home > interesting topics > random musings > changes from legal pressure
Watchtower Changes Due to Legal Pressure
Watchtower has made a number of doctrinal changes over the years that can be traced back to pressure placed on them by the laws of various countries and court cases. This shows the value in pursuing the legal system, government and media to push for reform of harmful practices.
Whilst Watchtower presents its doctrine and practices as being Bible based, ongoing changes show that these are transient and open to interpretation. The organization will change for its own benefit, and is affected by external parties. Activism is effective. Following are a list of examples that have occurred over the years.
Corporal Punishment
Watchtower used to advocate corporal punishment, and spanking children was common during meetings when I was growing up. During one Sunday meeting, the Watchtower conductor stepped off the stage and spanked in daughter in front of the congregation. Passages in Proverbs specifically direct using the rod for physical punishment, such as Proverbs 23:13,14, which states, "Do not hold back discipline from a boy. If you strike him with the rod, he will not die." As countries around the world have started to outlaw physical violence against children, Watchtower articles have changed their tone about hitting children, now describing the "rod" of discipline as referring to "instruction, education and correction." (w2014 Jul 1) Quotes regarding this change are presented at Discipline of Children - Corporeal Punishment.
This change away from following Bible guidance on physical discipline has been required to avoid legal issues for members, and in order for legal recognition in some European countries where spanking is illegal.
Vaccinations
In 1921, after vaccinations first became popular, Watchtower claimed they were harmful and not to be taken by Jehovah's Witnesses. This caused issues for children at schools that required students to be vaccinated and members obtaining visas for travel. In 1952, it reversed its stance, specifically stating it would not be drawn into any legal responsibility on the matter.
"The matter of vaccination is one for the individual that has to face it to decide for himself... And our Society cannot afford to be drawn into the affair legally or take the responsibility for the way the case turns out." Watchtower 1952 Dec 15 p.764
See Vaccinations and other Medical Procedure.
Guidelines for Dealing with Child Abuse
The area resulting in the greatest financial cost to Watchtower through legal action has been in regards to child abuse. As with other religious organizations, Watchtower has not been forthcoming in reporting accusations of child abuse to the proper authorities. Parents were dissuaded from going to the authorities or seeking proper medical treatment, and known predators have even been appointed as elders. Due to the two-witness rule, many accusations were simply ignored.
Significant negative media attention and ongoing financial losses has led to Watchtower revising its policies in regards to actions of child abuse, specifically since the late 1990s. However, they still lag shockingly behind other organisations in enacting change, and were singled out by the "Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse" as being on par with only the Catholic Church in its lack of willingness to accept responsibility or comply with recommended standards. Watchtower representatives specifically stated they would not make changes to the two-witness rule, or allow women to be involved in Judicial committee meetings, on the basis that they must be guided by Bible doctrine. However, their interpretation of these doctrine are inconsistent, and could easily be Scripturally justified to comply with the guidelines presented by the Royal Commission. I have no doubt that there will being ongoing change, including to those two areas, provided there continues to be financial pressure to do so. Whilst Watchtower revels in negative media and political pressure as forms of persecution, it responds very differently when they face financial loss.
For detailed discussion see Watchtower Policy on Child Abuse.
In Australia, the state of Victoria introduced mandatory background checks for anyone that deals with children, which included all people conducting Scripture classes in schools. Rather than submit to background checks, which are important process for the safety of children, Watchtower sent a letter to all congregations announcing that Jehovah's Witnesses were to withdraw from providing any Scripture classes in any Australian State. This legislation also applied to Church Ministers, due to the influence of their position, and all religious groups complied with the requirement to have Ministers obtain a Working with Children card; except one, Jehovah's Witnesses. It was only after a former Jehovah's Witness alerted the State of Victoria that elders in Kingdom Halls were not complying, and a lengthy legal battle, that Watchtower finally conceded and directed elders to obtain a Working with Children Card.
Military Service
For a number of decades, Jehovah's Witnesses were not allowed to engage in military service, including noncombatant service or substitution work, resulting in imprisonment for a number of young men.
"An examination of the historical facts shows that not only have Jehovah's Witnesses refused to put on military uniforms and take up arms but, during the past half century and more, they have also declined to do noncombatant service or to accept other work assignments as a substitute for military service. Many of Jehovah's Witnesses have been imprisoned because they would not violate their Christian neutrality." United in Worship of the Only True God (1983) p.167
In 1996, the Watchtower overruled this prohibition, and made it a matter of choice.
"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? That is his decision before Jehovah." Watchtower 1996 May 1 p.20
The prompt for such change came on June 28, 1994, when the Bulgarian Council of Ministers refused to renew the Watchtower’s registration as a religion. The two main issues behind this decision were Watchtower doctrine forbidding:
- Witnesses to participate in military service
- Witnesses and their children to receive blood transfusions
Watchtower brokered an agreement with the government of Bulgaria through the European Commission of Human Rights that was adopted on March 9th 1998 under Application No. 28626/95. This agreement included the option for Jehovah's Witnesses to engage in civilian service, and changes to the stance on blood transfusions, listed below.
Jimmy Swaggart and Selling Magazines
In 1988, Jimmy Swaggart was taken to court in the case Swaggart Ministries v. California Board of Equalization. This regarded paying tax on profit derived from sales of religious material. Watchtower filed a Brief of Amicus Curiae (friend of the court) to show support for Jimmy Swaggart Ministries retaining tax exempt status. The decision went against Swaggart, prompting Watchtower to initiate a 'voluntary donation' arrangement for magazines through a letter to elders in the United States on February 21st 1990. This was rolled out to other countries over a ten year period.
This particular change has possibly had the greatest affect of any in shaping how Watchtower appears today. Over more than a century, Watchtower had grown to a multi-billion dollar book publishing corporation. After the move to a donation model, revenue declined significantly. This decline accelerated as the publishing industry in general has struggled to compete with free online content. Watchtower has been forced to respond by reducing the size and number of issues of the Watchtower and Awake!, introduce the use of iPads instead of printed material, and place a strong emphasis on jw.org and JW TV. My father was assistant auditor for the Australian branch during this period, and when I questioned him on the rapid rate of change, he related it primarily back to financial concerns.
Disfellowshipping and Slander
In 1939, O. L. Moyle, who had been legal counsel for Watchtower, resigned from Bethel and wrote a letter to Rutherford that was critical of a number of aspects of Bethel life. In retaliation, Rutherford published an article in the Watchtower 1939, Oct 15 edition that vilified Moyle as a slanderous murmurer. Moyle pursued the Watch Tower Society through court for defamation and won an award of $15,000 and interest. This led to such personal attacks no longer being released through Watchtower publications. Details are contained at Moyle v. Rutherford.
What did continue was public announcements at Kingdom Halls outlining the reason for why an individual Jehovah's Witness was being disfellowshipped. Whilst the Watchtower practice of disfellowshipping and shunning is not Scripturally supported, public discussion of a congregation member's wrongdoing is in fact in line with Old and New Testament practices. For instance, trials were held at public gates, at Matthew 18:17 Jesus said unresolved wrongdoing should be taken "to the congregation" and the Apostle Paul openly told the congregation of the wrong conduct of Peter, Hymenaeus, Alexander and Diotrephes. Watchtower instead holds Judicial committees behind closed doors with just a small group of elders.
Originally, when a member was disfellowshipped, the reason for their removal from the congregation was announced at the same time. However, several cases were taken to court where the member claimed they had been slandered. Similar cases were pursued by members of other Churches and won. In order to avoid legal liability, the announcement for a member being disfellowshipped or a member disassociating themself was reduced to the simple statement:
"[Name of person] is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses." Organised to do Jehovah's Will (2005) p.154
During the time of my judicial committee, I contacted a lawyer in Australia to see if such a statement could be construed as defamation, with the intention of preventing being disfellowshipped and announced by threatening legal action. This particular lawyer had studied this very topic, including in relation to Jehovah's Witnesses, and said the announcement could not be pointed to as slanderous. We see here that the Watchtower legal team has been involved in creating a doctrine that does not follow Christian practices, but is formulated around avoiding legal and financial liability.
Data Retention and Privacy
A number of countries have introduced Privacy legislation to protect individuals from corporations holding unnecessary data on them, particularly data that is incorrect. For instance, the Privacy Act 1988 in Australia gives an individual the right to access any data a corporation has on them, and request incorrect data be destroyed. I personally took advantage of this provision to obtain the personal records that Watchtower holds on regarding myself, as outlined at Personal Files and the Privacy Act. Watchtower illegally attempted to withhold this information, so I pursued them through the Privacy Commission. Due to this, the Australia Branch sent to each congregation an elder's letter, dated July 15, 2008 specifically relating to the action I had brought before the Privacy Commission. It revised the s-77 form used when disfellowshipping a member, recommended elders not hold unnecessary information, and be careful on how they word information contained on Jehovah's Witnesses.
"We are enclosing a suggested revision of the S-77 form for use in Australia. It is designed to minimize the information contained on the form, and to avoid the recording of undesirable expressions when completing the form."
The European Union passed the General Data Protection Regulation or GDPR, effective from May 2018. This has led to Watchtower having Jehovah's Witnesses sign giving consent to the use of their personal data and a Publisher ID. Considering the large volume of information Watchtower and individual Witnesses keep on members and householders, there is likely to be ongoing refinement to what and how information is stored over coming years.
Blood Transfusions
Jehovah's Witnesses are well know for their refusal to accept blood transfusions, even in the face of death. (See Blood Transfusions.) This has led to ongoing negative publicity. In the case of children, there are constant applications to courts to allow Jehovah's Witness minors be administered a blood transfusion. It is rarely the case that a patient is prescribed a transfusion of whole blood, but rather specific fractions of blood are used. In what can be seen as an effort to minimise adverse situations regarding blood, in 2000 Watchtower revised its stance on blood to allow the administration of blood provided it is broken down into small enough components. This stance is counter-intuitive and has no logical Biblical basis, but has gone a long way to reduce the number of Jehovah's Witnesses facing issues during surgical and other medical procedures.
Bulgaria and Blood Transfusions
Not all change has been beneficial. For instance, the Bulgarian government held back legal recognition of the organisation due to its stance on blood transfusions. Watchtower removed the taking of blood from its list of reasons for which a member can be disfellowshipped, in order to gain favour with the Bulgarian government. Quite dishonestly, it did not explain that this was now listed as an action that a Jehovah's Witness had showed themself to have disassociated from the congregation, which in effect has the same result of having the person shunned by the congregation. Disassociation is in fact a worse result, as the person loses their right of appeal, which is an option if they feel they have been wrongfully disfellowshipped. See Bulgaria and Blood Transfusions.
Conclusion
Changes have not always been for the benefit of members, so care must be taken to ensure pursing change is positioned in a way that will make the religion more open and beneficial for members, ex-members and the community, rather than it becoming more insulated and controlling.
This topic highlights two important points. The organization will change when under enough pressure, generally when expressed financially. Secondly, if doctrine can change, it shows that Watchtower doctrine in not absolute, spirit directed, Bible based, truth, but interpretations of men. There is rarely any difficulty finding alternate interpretations, simply by focusing on a different Scriptural principle
Written May 2018.
Paul Grundy 2005 - 2024