperial service despite the protests of church leaders. Many members of the military forces were converted, and others joined the army because they felt that a person should support the empire. (p. 1153, "War")

Before one can take the record of the early church as "proof" that Christians are to be pacifists, one should realize that:

1. The NT never condemns war or the Christian's participation in it specifically, nor does it condemn self-defense (Luke 22:36).

2. There is no record that Cornelius or other Roman soldiers in the Bible left their posts upon becoming believers (Luke 3:14).

3. Enrolling in the Roman army in the first three centuries involved taking an oath of idolatry, and Christians were often persecuted by the Romans. Under these circumstances, Christians would hardly rush to become volunteer soldiers!

IN CONCLUSION

The Bible neither supports absolute pacifism, nor does it condone an aggressive stance regarding warfare or self-defense. I believe that every Christian must face this issue before God, and trust in His grace for the outcome. Below I have outlined several points mentioned in this article:

1. God has allowed evil to exist for a time, and we are forced to adjust to this circumstance.

2. This evil must at times be resisted with force, or greater evil will result. There is a time for self-defense.

3. The Bible does not specifically speak on the issues of modern warfare or involvement in the military; but assumes its existence.

4. Christians are not to wage physical warfare for the advance of the Kingdom, but rather, spiritual warfare.

5. At least up to 170 A.D., the early church did not specifically address the issue of war and self-defense.

Refuting Jehovah's Witnesses

Jehovah's Witnesses at present maintain a stance of allowing for self-defense, but not for going to war or serving in the armed forces for any reason. They do not wish to be called "pacifists," but have chosen to be exempt from military service as ministers or as conscientious objectors. Even as conscientious objectors, however, they will not serve in any noncombatant service; they refuse to have anything to do with conscription or community aid.

Few Witnesses realize, however, that the WT once allowed for military service. The Aug. 1, 1898 WT on page 231 says, "There is no command in the Scriptures against military service," and, "It would be quite right to shoot, not to kill." The April 15, 1903 WT on page 120 says, "There could be nothing against our conscience in going into the army. Wherever we would go we could take the Lord with us, the Captain of our salvation, and wherever we would go we could find opportunities to serve him and his cause."

A complete reversal of this reasoning later occurred, as is demonstrated by this statement from the February 1, 1951 WT on page 73: "It is only due to conscience that [Jehovah's Witnesses] have personally and legally objected before draft boards to participating in the armed conflicts and defense programs of worldly nations."

JWs will, however, allow for self-defense. In the Sept. 8 Awake! in 1975 (pp. 27, 28), several points are made to this effect: (1) Matthew 5:39 does not apply to matters of self-defense. (2) self-defense is instinctive. (3) In certain circumstances there is no bloodguilt in the case of a death blow to the opponent. (4) It's okay to protect one's family in self-defense - Eph. 5:25. (5) Jesus' apostles had two swords for protection (Luke 22:38).2 (6) Peter's action in Matthew 26:51 was wrong, not because it was self-defense, but because Peter was resisting both the lawful authorities and God's will.

The WT of June 1, 1968 (p.347) adds that one could ALSO defend one's SPIRITUAL BROTHERS AND SISTERS from personal attack if necessary, and uses John 15:13 as a reference.

These last two references are very important if one wishes to reason with the JW on the issue of military service. The following steps of reason should be employed:

1. self-defense is proper if there is no other workable solution.

2. Defending one's family is proper by the same token.

3. Defending one's spiritual brothers and sisters can be proper.

4. Defending one's neighbor who is being viciously attacked may also be proper, considering the circumstances (Luke 10:27). REASON: How can you love your neighbor as yourself if you offer him no assistance in emergency? To stand by or walk away would be similar to the ways of the Pharisees (Luke 10:30-37).

5. REASONING TO USE: Where do you draw the line? Your spiritual brothers and sisters and your neighbors may comprise a sizeable sector of a whole nation, and this nation may be under attack by a totalitarian country seeking its destruction. Is not this an issue of self-defense for one's neighbors and many spiritual brothers and sisters? Do you draw an imaginary line at your doorstep, or that of the Kingdom Hall, saying "I will go this far, and no farther?" (Matt. 5:46,47)

NOTE: One's efforts should not be to persuade the Witness that war is proper or that one should always defend one's self. The SOLE POINT to be made is that their position is somewhat contradictory. They believe in self defense, but cannot draw a line of demarcation biblically between who is their neighbor and who isn't. If a war may be fought in self-defense, they may find it necessary to resist evil in protecting their neighbors. Hopefully, such a presentation offers them food for thought, before they go and condemn Christians who do go to war.

Footnotes:

¹ Some will say that since God created all things, he must have created evil. This is a flawed argument, since evil is not a "thing," but is rather a deprivation (something is missing from that which would be otherwise perfect). Evil is simply good deprived of some aspect of its completeness (i.e., Lucifer was once good until his perfect love became flawed, making him evil.)

² In other publications the WT will bypass the point of Luke 22:36,38. In the Sept. 1, 1986 WT (p.19), they explain Jesus' command to "take up a sword" as part of a lesson in teaching the disciples that one is not to take up swords! The WT is implying that Jesus told them to take up swords so that they would be tempted to use them, thereby giving Jesus the opportunity to rebuke them for it. It should be pointed out that if Luke 22:36,38 was simply a "lesson," why did Jesus tell them to take up a money bag and food in the same breath? Money, food and the sword were customary for the traveler, and Jesus' disciples would be on the road more often. (Contrast Luke 10:4.)

Theocratic War Strategy:Why Witnesses Lie In Court

2009-04-01T14:59:41Z

The Watchtower (henceforth designated as WT) teaches that it is appropriate to withhold the truth from "people who are not entitled to it" if it will further their ends (Reed, 1992, also Franz, 1971, p. 1060-1061) Jehovahs's Witnesses (henceforth designated as JWs) do not always lie outright, but they often lie as per the court's definition, not telling "the whole truth and nothing but the truth" which means they must relate the whole story.

Secret Files of the Watchtower: Deceiving the Authorities

2009-04-03T15:25:57Z

Late the night of July 23, 1991 a burglary was committed aguinst the Danish branch office of Jehovah's Witnesses in Holbsek, Denmark. The police were told that a considerable amount of money, together with "some documents" had been stolen. Holbaek Amis Venstreblad, the local newspaper, published an extensive story about the burglary. Just an ordinary crime, or so it seemed.

New Light On Civil Service

2009-01-17T06:06:12Z

in lieu of Military Service for Jehovah's Witnesses

taken from the Watchtower, May 1, 1996 article, "Paying Back Caesar's Things to Caesar": (p. 18)

"[Since the time of Constantine] the clergy of Christendom have encouraged their flocks to serve in the armies of the nations, although some individuals have taken a stand as conscientious objectors.
"Are Christians today obliged to follow the majority in this matter? No. If a dedicated, baptized Christian lives in a country where exemption from military service is granted to ministers of religion, he may avail himself of this provision, for he is in fact a minister....
"What, though, if the Christian lives in a land where exemption is not granted to ministers of religion? Then he will have to make a personal decision following his Bible-trained conscience....

Civilian Service
"However, there are lands where the State, while not allowing exemption for ministers of religion, nevertheless acknowledges that some individuals may object to military service. Many of these lands make provision for such conscientious individuals not to be forced into military service. In some places a required civilian service, such as useful work in the community, is regarded as non-military national service. Could a dedicated Christian undertake such service? Here again, a dedicated, baptized Christian would have to make his own decision on the basis of his Bible-trained conscience.
"It seems that compulsory service was practiced in Bible times.... Where such civilian service is for the good of the community and is not connected with false religion or is not in some other way objectionable to the consciences of Jehovah's Witnesses, they have often complied. This has usually resulted in an excellent witness and has sometimes silenced those who falsely accuse the Witnesses of being anti-government.
"What, though, if the State requires a Christian for a period of time to perform civilian service that is a part of national service under a civilian administration? Here again, Christians must make their own decision based on an informed conscience. "We shall all stand before the judgment seat of God." Christians faced with a requirement of Caesar should prayerfully study the matter and meditate on it." It may also be wise to talk the matter over with mature Christians in the congregation. After this a personal decision must be made."

This is a major reversal in the Watchtower view of this matter. It appears that this represents one more change in the reversal of the dogmatism introduced in the days of “Joe” Rutherford, second president of the Watchtower. For example, the following is taken from the article, “Christian Neutrals In A Bloodstained World,” WT 9/1/86 p. 20, just 10 years ago:

“Hence, when Caesar demanded to have God's things, [Christians] acted in harmony with the principles stated at Acts 4:19 and 5:29. Whether the issue was shedding blood, non-combatant military work, alternative service, or saluting an image such as a national flag, faithful Christians took the position that there was no middle ground. In some cases they were executed because of this stand.”

We might add, some Jehovah's Witnesses are still being held in prison in certain countries because of this previous stand, now considered "old light." Won't such prisoners be happy to hear of the new teaching, especially since they will still have to serve the rest of their prison term?

The Watchtower Benefits From War Production Materials

2009-04-25T04:24:16Z

During WWII the Watchtower Society needed paper, ink, and other supplies of which Max Larson (now President of Watchtower) made requests for these goods to the United States "War Production Board." During that war time period in history nearly everything could be used to make weapons of war. Tin cans could be melted down to make bullets, panty-hose were made into parachutes, peanut shells and chicken fat could be made into explosives.

Is the Watchtower Allowing Voting Now?

2009-04-27T17:51:55Z

The Watchtower of November 1, 1999 just came out with an article that has implications considering the recent efforts by the Society to gain acceptance and legal recognition in a number of European countries, some of which insisted that for a religion to be recognized by the state, they must allow their people to vote. While some are touting this as a change of policy, it may simply be words to placate the governments.

Watchtower Vice President Fails In US Supreme Court 'Obscenity' Charge

2009-05-01T16:25:16Z

Did you know that the Vice-President of the Watchtower Society defended a JW for "obscenity" before the US Supreme Court (315 US 568 1941) and tried to get the JW off for "Freedom of Speech"? (the JW lost, of course, because the Supreme Court said Free Speech does not protect "obscenity and fighting words" - and this is as it should be. I am outraged at the Watchtower Society!

Lies My Mother Told Me - The Watchtower Society Caught Out

2009-05-21T23:20:09Z

Cults are basically an extended family, an abusive family to be more accurate. In a bad family situation, the mother or father may seek to dominate every aspect of the children's lives - from what they can or cannot question, to what posture and tone of voice they are to have when speaking to their superiors. Punishments may be out of proportion to the mistakes of the children as well, and trust is a stranger.

An Ethical Dilemma Faced by Jehovah's Witness Health Care Professionals

2009-09-23T18:46:40Z

Identify the Problem and Gather Facts

Jessica Winters (a pseudonym) has been a registered nurse for nine years. She works for a group of family physicians in private practice. Jessica is one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and has been a member of the local congregation for the past five years, along with her husband and two young children. She enjoys her job at the clinic, since it allows her to work a regular nine-to-five work week and spend after hours' time with her family and friends in her congregation. Her religious beliefs have not so far interfered with her professional judgement, nor does she make a habit of promulgating her belief system to her co-workers or the patients who visit the office -- in fact, she prefers to keep these two aspects of her life as separate as possible.

One day, a new client visits the office, someone whom Jessica recognizes as a member of a neighbouring congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses. Eric M. is an elder in the congregation, and also gives public lectures at larger conventions where several congregations are gathered at a time, but as they are not acquainted and he is seeing her out of the usual context, he does not recognize Jessica as a fellow church member, and she decides -- since the office is busy at the time -- to not identify herself as such.

Since it is part of her job to obtain the history of new clients, she conducts a brief interview with the patient, who reports that he had contracted gonorrhea, and had visited another physician for treatment initially, and had come today to have a follow-up culture done to see if he was free of the disease. As part of her patient teaching, Jessica advises Eric regarding the use of condoms with his spouse, in order to protect her from contracting the disease, and perhaps re-infecting him. Eric states that his wife is on the birth control pill, and that if he were to start using condoms, she might suspect his brief affair with a co-worker.

At this point, Jessica becomes very uneasy with the information the client has disclosed to her. His sexual behaviour outside of his marriage is grounds for him to be "disfellowshipped" [excommunicated and subsequently shunned] from his congregation. It is also the only valid grounds, according to Jehovah's Witness teaching, for the wife to procure a "scriptural divorce", one that would allow the spouse to eventually remarry. While Jessica is not formally acquainted with Eric or his family, she knows that they have children together, and that he is well liked and respected among local Witnesses. Jessica's knowledge has made her vulnerable as well. According to her belief system, if she becomes aware of "misconduct" on the part of a fellow church member, it becomes her responsibility to, first of all, encourage the individual to self-report the "wrongdoing" to the elders in his congregation. Failing that, she must report the wrongdoing herself, or risk being disfellowshipped as well, having become a "sharer in the sins of others". As a registered nurse, Jessica is bound by the Standards of Practice of her profession, which require her to maintain patient confidentiality. As well, she could put herself and the physicians for whom she works at risk of legal repercussions not covered by malpractice insurance, not to mention losing a job that she would find difficult to replace. She would likely also have to face disciplinary action by the College of Nurses, and could possibly lose her license to practice. However, as a Jehovah's Witness, Jessica believes that loyalty to God and to the Watchtower Society [the legal body representing Jehovah's Witnesses] is paramount; she feels that her own salvation will be in peril if she does not follow through and report the matter to the congregation's elders. If she does not report the matter to the elders and her knowledge is later discovered, she could be disfellowshipped, resulting in loss of contact with and being shunned by her Witness friends and relatives for a period of time, and putting her "eternal life" in peril.

This scenario constitutes an ethical dilemma for the nurse in question -- possibly even ethical distress -- since her personal beliefs and values are making demands which are diametrically opposed to those of her profession.

This dilemma is the result of an error in communication. For instance, had the nurse elected to identify herself to the patient as a fellow church member, it is not likely that he would have divulged the "incriminating" information to her; indeed, he may have requested that he be seen directly by the physician.

Also, because of their common connection to the church, Jessica may have indirectly "invited" this dilemma -- she could have stated at the outset that she had an association with the client, and had the interview handled by the other nurse in the office. Jessica could have explained the situation such that she wished to keep her personal life separate from her work, and would have had an understanding reception by her colleagues.

Either of these choices could have averted the development of the dilemma.

Clarify Values

The nurse's personal religious values in this situation demand that she take action, according to the following hierarchy:
1. confront the individual with the information and urge him to confess his "wrongdoing" to his spouse and congregation elders within a reasonable time frame, with the goal being his "spiritual restoration";
2. should the individual refuse to make a confession to the elders, Jessica's belief system demands that she report her knowledge to the elders voluntarily. [Organized to Accomplish Our Ministry, p. 142 - 145].

Her professional ethics require that she maintain patient confidentiality; this is one of the highest values in the health care professions.

Note Reactions

At this point in time, the dilemma belongs to the nurse alone. She has not yet shared her dilemma with her colleagues, or her employer, neither has she posed a "hypothetical situation" to her husband, who, upon learning of the nurse's dilemma, would be required to report her to congregation elders to advise them that a "situation" existed, nor has she consulted church literature to determine whether there might be some areas in church policy that would excuse her from breaking patient confidentiality. If she takes the opportunity to meet with one of the physicians from the clinic to explain her dilemma she would likely be advised to proceed with extreme caution, and be reminded that their respective malpractice insurance policies would not cover them for a breach of confidentiality in the event that the patient sued. The nurse would realize that not only are her livelihood and professional reputation at stake, but also her family's home, as well as those of her employers. The nurse understands that if she breaks confidentiality she will be dismissed from her job immediately and that charges will be laid, and she will be liable for fines upon conviction.

Identify Ethical Principles

Autonomy: "recognizes that a capable and competent individual is free to determine, and act in accordance with, a plan chosen by him or herself." [Keatings & Smith, p. 93] If Jessica reports the patient to church authorities, she is, in essence, taking the patient's right to autonomy away from him, since he will no longer be in control of his situation to the greatest degree possible for him.

Non-maleficence: "obliges [nurses] to act in such a way that we prevent or remove harm." [Keatings & Smith, p. 94]. The harm that would come as a result of reporting this individual is enormous, since it extends far beyond the patient, to his family, to the employer, to the nurse herself and her family.

Beneficence: "one must make a positive move to produce some good or benefit for another." [Keatings & Smith, p. 94]. The good that would be derived from the action of reporting the patient to congregation elders is in terms of her belief system, one of a higher principle -- the "cleanness of the congregation", for the individual to be returned to "an approved condition before God", and to protect her own conscience before God. The nurse must weigh these purported benefits against their inherent detriments, as described above under 'non-maleficence'.

Fidelity: "the foundation of the nurse-patient relationship." [Keatings & Smith, p. 95]. The nurse's relationship with the patient is incumbent upon trust -- the patient confided in her in good faith, with the expectation that "all communication and records pertain to his care will be treated as confidential." [A Patient's Bill of Rights, as quoted in Awake!, March 8, 1991] Reporting the patient to congregation authorities undermines that relationship, not only between the patient and herself, but between the patient and other members of the health care profession.

Clarify Legal Rules

It is clear that the legal stipulations support a decision to maintain client confidentiality. The nurse would be well aware that under the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, (RHPA, 1991) that she is obliged to

preserve secrecy with respect to all information that comes to his or her knowledge in the course of his or her duties and shall not communicate any information to any other person -- Section 36 (1).

In reviewing the RHPA, 1991, the nurse realizes that

Every person who contravenes subsection 36(1) is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $25,000 -- Section 40(4).

Jehovah's Witness are very aware, through their regular religious publications, of their rights as patients. Awake! readers are advised that:

The patient has the right to:

[. . . ]

5. Every consideration of privacy concerning his own medical-care program.

6. Expect that all communications and records pertaining to his care will be treated as confidential. [March 8, 1991, p. 7]

However, church policies are deemed to be "the superior demands of divine law" [The Watchtower, September 1, 1987, p. 15], and it presumes that it would be necessary for the nurse to determine exactly what the "divine law" demands in this situation, which is addressed by a single Watchtower article. I have compiled a list of quotations and scripture, to sort out ideas in a logical manner.

[E]ach Christian [Jehovah's Witness], if ever faced with a situation of this nature, must be prepared to weigh all the factors involved and reach a decision that takes into consideration Bible principles as well as legal implications and that will leave him with a clear conscience before Jehovah. [p. 12] (emphasis added)

To establish a matter conclusively, the testimony of at least two eyewitnesses is needed. [p. 12] (emphasis added)

The nurse might decide that since she is not an eyewitness, her testimony will not be valid.

There may be times when a [Jehovah's Witness] is obligated to bring a matter to the attention of the elders. True, it is illegal in many countries to disclose to unauthorized ones what is found in private records. But if a [Jehovah's Witness] feels, after prayerful consideration, that he is facing a situation where the law of God required him to report what he knew despite the demands of lesser authorities, then that is a responsibility he accepts before Jehovah. There are times when a [Jehovah's Witness] "must obey God as ruler rather than men." -- Acts 5:29. [p. 13]

There may be occasions when a faithful servant of God is motivated by his personal convictions, based on his knowledge of God's Word, to strain or even breach the requirements of confidentiality because of the superior demands of divine law. [p. 15] (emphasis added)

The nurse may come to the conclusion that her "personal convictions", based on her research into church literature and Scripture, are such that she cannot, in good conscience, disclose confidential client information to church authorities.

Elders may be approached by individuals who either confess their own sins or report what they know regarding the wrongdoing of others. [Organized to Accomplish Our Ministry, p. 145]

If a person has definite knowledge of wrongdoing that could contaminate the congregation, he is obliged to report the matter in order to keep the congregation clean. [Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock, p. 97]

There must be two or three eyewitnesses, not just persons repeating what they have heard. [Pay Attention..., p. 109] (emphasis added).

The nurse may decide, on the basis of this information, that because she is not an "eyewitness" to the "wrongdoing", and would be 'just a person repeating what they have heard', that she is justified in not reporting this individual to congregation authorities, and maintaining client confidentiality.

In a consultation with a Jehovah's Witness elder who has a 25-year association with the church, the above-quoted article was discussed and I asked what the church requirements would be in this situation. He stated without hesitation that the nurse should report the matter to the congregation elders if the patient is not willing to self-report. I asked him what would be provided by the congregation or its leadership to the nurse for adhering to church policy, in the event that the patient sued her for breach of confidentiality. My source stated that the nurse, having contravened "Caesar's law", would have to accept whatever were the consequences of her actions, and could not expect her congregation or the Watchtower Society to support her in this instance, either in a financial way or with legal assistance. I also asked him whether church policy had precedence over Scripture, and he assured me that the Bible was considered to be the final authority.

The one walking about as a slanderer is uncovering confidential talk, but the one faithful in spirit is covering over a matter. -- Proverbs 11:13 [NWT]

Do not reveal the confidential talk of another. -- Proverbs 25:9, 10 [NWT]

Explore Options and Alternatives

a) Do Nothing

In posing this dilemma to several acquaintances, the consensus was that even if the nurse decided to ignore church policy, there would still be the potential for repercussions against her:

if the nurse and the [patient] decide to ignore the situation for now, but later he has pangs of conscience, reports his misconduct to the elders, and then finds out that the nurse was a J[ehovah's] W[itness]. He then reports her to her elders, who call her on the carpet for failing to report a wrongdoing. Or suppose the elder finds out who the nurse is, fears that she may try to report him, and turns himself in before she has the chance so as to head her off, then reports her for failing to report him in order to take some heat off himself. She is then put in a position of having to defend herself, and would likely be at least privately reproved. Of course, should she defend herself with the scriptural arguments that you advanced, she would be seen as failing to accept Godly counsel and almost certainly be [disfellowshipped]. No matter what, she loses big time. [e-mail communication]

Doing nothing will satisfy the duty that she owes to the patient in her role as a nurse, since it is an inherent part of the nurse-patient relationship that she maintain confidentiality. The patient did not approach the nurse to 'confess sins', and the nurse does not assume this role in the practice of her profession. It has been her practice to keep her professional and religious activities separate to the greatest extent possible, and in this situation, doing nothing would be a continuation of this practice. The patient's autonomy is respected, and harm does not come to the patient. The nurse's fidelity and integrity with respect to her profession remains intact, as well.

While resulting in her following legal principles, the nurse will likely still have pangs of conscience from not having researched her church policies thoroughly, and as shown above, there will always be the possibility of repercussions within the church hierarchy. The "good consequences" derived from doing nothing are that the patient's autonomy is respected, and that no harm comes to him. The nurse's fidelity and integrity with respect to her profession remains intact.

b) Follow Legal Principles

Legal rules demand that the nurse not disclose confidential information in this situation. Her conscious decision to follow the rules, in spite of her religious beliefs will place her at risk for disciplinary action by church officials if she is discovered to have this knowledge. However, the patient's autonomy and right to confidentiality is preserved, and the nurse's professional fidelity and integrity remain intact.

This could prove to be a detrimental decision for the nurse, since her "spiritual-ethical-moral view of self", "self-consistency", and "self-ideal/self-expectancy" [Roy & Andrews, 1991, p. 312] will have been compromised. She may experience guilt, anxiety, and feel that she has committed a sin against her God and her church. Insofar as the client is concerned with respect to church policy, the nurse may resent the client for putting her "on the spot", and this may compromise future care that she gives to him or other Jehovah's Witness patients.

c) Follow Church Policy

The nurse, in reviewing church policies and Scriptures that are germane to the case, would realize that there are steps she must take before she reports this individual to church authorities. First of all, she would have to approach the patient and identify herself to him as a fellow church member. She would then have to explain to him the difficult position in which she finds herself, and determine whether the patient has self-disclosed to his congregation elders already, which would allow her to maintain the information as confidential and satisfy church policy. In the case where the client has not yet self-reported to church authorities, he has three options:

1. choose to self-report, in which case the nurse would not have to proceed further;
2. decline to self-report and provide written consent to her disclosing the information to church authorities, which would absolve her of legal repercussions under the RHPA, 1991 [sect 36(1)(f)] -- [extremely remote possibility];
3. decline to self-report and refuse to consent to disclosure, in which case the nurse would have to determine whether she wants to take the next step and divulge confidential information to church authorities.

In speaking with the patient and describing her ethical dilemma to him, the nurse may feel that she is respecting his autonomy, and making an attempt to maintain her professional fidelity and integrity to him. She is also satisfying church policy, without yet compromising her professional ethics. In fact, church literature suggests that this course of action would be "a loving approach" since the patient might "welcome the opportunity to clarify matters" [Watchtower, September 1, 1987, p.14]. The nurse's efforts to resolve this issue privately with the client would likely satisfy her self-ideal, in that she would feel that she did everything in her power to avoid having to disclose confidential information unlawfully.

In completing further research regarding church policy, the nurse may determine that she has a greater obligation to abide by her oath to preserve client confidentiality, since the Scriptures definitely speak to the issue of maintaining confidence and the sacredness of taking an oath, and with church literature impressing the idea that one's "personal conviction, based on his knowledge of God's Word" that it is better for her to retain the patient's confidence and suffer the potential consequences of not reporting the patient to church authorities. Should she report the client without his consent, she is liable for the offense. She will be dismissed from her job, and charged. She will have to pay the fine determined by the court, and will also be liable in the event of a suit by the client. The possibility also exists that the client could sue individual members of any judicial committee assembled, since there would be a passing on of confidential information among them as a result of the nurse's report.

Even though the nurse may feel that this approach satisfies legal requirements and church policy, the nurse, in approaching the patient with her dilemma is undermining her role with respect to this patient, even though his autonomy, i.e., his right to retain control of his situation, is respected. "The patient has the right to . . . expect that all communications and records pertaining to his care will be treated as confidential" [Awake!, March 8, 1991, p. 7], therefore, approaching the patient in this manner threatens the trust [i.e., fidelity] between the nurse and patient. As well, the principle of fairness comes in to play, since the patient may feel that he is not being treated with 'unconditional positive regard' that is due him by the health care professional, [Lefton & Valvatne, pp. 408-412].

Decide the Course of Action and Develop an Action Plan

The course of action that seems to be the most reasonable consists of the following steps:

1. the nurse should speak to the employer to let her dilemma be known, so that she can have the assistance necessary to make an informed and ethical decision and to assist in developing policy to circumvent future instances of this type of ethical dilemma;

2. research the church literature to clarify her own values regarding the situation; and

3. speak to the client and identify herself as a fellow church member; advise him that she is not going to divulge this information to church authorities because her research has brought her to the conclusion that her obligation to maintain confidentiality was supported by Scripture, even though it contravenes church policy, and because of the heavy penalties that would result from disclosing confidential information to unauthorized persons.

The nurse may also decide to take the further step to:

4. advise her congregation elders that she is faced with an ethical dilemma that involves another church member in a different congregation; that this dilemma involves confidential information obtained in the course of her professional practice; and that she has "prayerfully" researched church literature and has come to the conclusion that she can not divulge any confidential information, and that she is prepared to accept the consequences of the decision imposed by the church authorities. She may explain the heavy penalties that she and her employer will face, and that any judicial committee assembled with regard to her client may also face legal action by the client.

Evaluate the Plan

In determining the effectiveness of the plan of action, the nurse will note her client's response to her efforts to maintain confidentiality, which hopefully will be positive. She will also work along with her employer to develop a policy that will circumvent similar types of ethical conflicts in the future. The nurse will also feel that she has dealt with the situation to the best of her ability without compromising legal considerations or church policy, given the information available to her, and her understanding of the law as it applies to her nursing practice, and of church policy and Scripture. There will likely be pressure put upon her to divulge this information by church authorities, perhaps to the point of being publicly reproved for not co-operating with the elders, however, the nurse is prepared to accept the consequences of this decision.

Bibliography & References

Bullock, G.L., (1985). In Medical Economics, August 19, 1985 [Referenced by: Franz, R.V. (1991). In Search of Christian Freedom. Atlanta:Commentary Press.] (Source of Scenario).

K. Christine Callaghan (1997). Evolution of Nursing [NSG4043], Class Notes [unpublished].

Keatings, M. & Smith, O. (1995). Ethical & Legal Issues in Canadian Nursing. Toronto: Saunders.

Lefton, L.A. & Valvatne, L. (1992). Understanding Psychology. Fourth Edition. Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon.

Potter, P.A. & Perry, A.G. (1993). Chapter 13: Ethics. In Fundamentals of Nursing, St. Louis: Mosby's Year-Book.

Queen's Printer for Ontario. (1994). Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991. Toronto: Publications Ontario.

Roy, C. & Andrews, H. (1991). The Roy Adaptation Model: The Definitive Statement. Third Edition. Norwalk, Connecticut:Appleton & Lange.

College of Nurses of Ontario. (1995). Guidelines for Professional Behaviour, Toronto:CNO.

Publications of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society:

(1991). Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock.

(1990). "A Patient's Bill of Rights", Awake!, Vol. 72, No. 5, p. 7.

(1987). "A Time to Speak" - When?, The Watchtower, Vol. 108, No. 17, pp. 12 - 15.

(1984). New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, [NWT].

(1983). Organized to Accomplish Our Ministry.

Consultations:

Mr. G. S., a Jehovah's Witness elder, and 25-year member of the religion.

Mr. A. F., a member of Jehovah's Witnesses for 40 years.