Watchtower — Faith — Compromise? (abridged)

___



In the WWII era the Watchtower organization birthed two new doctrinal positions. One required Jehovah’s Witnesses to abstain from blood transfusion, and the other required Jehovah’s Witnesses to abstain from military service and from non-military alternative civilian service.[1-2] Both these new positions were placed on equal grounds as tenets of faith.[3]

Witnesses drafted under the Selective Service and subject to induction had a choice:



● Accept military service or non-military alternative civilian service and be disfellowshipped, or else abstain from both and face criminal prosecution.



Witnesses faced with need for blood transfusion had a choice:



● Accept blood transfusion and be disfellowshipped, or else abstain from blood transfusion and face premature death.

But then something happened with one of these that did not happen with the other.



The Difference



Of one teaching: Witnesses who refused military service and alternative non-military civilian service were eventually prosecuted. Under order of the court many Witnesses then had the option of spending their time in jail or else performing the non-military civilian service originally offered them. Under Watchtower policy, Witnesses who chose under this court-ordered circumstance to willingly perform the civilian service were not considered to have compromised their faith.[4]

Of the other teaching: Witnesses who refused blood transfusion and that were later placed under court order to have a blood transfusion were not granted the same freedom under Watchtower policy of the time. These Witnesses were required to resist the court ordered blood transfusion or else be viewed as having compromised the faith.[5]

As it turned out, Watchtower had two doctrines allegedly of equal importance, yet in the presence of court order one policy required no resistance whereas the other did require resistance.



What was taught?



By means of its WWII era doctrine and subsequent policy regarding compulsory service to the nation, Watchtower taught the Witness community that a court order shifted responsibility to the court though the individual ended up doing the same thing they otherwise had to abstain from.



The result



Many of Jehovah’s Witnesses—especially those who are parents of sick children—will readily yield to a court ordered blood transfusion with a sense that from the perspective of their religious leaders their act cannot be construed as a compromise.[6]



In effect, a court order provides an affirmative defense for Witness parents within the religion's internal judicial system. The parents' child can have the blood transfusion and the parents are not treated as though having compromised the faith.



Marvin Shilmer

______________

References



1. The Watchtower, December 1, 1944, p. 362.



2. The Watchtower, November 1, 1939, pp. 323-333.



3. The Watchtower, September 1, 1986, p. 27. “In the matters of Christian neutrality, of abstaining from blood, of giving a thorough witness, and of exercising faith in Jesus’ precious sacrifice, let each one of us be determined to obey all of God’s counsel.”



4. Schroeder, Judah B, The Role of Jehovah’s Witnesses in the emergent Right of Conscientious Objection to Military Service in International Law, Kirchliche Zeitgeschichte, 2011/24,1: 169-206.



5. The Watchtower, September 1, 1973, pp. 543-544



6. Watchtower’s Blood Doctrine — Do Witness parents buy it?



___