JW Theocratic Warfare Is An Unscriptural Practice

by Honesty 4 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Honesty

    The JW's pride themselves on their 'Theocratic Warfare' practice of not being truthful to anyone they deem not entitled to truth. They quote the example of Rahab as proof that it is ok to lie to others if the motive is good. However, after researching the Bible and comparing it with JW 'Theocratic Warfare' the evidence shows not only how erroneous the WTBTS is on the subject but also exposes the evil in their doctrine:

    Num 23:19 (HCSB)

    19 God is not a man who lies, or a son of man who changes His mind. Does He speak and not act,
    or promise and not fulfill?

    1 Sam 15:29 (HCSB)

    29 Furthermore, the Eternal One of Israel does not lie or change His mind, for He is not man who changes his mind.”

    Heb 6:17-18 (HCSB)

    17 Because God wanted to show His unchangeable purpose even more clearly to the heirs of the promise, He guaranteed it with an oath,

    18 so that through two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to seize the hope set before us.

    *** w60 6/1 351-2 Questions from Readers ***From time to time letters are received asking whether a certain circumstance would justify making an exception to the Christian’s obligation to tell the truth. In reply to these the following is given:
    God’s Word commands: “Speak truth each of you with his neighbor.” (Eph. 4:25) This command, however, does not mean that we should tell everyone who asks us all he wants to know. We must tell the truth to one who is entitled to know, but if one is not so entitled we may be evasive. But we may not tell a falsehood.
    Thus a sister should tell the truth about her age for the purpose of having correct information on her publisher’s record card, as that comes under the purvue of right to know. Fear to do so is a sign of vanity and immaturity. Nor may this particular information be kept from a prospective mate if that one thinks it important enough to ask. Such a one would also have a right to know. So it would depend upon the circumstances whether one may be evasive about one’s age or not.
    The same principle applies in the case of a patient suffering from some incurable disease. He has the right to know the verdict of a medical examination as to his life prospects. He may not be denied the knowledge that is so vital to him—just how precious his days are to him by reason of their being so few. It does not make for trust, understanding and love to deceive such a one, and the one practicing the deception will be continually plagued by a guilty conscience. If the patient is dedicated to Jehovah he certainly will appreciate that his times are in God’s hands and therefore will not have a morbid fear of dying but will strengthen himself in the resurrection hope. Some who withheld such information, intending kindness, afterward found that it had been a mistaken kindness.
    There is, of course, a right time and manner for divulging such information. The time should be opportune and the manner sympathetic yet not unduly sorrowful. It may not be amiss to observe that one may be hopeful about his condition in spite of such a prognosis, since medical knowledge is not infallible today. Love, wisdom and self-control will enable one to broach the subject properly and the result can be a far greater bond of affection than existed previously. At such a time the resurrection hope, the blessings already enjoyed as a member of the New World society as well as those that still lie ahead might also be mentioned.
    What about telling a prospective mate the unfavorable truth about one’s past, such as before one became one of Jehovah’s witnesses? If the subject comes up and one is asked, the rule would apply that the truth should be told as the other has a right to know. If one is not asked, then it would be up to one’s discretion and conscience. However, if it appeared that the information was vital to the other, and the other did not ask simply because he did not think such a thing likely, then the information should be volunteered, trusting in love and understanding to cover over the matter. If there is to be any disillusionment, certainly it is far better that it take place before marriage than afterward. Here the well-known principle stated by Jesus would apply: “All things, therefore, that you want men to do to you, you also must likewise do to them; this, in fact, is what the Law and the Prophets mean.”—Matt. 7:12.
    There is one exception, however, that the Christian must ever bear in mind. As a soldier of Christ he is in theocratic warfare and he must exercise added caution when dealing with God’s foes. Thus the Scriptures show that for the purpose of protecting the interests of God’s cause, it is proper to hide the truth from God’s enemies. A Scriptural example of this is that of Rahab the harlot. She hid the Israelite spies because of her faith in their God Jehovah. This she did both by her actions and by her lips. That she had Jehovah’s approval in doing so is seen from James’ commendation of her faith.—Josh. 2:4, 5; Jas. 2:25.
    This would come under the term “war strategy,” as explained in The Watchtower, February 1, 1956, and is in keeping with Jesus’ counsel that when among wolves we must be as “cautious as serpents.” 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.”—Matt. 10:16; John 15:13.

    Let's take this a little further and reason on it from God's point of view:

    "What if someone came to your house to murder a member of your family and asked if that person was in. Would it not be right to lie in those circumstances?"

    Can you see the thrust of this question? It is the argument, "This is what we ought to do because it makes sense." But once we view sin as an "ought," it is magically turned into something that is "good."

    The Bible does not teach that anyone in any situation ought to sin.

    1 Cor 10:13 (HCSB)

    13 No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to humanity. God is faithful and He will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation He will also provide a way of escape, so that you are able to bear it.

    Romans 11:29 (HCSB)

    29 since God’s gracious gifts and calling are irrevocable.

    2 Tim 2:13 (HCSB)

    13 if we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself.

    First Corinthians 10:13 teaches that because God is faithful, we will never find ourselves in a situation where we must sin, but there will always be a way of escape. God never calls upon us to break one of His laws in order to keep another.
  • Deputy Dog
    Deputy Dog

    The Watchtower doesn't think the rank and file are entitled to truth.

  • LittleToe

    Got nothing to add. Just wanted to say "Hi" to DDog

  • A Paduan
    A Paduan

    The history of the wtbts continually demonstrates that the measure you give will be rewarded as the measure you recieve, press down and overflowing ..................

    Theocratic warfare helps provide for the (as Quotes puts it) 'embarrassment of riches'

  • peacefulpete

    The whole notion of Theocratic Strategy is just spin on a truism everyone accepts. If someone gives us reason to believe they will use information to truly hurt others all responsible people will try to twart them by misdirection or silence. We don't need a church to teach us that. However this principled position is twisted when "hurting others" is in practice defined as something negatively affecting the church community or it's ambitions.

Share this