Skip to main content

DISASSOCIATION BECAUSE OF THE VIOLATION OF CHRISTIAN NEUTRALITY

By 17. January 2025January 28th, 2025Disassociation

The members of the Governing Body have violated their Christian neutrality by accepting that political states have the right to put Christians under compulsory alternative service. They have laid unnecessary restrictions on the Witnesses by denying them the right to offer the same services to military personnel and military bases that they offer to all kinds of people.

With the words of Jesus: They have strained out the gnat and gulped down the camel. The have forbidden what is acceptable and allowed what is wrong.

 

Because Jehovah’s Witnesses support the Kingdom of God, they cannot at the same time support political movements in this world. But what happens if a Witness supports a political candidates or political or military organizations? The book “Shepherd The Flock Of God” (2019) says:

18.3 (4): Taking a Course That Violates Christian Neutrality:  (Isa. 2:4; John 15:17-19: lvs pp. 60-63, 244) If he joins a nonneutral organization, he has disassociated himself. If his employment makes him a clear accomplice in nonneutral activities, he should generally be allowed six months to make an adjustment. If he does not, he has disassociated himself.—See lvs pp. 204-206.

The violation of Christian neutrality is carefully worded, so they do not represent a violation of the laws of any country. The reference to Isaiah 2:4 means that a Christian cannot be a soldier in the army of any nation. The book Keep Yourselves in God’s Love, pages 212-215, shows that voting at a political election is a violation of one’s neutrality. Both these actions are rather clear-cut, but the expression “nonneutral activities” is unclear and deserves a discussion.

FROM CHRISTIAN FREEDOM AUTOCRATIC LAWS

According to the charter of The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, the Society should take the lead in the worldwide preaching of the good news of the Kingdom. It should not govern the personal lives of Jehovah’s Witnesses. This is seen in their publications in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s, where it is stressed that the Watchtower Society would not make any decision on the part of Jehovah’s Witnesses in issues of secular work and different pursuits.

PERSONAL DECISIONS BASED ON THE BIBLE

The guidance of the Watchtower Society was that each Witness had to make decisions on the basie of his or her conscience. I give a few examples:

1) Whether to use tobacco or not is a personal decision (The Watchtower of July 1, 1942, page 205):

To be sure, the Society has no power or authority or desire to say that a person who wishes to use tobacco may not do so. Nor can it say, “You may not witness for the Kingdom.”

2) Secular work and activities are matters of conscience. (The Watchtower of September 15, 1951, page 574):

What should be the Christian’s position regarding work in defense plants, serving on juries, selling Christmas cards or trees, etc?—Composite question based on many inquiries.

The Watchtower Society is organized for the purpose of preaching the good news of the Kingdom in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all nations, and it encourages and aids all to have a part in that work, freely advising as to the most effective procedures. As to other forms of activity or work the Society has no specific recommendation to make. To draw up rules for all the possible situations relative to secular work would embark us upon the compilation of a voluminous, Talmudlike set of regulations, seeking to make all the fine distinctions as to when and when not certain work becomes objectionable. The Lord has not laid that responsibility upon the Society; it is each individual’s responsibility to decide his own case.

3) Gambling is a matter of conscience. (The Watchtower of February 1, 1954, page 94):

Can a Christian be employed in a gambling enterprise that is legally recognized and allowed? He may think that he can do so if he refrains from gambling himself or allowing his spiritual brothers to gamble through his services. One may be able to conscientiously do this, while another would not be able to do so in good conscience. Each one will have to decide individually whether he can or cannot do so conscientiously.

4) Using the Christian conscience (The Watchtower of October 1, 1972, page 589):

10 Jehovah God expects us to use our faculties of intelligence, our knowledge, understanding and judgment, and to do conscientiously what our faith points us to do. God does not place us under the conscience of some other human in such matters. We must each make our own decision in harmony with conscience​—conscience molded by God’s Word. We must also take the consequences of our own decisions, not expect someone else to make the decision and bear that responsibility for us.

11 It would therefore be wrong in such matters to try to extract from someone else, from a body of elders or from the governing body of the Christian congregation, some rule or regulation that ‘draws the line’ on matters. Where God’s Word does not itself ‘draw the line,’ no human has the right to add to that Word by doing so. God in his wisdom allows us to show what we are in the “secret person of the heart,” and the decisions we make in such personal cases may reveal this. True, we may err at times without wrong motive, and God, who reads our hearts, can discern this.

All the examples above show the Watchtower Societiy’s respect for the Bible and for the conscience of each Witness.

THE GOVERNING BODY AND THE ELDERS MAKE DECISIONS OVER THE HEADS OF THE WITNESSES

For 40 years after World War II, Christian freedom was cherished, and this is particularly stressed by the following line in the last quotation above:

Where God’s Word does not itself ‘draw the line,’ no human has the right to add to that Word by doing so.

In 1971, the Governing Body was created, and after a while, the situation changed. The members of the Governing Body believed that they had the right to make decisions regarding different issues that every Witness had to follow. This is seen in the article “Doing Work with a Good Conscience before God and Men” in the Kingdom Ministry of September 1976. This article does not discuss nonneutral work specifically, but it is implied. And the principles discussed can also be applied to nonneutral work. On page 1, a basic question is posed regarding what kind of employment a Christian may have:

The principal question is: “Does the work or activity to be performed in itself constitute an act condemned by God’s Word? Or, if it does not, is it nevertheless so directly linked to such condemned practices that it would make those doing such work actual accomplices or promoters of the wrong practice?” In such cases, Christian conscience should surely cause them to reject such employment. (the author’s italics)

The question is important, and the conclusion that if a work ‘accomplices or promotes a wrong practice,’ the Christian should reject such employment, is of course, fine. The article points out that the choice of employment is a personal one based on the conscience of the person. But what if the conscience of a brother allows him to have a particular employment, but the elders in the congregation think that his choice of employment is wrong, and therefore, overrule his conscience? On page 3, we read:

The congregation’s responsibility

Where a brother engages in employment that clearly violates God’s law, the congregation and its elders rightly become concerned on the matter. Where work or a product thereof is condemned in the Scriptures, or is such as to make one an accomplice or promoter in wrongdoing, the elders should first endeavor to help the person see the wrongness of his course. In such cases where the connection is definite and evident, it should be possible to make what the Bible says clear to him and enable him to see why it does indeed apply to him. It may however, take a number of discussions, perhaps over a period of some weeks, to help him see the point and give prayerful consideration to what has been brought to his attention. If it is definitely established that his employment violates Christian principles and he, nevertheless, insists on continuing in it, he may be disfellowshiped from the congregation.

The quotation refers to work that makes “one an accomplice or promoter in wrongdoing,” and then it speaks of a situation “where the connection is definite and evident.” So, the question naturally arises: How can we know that “the connection is definite and evident”? Who decides that? The article shows that the decision is made by the elders in the congregation, and they will help the brother to accept their interpretation of the situation. If the brother cannot accept that his work makes him an accomplice or promoter of wrongdoing, the brother will be disfellowshipped.

In the English legal system, there are two synonymous concepts, namely, “due process of law” and “legal security.” The meaning of both is that a person who is accused of something must have his or her case reviewed by competent people who take the rights of the person, according to the law, into consideration. In other words, the accused persons should have every opportunity to defend themselves, and the proceedings in court should follow the law in every detail.

In the Christian congregation, the laws and principles of the Bible should be used just as the laws of a country are used in a court case. But the important question is: Do the elders follow the principle of “due process of law,” where “law” refers to the laws and principles of the Bible? The answer is a resounding No!  and this is clearly seen in the examples above.

When the elders make their decision, the legal security of the brother is lost because his conscience is not taken into account. And the Witness has no possibility to defend himself. The elders are both the accusers, the “defendants,” and the judges.

EXAMPLES OF THE DICTATES OF THE MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNING BODY

In the quotation from Kingdom Ministry of 1976, there is an important distinction between the words that the author put in italics.

AN ACT THAT IN ITSELF IS CONDEMNED BY GOD’S WORD

The important point is a “work or activity to be performed in itself constitutes an act condemned by God’s Word.” This would, for example, include fighting in a war and killing other people — manslaughter is a biblical disfellowshipping offense. It could also include a situation where a person declared that he was willing to kill someone if he was ordered to do so. This means that being enrolled in the military as a soldier must be said to be “in itself…an act condemned by God’s Word.”

I will show below that accepting civil service as an alternative to military service also is an act that in itself is condemned by God‘s word.

ACCOMPLICES OR PROMOTORS OF A WRONG PRACTICE  

There is a big leap from an act that “in itself” is condemned by God’s Word and being “directly linked” to a condemned practice or “being an accomplice or promoter” of a wrong practice. A person who is not enrolled as a soldier but who is transporting ammunition to those who are firing the canons during a war is “directly linked” to a wrong practice. And the same is true with a person who is working with the enrolling of soldiers. But how can the elders identify actions showing that a brother is an accomplice or promotor of a wrong practice? The members of the Governing Body have given dangerous guidance to the elders.

THE GOVERNING BODY’S DEFINITION OF ACCOMPLICES AND PROMOTORS OF WRONG ACTIONS

In order to illustrate the situation, I will mention to two decisions made by the Governing Body that are referred to by Raymond Franz, who was amember of the Governing Body, in his book Crisis of Conscience, page 114:

Consider this case that came up for discussion and decision by the Governing Body. One of Jehovah’s Witnesses, driving a truck for the Coca-Cola Company, had as his route a large military base where numerous deliveries were made. The question: Could he do this and remain a member in good standing or is this a disfellowshipping offense? (The crucial factor here being that military property and personnel were involved.)

Again, what scriptures discuss such matters—in a way that can be clearly and reasonably seen, in a way that obviates the need for involved reasonings and interpretations? None were brought forward, yet the majority of the Body decided that this work was not acceptable and that the man would have to obtain another route to remain in good standing. A similar case came up involving a Witness musician who played in a “combo” at an officers’ club on a military base. This, too, was ruled unacceptable by the majority of the Body. The Scriptures being silent, human reasoning supplied the answer.

These examples show the extreme position of the members of the Governing Body. Saying that a brother who among other customers delivered Coca Cola to a military base had to change his occupation, is so far from the sense of justice of ordinary Jehovah’s Witnesses, that we must wonder how intelligent persons could make such a decision.

The book Correspondence Guidelines is a help for the branch offices in answering questions. It has 14 examples of employment that can be wrong, according to the Governing Body. Below is an example of work on a military base (pages 45, 46):

Work that is not in itself unscriptural but that closely links one with a wrong practice or makes one a promoter of it:

EXAMPLE: Two baptized women work as maids on a military base. One is employed by a family in their home. The other is employed to clean the barracks.

Comments: The first woman concludes that she can accept employment by the family and not be in conflict with Isaiah 2:4. She reasons that despite the location of her work and the fact that the breadwinner of the family is involved in work out of harmony with Isaiah 2:4, she is providing a common service for individuals in a home and is not employed directly by an organization that is in conflict with the Scriptures. (2 Ki. 5:2, 3, 15-19; Phil. 4:22) She may continue to be a member of the congregation, but if she seeks the privilege of pioneer service, consideration may have to be given to how her employment is affecting others and whether she is viewed as a good example.

The other woman, by her regular work, is performing a needed service that facilitates the overall objectives of an organization whose purpose is out of harmony with Isaiah 2:4. In addition, she is paid by that organization, works on its property, and is regularly doing work that supports that organization and its objectives. She is in conflict with Isaiah 2:4. Unless she makes a change in her employment, she will be viewed as having dissociated herself.

EXAMPLE: A brother learns that a small portion of the equipment he normally makes on a line producing commercial aircraft will now be diverted to a use out of harmony with Isaiah 2:4.

Comments: If only a small portion of what he produces will now be diverted to nonneutral purposes, an adjustment in employment would not be required, although his own conscience might motivate him to seek work that does not require that he do anything objectionable. He might continue to enjoy special privileges as long as he has the

respect of the congregation. However, if he agreed to do an increasing amount of the nonneutral work, though most of what he produced was still not objectionable, he might get to the point where he would be disqualified for special privileges. (w64 11/15 703) Moreover, if what he produced that was for a purpose contrary to Isaiah 2:4 increased to the point that it was evident that he was significantly contributing by his intellect and skills to nonneutral activities, he could not remain a part of the neutral congregation unless he made adjustments in his type of employment. (w67 6/15 369) Determinations in such situations are not made according to a percentage formula, as if one half or more of the work’s being unscriptural would require an adjustment and less than one half would require no adjustment. Each person should be encouraged to make decisions in life that do not suggest that he is seeing how close to the line of unacceptability he can walk.

In the first example above, the situation of wrongdoing is clear for the elders. If a brother or sister has any kind of work at a military base, he or she will be thrown out of the congregation if he or she does not quit after six months.

The second situation is less clear. The issue is how much of the work of a brother whose work is non-military does support the military. I will use the following example:

A brother works at a plant that produces different engine parts. The products are sold to car manufacturers, boat manufacturers, and manufacturers of other products. The plant also has a contract with the armed forces to deliver engine parts for their military vehicles. Even though deliveries to the different branches of the armed forces only represent a small part of the production, the elders of his congregation decide that the brother is an “accomplice of nonneutral activities.” Therefore, they discuss the situation with him, and he is given an ultimatum: “You have six months to find a new job. If you, after that time, continue in your old job, this will beevidence that you have voluntarily disassociated yourself from the congregation because you do not want to be a Witness any longer.”

In this case, the brother has no “legal rights” because his conscience does not count.  The elders are the accusers, the “defendants,” and the judges.

Let us now look at the four examples mentioned above where the members of the Governing Body have made decisions. The sister who was a maid for the family of an officer on a military base was allowed to continue her work and continue to be a part of the congregation. However, the brother who delivered Coca Cola to a military base, the one who played his instrument in an officer’s club on a military base, and the sister who cleaned the barracks on a military base, had to change their work or else be viewed as persons who had disassociated themselves from the congregation. This also means that persons who were in the same situation had to change their job to become baptized.

THE DECISIONS OF GOVERNING BODY CONTRADICT PASSAGES IN THE BIBLE

The decisions mentioned above are contradicted by passages in the Bible dealing with the Roman officer Cornelius and Sergius Paulus, the Proconsul of Cyprus. I quote from The Watchtower of September 1, 1986, page 19 (above), and Insight in the Holy Scriptures, volume 2, page 690 (below):

11 Some may ask, ‘What of Cornelius, the centurion, and Sergius Paulus, the army-backed proconsul in Cyprus? Were not these men associated with the military?’ Yes, at the time they accepted the Christian message. The Scriptures, though, do not tell us what Cornelius and others did after their conversion. No doubt Sergius Paulus, who was an intelligent man and “astounded at the teaching of Jehovah,” would soon scrutinize his secular position in the light of his newfound faith and make a proper decision. Cornelius would have done likewise. (Acts 10:1, 2, 44-48; 13:7, 12) There is no record that the disciples told them what action they must take. They could see that from their own study of God’s Word.​—Isaiah 2:2-4; Micah 4:3.

12 Similarly, Christians today should not instruct others personally as to what stand they must take on issues related to Christian neutrality. Each one must make his own conscientious decisions in line with his understanding of Bible principles.​—Galatians 6:4, 5.

A proconsul is “Principal local administrator of a province that was under the supervision of the Roman Senate… It was the proconsul’s responsibility to direct the civil affairs of the province, make judicial decisions, and maintain law and order. His jurisdiction was supreme in the province, although his actions were subject to review by the Roman senate.

Cornelius was an army officer who commanded 100 soldiers. While he was an army officer, Jehovah saw his good heart, and he led Peter to preach to him. Cornelius and his family were baptized in water and in holy spirit while he still was a commanding officer. Today, Cornelius would have had to change his job before he could have been baptized. But God did not require that.

Sergius Paulus was a high official who was the political leader of the big island Cyprus. He became a Christion according to Acts 13:7, 12, and undoubtedly, he was baptized in water. But God did not require that he should step down from his high political position to become a Christian. The actions of the two after they became Christians we do not know.

Let us now apply the situations viewed as compromises by the members of the Governing Body that are mentioned above to the situation of Cornelius. This army officer and, evidently, some of his soldiers, relatives, and friends were baptized. Roman officers and soldiers lived in a castra, which were military bases, often with barracks. Suppose now that there was a Christian sister in Caesarea who had the job of cleaning the house of Cornelius and the barracks at the military base. Would the elders say to the sister that she had to find another job within six months, or else she had renounced her Christian faith? Or a brother who was a fruit seller and who regularly delivered fruits to the military base, had he violated his neutrality? Today, congregation members who did something similar would be thrown out of the congregation.

It is obvious that because Cornelius was approved by God while he was an officer, a Christian sister who worked for him would also be approved by God. We should also keep in mind that The Watchtower of September 15, 1951, page 574, which is quoted at the beginning, showed that each Christian would, on the basis of his conscience, decide whether to work for a military organization or not. The magazine said that the Watchtower Society did not have the responsibility to make decisions as to what kind of work Christians should have.

Table 1.1 Decisions regarding right and wrong work

1951 “The Lord has not laid that responsibility upon the Society; it is each individual’s responsibility to decide his own case.” 
21st century The Lord has laid that responsibility upon the Society; it is not each individual’s responsibility to decide his own case. 

These situations teach us an important lesson. Paul appealed his case to Caesar, according to Acts 25:11, 12. This shows that he accepted the legal system in the Roman Empire. On his journey to Rome, Paul was guarded by an army officer and his soldiers. (Acts 27:1). When he came to Rome, he was guarded by a soldier. (Acts 28:16) Had Paul compromised his neutrality by appealing to a situation where army officers and soldiers played an important role? Absolutely not. It shows that army soldiers and officers in the Roman Empire had different roles apart from defending the country if it was attacked.

The fact behind all the situations where Christians, according to the members of the Governing Body, compromise their neutrality, is that they offer the same services to soldiers and military bases that they offer to all humans. It requires the minds of extremists to claim that such services represent a compromise of the Christian faith and a violation of a person’s neutrality.

Please compare the laws made by the members of the Governing Body with the advice of the Watchtower Society at the beginning of this study.

Only when soldiers violate God’s laws by killing humans when there is a war, and a Christian directly supports these soldiers, has the Christian compromised his neutrality. He does not wrongly support the military if he performs services at the military bases that he offers to all humans.

THE GOVERNING BODY HAS RENOUNCED THE POSITION OF JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES AS AMBASSADORS

In many countries after World War II, male Witnesses served prison sentences of 18 months or more because they would not compromise their position of being ambassadors for God’s kingdom. In the year 1996, the members of the Governing Body, on behalf of the whole community of Jehovah’s Witnesses, renounced the position of ambassadors.  If this action was right, it showed that  all the suffering faithful Witnesses had experienced in the past had been in vain.

First, I will say a few words about military service from the point of view of the Bible. The Watchtower, of December 15, 1957, speaks about military service. On page 756, we read:

“In Jehovah God’s wisdom his inspired Holy Scriptures refrain from giving direct advice. His Scriptures merely state the theocratic principles that should govern Christians and then leave it to the dedicated Christians . . . to maintain integrity toward God. Apart from explaining what the true Scriptural Christian principles in God’s Word are, no individual Christian or body of Christians has the divine commission or the responsibility to instruct another Christian directly what to do in this matter. Each one must decide for himself what to do.” [italics mine.]

The first point here is that no passage in the Bible says that a Christian should not do military service, and therefore, no one should advise another person in connection with military service. The second point is that the Bible has principles that can guide a Christian in connection with military service. What are these principles? The Watchtower of February 1, 1951, page 79, illuminates this question:

Being such ministers and preachers, they have not abandoned their neutrality as conscientious objectors and turned aside to engage in military support of this or that side of any worldly conflict. Jesus predicted their neutrality and their preaching activities at this militant time…

To these Christian witnesses the apostle Paul wrote: “He committed the message of the reconciliation to us. We are therefore ambassadors substituting for Christ, as though God were making entreaty through us. As substitutes for Christ we beg: ‘Become reconciled to God.’” (2 Cor. 5:19, 20NW) As “ambassadors substituting for Christ” Jehovah’s witnesses have conscientious objection to serving in the military and related establishments of the nations.

19 Ambassadors are exempt from military service in the nation to which their government sends them, especially in a hostile nation. Remember, in Bible times ambassadors were sent, not to friendly nations, but to nations at war or threatening war. God’s ambassadors substituting for Christ are not sent to friendly nations, but to hostile nations. All nations of this world of Satan are hostile to God. The message given these ambassadors to deliver is, “Become reconciled to God.” This shows that the nations are not friendly. How, then, could these ambassadors Scripturally serve in the military forces of such nations or Scripturally consent to do so when required by national law? 

The answer is that Christians should behave as ambassadors to the nations of this world. When Witnesses in Norway after World War II refused to do military service, they could do alternative civil service instead. But when they refused to do this alternative service, they were put in jail.

Why did the young Witnesses not accept alternative civil service? I use the following illustration: If a young man gets a fine because the police believe he has broken the law, and if the young man pays the fine, he admits that he is guilty and has broken the law. However, if he does not concur that he is guilty, he will refuse to pay the fine. In that case, he will be taken to court, and the ruling of the court may be that he has to pay the fine. In that case, he has two options. He can pay the fine decided by the court, or he can refuse to pay. If he refuses, the police will either take him to jail or garnish a small amount of money from his salary every month until the fine has been paid. Paying the fine under these circumstances does not represent an admission of guilt for breaking the law. It is simply an acknowledgment that he is powerless in relation to the ruling of the court.

The viewpoints of young Witnesses in Norway when they refused both military service and the alternative civil service are based on The Watchtower February 1, 1951, which is quoted above, and the book Let God Be True (1946).

THE CLAIM OF BEING AMBASSADORS FOR GOD’S KINGDOM

Because of the words of Paul in 2 Corinthians 5:20, young Witnesses who were called to do military service did the same as an ambassador of a foreign country would do: They refused to do military service. In some countries, like Norway and Denmark, the Witnesses who refused military service were asked to do alternative civil service instead. But again, they did the same as an ambassador would have done: They refused to do alternative civil service. There was nothing wrong with the civil service in itself. But the point is that like an ambassador, who does not accept that the nation to which he is an ambassador has the right to put him under compulsory service, the Witnesses did not accept that any nation had the right to put them under compulsory service — they would be neutral to the pursuits of the nations of the world.

The book Let God Be True, which was designed for Bible study, was published in 1946. This book has a detailed description of the real issue. On pages 227-230 we read:

Since Jehovah’s government, standing forever, is the greatest of all governments, it follows that his ministers or ambassadors should have the same rights and exemptions as the ministers of this world have. An ambassador of a foreign power is by the laws of this world exempt from payment of tax and the giving of allegiance to the government of the land where he is domiciled. He is relieved of rendering political obligations of any sort. The nation wherein he resides is without authority to impose any regulation that burdens or abridges the performance of his duty as such

The time, energy and life of the witness of Jehovah are dedicated exclusively to the service of Almighty God. He has entered into a covenant or contract with Almighty God to perform faithfully his God-given preaching activity as long as he lives, and never to turn away therefrom. His turning aside from that assigned duty, to engage in serving another master, to perform other work assigned by the civil state, or his refraining from preaching because of compliance with arbitrary commands to stop, is in the eyes of Jehovah covenant-breaking

EXEMPTION

The preaching activity of Jehovah’s witnesses as ministers entitles them to claim exemption from performing military training and service in the armed forces of the nations wherein they dwell. The exempt status of Jehovah’s witnesses also relieves them of the performance of governmental work required of conscientious objectors to both combatant and noncombatant military service, because Jehovah’s witnesses are ministers of the gospel and are not religious, political or academic pacifists. They claim neutrality and the rights of neutrals because of their status as ambassadors of the kingdom of Almighty God. This is exactly the same position taken by Christ Jesus and his apostles. (John 18 : 36) Additionally, that position was assumed at Rome by early Christians, who were thrown to the lions by the authoritarian rulers…

For another reason each minister of Almighty God as a follower of Christ Jesus claims his exemption from military training and service: He is in the army of Christ Jesus, serving as a soldier of Jehovah’s appointed Commander, Christ Jesus. (2 Timothy 2 : 3, 4) Inasmuch as the war weapons of the soldier of Christ Jesus are not carnal, he is not authorized by his Commander to engage in carnal warfare of this world. (2 Corinthians 10 :3,4 ; Ephesians 6 : 11-18) Furthermore, being enlisted in the army of Christ Jesus, he cannot desert the forces of Jehovah to assume the obligations of a soldier in any army of this world without being guilty of desertion and suffering the punishment meted out to deserters by Almighty God.

The following points are expressed in the quotation:

  • Jehovah’s Witnesses are ambassadors for God’s Kingdom, and therefore, they are neutral to the pursuits of the nations.
  • Because they are ambassadors, they refuse military service and other compulsory service.
  • Each Witness is a part of the army of Jesus, and to use time for any form of compulsory service would be the same as desertion from this army.

I studied the book Let God Be True when I became a Witness in 1961, and almost all interested persons who became Witnesses studied the same book. This means that the Witnesses knew that they were ambassadors and would be neutral to all pursuits of the nation where they lived. And this continued for 50 years after World War II. The result of this was that thousands of young Witnesses who refused both military service and alternative civil service, had to serve jail sentences of 18 months or several years. However, in the year 1996, there was a reversal of the position of being ambassadors and being neutral to the pursuits of the world.

This new position was a clear compromise because from now on, Jehovah’s Witnesses could not rightly claim to be ambassadors for God’s Kingdom. The Watchtower Society are still claiming that the Witnesses are ambassadors, but on the mentioned background, this is a hollow claim without any substance.

ABANDONING THE POSITION OF BEING AMBASSADORS FOR GOD’S KINGDOM

Jehovah’s Witnesses claim to be ambassadors for God’s kingdom, and they want to behave like ambassadors in a foreign country. If an ambassador is summoned to serve 18 months in the armed forces of Norway, he will refuse. If the authorities demand that as an alternative to military service, he must accept 18 months of civil service, the ambassador will likewise refuse. He will not refuse civil service because there is something inherently wrong with this service. But he will refuse it because he is an ambassador, and the authorities have no right to demand any kind of compulsory service from him.

After World War II, Jehovah’s Witnesses took a similar standpoint. They refused military service and the alternative civil service because they did not accept that the state had the right to demand any kind of compulsory service from them because they were ambassadors. The Norwegian authorities understood the position of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and they made a law that was designed for the Witnesses and the few others who took a similar stance.

When a young Witness refused military service and civil service, he was taken to court. The court used the aforementioned law to rule that the young Witness “would be forced to fulfill his conscription under the administration of the jail authorities.” There was a farm at Dillingøy, near Moss, in south-eastern Norway, and young Witnesses were sent to this farm to do different kinds of farm works. Because of the court ruling, the Witness who accepted to work on the farm for 18 months, did not do it because he accepted that the Norwegian state had the right to impose compulsory service on him. He only accepted that he was powerless in relation to the ruling of the court.

The young Witnesses in the Netherlands had the same problems as the Witnesses in Norway. To ease the situation, three brothers from the branch office had a meeting with the authorities, and a report of this meeting in Awake! of December 8, 1974, page 24, says:

On March 26, 1971, three representatives of Jehovah’s witnesses met with a forum representing the ministries of Defense and Justice. The discussion lasted two and a half hours.

One of the first points of discussion presented by the forum was this: “That you wish no part in performing military service is clear and needs no further explanation. But what really is your objection to civil, alternative service?”

The Witnesses explained that it is not that they are opposed to civil service as such, but, rather, it is a matter of strict neutrality. Therefore, any work that is merely a substitute for military service would be unacceptable to Jehovah’s witnesses.

Other questions narrowed the issue down still further. “When a person objects to military service,” the government’s agents declared, “he passes from military jurisdiction on to civil jurisdiction and from that moment has nothing at all to do with the military. Why, then, is the accepting of such civil service still so objectionable?”

Willingly accepting such work is objectionable to the Christian because of what God’s law says about the matter: “You were bought with a price; stop becoming slaves of men.” (1 Cor. 7:23) Civilian servitude as a substitute for military service would be just as objectionable to the Christian. In effect, he would thereby become a part of the world instead of keeping separate as Jesus commanded.John 15:19;17:14-16.

The arguments of the Dutch Witnesses were similar to those used in Norway, though being presented from a different angle. In Norway, we stressed that because we are ambassadors, the authorities have no right to impose any compulsory service on us. To accept civil service as a substitute for military service would, therefore, be a compromise. The Dutch Witnesses stressed that by accepting civil service, we would compromise our neutrality and become slaves of men and a part of the world. The bottom line of both approaches was that accepting civil service as an alternative to military service would be a compromise of Christian neutrality.

However, an article in The Watchtower of May 1, 1996, presented a completely new view of civil service as an alternative to military service. The question to paragraph 16 on page 20 is: “In some lands, what nonmilitary service does Caesar demand of those who do not accept military service?” The following answer is given:

16 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 nonmilitary 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.

  1. Is there a Biblical precedent for nonmilitary civilian service?

17 It seems that compulsory service was practiced in Bible times. One history book states: “In addition to the taxes and dues exacted from the inhabitants of Judea, there was also a corvée [unpaid labor exacted by public authorities]. This was an ancient institution in the East, which the Hellenistic and Roman authorities continued to maintain. . . . The New Testament, too, cites examples of corvée in Judea, showing how widespread it was. In accordance with this custom, the soldiers pressed Simon of Cyrene into carrying Jesus’ cross [torture stake] (Matthew 5:41;27:32; Mark 15:21; Luke 23:26).”

  1. With what nonmilitary, nonreligious types of community service do Jehovah’s Witnesses frequently cooperate?

18 Similarly, citizens in some countries today are required by the State or by local authorities to participate in various forms of community service. Sometimes this is for a specific task, such as digging wells or building roads; sometimes it is on a regular basis, such as weekly participation in cleaning up roads, schools, or hospitals. 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. (1 Peter 2:13-15) This has usually resulted in an excellent witness and has sometimes silenced those who falsely accuse the Witnesses of being antigovernment.—Compare Matthew 10:18.

  1. How should a Christian approach the matter if Caesar asks him to perform nonmilitary national service for a period of time?

19 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.” (Romans 14:10) 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.—Proverbs 2:1-5;Philippians 4:5.

  1. What questions and Scriptural principles help a Christian to reason on the matter of nonmilitary national civilian service?

20 While engaged in such research, Christians would consider a number of Bible principles. Paul said that we must “be obedient to governments and authorities as rulers, . . . be ready for every good work . . . be reasonable, exhibiting all mildness toward all men.” (Titus 3:1, 2) At the same time, Christians would do well to examine the proposed civilian work. If they accept it, will they be able to maintain Christian neutrality? (Micah 4:3, 5; John 17:16) Would it involve them with some false religion? (Revelation 18:4, 20, 21) Would performing it prevent or unreasonably limit them from fulfilling their Christian responsibilities? (Matthew 24:14; Hebrews 10:24, 25) On the other hand, would they be able to continue to make spiritual progress, perhaps even sharing in the full-time ministry while performing the required service?—Hebrews 6:11, 12.

  1. Whatever his decision, how should the congregation view a brother who is handling the matter of nonmilitary national civilian service?

21 What if the Christian’s honest answers to such questions lead him to conclude that the national civilian service is a “good work” that he can perform in obedience to the authorities? That is his decision before Jehovah. Appointed elders and others should fully respect the conscience of the brother and continue to regard him as a Christian in good standing. If, however, a Christian feels that he cannot perform this civilian service, his position should also be respected. He too remains in good standing and should receive loving support.1 Corinthians 10:29; 2 Corinthians 1:24; 1 Peter 3:16.

  1. Whatever situation faces us, what will we continue to do?

22 As Christians we will not cease to render “to him who calls for honor, such honor.” (Romans 13:7) We will respect good order and seek to be peaceful, law-abiding citizens. (Psalm 34:14) We may even pray “concerning kings and all those who are in high station” when these men are called upon to make decisions that affect our Christian life and work. As a result of our paying back Caesar’s things to Caesar, we hope that “we may go on leading a calm and quiet life with full godly devotion and seriousness.” (1 Timothy 2:1, 2) Above all, we will continue to preach the good news of the Kingdom as mankind’s only hope, conscientiously paying back God’s things to God.

If we compare the article from 1996 with the other articles that are quoted above, what conclusions can we draw? At first glance, we could draw the conclusion that this article accords with the article from December 15, 1957, that because the Bible only has principles and not laws in connection with military service, each one must decide what to do. But that would be a wrong conclusion!

As a matter of fact, the 1996 article turns the position of Christians being ambassadors and not being a part of the world upside down. And there is no biblical reason given for this. But the reason is that the members of the Governing Body had changed their minds. So, the important question is: Are Christians obliged to follow the decisions of the Governing Body when they change to an opposite view based on their own subjective viewpoint instead of providing a clear scriptural reason for the change? My answer is an emphatic No!

Consider the details:

 First, the status of being ambassadors, as expressed in The Watchtower of February 1, 1951, in Let God Be True, and in later articles, has been abandoned. When a Witness refuses military service but accepts alternative civil service, he is no longer acting as an ambassador because no ambassador would accept compulsory service in any form.

Second, to accept civil service as a substitute for military service would make us slaves of men and a part of the world, as it is expressed in Awake! of December 8, 1974. This was the very reason why young Witnesses refused alternative civil service, as it was stated to the authorities of the Netherlands, according to the Awake! article. The 1996 Watchtower article is a direct contradiction of the Awake! article of 1974. In effect, the Governing Body says, “You are not slaves of men, you are not a part of the world, and you are, somehow, still ambassadors of Christ even when you accept alternative civil service.” But this is wrong.[1]

The two biblical references to justify the new view are strange indeed:

First, the principle “we must be paying back Caesar’s things to Ceasar” is used (red text). But we must remember that Matthew 22:21 also says that we must pay God’s things to God.” And the view among Jehovah’s Witnesses until 1996 was that to accept alternative civil service would be the same as paying God’s things to Caesar. But now the view of the Governing Body has changed to the very opposite.

Second, the words of Paul in Titus 3:1 “to be obedient to governments and authorities” (blue text) are used. But Acts 5:29 shows that our obedience is relative because we “must obey God as ruler rather than men.” Using the two mentioned scriptures as arguments for alternative service does not even begin to justify this change in viewpoint.

The discussion stresses the nature of the civilian service and not the right of the authorities to put Christians under civil service. This shows that either the members of the Governing Body do not understand the situation or they try to cover up the real issue.

The Christian Greek Scriptures show that Christians are ambassadors of God’s kingdom. The Governing Body has implicitly abandoned this position by accepting alternative compulsory civil service when military service is refused.

I have now discussed alternative civil service for those who refuse to do military service.  But the article of 1996 also discusses different forms of community service that are required by the state, for example, digging up wells and building roads. In such situations, the article showed that each one must make a personal decision to participate or not. This is, of course, good advice.

But which principles should be considered when making that decision? I will apply the basic principle that has been abandoned by the Governing Body, namely, the status of all of Jesus’ followers as ambassadors. In my view, the first question to ask is: Would an ambassador have accepted such a compulsory service? If not, the Christian ambassador cannot accept this form of service.

To make a rule for every situation is, of course, impossible, and some situations may not be subject to the ambassador question. For example, a Norwegian citizen will pay taxes to the state and to the community. But an ambassador will not be paying taxes. If a situation of compulsory service can be shown to be comparable to paying taxes, which is a biblical requirement (Romans 13:6), this service may be acceptable for the Christian. For example, a Christian lives in an African village without a road. The authorities decide to build a road and demand that the villagers work on it. Otherwise, the villagers must pay the price for the work done by others. In another village, a well is needed, and the chief of the village decides that every young man must take part in the work of digging the well. Such compulsory work under these circumstances does not compromise the status of Christians as ambassadors or make them slaves of men. But, accepting civil service as an alternative to military service is a compromise because the position of Christians as ambassadors for God’s kingdom has been abandoned.

Accepting civil service as an alternative for military service is the same as renouncing the position of ambassadors for God’s kingdom. No ambassador for a foreign country would accept that the foreign state had the authority to place him under compulsory service.

THE DEVELOPMENT INSIDE THE GOVERNING BODY THAT LED TO THE ABANDONING OF THE POSITION AS AMBASSADORS  

Raymond Franz has a long discussion about military service and alternative civil service in his book Crisis of Conscience. He tells that in November 1978, a letter arrived from a Witness in Belgium who questioned the policy of refusing alternative service. On page 125, Franz shows the reaction of the members of the Governing Body to this letter:

This led to the alternative service issue being dealt with by the Governing Body in a number of lengthy and intense discussions, first on January 28, 1978, then on March 1, and again on September 26, October 11, October 18 and November 15. A worldwide survey was made and letters were received from some 90 branch offices.

As documentation shows, many Branch office committees, including those from several major countries, indicated that the Witness men affected did not understand either the logic or the Scripturalness of the organization’s position. In a number of cases the Branch committees themselves raised questions as to the rightness of the policy and presented Scriptural reasons for allowing the matter to be one of conscience.

The whole situation outlined by Franz is strange, particularly because the information given in the Bible study book Let God Be True (1946) is crystal clear: Because Jehovah’s Witnesses are ambassadors for God’s Kingdom, they are neutral to all the pursuits of the nations. And as ambassadors, they do not accept that any nation can put them under compulsory service. Franz was one of those who strongest argued for a change, and because of this, it is strange that he himself did not understand what the issue was all about. On page 124 in Crisis of Conscience, he writes:

The official position of the Watch Tower Society, developed in the early 1940s during the Second World War, was that if one of Jehovah’s Witnesses accepted such alternative service he had “compromised,” had broken integrity with God. The reasoning behind this was that because this service was a “substitute” it therefore took the place of what it substituted for and (so the reasoning apparently went) came to stand for the same thing. Since it was offered in place of military service and since military service involved (potentially at least) the shedding of blood, then anyone accepting the substitute became “bloodguilty.” This remarkable policy developed before the Governing Body became a genuine reality and was evidently decided upon by Fred Franz and Nathan Knorr during the period when they produced all major policy decisions. Failure to adhere to this policy would mean being viewed automatically as “disassociated” and being treated the same as if disfellowshiped.

I have never heard or seen the word “bloodguilt” mentioned in connection with alternative civil service, as Franz says. And he has not understood the point that ambassadors do not accept compulsory service. On page 135 he says that “I personally had already presented to the Body some fourteen pages of historical, Scriptural and lexical evidence pointing in the same direction [of changing the present policy].” This shows again his lack of understanding of the real issue. No historical or lexical evidence has anything to do with the issue. There is only the Scriptural evidence that counts, and that is the words of Paul in 2 Corinthians 5:20 that each Christian is an ambassador for God’s Kingdom. If this scripture is taken at face value, there is no room for alternative civil service instead of military service.

In footnote 12 on page 124, Franz writes: “As late as November 1, 1990 Watchtower, this [that civil service stands for the same thing as military service] was alluded to as a ‘compromising substitute’ for an unscriptural service.” But his misunderstanding of the real issue caused him to fail to understand the argument of The Watchtower of May 1, 1990. Romans chapter 13 is discussed, including the paying of taxes (verse 7). And the words of Jesus, “Pay back Caesar’s things to Caesar” are quoted. Then the magazine on page 12 says:

Hence, when Christians are ordered by governments to share in community works, they quite properly comply as long as those works do not amount to a compromising substitute for some unscriptural service or otherwise violate Scriptural principles, such as that found aIsaiah 2:4.

The point here is that just as the authorities have the right to order the inhabitants to pay taxes, they have also the right to order “community service,” which can be viewed as a tax. But “community service” as a compulsory service that is an alternative to compulsory military service would be an unscriptural compromise. The important thing to notice is that Franz’s memorandum of 14 pages would lead the members of the Governing Body in a wrong direction because the real issue became clouded and was not mentioned at all.

Let us then look at the description of the proceedings of the Governing Body regarding alternative civil service. In Crisis of Conscience, page 135, we read:

At the October 11, 1978, meeting, of thirteen members present, nine voted in favor of changing the traditional policy so that the decision to accept or reject alternative service would be left to the conscience of the individual; four did not vote for this. The result? Since there were then sixteen members in the Body (though not all were present) and since nine was not two-thirds of sixteen, no change was made.

On October 18 there was discussion on the subject but no vote taken. On November 15, all sixteen members were present and eleven voted for changing the policy so that the Witness who conscientiously felt he could accept such service would not be automatically categorized as unfaithful to God and disassociated from the congregation. This was a two-thirds majority. Was the change made? No, for after a brief intermission, Governing Body member Lloyd Barry, who had voted with the majority in favor of a change, announced that he had changed his mind and would vote for continuance of the traditional policy. That destroyed the two-thirds majority. A subsequent vote taken, with fifteen members present, showed nine favoring a change, five against and one abstention.

Six sessions of the Governing Body had discussed the issue and, when votes were taken, in every case a majority of the Governing Body members had favored removal of the existing policy. The one vote with the two-thirds majority lasted less than one hour and the policy remained in force. As a result Witness men were still expected to risk imprisonment rather than accept alternative service—even though, as the letters coming in from the survey showed, they might conscientiously feel such acceptance was proper in God’s sight.

Incredible as it may seem, this was the position taken, and most members of the Body appeared to accept it all as nothing to be disturbed about. They were, after all, simply following the rules in force. A year later, on September 15, 1979, another vote was taken and it was evenly divided, half for a change, half against.

It seems to me that Franz, who so strongly favored a change, led the members of the Governing Body in a wrong direction because he did not understand the real issue. That so many were in favor of a change, shows in my view the lack of balance and understanding of these members of the Governing Body. The words of Paul in 2 Corinthians 5:20 and the comments on these words by the book Let God Be True should have prevented all these discussions. Franz criticizes Barry for his stance, but the memorandum of Barry that Franz criticizes really accords with 2 Corinthians 5:20. In his book In Search for Christian Freedom, pages 263. 264, Franz quotes the memorandum written by Barry:

In this, the issue is not taxation, employment, etc., but COMPROMISE. We are agreed that we should not take up arms for the military. Then we should be agreed, too, that if the military or any other agency asks us to do something as a substitute therefore, we do not accept the alternative. That is our action. Then, if we are handed over to a court, and a judge sentences us, that is his action. We accept the sentence. We have not compromised. We are integrity keepers. It is as simple as all that. —Job 27:5.

Whether Barry, in the discussion of his memorandum, mentioned 2 Corinthians 5:20 or not we do not know. But his words both accords with the words of this scripture and with the words of Let God Be True. This shows that Barry, in contrast with Franz, understood what the real issue was.  The view of alternative civil service was not changed in 1977 and 1978, and the conclusion of Franz regarding this is found in Crisis of Conscience, pages 135, 136:

For another 16 years the policy remained in effect, until the May 1, 1996 Watchtower abruptly decreed that acceptance of alternative service was now a matter of conscience. During those 16 years, thousands of Witnesses, mainly young men, spent time in prison for refusing to accept assignments to perform various forms of community service as an alternative to military service. As late as 1988, a report by Amnesty International stated that in France, “More than 500 conscientious objectors to military service, the vast majority of them Jehovah’s Witnesses, were imprisoned during the year.” For the same year, in Italy, “Approximately 1,000 conscientious objectors, mostly Jehovah’s Witnesses, were reported to be imprisoned in 10 military prisons for refusing to perform military service or the alternative civilian service.”

That is just a partial picture. If that one Governing Body member had not changed his vote in 1978, virtually none of these men would have gone to prison—for the branch office committees’ reports give clear evidence that it was not the personal, individual consciences of these young men that produced the imprisonment. It was the compulsion to adhere to an organizationally imposed policy. The policy change is unquestionably welcome. Nonetheless, the fact that it took some 50 years for the organization’s to finally remove itself from this area of personal conscience surely has significance. One cannot but think of all the thousands of years collectively lost during half a century by Witness men as to their freedom to associate with family and friends, or to contribute to their own economy and the economy of those related to them, or pursue other worthwhile activities in ways not possible within prison walls. It represents an incredible waste of valuable years for the simple reason that it was unnecessary, being the result of an unscriptural position, imposed by organizational authority.

Franz hailed the change of 1996, and he expressed regrets that it took 50 years to change the policy. But the real truth is the very opposite. It took 50 years to reach the compromise by which the status of ambassadors for God’s Kingdom was abolished. All the time in jail of thousands of male Witnesses was not a waste of time from the point ov view of Jehovah God. It was an expression of the strong faith of all these men and their loyalty to the king Jesus Christ.

In 1978, Lloyd Barry called the acceptance of alternative civil service that was decided by the Governing Body in 1996 a COMPROMISE. This was a true characterization because the position of Jehovah’s Witnesses as ambassadors of God’s Kingdom was now compromised and abolished.

[1]. I have shown above that the changed view of civil service as an alternative for military service, the position of being ambassadors, was rejected. However, the book How to Remain in God’s Love (2017), page 61, says: “Ambassadors represent their government in a foreign land, and they do not get involved in the politics of that land. The anointed, who have the hope of ruling with Christ in heaven, are in a similar situation. Paul wrote to anointed Christians: “We are ambassadors substituting for Christ.” (2 Corinthians 5:20) The anointed represent God’s government. They do not get involved in the political and governmental issues of this world.” (Philippians 3:20). This is the same standpoint that was expressed in The Watchtower of February 1, 1951. But this view is still not applied in connection with military service and civil service. So, the members of the Governing Body say one thing, but they do something different.

THE GOVERNING BODY’S STRESS ON THE WRONG VALUES

In connection with the actions of the Pharisees, Jesus said to them “You strain out the gnat, but gulp down the camel.” (Matthew 23:34) When they drank wine, they strained out a very small gnat because it was ceremonially unclean. But they gulped down the ceremonially unclean camel that was hundreds of times bigger than the gnat. This is a very good illustration of the actions of the members of the Governing Body in their handling of the cases dealing with compromising the neutrality of Christians.

The compromise is to accept compulsory service. But doing good to all kinds of people is not a compromise. I quote Galatians 6:10 (above) and Matthew 5:43-48 (below):

10 Really, then, as long as we have time favorable for it, let us work what is good toward all, but especially toward those related to [us] in the faith.

43 “YOU heard that it was said, ‘You must love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 However, I say to YOU: Continue to love YOUR enemies and to pray for those persecuting YOU; 45 that YOU may prove yourselves sons of YOUR Father who is in the heavens, since he makes his sun rise upon wicked people and good and makes it rain upon righteous people and unrighteous. 46 For if YOU love those loving YOU, what reward do YOU have? Are not also the tax collectors doing the same thing? 47And if YOU greet YOUR brothers only, what extraordinary thing are YOU doing? Are not also the people of the nations doing the same thing? 48 YOU must accordingly be perfect, as YOUR heavenly Father is perfect.

Jesus did good to all people. He socialized with all people, with prostitutes and tax collectors. And when he did a service to a person, that did not mean that he supported the bad actions of the person. It is nonsensical to claim that a sister who does cleaning work at a military base or a brother who is a merchant who regularly delivers vegetables to a military base have compromised their neutrality. This is to strain out the gnat. But when the members of the Governing Body accept alternative service instead of military service, they are gulping down the camel, they have compromised their position of ambassadors.

Most of the actions that the members of the Governing Body have classified as violations of the Christian neutrality are fully permissible for Christians on the basis of the principles of the Christian Greek Scriptures. But the decision of the members of the Governing Body of accepting alternative civil service is a compromise and a rejection of the position of Christians as ambassadors for the kingdom of God.

Rolf Furuli

Author Rolf Furuli

More posts by Rolf Furuli

Leave a Reply