Crisis of Conscience Read online

  Even error—if it is Watch Tower error—is presented as somehow beneficial. This same 1996 Watchtower discusses the organization’s earlier erroneous interpretation of the “higher powers” or “superior authorities” of Romans chapter 13, which interpretation rejected the clear evidence that these referred to human governmental authorities and insisted that the “higher powers” referred only to God and Christ. This wrong interpretation had replaced an even earlier, correct view and was taught from 1929 until 1962. The May 1, 1996 Watchtower (page 14) says of this wrong understanding:

  Looking back, it must be said that this view of things, exalting as it did the supremacy of Jehovah and his Christ, helped God’s people to maintain an uncompromisingly neutral stand throughout this difficult period [that is, the period of World War II and of the Cold War].

  This in effect says that to have had the right understanding, the understanding the apostle Paul intended when he wrote his counsel, would either not have been sufficient in guiding, or would not have been as effective in protecting against unchristian action, as was the erroneous view taught by the Watch Tower organization! There is nothing to show that God guides his people by means of error. He strengthens them with truth, not error, in time of crisis.—1 John 1:5; Psalm 43:3; 86:11.

  More recently the August 15, 1998 Watchtower also dealt with the issue of alternative service in place of military service, as shown here:

  Once again there is no shouldering of responsibility for the harm done to people’s lives by the imposition of a policy that had no Biblical basis. The suffering undergone, which over a period of half a century meant imprisonment for thousands of young men, is presented as if purely the result of the individuals feeling obliged to reject “certain types of civilian service,” due to “loyally upholding Christian principles as they understood them or by responding to the proddings of conscience.”

  There is no reason to doubt that many, probably most, of these young men felt clear in their minds and hearts as to “Christian principles” if the issue were regarding participation in the bloodshed connected with war, or the issue of entrance into the military, with its emphasis on force and violence. But the issue they faced was not either of these matters. The “alternative service” provision was there precisely because their government gave consideration to conscientious objection in those areas.

  Perhaps the writer of the Watchtower article presented was in ignorance of the reality of the situation. But the article had to have been read and approved by at least five members of the Governing Body, those forming the then current Writing Committee. They of all persons knew how inaccurate the picture here presented is, for they knew that Branch committee after Branch committee stated that the young men in their countries did not understand the Biblical basis for the policy, and submitted to it, not out of ‘loyalty to Christian principles,’ but out of submission to an organizational directive. They knew that many of the Branch committee members themselves advanced reasons why Christian principles actually allowed for acceptance of such “types of civilian service.”

  Quotations from the 1978 letters of Branch committee members in such countries as Austria,, Brazil, Chile, Denmark, Italy, Norway, Poland,, and Thailand can also be found in the book In Search of Christian Freedom, pages 259-266, 398, 399, demonstrating these points.

  Statements comparable to these are found in numerous other letters from Branch committees. They show how falsely the matter is presented in the August 15, 1998 Watchtower, when it says of a person who suffered due to holding that policy:

  Was it unrighteous on Jehovah’s part to allow him to suffer for rejecting what he now might do without consequences? Most who have had that experience would not think so. Rather, they rejoice that they had the opportunity of demonstrating publicly and clearly that they were determined to be firm on the issue of universal sovereignty. (Compare Job 27:5) What reason could anyone have to regret having followed his conscience in taking a firm stand for Jehovah? By loyally upholding Christian principles as they understood them or by responding to the proddings of conscience, they proved worthy of Jehovah’s friendship.

  The August 15, 1998 Watchtower article compounds the wrongness of its presentation by thereafter attempting to find an analogy for this situation in the experience of Jews who had been under the Mosaic Law and its requirement for obedience, and who later as Christians were no longer bound to that requirement. The article follows this with the question:

  Did they complain that God’s arrangement was unrighteous in having formerly required of them things that were no longer necessary?

  The analogy is completely without basis, since God himself did provide the Law covenant with its requirements, which served a beneficial purpose, but He did not provide the Watch Tower’s arbitrary policy requiring refusal of alternative service, with its imposition of sanctions for failing to adhere to that policy. In the words of God’s Son, it was a “tradition of men,” a “human precept,” one that “made void the word of God” on the issue involved.16

  One cannot but think here of published statements such as these in the October 15, 1995 Watchtower in its article “Watch Out for Self-Righteousness.” On pages 29, 30 the following paragraphs appear:

  By attempting to divert attention from themselves to God, as if He needed defending for the responsibility for the “needless suffering,” the Governing Body again makes evident that, rather than expressing sincere regret for a wrong course and its harmful consequences, primary concern is to protect its image and avoid any diminishing of its organizational authority and control.

  Because of the power of control the organization exercises over its members through its decisions, and because of the enormous effect that these can have on people’s lives, it seems proper here to review what I consider one of the greatest examples of inconsistency experienced in my nine years on that Body. It still seems difficult to believe that men who voiced such strong concern for “an uncompromising stand,” could simultaneously gloss over a circumstance that can only be described as shocking. You may judge the appropriateness of that term by what follows.

  1See the Watchtower of February 15, 1980, pp. 8-24.

  2I can recall, and my records indicate, only a couple of occasions in over eight years where I found myself completely alone in voting contrary to the majority or in abstaining.

  3The secret nature of Governing Body sessions, of course, allows little likelihood for any to come to know this. The “Minutes” of the meetings are never opened for other Witnesses to see them.

  4Three out of five is only 60%, not 66⅔%, as in a two-thirds majority.

  5Matthew 23:4, NIV.

  6These points may also have been substantially what Milton Henschel meant when he frequently commented on the need to “be practical” in our approach to such matters, for in voting his position and that of Ted Jaracz regularly coincided.

  7See Awake!, December 8, 1969, pp. 21-23.

  8Texts referred to included Genesis 9:3, 4; Leviticus 17:10-12; Acts 15:28, 29.

  9See the Society’s publication Defending and Legally Establishing the Good News, p. 58.

  10Ibid., p. 62.

  11Hebrews 13:17.

  12As late as the November 1, 1990 Watchtower this was alluded to as a “compromising substitute” for an unscriptural service.

  13See also the book In Search of Christian Freedom, pages 255-270 which has been inserted into Appendix B of this 2018 edition of Crisis of Conscience, for added documentation and quotations demonstrating the degree to which this policy presented serious problems for both the male Witnesses affected and the Branch Committee members of several countries.

  14Lloyd Barry had left. According to my records, those voting in favor of a change were: John Booth, Ewart Chitty, Ray Franz, George Gangas, Leo Greenlees, Albert Schroeder, Grant Suiter, Lyman Swingle and Dan Sydlik. Those voting against were: Carey Barber, Fred Franz, Milton Henschel, William Jackson and Karl Klein. Ted Jaracz abstained.

  15In several
European countries the Watch Tower Society has recently experienced some difficulty in attaining or retaining a certain status with the government. The change in policy with regard to alternative service may be related to their concern in this area.

  16Matthew 15:6-9.

  6

  DOUBLE STANDARDS

  The doctors of the law and the Pharisees sit in the chair of Moses; therefore do what they tell you; pay attention to their words. But do not follow their practice; for they say one thing and do another.

  — Matthew 23:2, 3. New English Bible.

  MANY worthwhile and helpful discussions can be found in the publications of the Watch Tower Society. Frequently articles supply support for belief in a Creator, encourage wholesome family life, exhort to honesty, stress the importance of humility and other virtues, doing this on the basis of Scripture. Other articles speak out strongly against religious deception and hypocrisy. Consider, for example, the portion of an article published in the Watchtower magazine reproduced on the following page.

  The Watch Tower Society has, throughout its entire history, never been guilty of what it describes as “condoning and ‘whitewashing’ the wrongdoing and violation of God’s righteous standards and way” on the part of the various religious organizations and their leaders. The Watch Tower publications have taken the lead in boldly publicizing worldwide any misconduct or evidence of hypocrisy within these organizations. They have pointed out the parallel between the deceptiveness of such religious leaders and the Pharisees of Jesus’ day. They have stated repeatedly their own declared position of strict adherence to righteous standards, moral integrity and upright and honest dealings with all.

  It is precisely this that made so disturbing certain information that came to light at the same time the issue of alternative service was being debated within the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

  The information came from Mexico. As startling as the information itself was, what I found far more disquieting was the stark contrast it revealed between the organizational position adopted toward that country as compared with that adopted in another country—the East African country of Malawi (formerly Nyasaland).

  To appreciate this it is important to know certain background. Beginning in 1964, Jehovah’s Witnesses in Malawi began to experience persecution and violence on a scale rarely equaled in modern times. Successive waves of vicious countrywide attacks and brutality by savage mobs swept over them in 1964, 1967, 1972 and again in 1975. In the first attack, 1,081 Malawian families saw their little homes burned or otherwise demolished, 588 fields of crops destroyed. In the 1967 attacks Witnesses reported the rapings of more than one thousand of their women, one mother being sexually violated by six different men, her thirteen-year-old daughter by three men. At least forty of the women were reported to have suffered miscarriages due to this. In each wave of violence, beatings, torture and even murder went virtually unchecked by the authorities and reached such intensity that thousands of families fled their homes and fields to neighboring countries. In 1972 authoritative estimates were that 8,975 fled to Zambia, 11,600 to Mozambique. When violence subsided, in time the families filtered back to their homeland. Then a new wave forced them to flee again. Adding to the tragedy of all this were the reports coming out of the camps of small children dying because of lack of medicine and medical treatment.1

  What was the issue around which this recurrent storm of violence revolved? It was the refusal of the Witnesses to purchase a party card of the ruling political party. Malawi was a one-party state, ruled by the Malawi Congress Party through its head, Dr. H. Kamuzu Banda, who was “president for life” of the country. Jehovah’s Witnesses who inquired were informed by the Society’s Branch Office that to buy such a party card would be a violation of their Christian neutrality, a compromise, hence, unfaithfulness to God. The Branch position was upheld by the world headquarters organization and presented in detail in the Watch Tower Society’s publications. The vast majority of Malawian Witnesses held firm to that position even though at enormous cost to themselves.

  The brutality that was practiced upon defenseless people in Malawi can never be justified. There is no question in my mind about that. The government and party officials were determined to attain a state of total conformity to their policy that all persons should possess a party card; it was viewed as tangible evidence of loyalty to the governmental structure. The methods used to attain that goal were depraved, criminal.

  There is, however, a serious question in my mind about the position taken by the Branch Office and supported by the central headquarters in Brooklyn. There are a number of reasons for such question.

  In 1975, I was assigned to write material on the latest campaign of terror being carried on against the Malawian Witnesses. In explaining why Jehovah’s Witnesses viewed the purchase of the party card so seriously, I employed information that had been published earlier, tracing a parallel between their stand and that of Christians in early centuries who refused to put a pinch of incense on an altar as a sacrifice to the “genius” of the Roman emperor.2 At the time of doing so, I felt a sense of uncertainty—was the parallel completely true? There was no question but that the placing of the incense on the altar was viewed as an act of worship. Was purchasing a party card just as clearly an act of worship? I could not really see any strong argument in that direction. Was it, then, a violation of Christian neutrality, a breaking of integrity with God?

  I cannot say that my thinking on the matter fully crystallized at that time, nor am I dogmatic on the point today. But the following thoughts came to mind, making me wonder how solid a basis the organization, of whose Governing Body I was now a member, had for taking an intransigent, unbending position of condemnation of such card purchase as an act of unfaithfulness to God:

  The issue hinged on the fact that the card was a “political” card representing membership in a “political” party. To many, and particularly to Jehovah’s Witnesses, the word “political” is viewed as describing something inherently bad. Corrupt politicians have, over the centuries, contributed toward the unsavory connotation the term often carries today. The same might be said, however, of such terms as “pious,” which frequently calls up visions of sanctimoniousness and feigned holiness due to the hypocrisy of some religious persons. Yet the term “pious” actually relates to dutiful reverence and earnest devotion to God; that is its basic meaning. Similarly, the word “political” carries this basic definition:

  Having a fixed or regular system or administration of government; relating to civil government and its administration; concerned in state affairs or national measures; pertaining to a nation or state, or to nations or states, as distinguished from civil or municipal; treating of politics or government; as, political parties.3

  I knew that the word “political” as well as “politics” came from the Greek word polis meaning simply a city (as in the word “metropolis”). In Greek polites meant a “citizen” (the English word “citizen” being drawn from a Latin term likewise meaning “city”), and the adjective politikos (from which our English “political” is derived) meant “of the citizens, of the state.” The English language received these terms through Latin and the Latin term politia means simply “citizenship, government, administration.” Such words as “police,” and “policy” all derive from the same source.

  Obviously, all government is political in this fundamental sense of the word. Every government on earth is a political entity; every people organized under a particular form of government form a “polity” (from Greek politeia). To be a citizen of any country is to be a member of such a political state, enjoying the benefits and bearing the responsibilities this membership brings. The extent to which one may submit to the demands of such a political state may vary; but the membership is still a fact.

  It is of such political states and their rulers that the apostle Paul writes at Romans chapter thirteen, exhorting Christians to be submissive to these as unto “God’s servant” or “mini
ster.” True, political activity may become corrupt—and there is no question but that the political state of Rome became extremely corrupt—yet that of itself does not make everything political inherently evil. Nor does it make national citizenship—membership in a political state or nation—something inherently bad. Political parties in their competition for power are largely responsible for the added, subordinate (not the basic or fundamental) meaning which the word “politics” may come to have, that of “the plotting or scheming of those seeking personal power, glory, position, or the like.” This is evil, but not because everything related to political activity is evil, for the absence of political activity is, in its secular sense, the absence of government.

  Which leads to the second reason for my questioning. I can understand why a person could conscientiously desire to be separate from the political strife and fierce competition that generally characterize party politics. The factors that made me think seriously about the situation in Malawi, however, was that it was and remained until recent times, a one-party state. The Malawi Congress Party was the country’s ruling party with no other parties allowed. It thus became, in a de facto sense, equivalent to the government itself, the “superior authority.” If a person could be a citizen, and hence a member of the national political community, without violating integrity to God, where was the evidence to show that being submissive to the government’s insistence (expressed from the head of state on down) that everyone purchase a card of the ruling party would constitute such a violation of integrity to God? I wondered then, and I still wonder, how major is the difference?