Crisis of Conscience

by Raymond Franz

  Austria: “Many of the brothers do not fully understand the Scriptural position why we should not render such alternative service.”

  Brazil: “We believe that the brothers would have no difficulty to prove their stand if the work involved direct support to the military machine, say, working in a munitions factory or constructing barracks or digging trenches, etc. They would use the same scriptures that they use for objecting to direct military service. The brothers would have difficulty if the work involved building a road for civilian use, or work on some agricultural project or other work of that kind.”

  Italy: “From direct contacts made with the brothers faced with a military service problem we found that in the majority of cases they did not understand why they could not accept alternative civilian service. They maintained that no longer being under the direct jurisdiction of the military authorities because of having been assigned to another ministry, they could accept alternative civilian service just as long as they did not engage in any activity having to do with militarism, but doing nonmilitary work such as in museums or hospitals, etc. they would not be guilty of any violation of their neutrality.”

  Spain: “As a part of the research for this report, a member of the branch committee spoke extensively with three brothers who were exemplary in their neutral stand years ago. He also conversed with three mature elders, two of them from other countries, who have not personally faced the issue in Spain. Varying viewpoints surfaced on many aspects of this matter, but there was complete agreement on one point:

  Practically none of our young brothers really understand why we cannot accept ‘substitute service’ if it is of a civic nature and not under the control of the military. It seems clear that most of the elders do not understand it either, and therefore they often send youngsters to the [branch] office to get information. So the question comes up, Why don’t they understand? Is it lack of personal study? Or is it because the arguments and reasonings we have used are not convincing enough or do not have a clear and firm Bible stand?”20

  In addition to the sampling presented, Branch Committees in Australia, Belgium, Canada, Fiji, France, Germany, Greece, Hawaii, Malaysia, Nigeria, Norway, Portugal, Puerto Rico, Rhodesia, Thailand, Trinidad, Uruguay and Zaire all expressed problems among Witnesses in their lands as to understanding the organization’s policy or seeing its Scriptural basis.

  Yet throughout the world Jehovah’s Witnesses did take an adamant stand in rejecting alternative service (unless sentenced by a judge to perform it). Some may still be in jail in some lands for that reason. That this is really not the result of loyalty to God’s Word and their personal conviction of the unscripturalness of the course is evident from what follows. Conformity to an organizational policy, and concern that they not be viewed adversely by that organization and by their peers, seems to be the determinative factor for these young men. While some of the quotations just made touch on this aspect, other letters from the committees were quite explicit, revealing the basic reason why Witnesses rejected alternative service provisions made by the governments in their lands.

  Belgium: “Few brothers are really in position to explain with the Bible why they refuse … basically, they know it is wrong and that the Society views it as such. For that reason some courts said to the brothers that they were pushed by the Society to refuse the provision of the civil service.”

  Denmark: “While many young brothers seem able to grasp arguments and think them out and explain them to a degree, it is felt that the majority of young brothers today follow the example of others and take the stand expected of them by the brotherhood without really understanding the basic principles and arguments involved, and without being able to explain their stand clearly.”

  Hawaii: “Generally speaking, the brothers here have trouble seeing Bible principles governing the maintaining of strict neutrality. Once they know the Society’s stand on such issues, they fully cooperate, but do not see the principles too clearly upon which our stand rests.

  Norway: “The brothers in Norway do not accept civilian work without a court sentence, mainly because they know that this is the Society’s policy and they are loyal to the Society. It is difficult for them to understand why it is wrong to accept civilian work when the work itself is not wrong and condemned by the Bible. They cannot support their stand properly from the Scriptures.”

  Spain: “When an elder discusses the matter of substitute service with someone, that person generally accepts [the position] that substitution amounts to equivalence. But this idea is not usually truly understood. Rather, it is taken to be the organization’s viewpoint, and the elders present it as well as they can and the brothers loyally follow through as they know is expected of them. But it seems to us that many brothers find our reasoning somewhat artificial.”

  Thailand: “From our experience many in the past have had problems when trying to maintain their neutrality. Many have refused work out of a kind of group loyalty. They did not know the reason or principle why, but they heard a certain thing was wrong, so they refused.”

  Lloyd Barry’s memorandum spoke of “planting” ideas in the minds of the brothers. The evidence clearly indicates that any planting done was by the Watch Tower Society itself, since it is plain that these Witnesses would never have arrived at the policy laid down by the organization from their own reading of the Scriptures or as a product of their personal conscience. Nor was it only those of the so-called “rank and file” or the younger Witnesses who had such serious difficulty with the policy. Men on the Branch Committees themselves found it difficult to support, either on the basis of reason or Scripture.

  Referring again to Lloyd Barry’s memorandum, he also stated:

  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.

  Yet, along with most other Witnesses, many of the Branch Committee members themselves did not find the stated position by any means “simple.” They saw no logic in the position that it would be wrong to accept a work order from a draft board but all right to accept the identical order to do the identical work under identical circumstances if that order was given by a court. They could not see how this could be so inasmuch as these agencies are all simply branches of the same government, of the same “superior authority.” Thus the Chilean Branch Committee pointed out some of the inconsistencies, saying:

  If the work itself does not contribute toward the military objective, does it matter what agency orders that [it] be accepted? Here in Chile it is not clear just how independent courts are. This is a military government and many of the civilians who serve in the Cabinet are just “show” pieces. The military run the show.… It is all just one system.

  From then Communist Poland came this expression:

  As far as we know, the German brothers take up such work upon the basis that the administrative authorities direct them to the work and not the military. Would this mean that they would not take up the same work, under the same conditions, if the military authorities would direct them to do it? Is it not the same Caesar?

  In a very lengthy letter, the Canadian Branch Committee focused especially on this point. Referring to the existing policy as a “confusing ‘agency’ approach,” they said:

  … we feel that officials would find it hard to see where we draw the line. We would complicate matters for them and for the brothers as well. If, for example, we tried to make a point of the draft board or induction center being a part of the political setup and that we are neutral in matters of politics, they would wonder why the courts are not also viewed as an arm of the same governmental political setup
.

  On the other hand, if we try to make it a matter of the agency being a part of the military setup and argue our neutrality from that point of view, they might concede that they appreciate our desire to have nothing to do with the military, but if the actual work assigned is the same, regardless of the agency involved, then what’s the difference? We would find that a problem to argue successfully…. Today, courts, councils, police, induction centers and the military are all manifestations of Caesar’s authority. All are, in one way or another, his agencies.

  The matter seemed summed up in this simple question from the Nigerian Branch Committee:

  If something is wrong Scripturally, then why should a court order make it all right to do it?

  The questions themselves illustrate how the organization’s policies have led to technical complexities as well as to confusion on the part of men sincerely seeking to be guided by God’s own Word. Illustrating to what extremes the organization’s concept could and did lead, consider this remarkable situation and stand presented by the Branch Committee in Sweden:

  Even in such instances where our brothers have been offered to perform their National Service training at their ordinary place of work, for example, at a County Administration or the State Railways, they refused, because they have held that they could not accept any substitute whatsoever for the National Service training, not even if this was purely civil, or even meant that they could stay on in their ordinary daily occupations.

  Incredible as it may seem, that is actually the stand taken in that country on the basis of the organization’s policy, namely, that even where the authorities, bending over backwards to accommodate the Witnesses’ religious position, in some cases offered to let their regular, customary job be counted as done in place of such training, they must refuse!

  This is not due to convictions personally arrived by the Swedish Witnesses. It is due to being so sensitized by the organization’s policy decreeing that substitute work was the equivalent of military service, that any offer of any kind had to be refused.21 Following a “zone trip” to branch offices in Scandinavian countries, Robert Wallen, the secretary for the Service Committee of the Governing Body, expressed his concern to me on this matter. He related a conversation with one Scandinavian Witness who said:

  ‘If I accept the government’s assignment of alternative service they will assign me to work in a hospital here in my area and I will be able to live at home with my family. But the Society’s policy is that I cannot do this and must refuse. I will then be arrested, tried and sentenced and the court will again assign me to work in a hospital. But this time it will be in another part of the country. I will be doing exactly the same work but I will be separated from my home and family. Does this really make sense?’

  Branch Committee members did not only question the logic of the organization’s policy. They also presented Scriptural evidence in favor of a different approach. As just one example, the Branch Committee in Brazil expressed the view of the committee, saying:

  The point is that the young man has made clear his stand to the military authorities, showing Scripturally why he cannot participate in any war or even be trained for it. So, what Scriptures could be used to show that it would be improper to do civilian work ordered by the authorities, since he has made clear his Scriptural stand? This [that is, doing such assigned civilian work] seems to be supported by Matth. 5:41; Rom. 13:7; Titus 3:1-3; 1 Peter 2:13, 14 and others.

  The Scriptures they referred to read as follows (New World Translation):

  Matthew 5:41: “If someone under authority impresses you into service for a mile, go with him two miles.”

  Romans 13:7: “Render to all their dues, to him who calls for the tax, the tax; to him who calls for the tribute, the tribute; to him who calls for fear, such fear; to him who calls for honor, such honor.”

  Titus 3:1-3: “Continue reminding them to be in subjection and be obedient to governments and authorities as rulers, to be ready for every good work, to speak injuriously of no one, not to be belligerent, to be reasonable, exhibiting all mildness toward all men. For even we were once senseless, disobedient, being misled, being slaves to various desires and pleasures, carrying on badness and envy, abhorrent, hating one another.”

  1 Peter 2:13, 14: “For the Lord’s sake subject yourselves to every human creation; whether to kings as being superior or to governors, as being sent by him to inflict punishment on evildoers but to praise doers of good.”

  Reading the letters of these Branch Committee members I could not help but contrast the thoughtfulness and breadth of viewpoint many of their expressions revealed as compared with the narrowness and rigidity of the assertions made by several of the Governing Body members. I had already submitted to the Governing Body a 14-page, carefully documented discussion of the Biblical and historical evidence relative to submission to government authority when that authority orders a citizen to perform certain work or service of a nonmilitary nature. Among other things, I felt that the evidence clearly showed that performance of such service came within the Scriptural designation of taxation, since taxation from ancient times has included compulsory forms of labor. As just one example, at 1 Kings 5:13-18 we read (New World Translation) of Solomon’s “bringing up those conscripted for forced labor out of all Israel.” The Hebrew expression rendered “forced labor” is the word mas, meaning compulsory labor. When the translators of the Septuagint Version (of the third century B.C.) translated this Hebrew term—not only here but in other texts where it appears—what Greek term did they employ? They rendered it by the Greek term phóros. That is the identical term used by Paul at Romans 13:6 when he speaks of paying tax to the superior authorities.22 While the term can and undoubtedly does in most cases apply to a money tax, it is in no way restricted to this, as the Septuagint’s use of it for “compulsory labor” forcefully demonstrates.23 I regret that in view of its lengthiness it is not possible to present here the complete discussion and the Scriptural, historical, lexicographical, and etymological documentation provided.

  What was the result of all this? Remember that any decision made would affect the lives of thousands of persons. The existing policy had already resulted in imprisonments representing tens of thousands of years. Again, I believe the way the matter was handled is remarkably revealing. It illustrates dramatically the way long-standing, traditional policies can exercise overruling power on the thinking of men who have declared their determination to let God’s Word be their sole and supreme authority.

  The Governing Body met and discussed the issue in four separate sessions extending from September 26 to November 15, 1978. In all these four days of discussion the letters submitted received only cursory attention; none of the arguments or questions received careful analysis or point-by-point discussion, and this was equally true of the fourteen pages of Biblical and historical evidence I had personally supplied. The meetings were typical of most Governing Body sessions in that there was no particular order of discussion, no systematic consideration of one question or point at issue before moving on to consideration of another point at issue. Discussion could jump, as it typically did, from one aspect of the problem to another entirely different and relatively unrelated aspect. One member might conclude with the question, “What Scriptural basis is there then for saying that because a service is ‘alternative’ it therefore becomes the equivalent of what it substitutes for?” The next member recognized by the chairman might take up a totally different point, leaving the previous member’s question hanging in midair.24

  Those favoring retention of the existing policy referred to the Branch Committee letters primarily to discount their importance. Thus, Ted Jaracz said, “Regardless of what the brothers may say, it is the Bible that guides us.” He then went on to discuss some points, not from the Bible, but from certain Watchtower articles dealing with the issue.

  Yet many of the Branch Committee men had brought up serious points from the Bible and these had neither been refuted nor cl
early answered, at least not to the satisfaction of the majority of the Governing Body members themselves, as subsequent voting revealed. Ted Jaracz, however, urged that we should ask ourselves, “Just how much of a problem is it all over the world? He asked this because the survey showed that the majority of the countries had no provision for alternative service. Acknowledging that perhaps “a hundred or so are disfellowshipped” as a result of the existing policy, he asked, “What of all the other brothers in the world-wide organization who rejected alternative service and what of the suffering already undergone by those who took such stand?” This question would seem to say that, because a past wrong view caused considerable suffering, this would somehow justify the continuance of the wrong view—and the suffering it would continue to produce! It exemplifies how traditional policies can, in the minds of some, override both Scripture and logic. As a further reason for maintaining the policy that led to this “suffering,” he added, “If we allow the brothers this latitude we will have serious problems, similar to those where latitude is shown in matters of employment.” In reality, the only “problems” that latitude in matters of employment had produced were problems for those seeking to maintain tight control over the activities of fellow Christians. Whatever risk there might be was not truly to the morality or Christian integrity of the congregation; what was at risk was the exercise of ecclesiastical authority.