This has been a momentous few weeks for former Jehovah's Witnesses. We have seen the drastic increase in secular interest in Watchtower's handling of child abuse. In fact, they now go before the Supreme Court of the US to argue that their database of child abuse allegations and confessions should be protected from law enforcement under clergy-penitent privilege. New York state extended a one-year grace period to file child abuse claims (which saw 400 filings in the first day), irrespective of existing statutes of limitation. And the day before that - a newly filed civil case in New York that names the members of the Governing Body directly as defendants.
Is this a bold step? Yes. Is it without consequence? No.
The most obvious reaction from Watchtower is to claim "persecution." It has been a long-standing belief among Jehovah's Witnesses that Satan will try to wipe out God's true followers, and a lawsuit that personally names their most elevated leaders is sure to meet that internal definition. Full government bans on the activities, publications, and even meetings have been seen in multiple places around the globe. Russia is only the most recent, but also been the most transparent. Witnesses are openly declared an "extremist group" by the Kremlin, and while the ethics of the attendant penalties are suspect, they are in no hurry to hide their treatment of the group.
For decades, Watchtower has been bathing members in the rhetoric that "persecution proves providence". They have taken every instance of resistance and secular red tape as evidence that they are the chosen. Every former Witness is familiar with this, thus they will know how rattled this will leave every current Witness. Stephen Lett of the Governing Body has already called these cases "apostate-driven lies" in an address to Bethel volunteers. And while this would be a very convenient point to segue into their current Supreme Court battle to keep their database of pedophiles secret, I have to come back around to the inspiration for this article, and that's the question of "who cares?" I pointed out the problem of perceived persecution in a discussion group, and was met with that question.
To be perfectly frank, I care...
Now, I know the person asking did so to emphasize that I shouldn't, and that she didn't. From an objective standpoint, I understand that emotional baggage relating to Watchtower is best left at their doorstep, but that doesn't mean we need to be devoid of compassion. Yes, I know that having complete disdain for Watchtower and working for its end is not exactly evil. It certainly doesn't require that a person be heartless either. So why make that comparison?
Because in the November 15, 2013 edition (download the PDF) of the Watchtower magazine, it was made explicitly clear [on pg. 20] that followers may receive instructions that "may not appear
practical from a human standpoint. All
of us must be ready to obey any instructions we may receive, whether these appear sound from a strategic or human
standpoint or not." And it's the publication of this warning that makes me care, because this is more like a hostage situation than it is a religion. Members are being conditioned to ignore reason and logic in circumstances that the Governing Body deem sufficiently dire.
This is an appropriate time to add a reminder that Jehovah's Witnesses unequivocally believe that a literal society-ending Armageddon is on the horizon. Groups that believe in this way are rightfully called "doomsday" religions, because it is their cultivated expectation that the world will descend into chaos as the final battle between God and Satan takes place. Thus, the mandate to "obey any instructions" falls in line with their assurances that their lives depend on it. They've been trusting their eternity to the Governing Body since the days of J.F. Rutherford, and aren't prepared to give up on that lightly.
Many of us have family that are still active members. Whatever instruction that comes down from Watchtower headquarters is something they will be expected to carry out, or suffer the consequence of being shunned. Knowing the deeply held beliefs that keep us from our families, we are already aware of how willing they are to act against human nature. Knowing that I do care about this, I decided to ask myself why, and the truthful answer is that I'm afraid of what they'll do.
There have been enough examples of religious groups taking inexplicable action at the direction of their irrefutable leader(s). A long time ago, such a group moved to Guyana to practice Apostolic Socialism. Think of it as a hippy commune, but for Jesus fans. They worked together happily in a community without racism, economic classes, or poverty. By all counts, they seemed pretty happy. Then their leader, James Jones, began telling them that they were being targeted by government authorities. The group grew paranoid and reclusive. Under the perception of persecution, the group received the most impractical of instructions. On November 18, 1979, over nine-hundred members of the People's Temple (a third of them children) died of cyanide poisoning, rather than face whatever was coming.
In a lot of ways, they sounded like Jehovah's Witnesses. The kind of stuff that was in the metaphorical Jonestown brochure is the kind of stuff Witnesses peddle. No, this should not be taken for a direct correlation, but it does demand a certain scrutiny. I don't actually think Witnesses would do this. They seem to have a firm belief that suicide is not Christian, but a certain scrutiny will reveal many practices about which their policies have changed. Most of those are policies that other Christian sects do not share. Blood transfusion, for example, is accepted by society and most religions as a viable medical practice. However, scores of Witnesses have refused this proven procedure due to dogmatic beliefs, trading their lives for their faith.
Jim Jones knew his followers would die if they ingested cyanide, and so did the followers. The Governing Body knew that followers would die by refusing blood transfusions, and so did the followers. But in both cases, the indoctrination of their way of life was so complete that fear of failing in that led them to embrace death instead. As horrible as this comparison is, it is worth noting that more Jehovah's Witness have died for this belief than Jones' followers who died for theirs. The difference? Watchtower didn't have it happen all at once.
Groups like this have been groomed to respond in certain ways to aggressive challenges. Suing the Governing Body members by name is an aggressive challenge. Being cognizant of how these challenges will be taken can help us to frame them in a way that saves as many individuals as possible. Yes, it's admirable to want to remove destructive and toxic influences, but if they become convinced that Armageddon is upon us, the extremity of their actions will escalate quickly. Unfortunately, the people on the outside usually don't get a lot of chances to help or intervene, and if the first opportunity goes wrong, it may be the last.
So, yeah, I care.