CIVILIAN SERVICE

by blondie 30 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

blondie

How many remember when the WTS changed their policy on alternative service; changed it to alternative CIVILIAN service so jw men could choose it because it was not supervised by the military. Shows how the WTS quibbles with words to advance a "new teaching." FLAG SALUTE, VOTING, CIVILIAN SERVICE p. 212
Civilian service. In some lands, the State requires that those who reject military service engage in some form of civilian service for a period of time. When faced with a decision on this matter, we should pray about it, perhaps discuss it with a mature fellow Christian, and then make our decision on the basis of an informed conscience.—Proverbs 2:1-5; Philippians 4:5.
God’s Word tells us to “be obedient to governments and authorities, to be ready for every good work, . . . to be reasonable.” (Titus 3:1, 2) With that in mind, we might ask ourselves the following questions: ‘Will accepting the proposed civilian work compromise my Christian neutrality or cause me to be involved with false religion?’ (Micah 4:3, 5; 2 Corinthians 6:16, 17) ‘Would doing this work make it difficult for me to fulfill my Christian responsibilities or even prevent me from fulfilling them?’ (Matthew 28:19, 20; Ephesians 6:4; Hebrews 10:24, 25) ‘On the other hand, would engaging in such service involve a schedule that would allow me to expand my spiritual activities, perhaps sharing in the full-time ministry?’—Hebrews 6:11, 12.
If a Christian conscientiously concludes that he could perform civilian service rather than go to prison, fellow Christians should respect his decision. (Romans 14:10) If, though, he feels that he cannot perform such service, others should respect that position as well.—1 Corinthians 10:29; 2 Corinthians 1:24.
Beth Sarim

In Crisis of Conscience the 2018 edition.
It illustrates this also. As recent as 1996, I believe a 2/3 majority vote on things was the practise. If I"m not mistaken it occurred when a couple of GB members couldn't make up their minds of things. But when certain dudes on the GB put up their hands,,,the indecisive ones voted on things with the more popular GB members.
Which in turn would effect the lives of rank and file JW's tremendously. In matters relating to alternative or military service.
Try that on for size.. How about a criminal record now? For not accepting alternative military service,,going to jail for it and you can't get a job, because you have a criminal record.
Because some guys in New York were indecisive on voting on things.
EasyPrompt

It's interesting that the phrase "civil service" or "civilian service" is not found in the NWT. The closest thing is "public service" which is translated "holy service" at Luke 1:23.

Daniel worked in a government position. So did Esther, Mordecai, Nehemiah, Ezra, Joseph, Solomon, David, and many others. In some cases, they were directly appointed to that public service by Jehovah.

No where does the Bible say "you may not work in civilian service" just like no where does it say "you may not vote". When the Bible says "you must be no part of the world" it's not referring to civilian service. It's referring to not acting like Satan, a person who is hypocritical. When the Pharisees were figuratively striving to have a clean outside of the cup but were inside full of dead men's bones, Jesus called them sons of their father the Devil. Those men were part of the world because they preferred the way of hypocritical showy display instead of the way of love.

Voting doesn't make someone part of the world. Holding government office doesn't make someone part of the world. Having a political party card doesn't make someone part of the world. Being a religious hypocrite does make someone part of the world.

In context, when Jesus was talking about being "no part of the world" he wasn't talking about voting. Jesus mentioned Judas, who was a religious hypocrite. Judas pretended outwardly to love Jesus, but he really loved money more than he loved truth.

John 17:12-16

"When I was with them, I used to watch over them on account of your own name, which you have given me; and I have protected them, and not one of them is destroyed except the son of destruction, so that the scripture might be fulfilled. But now I am coming to you, and I am saying these things in the world, so that they may have my joy made complete in themselves. I have given your word to them, but the world has hated them, because they are no part of the world, just as I am no part of the world. “I do not request that you take them out of the world, but that you watch over them because of the wicked one. They are no part of the world, just as I am no part of the world."

In context, when John was talking about being "no part of the world" he wasn't talking about civil service. He was talking about "antichrists", people who once were Christians but whose actions showed they didn't really have love for God.

1 John 2:15-21

"Do not love either the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him; because everything in the world—the desire of the flesh and the desire of the eyes and the showy display of one’s means of life—does not originate with the Father, but originates with the world. Furthermore, the world is passing away and so is its desire, but the one who does the will of God remains forever. Young children, it is the last hour, and just as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared, from which fact we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of our sort; for if they had been of our sort, they would have remained with us. But they went out so that it might be shown that not all are of our sort. And you have an anointing from the holy one, and all of you have knowledge. I write you, not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and because no lie originates with the truth."

The GB loves money more than they love truth. They have a form of godly devotion, but prove false to its power, just like it says in 2 Timothy 3. They are part of the world of their father the Devil, and they act like their father who also pretends to be an angel of light but is actually full of darkness. They are religious hypocrites.

The GB misapplies the Bible's words about "no part of this world."

Romans 13:4 makes clear that it is with God's approval that some "bear the sword." "The existing authorities...for it is God’s minister to you for your good. But if you are doing what is bad, be in fear, for it is not without purpose that it bears the sword. It is God’s minister, an avenger to express wrath against the one practicing what is bad."

Cornelius was an army officer. The Bible calls him "righteous". While he was an army officer, an angel came and spoke to him. While he was an army officer, he received holy spirit and was baptized. The Bible doesn't say that Peter came and said, "Hey, Cornelius, you have to repent of being in the army. You have to quit your job." Nope. Cornelius, the army officer, the righteous man, was qualified to receive holy spirit and be baptized while still an army officer. He was no part of the world even though he was part of the military.

In context when Jesus told Peter to put down the sword, it was because at that time it was God's will for Jesus to go through the unjust arrest. If Peter took up the sword at that time, he would have been killed by those other dudes with the swords.

We know Jehovah hates violence, but that doesn't mean that he's displeased with all the men who bear the sword. To the contrary - the governmental authorities stand in their places at present with God's permission for a purpose in harmony with God's will. God will discipline them at the proper time, and any who abuse their authority will receive their wages for such abuse. But the righteous ones among those in the military and the governing authorities will receive their reward for their righteousness, just like Cornelius did. There are many many loving, good people in the military and among the governing authorities. It's not a sin to be in civilian service.

Ecclesiastes 3:1-8

"There is an appointed time for everything,
A time for every activity under the heavens:
A time for birth and a time to die;
A time to plant and a time to uproot what was planted;
A time to kill and a time to heal;
A time to tear down and a time to build up;
A time to weep and a time to laugh;
A time to wail and a time to dance;
A time to throw stones away and a time to gather stones together;
A time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing;
A time to search and a time to give up as lost;
A time to keep and a time to throw away;
A time to rip apart and a time to sew together;
A time to be silent and a time to speak;
A time to love and a time to hate;
A time for war and a time for peace."
Journeyman

No where does the Bible say "you may not work in civilian service" just like no where does it say "you may not vote".
While I agree with most of what you say, I would be wary about stating that Christians today can legitimately either vote for governments or serve in the military, without risking making themselves "part of the world".

All the examples you cite of working in high government office, directly influencing political affairs, are from the Old Testament, when God was using a specific nation on earth and also using the tools of human governance (eg: wars, political intrigues) in order to support that nation. So as you say, he placed individuals directly into roles for them to manoeuvre and influence events.
Since the arrival of the Messiah (the appointed King of God's Kingdom), the Scriptures show that God explicitly is not favouring or using a specific nation state on earth now (and has in fact purposed to wipe out human governments), so Christians should be more careful about matters that directly involve political affairs. The state of the world today shows the wisdom of keeping involvement more at arms-length, to avoid being caught up in bitter politics, bloodshed, etc (just look at Ukraine, Gaza-Israel, etc, etc!)
Regarding voting, this is clearly a position where an individual is choosing to endorse a particular political party to rule (even if just for a few years), unless they choose to enter the polling booth and spoil their ballot paper. That means that by voting, whether you like or accept it or not, you are endorsing all that that party stands for, against its rivals. You bear a share of responsibility for what it does (both good and evil) if it comes to power.
Serving in a job within civil administration is not necessarily the same (for example the UK's civil service or a similar administrative role) as you are not explicitly favouring a particular party ideology, in the same way that paying taxes (which may be used in part to fund non-Christian things such as weapons) is not the same as directly working in a factory that builds munitions. To my knowledge there is no indication of any Bible Christian voting for a human leader or ruler (such as in the Roman Senate or equivalent administrative body).
Regarding military service today, bear in mind that Christians are prohibited from deliberately killing others. This rules out serving in a modern-day military, since being trained and used to kill others is a key part of the role. In contrast, roles like riot control, investigating crimes such as theft, murder, and other civilian duties do not require the need to kill, so a role in a civilian police force or civil/home guard is potentially more acceptable.
In Bible times, all these civilian duties were also performed by elements of the military as there was no such thing as a formal civilian police force, so at that time there would have been no distinction. So with regard to someone like Cornelius, once converted to Christianity, he could have transferred to (or perhaps was already serving in) a more 'civil' capacity as a guard or administrator/trainer/etc, but still retain his rank and position in the Roman military.
So today, I would draw the distinction between serving in the military (where a willingness to kill is essential) and serving in a civil guard or police role (where it is not), in terms of your likely exposure to behaviour that could violate Christian standards.
EasyPrompt

Mostly, I just wanted to expose that the GB/FD$/WTBT$ take on the "no part of the world" verse is misapplied.

As regards voting, where I live people don't just vote for elected officials. Decisions on finances for public works projects, like building bridges, are sometimes decided by referendum, as well as amendments to the state constitution regarding things like allowing persons with disabilities to sign petitions and so on.

Since Jesus did not take the throne in the first century nor in 1914, none of the governments from that time until now have been ruling in opposition to Christ's Kingdom, so anybody who votes for an official running for office has not been acting against the Kingdom. The first century Christians were not opposed to voting. They were opposed to doing an act of worship to the emperor.

"That means that by voting, whether you like or accept it or not, you are endorsing all that that party stands for, against its rivals. You bear a share of responsibility for what it does (both good and evil) if it comes to power."

I do not agree. If the government demands a person select a party, it is not an endorsement to comply with those wishes, it is compliance.

To illustrate, in the congregations, the members are told to vote for the officers of the local corporation. If all the congregation members vote unanimously for "Brother Bob" to be director, but then later he steals from the contribution box while in that elected role, are all of the congregation members culpable for his theft because of voting for him to be the director? The congregation authorities told the members to vote, and told them who to vote for, so they did it. They do not bear responsibility for what he does. He bears the responsibility.

God has allowed these nations to have their governments at present. Some of them utilize the process of voting and elections. Romans 13:7 "Render to all their dues: to the one who calls for the tax, the tax; to the one who calls for the tribute, the tribute; to the one who calls for fear, such fear; to the one who calls for honor, such honor." If the "tribute" is acceptance of a government mandated political party card, then it is not in opposition to God's will to accept that card.

I personally do not vote and have no desire to, but I do not see anywhere in the Bible that prohibits it.

Also, nowhere in the Bible does it say that Christians are prohibited from killing others. (Obviously murder is wrong, but in context here we are talking about Cornelius and the military.) Jesus said whoever lives by the sword will die by the sword, which implies that living by the sword is dangerous. Jesus told Peter to put down the sword in that instance at Gethsemane because he knew God's will included getting arrested at that time and killed. But the account where Jesus poured out holy spirit on Cornelius, again, shows that Christians could serve in the military without it being a breach of Christian standards. Cornelius wasn't a traffic cop - he was a centurion.

My grandfather was in the Navy in WWII, at Normandy. My great uncles were in the Army, one a POW in Germany. My dad was an army veteran; my step-dad a retired lieutenant colonel; my step-brother 716th Military Police Battalion, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) died in Iraq; my nephew is in the Air Force; another step-brother and my cousin are police officers. I was not and am not afraid of any of them. They were not and are not scary mean people.

On the other hand, I have been afraid of some of those in the local congregations at times. Some of those people have been scary and mean to me or threatening to my children, in a way that made me call the police at times and other times go to the courts for protection. I have found that being in the military or not is not what makes a person violent or have the spirit of the world. The spirit of the world (selfishness, greed, love of violence, etc) can be found in people who outwardly claim to be the most religious people around, while some who have the assignment as executioners are peaceable by nature.

Notice what Jesus said about killing...

Mark 3:4

"Next he said to them: “Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save a life or to kill?”"

Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath. (Mark 2:28) Jehovah has assigned Jesus to carry out executions at the end of the tribulation. Those executions are not in violation of Christian standards. Jesus is the Christ, the Prince of Peace. He never violates Christian standards - he's the one who sets the example for Christians, and his example shows that sometimes it is lawful on the Sabbath "to do good or to do harm, to save a life or to kill".

I am not saying people should go sign up for the military. I hate killing. I won't even watch cartoons where characters get hit in the head. We must hate what is bad. Jehovah hates violence. We must also hate violence, and intrigue and slander and so on. But it is not the label on the outside of the cup that determines whether a person loves or hates violence. It is what is on the inside that counts, that leads to either good or rotten fruit. Jesus hates violence, and yet he's assigned as God's chief executioner.

There are men in military uniforms who are true Christians.

And there are men with "FDS" titles who are not.

John 13:35

"By this all will know that you are my disciples—if you have love among yourselves."

John 15:13

"No one has love greater than this, that someone should surrender his life in behalf of his friends."
Beth Sarim

You dont see anywhere in the Bible that prohibits voting???
Thats because its NOT there. The Borg needs all its $heeples thinking and acting alike.
I don't know if you follow Owen on his Telltale channel. He illustrated how the Borg can't afford to have political divisions. The Borg needs all its members to think and act all the same. By prohibiting voting and keeping the $heeples from forming political views,,,the Borg can mold and make the members think and act all alike.
No political views,,no opinions,,,the Borg always preaches.........you guessed. UNITY.
They spout it all the time.
PetrW

@Journeyman
Regarding military service today, bear in mind that Christians are prohibited from deliberately killing others. This rules out serving in a modern-day military, since being trained and used to kill others is a key part of the role. In contrast, roles like riot control, investigating crimes such as theft, murder, and other civilian duties do not require the need to kill, so a role in a civilian police force or civil/home guard is potentially more acceptable.
In Bible times, all these civilian duties were also performed by elements of the military as there was no such thing as a formal civilian police force, so at that time there would have been no distinction. So with regard to someone like Cornelius, once converted to Christianity, he could have transferred to (or perhaps was already serving in) a more 'civil' capacity as a guard or administrator/trainer/etc, but still retain his rank and position in the Roman military.
So today, I would draw the distinction between serving in the military (where a willingness to kill is essential) and serving in a civil guard or police role (where it is not), in terms of your likely exposure to behaviour that could violate Christian standards.
***

I agree with your opinion. If I just look a little at the area of soldiering and how the NT refers to it, I observe that the NT-text approach is very ambivalent: John the Baptist tells (Luke 3:14) soldiers that they are not to abuse anyone. There is nothing there about them necessarily having to end their military career. According to Matt 8:10, Jesus values the faith of the officer.
But the soldiers of Herod (Lk 23:11), as with Pilate (Mt 27:30), mocked or beat Jesus. The case of Cornelius, an active officer, has been described.
Paul is indeed arrested by the officers and soldiers (Acts 21:32), but this saves him - prolongs his life. They respect his Roman citizenship (Acts 22:26) and respond with further increased protection for Paul when they learn that the Jews want to kill Paul (Acts 23:23). Before the shipwreck, the soldiers want to kill Paul, along with the other prisoners. It is again the commanding officer who prevents this and again prolongs Paul's life (Acts 27:43).
From this brief analysis, it seems to me that the NT-text does not in any way invalidate the position of the soldiers. The context shows that the term "soldier" in our day and "soldier" in the NT-period do not exactly overlap. A soldier/officer, in addition to being part of the military structure of the Roman army, often acts in the role of a modern-day policeman or prison officer...
On the other hand, it is also true that the little boys in Bethlehem, were murdered directly by Herod's soldiers/police (although this is not directly in the text) or it can be assumed that they assisted in such an action, which was probably some sort of a cover-up to separate the parents from the little children... The soldiers/police who were supposed to guard the tomb, were put in a very precarious situation when they left their posts out of fear (Mt 28:4). They had to be bribed to testify that the body had been stolen, and in case of further inconvenience, they were given a promise that it would not affect their military career (Matt. 28:11-15).
A difficult question arises: Can a Christian be a soldier? Or a policeman? Or a prison guard?
I answer it this way:
I do not decide whether it is wrong or right. This statement is a latent criticism of globally operating churches like the JWs who centrally decide on a one-size-fits-all doctrine, even though it is clear that the military, police, or prison ministries in different countries are different. Is military submarine service permissible (see Jonah 😊 )? But what about states that don't have submarines?
If centrally led churches decide what is or is not permissible, or globally prohibit/permit it and don't respect regional specifics, then the result is similar to JWs with the issue of blood, blood fractions and platelets, autotransfusion, etc. etc. ... an absurd ban with even more absurd exceptions...
So I am not saying whether it is wrong or right, and which kinds of troops or services are or are not allowed, but rather I am focusing on the answer: if one is a soldier or a police officer and wants to be a Christian, one must be aware of the increased risk of being in a counter-ethical situation with one's own conscience. He may serve his entire service on a military submarine as a cook, opening cans and cooking delicious meals out of them 😊, he probably won't do anything more sinful than working as a taxi driver or a shop assistant or a school teacher, but the situation can change quickly...
But he can encounter counter-ethical issues just like a doctor (abortion, sex change...) or any other profession. Not something more or less sinful per se, but there are professions that are simply more risky than the other. And that is for each person to judge in their own time, in their own region, in their own conscience, and in their own relationship with God... global, there is no one answer in my opinion. That's my global answer 😊.
Ding

Think of all the JWs who went to prison needlessly because their "brothers" at headquarters decided they had to.
Beth Sarim

They went to prison needlessly,,,now have a criminal record.
They went to prison,,having lifelong implications.
Because some guys felt it necessary at the time,,,,or couldn't make up their minds.
Affecting their lives tremendously and negatively.
And the victims will likely never hear '''boo"" from these guys in New York with an explanation or apology.
EasyPrompt

I believe in unity without tyranny. Being united with Christ prevents us from joining crazy rebellions or movements or seeking to needlessly hurt people.

When love is our rule, we don't need WTBT$ to make rules for us. Having love as our rule is part of Christian freedom.

Romans 6:18-23

"Yes, since you were set free from sin, you became slaves to righteousness. I am speaking in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh; for just as you presented your members as slaves to uncleanness and lawlessness leading to lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to holiness. For when you were slaves of sin, you were free as to righteousness. What, then, was the fruit that you used to produce at that time? Things of which you are now ashamed. For the end of those things is death. However, now that you were set free from sin and became slaves to God, you are producing your fruit in the way of holiness, and the end is everlasting life. For the wages sin pays is death, but the gift God gives is everlasting life by Christ Jesus our Lord."

CIVILIAN SERVICE

Share this