REJECTING THE POSITION OF AMBASSADORS FOR GOD’S KINGDOM
Paul shows that Christians were ambassadors for God’s Kingdom. In 2 Corinthians 5:20, we read:
We are ambassadors substituting for Christ, as though God were making entreaty through us. As substitutes for Christ, we beg: “Become reconciled to God.”
The history of early Christianity shows that Christians refused to become soldiers and remained neutral toward the pursuits of the Roman Empire.
HOW THE POSITION OF AMBASSADORS WAS PRACTICED
Because of Paul’s words in 2 Corinthians 5:20, young Witnesses who were called to serve in the military did the same as an ambassador of a foreign country would: they refused to serve. In some countries, like Norway and Denmark, the Witnesses who refused military service were offered the option of performing alternative civil service instead. But again, they did the same as an ambassador would have: they refused to perform 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.
REFUSING TO DO MILITARY SERVICE
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.
- As ambassadors, they refuse military 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 did the same. This means that the Witnesses knew that they were ambassadors and would be neutral to all pursuits of the nation where they lived.
The importance of being an ambassador was stressed in The Watchtower of February 1, 1951, page 79:
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…
8 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, 20, NW) 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?
Refusing military service is a delicate issue, in which each Christian has to make their decision. This is pointed out in The Watchtower of December 15, 1957, page 756:
“In Jehovah God’s wisdom his inspired Holy Scriptures refrain from giving direct advice [of refusing military service]. 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.”
The principles in the Bible and the Christian position as ambassadors are clear. But each Christian must make a personal decision.
REFUSING TO DO ALTERNATIVE CIVILIAN SERVICE
After World War II, young men of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Norway and other countries were called up for military service, and they refused to do this service. Then they were called up for alternative civilian service. But they also refused this kind of service. Why did they do that?
I use the following illustration:
If a young man is fined because the police believe he has broken the law, and if he pays the fine, he admits 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 court may rule that he must pay the fine. In that case, he has two options. He can pay the court-ordered fine, or he can refuse to pay. If he refuses, the police will either take him to jail or garnish a small amount of his salary each month until the fine is 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 court’s ruling.
The viewpoints of young Witnesses in Norway and other countries who refused both military service and the alternative civilian service are based on Let God Be True (1946) and The Watchtower of February 1, 1951, and December 15, 1957, which are quoted above.
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 civilian service, the ambassador will likewise refuse. He will not refuse civilian service because there is anything inherently wrong with it. 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 civilian service because they did not accept that the state had the right to demand any form of compulsory service from them, as ambassadors.
The Norwegian authorities recognized the position of Jehovah’s Witnesses and enacted a law designed for the Witnesses and a few others who took a similar stance.
When a young Witness refused to serve in the military or the alternative civilian service, he was taken to court. The court applied the aforementioned law and ruled 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 there to do various kinds of farm work. Because of the court ruling, the Witness, who had agreed to work on the farm for up to 18 months, did not do so, as he accepted that the Norwegian state had the right to impose compulsory service on him. He only accepted that he was powerless in the face of the court’s ruling.
The Witnesses and other conscientious objectors did the same kind of service. The difference was that the conscientious objectors did the civilian service because they accepted the state’s right to put them under compulsory service. But because the Witnesses were ambassadors, they did not accept the state’s right to put them under compulsory service. And they did this service because they were forced to by the court, or face a jail term.
The young Witnesses in the Netherlands faced the same problems as those 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 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.
Young Witnesses in Sweden had served jail terms for refusing military service and civilian service. In 1966, the parliament decided that young men who could identify themselves as baptized Jehovah’s Witnesses should not be called up for service. But this was not the last word. The Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses of 1991, page 166, says:
After this decision was made by parliament, attempts have been made to have us substitute compulsory work for military service. In the early 1970’s, a governmental committee was appointed to review the handling of conscientious objectors. For the sake of uniformity, the authorities wanted Jehovah’s Witnesses to serve on terms similar to those for other religious groups and do compulsory work as a substitute.
Representatives of the branch office appeared before the committee, explaining that the Witnesses could not accept any substitute for military service whatsoever, no matter how praiseworthy the task. They showed that Jehovah’s Witnesses already do a form of social work in their house-to-house ministry, helping people clean up their lives and become decent, law-abiding citizens.
The reason for refusing the alternative service that the Witnesses presented was that they were already fully engaged in God’s social work. The Witnesses in the Netherlands argued that civilian service would compromise their neutrality and become a part of the world. And the Witnesses in Norway argued that as ambassadors, they could not accept any compulsory service. All three arguments express the same points from different angles, that Jehovah’s Witnesses are ambassadors for God’s kingdom.
WAIVING THE POSITION AS AMBASSADORS FOR GOD’S KINGDOM
For 41 years from the end of World War II, Jehovah’s Witnesses had stood firm for their position as ambassadors for God’s kingdom by refusing military service and the alternative civil service. But in 1996, there was a change. The Watchtower of May 1, 1996, presented a completely new view of civil service as an alternative to military service in the article, “Paying back Caesar’s things to Caesar.” I will make some comments. On page 18 we read:
11 Another demand made by Caesar in some countries is compulsory military service. In the 20th century, this arrangement has been instituted by most nations in times of war and by some in times of peace as well.
14 Are Christians today obliged to follow the majority in this matter [of becoming a soldier]? 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. (2 Timothy 4:5)
The article correctly shows that serving in the military is wrong, and a Christian should seek an exemption. But the biblical reasons for this are not discussed. Then, on page 19, the issue of alternative civilian service is raised:
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.
Without discussing the biblical principles underlying the state’s offer of civilian service instead of military service, the article flatly rejects the biblical view held for 41 years, saying that each Christian must decide and no one can criticize their decision.
THE MIXING OF DIFFERENT CATEGORIES
One way to mislead an audience is to discuss a subject other than the one in focus, as if it were the one in focus. This is what the article does. The author’s technique misleads readers because he is comparing apples and oranges. He compares compulsory military service with paying taxes and doing voluntary work.
Paragraphs 17and 18 on pages 19 and 20 say:
17 Is there a Biblical precedent for nonmilitary civilian service? It seems that compulsory service was practiced in Bible times…
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.
There are three points making compulsory civilian service acceptable:
Point 1: Compulsory service was practiced in Bible times.
It is an open question whether compulsory service was practiced in Bible times, by whom, in which situations, and to what extent. But the article presumes this was the case and uses the adverbial “similarly.” So, one reason why Christians can accept compulsory civilian service as an alternative to military service today is that compulsory service was used in Bible times.
But this begs the question. Christians in the first century CE were not obliged to accept all requirements made by the authorities.
Point 2: Compulsory civilian service is useful and good.
The question to paragraph 16 on page 19 is: “In some lands, what nonmilitary service does Caesar demand of those who do not accept military service?” The following answer is given in paragraph 16 on page 19:
16 In some lands, what nonmilitary service does Caesar demand of those who do not accept military 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 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.
Civilian service can be “useful work in the community,” and it has often “resulted in an excellent witness.” So, there is nothing wrong with civilian service.
Point 3: Christian principles may allow civilian service.
19 What questions and Scriptural principles help a Christian to reason on the matter of nonmilitary national civilian service?
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.
The following Bible principles are mentioned:
- If they accept it, will they be able to maintain Christian neutrality?
- Would it involve them with some false religion?
- Would performing it prevent or unreasonably limit them from fulfilling their Christian responsibilities?
- Would they be able to continue making spiritual progress, perhaps even serving in the full-time ministry while performing the required service?
These principles are fine. But paragraph 19 is a diversionary maneuver, leading the readers to take a stand for a straw man rather than the real issue. The readers are invited to consider the nature of civilian service in order to decide whether they will accept this service.
But the real issue is the Christians’ position as ambassadors for God’s kingdom. The nature of civilian service is irrelevant because ambassadors do not accept any form of compulsory service, regardless of how decent and respectable it is.
So, the members of the Governing Body are leading young Witnesses to accept a service that compromises their position as ambassadors for God’s kingdom, under the pretext that this service is decent and respectable.
NON-COMPULSORY CIVILIAN SERVICE
We must differentiate between civilian service and compulsory civilian service.
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.
We may also consider the situation of a Christian high school student interested in music. He has joined the school band, and to cover the costs of uniforms and instruments, the parents are urged to do specific voluntary work on several weekends. Accepting this voluntary work may prevent the father from doing some Christian preaching. But it is in his son’s interest, and he will not compromise his Christian neutrality by doing this civilian work.
Accepting civilian service as an alternative to military service compromises the Christian’s neutrality as an ambassador for God’s kingdom. Accepting other forms of civilian service that are not compulsory is a matter of conscience for each Christian. |
THE DEVELOPMENT INSIDE THE GOVERNING BODY THAT LED TO THE WAIVING OF THE POSITION AS AMBASSADORS
Raymond Franz has a lengthy discussion of military service and alternative civil service in his book, Crisis of Conscience. He says 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 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 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 toward all the nations’ pursuits. And as ambassadors, they do not accept that any nation can put them under compulsory service.
Franz was one of those who argued most strongly for change, yet 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 of civil service].”
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 Scriptural evidence that counts, and that is the words of Paul in 2 Corinthians 5:20, which say that each Christian is an ambassador for God’s Kingdom.
If 2 Corinthians 5:20 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 led him to miss the argument in 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 at Isaiah 2:4.
The point here is that just as the authorities have the right to order the inhabitants to pay taxes, they also have 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 note is that Franz’s 14-page memorandum would lead the members of the Governing Body in the wrong direction, as the real issue, which was strictly biblical, was obscured and not mentioned at all.
Let us then look at the description of the Governing Body’s proceedings 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 the 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, along with the book Let God Be True’s comments on them, 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 accord with the words of this scripture and with the words of Let God Be True. This shows that Barry, unlike Franz, understood the real issue. 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 1996 change and expressed regret that it took 50 years to implement the policy. But the real truth is the very opposite. It took 50 years to reach the compromise by which the position of ambassadors for God’s Kingdom was abolished. And this is one of the decisions of the Governing Body that justifies the title’s words: “the creation of the Governing Body has been a disaster.”
In 1978, Lloyd Barry called the acceptance of the alternative civil service, as 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. |
CONCLUSION
I have shown above that the changed view of civilian service as an alternative to military service, in reality, is a rejection of the position of the Christians as ambassadors for God’s kingdom. Nevertheless, 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 the realities on the ground are that the members of the Governing Body have waived their position as ambassadors by accepting that the governments have the right to put Christians under compulsory service. The members of the Governing Body say one thing, but they do something different.
If anyone would defend the words of How to remain in God’s love? about Jehovah’s Witnesses being ambassadors for God’s kingdom, please let him answer the question: “Will the Norwegian ambassador to Germany accept being called up for military service, or alternative civilian service, in Germany?”
OVERSKRIFT 2
“Dette er en eksempeltekst til nettsiden. Når du skriver tekst til nettsiden så er det viktig å huske på at det både er en potensiell kunde som leser dette, men også Google skal «lese» denne teksten. Prøv å skriv innhold som er informativ for det produktet eller den tjenesten du tilbyr, der søkeord, fraser og setninger flettes inn på en naturlig og lettleselig måte. ”
OVERSKRIFT 3
Dette er en eksempeltekst til nettsiden. Når du skriver tekst til nettsiden så er det viktig å huske på at det både er en potensiell kunde som leser dette, men også Google skal «lese» denne teksten. Prøv å skriv innhold som er informativ for det produktet eller den tjenesten du tilbyr, der søkeord, fraser og setninger flettes inn på en naturlig og lettleselig måte.
CONCLUSION
Dette er en eksempeltekst til nettsiden. Når du skriver tekst til nettsiden så er det viktig å huske på at det både er en potensiell kunde som leser dette, men også Google skal «lese» denne teksten. Prøv å skriv innhold som er informativ for det produktet eller den tjenesten du tilbyr, der søkeord, fraser og setninger flettes inn på en naturlig og lettleselig måte.
