Does "Theocratic War Strategy" Teach Lying?

The term "theocratic war strategy" has not been officially used in our publications since 1968. (Though a 1988 life experience article referred to its use during World War II.) Some of our opposers seem to be very fixated on this term even today, while referring to this doctrine that we still hold to. However, rather than sticking to what Jehovah's Witness publications state about the subject, many use erroneous statements from misguided individuals as proof of the meaning of the publications, as well as performing their own omissions of the facts. So let us examine the facts in their contexts.

Sources of "Theocratic War Strategy" Doctrine

When the term was used, here was the direction in the Watchtower:

Februrary 1st, 1956 Watchtower says, "Never swear falsely in Jehovah’s name. Jehovah declares that at his temple he will be a “swift witness against . . . the false swearers.” (Mal. 3:5, AS) Never take an oath in his name and then tell lies as a sworn witness. Rahab of Jericho was under no oath in Jehovah’s name to tell the facts to the king’s officers and hence was not a false swearer or a false witness. “A faithful witness will not lie; but a false witness uttereth lies.” (Prov. 14:5, AS) A faithful witness does not love a false oath. So he tells the truth as he swore to do. What he does speak will be the truth. If he speaks at all he will tell the truth. To the extent that he chooses to talk he will state the truth. If for conscientious reasons he refuses to tell everything he will be willing to suffer the consequences if he be judged deserving of a penalty. He refuses to tell everything, not to escape punishment, but facing punishment for conscientious reasons. Even Jesus kept silent before Pilate, refusing to answer though knowing Pilate’s power.—John 19:8-11."

The 1960 Watchtower, p.352, emphasized, "Should circumstances require a Christian to take the witness stand and swear to tell the truth, then, if he speaks at all, he must utter the truth. When faced with the alternative of speaking and betraying his brothers or not speaking and being held in contempt of court, the mature Christian will put the welfare of his brothers ahead of his own, remembering Jesus’ words: “No one has greater love than this, that someone should surrender his [life] in behalf of his friends.”"

What this is saying is that if the judge orders him to betray his brothers, he must hold his tongue. It does not say to lie.

In the May 1st, 1957 Watchtower, in the article, "Use Theocratic War Strategy", it gave the example of a sister who was in her ministry in Eastern Germany. When she saw a violent opposer of Jehovah's Witnesses, she immediately went around the corner and changed from a red blouse to a green one. When an officer stopped her and asked if she saw a woman with a red blouse on, she said, "No." Was she lying? No. She had seen no woman walking around with a red blouse on. She, in fact, was the woman, but chose not to reveal that matter. Then the article tells of several examples where such strategy was appropriately applied.

Did the woman lie about doctrine? No. Did she lie at all? No.

Modern Discussions of Omission

The latest discussion of this "strategy" is found in the November 15th Watchtower, 2004. It states:

"The faithful witness does not commit perjury when testifying. His testimony is not tainted with lies. However, this does not mean that he is under obligation to give full information to those who may want to bring harm to Jehovah’s people in some way. The patriarchs Abraham and Isaac withheld facts from some who did not worship Jehovah. (Genesis 12:10-19; 20:1-18; 26:1-10) Rahab of Jericho misdirected the king’s men. (Joshua 2:1-7) Jesus Christ himself refrained from divulging total information when doing so would have caused needless harm. (John 7:1-10) He said: “Do not give what is holy to dogs, neither throw your pearls before swine.” Why not? So that “they may never . . . turn around and rip you open.”—Matthew 7:6." (Emphasis mine.)

Yes, the doctrine holds today. But it is very succinctly spelled out here that we are never to lie under oath and even gave an example of Jesus himself demonstrating omission to prevent unnecessary action.

Deceptive Omissions of Our Opposers

Some try to claim that we lie about doctrine and even lie to our own brothers and sisters or in courts of law. Is that true? No. It is a fabrication.

In fact, our opposers like to very overtly avoid referencing statements in such articles, such as in the above older article, just two paragraphs down from the experience of the woman, it says, "Perhaps some will wonder as to where the line is to be drawn between use of theocratic war strategy in hiding the truth and the telling of lies. First of all, let it be noted that whenever one takes an oath to tell the truth he is obligated to do so. By dedicating himself to do God’s will each Christian has taken a vow or made an oath to do God’s will and to be faithful to him. To this oath he certainly must be true. Likewise, when a Christian is placed on a witness stand he is obligated to speak the truth if he speaks at all. At times he may prefer to refuse to speak and suffer the consequences rather than betray his brothers or the interests of God’s work. And, of course, there is no occasion for use of war strategy when dealing with our Christian brothers. In dealing with them we tell the truth or tactfully remind them that what they seek to know does not concern them." (May 1st, 1957 Watchtower, p.285)

In what circumstances was "theocratic war strategy" supposed to be applied? Only where revealing the truth would bring harm to servants of God in the face of opposition and only where the strategy does not bring harm to anyone, spiritually, socially, physically or otherwise. 2 Thessalonians 2:11 was used in one article to show that, while God does not lie, He allows individuals to believe a lie, though in this case no lie necessarily be told.

There is no publication in the history of Jehovah's Witnesses that encourages anyone to lie at all.

Once again, "theocratic war strategy" does not and never has applied to doctrine and does not encourage lying for any reason. So in their own hypocrisy, our opposers use deceptive omissions and outright lies to lead the reader to believe that we lie under oath and to our own brothers and sisters. Note the following example of how our opposers try to accuse us of using this strategy to tell lies.

Lies About Little Things?

In an example given by one individual, they cite the book Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Divine Purpose, pg. 63, where the interviewer asks, "is it true you have never published a biography of Pastor Russell?" The answer that the interviewee gives is, "That's right. Jehovah’s Witnesses admire the qualities he possessed as a man, but were we to give the honor and credit to Pastor Russell, we would be saying that the works and successes were his." (Emphasis mine.) Then the individual goes on to state that biographies of Russell were indeed given in three successive years: 1925-1927. (Note that the individual does not provide the publications, but that matter is not important.) But what are the facts?

The question cited by this individual comes immediately after actually discussing a biography that appeared in the Foreword of a later edition of Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 1. So clearly, the interviewer asking the question knew that a biography of sorts had in fact been provided. Thus, when the interviewer asked, immediately after discussing such biography, if it was true that Jehovah's Witnesses had never published a biography of Russell, she was clearly referring to a whole book, not just a Foreword or article.

Additionally, the answer specifically related to "Jehovah's Witnesses", a name that the organization did not take on until 1935. Thus, Jehovah's Witnesses had not printed a biography of any kind of Russell up to that point.

Does that matter fall under the category of "theocratic war strategy"? No. It would not hurt anyone to know that a biography had appeared in Bible Student literature before then. So neither a lie, nor the need to lie was present. But neither was there any need to point anyone to outdated literature.

Jehovah's Witnesses are, in fact, the most honest people you will ever come across. We are neither in the practice of lying, nor do we lie to suit our own purposes.
    Update [10/4/14]: I just learned that this may be being confused with the Masonic direction to lie outright to protect fellow Masons. Jehovah's Witnesses are not Masons and are not associated with them in any way. For more on Masons, see Freemasons — Roots and Links to the Occult. That article is sound research that provides ample citations to look up.

Comments

Anonymous said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dismythed said…
Anonymous of July 30th, it is your presumption of our guilt that you need to deal with yourself. I provided proof. You should go into the publication yourself to find out what we have really taught. We have never once taught to lie. Not ever. What we teach is readily available at JW.org. Anything you want to know about what we teach is found there. We do not need to hide anything. Where there are misprints, we update the information, but what you read is what we teach.

You have a catch-22 that YOU have to overcome, not me. You are the one making accusations based on faulty and limited information. Our opposers are the ones who show you only what they want you to see, taking statements out of context and ignoring anything that contradicts their claims.

As for me hiding behind an avatar, you hide behind anonymity. Do I know your name? Your face? I do not reveal details about myself because I believe in keeping myself safe on the internet. I do not give my full name, nor show my face, nor state where I am from because it is not safe, nor is it necessary for anyone to know those things unless they are looking to track me down, and there is no reason why anyone should track me down unless they are looking to cause trouble. In fact, you can call that a practical demonstration of "theocratic war strategy".

My words should be able to stand on their own merits. Knowing who I am will have no bearing on the matter. I am just a janitor, "unlettered and ordinary". (Acts 4:13) I do not need degrees to speak Bible truths, nor do I need one to speak truths about Jehovah's Witnesses as an organization.

Do you know what the scriptures say at Matthew 5:11-12 and Acts 28:22?
Unknown said…
I would be inclined to ask an objector to our loyalty to our brotherhood: "How would your religion handle the situation? Would you really betray your brotherhood? Would saving your own skin be more important to you?" Really, turning the tables on these ones sometimes shuts their mouths. They really don't have "a point" to make except that they are fault-finders and want excuses to not serve God in truth or faithfulness. That's fine. Jehovah gave all humans free will. They don't want to serve him--fine. They want to be part of another religion--fine. In the finale, this isn't a mere argument of words. In the finale, our lives are at stake. Winning an argument is not as important as being right in God's eyes.
Dismythed said…
I said something similar in A Brief Survey of the 2013 Revised New World Translation, when I said: "Whether you go on the left side or the right, or straight down the middle, or backwards, they don't care, because they'll find fault with how your shoe laces are tied, and if there were nothing they could twist, they would make it up. (In fact, they still do anyway.)"
Dismythed said…
Cumberland, in response to your post a couple of hours ago, if you are getting upset, then perhaps you should find a web page to visit that does not upset you.

I originally wanted to give you a place to receive the attention you need. But after considering some scriptures, I realized that it is best to not let you continue to disrupt the peace of my blog any further. You appear to have a very specific goal of trying to upset me, but I have preferred to be at peace. But to be pleasing to Jehovah, I need to not allow the Truth to be spoken of abusively any further. (1 Timothy 6:2-5; 1 Peter 2:12)
Anonymous said…
Thank-you C.J. for your blog and the taking of your the time to maintain it. I am in the process of reactivating following a rough period in my life. I used to avoid the blogs but managed to find yours and a few others that help refute attacks from those against the truth. Again thank-you !
Dismythed said…
Thank you for your kind words and I am glad you are returning. When you seek for truth, it is Jehovah who reveals it.
James said…
I had a discussion some time back about the alleged lying/theocratic strategy. A response I used then and a few other times: you are hiding Jews from the Nazis, is it moral to tell the Gestapo you heard they left the country? Answer is obvious and the party agreed at least on a limited basis, James
Robert said…
I asked a similar question to someone who asked me about it James: "If someone was trying to harm your wife and kid and asked for your address, would you tell them?" By the erroneous standard they apply to Jehovah's Witness as regard this, they condemn themselves as "liars" too.

Needless to say, I was met with silence.

lol
Robert said…
Guys,

I just wanted to share an actual experience I had a couple weeks ago when I came across an article covering this particular subject.
An "investigative" journalist wrote an article (and I used this term figuratively because as revealed in the contents of his article, he didn't do much investigation on how we apply this Theocratic War Strategy) making strong insinuations that JWs will lie when, and these are HIS words, "its in the interests of the organization".

Now, I didn't blow my top and call him a "liar". What I did was got his email address, used direct quotes from the articles CJ mentioned, and have him the magazines and page numbers in an email respectfully asking him to remove his erroneous claims that we sanction lying in order to protect the organization.

Needless to say, its been 3 weeks, and I haven't even received a reply that he read the email. I don't know if he doesn't want harm his own credibility by reversing his position, but that's his problem because evidently after following him and his articles, he's in bed with our apostate opposers, so I don't expect anything to change if he wants those opposers to remain as informants.

But even IF a brother makes an inaccurate or false statement, does this indicate that he's lying? Not necessarily. He may be unfamiliar with the organization's policy on a certain matter, especially if he rarely handles, or never handled, the matter in question. Or he may have gotten bad information from someone -- God forbid a JW makes a mistake for crying out loud.

The main thrust is that lying is never encouraged by the organization.
Robert said…
And to add a dash of critical thinking to the mix, why would we need lies to get the organization out of a jam, when our lawyers have proven beyond doubt that they're more than capable of getting favorable judgments by embarrassing bigoted lawmakers, and getting rulings overturned?

Anyone read how our winning the clearly prejudice Stratton case made it possible for us (and other religions) and preach nation-wide without having to get a "permit"?

We don't need lies, because most of the cases brought against JWs were unfair and based on hate anyway.

Perhaps its our OPPOSERS who need to stop lying....
Dismythed said…
Oh, it is definitely our opposers who need to stop lying. How can we stop lying if we never started in the first place? :)
Topeson said…
I noticed this reference to "Theocratic War Strategy" and "swearing on oath" in the "Royal commission into institutional responses to child sexual abuse" that's taking place in Australia. It was a rehash of apostate sentiments: the usual stereotype, usually, out-of-context quotes that you find on the internet.
Many persons fall into the trap of not verifying from Jehovah's Witnesses what they do, and what their challenges were as well as how they have progressed from times past, before rushing to the press.

That has cost many gentlemen/women their credibility and reputation.

Dr. Reuben Abati a prolific writer and elegant social critic in Nigeria once wrote an opinion in The Guardian (Nigeria) newspaper. His opinion resonated heavily in a subsequent official editorial of the newspaper: it was about how JWs are comparable to brainwashed terrorists when they make choices about what type of medical treatment they would accept/reject.

It turned out - in part - that his article was based on mere assumptions about the inability of the Nigeria medical system to adequately care for non-blood management of patients.

It turned out - in part - that Dr. Reuben Abati ignored that the victim of armed robbery in question was adequately managed and survived.

As a result of this occurrence, a lot of question marks hanged over his credibility and reputation. He had in one fell swoop attacked a supreme court judgement in Nigeria and traded scientific medical ignorance in his articles.
Point being, one looses credibility and reputation in addition to acting with hate if one continues to use the sentiments expressed in words and action that is being peddled by hateful, cynical, vile opposers of

1. JWs or
2. Minorities or
3. Unpopular belief systems
-Olu Olu
Dismythed said…
It's unfortunate, but it goes to show how hate is spread so easily through mob mentality without the need for facts. That's why the Bible lumps mob mentality with a false witness. (Exodus 23:2)
Robert said…
Yep.

With haters of JWs, it doesn't matter what's true, but what's BELIEVED to be true is all that matters - that's why it so important for them to get the news out FIRST, mainly through a respected and credible source, that way readers can be emotionally turned against us before facts come out.

Then, the can twist every rebuttal we may offer as being a "lie".

I think writers and reporters should remember that apostates don't care about their careers, reputation, or credibility -- all they care about is getting lies out there.

...because if you dare ask them for verification, they call you disparaging ad-hominems like "WT defender" or "JW apologist".

If that isn't an indication of an evil agenda, then the writer/reporter is asking for his reputation to be lost.
Dismythed said…
Anonymous opposers of May 4, 2016 at 10:07 AM, 10:08 AM and 10:36 AM

I fail to see the word "lie" there in the text from the 1960 article you cited. Hiding the truth and lying are two different things, and this speaks very specifically about hiding the truth from God's foes, not ours. The Bible makes clear who God's enemies are, the ones called "the enemies of the torture stake", that is our opposers who seek to harm us. (Philippians 3:18-19) If they demand to know who our brothers are so that they can unrighteously prosecute and brutalize them, we will hide the truth from such ones to protect our brothers and the organization. That is the very purpose of theocratic war strategy. But that does not require lying. It requires only keeping our mouths shut to the truth and hiding documents as needed.

As to research, I've done hundreds of ours of research and considered both sides of every issue. Opposers like you only want your side to be heard. There are thousands of pages of lies against us on the web. This is one of the few pages where people can find the truth outside of our organization's own web site. You have plenty of places to go to find the lies. Go there. We don't need to further the lies on this site. If someone has questions, they can ask them. But if they want only to disseminate lies and dissension, there are plenty of places they can do that. It's not like my page is the only place people have access to. So your claim is invalid.
Robert said…
I'm sure these same apostates calling us "liars" would hide the truth from someone trying to harm one of their family members.

In fact, many of them register on this site and others under pseudonyms in order to "hide" their true identities.

.bu..bu..but..that's different...

Unknown said…
After reading these comments and facts it is amazing how these oppossers of our brothers can sleep at night with their consciences.You can have Jesus come down from heaven and tell them that JWs are his true disciples and they would say that Jesus has a demon.It was like the scribes and Pharisees who saw all those wonderful miracles and they still said it was because Jesus had a demon. That is why I only give them 3 chances at truth and then if they still persist I say blind guides is what they are and will fall into the pit of darkness. Agape my brothers keep up the faith.
Jazz
Opposers Dismythed said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Once they convince themselves that their lies are truth, then it is easy to ignore evidence, I guess.

jazzbassf, we should never give any room to apostates at all. Once we identify them as apostates, we need to cut off all contact with them. There are no 3 chances. Apostates don't stop being liars because we make a good line of reasoning.