Most of us here know that for many years Jehovah’s Witnesses considered it wrong for Christians to perform military service or in its stead, some alternative service. The fact that any alternative service instead of the military was considered just as wrong morally is shown in many of their writings, and here are just a few .
Awake! 1974 December 8 p. 23
On March 26, 1971 three representatives of Jehovah’s Witnesses [in The Netherlands] met with a forum representing the ministries of defence and Justice... One of the points of discussion presented by the forum was this: “That you wish no part in performing military service is clear and needs no further explanation. But what really is your objection to civil, alternative service?”
The Witnesses explained that it is not that they are opposed to civil service as such, but rather, it is a matter of strict neutrality. Therefore any work that is merely a substitute for military service would be unacceptable to Jehovah’s Witnesses. Other questions narrowed the issue down still further. “When a person objects to military service,” the government’s servants declared, “he passes from military jurisdiction on to civilian jurisdiction and from that moment has nothing at all to do with the military. Why, then, is accepting of such civil service still so objectionable?”
Willingly accepting such work is objectionable to the Christian because of what God’s law says about the matter: “you were bought with a price: stop becoming slaves of men.” 1 Cor. 7:23 Civilian servitude as a substitute for military service would be objectionable to the Christian. In effect he would thereby become a part of the world instead of keeping separate as Jesus commanded.
Yearbook 1982 p. 226-7
As the number of Witnesses increased, the issue was continually brought to the attention of he public and the authorities alike. Finally, a law was approved decreeing that those who do not agree to do alternative service shall be sentenced to one single prison term, so that our young brothers are now given from 12 to 15 months’ imprisonment...
From 1978 to 1980 there have been, on an average, 500 young brother’s a year in prison on account of the neutrality issue. It is calculated that up to the present, several thousand Witnesses have kept a clear conscience before Jehovah God in this respect.
United in Worship of the Only True God 1983 p. 167
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 non-combatant service or to accept other work assignments as a substitute for military service.
The Watchtower 1986 September 1 p. 20
...when Caesar demanded to have God’s things, they acted in harmony with the principles stated at Acts 4:19 and Acts 5:29. Whether the issue was shedding blood, non-combatant military work, alternative service, or saluting an image such as a national flag, faithful Christians took the position that there was no middle ground. In some cases they were executed because of this stand, Matthew 24:9; Revelation 2:10.
Yearbook 1991 p. 166
…attempts have been made (in Sweden) to have us substitute compulsory work for military service. In the early 1970's, a governmental committee was appointed to review the handling of conscientious objectors. For the sake of uniformity, the authorities wanted Jehovah’s Witnesses to serve on terms similar to those for other religious groups and do compulsory work as a substitute.
Representatives of the branch office appeared before the committee, explaining that the Witnesses could not accept any substitute for military service whatsoever, no matter how praiseworthy the task.
This rule was in effect for some 60 years, with thousands of witnesses serving jail time and even dying in jail as a result.
In 1996, however this policy was changed to allow any witness to make the alternative service a conscience matter, with no acknowledgement that this was a huge change from its previous stand, or apology to those who went to prison needlessly, or to their families.
My question has to do with one of their other well known tenets, that is the prohibition of blood transfusions. Using the same logic that forbade alternative service to military service, how would this affect their view of blood substitutes?
Apparently it wouldn’t. Perhaps it might have been confusing to a witness, while in jail for not accepting some alternative service, and needing medical attention for whatever reason and saying “No, I can’t accept a blood transfusion but I will accept a blood substitute”….. and then has a mental cramp, followed by some involuntary twitching.
I, for one, was not aware of this alternative service reasoning when I was growing up in the witness world. Had I been, still the odds would have been low for me to see the lack of consistent logic in this kind of reasoning. Our family was very fortunate in the fact that no major medical emergency required this decision, and even if it had, I don’t remember ever questioning the logic or even the lack thereof that went into these decisions.
I guess I’m wondering, what if Fred Franz had considered making blood substitutes a no – no? Perhaps we can be grateful that more people haven’t died because I can only shudder to think of the death toll this would have caused.
Any thoughts?