IMPORTANT NOTICE

"Due to the lack of public interest in sincere encouragement and a personal perspective of life as one of Jehovah's Witness, I am ceasing my work on this cite. It is clear to me that in today's ambivalent and emotionally numbing world that my responsibility lies with my own family and it is towards my own family that I now will focus. While this site was never brought forth in order to reap the applause of men, it has also failed to reach those who sincerely wish to make informed decisions about any religion they may join. Most individuals would rather allow others to make their decisions for them, or be swayed by the opinions of others: it neither is nor ever was the intention of this site to do either. Enabling others to make their own decisions, and then trusting that their Bible-trained conscience would guide them in the correct path should be a goal we all have in common, directing no person to anyone but Christ and our heavenly Father, Jehovah God-- never to any organization or church that originates with men."

--Timothy B Kline, October 19, 2000

THE scripture cited is an excellent example of the care that I’ve used in preparing this paper which I now present to you. I’ve taken the approach that "what’s good for the goose must also be good for the gander" when it comes to the topic I’m about to elaborate on. What that means is that in writing this from the perspective of one of Jehovah’s Witnesses (for I have neither disassociated myself formally nor have I been disfellowshiped as of this writing) I have exercised the same "weights" that are used against other religions by the Witnesses. In simpler terms: if Witnesses say that another Christian group should not be doing a particular thing—then Witnesses had better not be doing it either. That means either in principle or in actual fact. I did this to keep the scales balanced and to stay as objective as I could.

The reason I compiled this paper was personal. The reason I share it now that I’ve completed it is also personal: I want others to share their own personal insights into this topic, in the hope that I can make a wise decision based not on my own judgment (Jeremiah 10:23) but as Proverbs 15:22 advises, "…in the multitude of counselors there is accomplishment." I sincerely believe that.

The issue of "community responsibility" seems to have become the focal point of my own spirituality as I work towards maturity in my relationship with Jehovah God. The impact is felt in the very guilt that I feel as I miss meetings and assemblies, a guilt that may have more causes than simply the impression engraved upon my heart by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society that those meetings are our lifeline, a loving provision from Jehovah God to keep us abreast on spiritual food that is being dispensed through the "slave" class.

I will endeavor to share with you some of the questions that have come to mind since I started doubting my relationship with the organization known as the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, or more commonly referred to as "Jehovah’s Witnesses." I have made every effort to be concise in my references to the Society’s literature. And I have set this matter prayerfully before Jehovah God. I do not claim to be inspired in any way, nor to have all the answers. That would be too easy in a day and age of self-proclaimed prophets and spokesmen for God.

It is my hope that as you journey through this issue with me you will begin to perceive the conundrum of "community responsibility and the Christian" and why it has become so difficult to determine what I should do.

So what exactly is this "community responsibility" that I am talking about?

Simply put, it’s the responsibility placed upon the community both on an individual basis and on the community as a whole. A good example would be a neighborhood where everyone is expected to keep their lawn mowed and free of trash. The community carries out its responsibility by doing just that. If, in that neighborhood, there lives an elderly woman or a less-fortunate individual, the community will likely "come together" to help the person with their mowing or picking up trash. If there lives in the neighborhood an individual who doesn’t do as the rest do, and his/her lawn starts looking unkempt, then it starts getting the attention of the others who live in the neighborhood. This individual is not pulling their individual responsibility in the community and the community will nearly always do something about it. This results (okay, usually results) in the person getting their act together.

Another good example is when a Neighborhood Watch is formed. In the preferred setting, all the neighbors look out for one another and if there is a problem, then the police are called and the problem is taken care of. It has been shown that a strong and active Neighborhood Watch has driven drug dealers and other unwanted types out of neighborhoods where they had formerly been strongly entrenched. Everyone knows that those "types" just take themselves someplace else… but the point is that they are no longer in that neighborhood. The goal of the Neighborhood Watch is to clean things up and to make the neighborhood a safe and enjoyable place to live.

In the spiritual sense, "community responsibility" doesn’t really change. There remains the goal of providing a group or association where it is safe and enjoyable to fellowship and to meet together for encouraging exchanges of faith. In fact, the Bible itself spares nothing when it warns:

And I heard another voice out of heaven say: "Get out of her, my people, if you do not want to share with her in her sins, and if you do not want to receive part of her plagues. For her sins have amassed together clear up to heaven, and God has called her acts of injustice to mind.—Revelation 18:4,5

This is a powerful incentive for one to take note of where they are standing in relation to Revelation’s "Babylon the Great." After all, nobody wants to be receiving any part of "her" plagues after reading the horrific details of how Jehovah God will see to it that "Babylon the Great" is destroyed! And according to the current Witness understanding, "Babylon the Great" is the world empire of false religion. Therefore, that is the approach or understanding that I will proceed with. In other words, any other religion besides Jehovah’s Witnesses makes up the composite "Babylon the Great" that John describes in Revelation. Interestingly enough, even if that application proves incorrect in the days ahead (and I have heard of other feasible explanations of the identity of "Babylon the Great"), the issue of "community responsibility" will not hinge on just that verse. Throughout the Bible there is the matter of "community responsibility" and it indeed affects today’s Christian!

"Yes, there is such a thing as joint, or community, bloodguilt." –Watchtower, November 15, 1995, page 15

Indeed, Witnesses know that because they’ve identified "Babylon the Great" as the world empire of false religion, then bad things are going to happen to that empire, and very soon. They spare no words as they point out the bloodied history of "Christendom" in contrast to their own. Bloodguilt is declared, and justice is coming:

"Therefore, the adherents of false religion as well as the supporters and participants in human warfare are bloodguilty before God." –Watchtower, November 15, 1995, page 15/paragraph 4

Concerning Witnesses themselves, it has been written "…They want no share in the community responsibility for the sins and corruption of politics. They know that the ones who keep clean from such worldly defilements will be the ones whom God will preserve into His new order." –Watchtower, November 15, 1973, page 693. The same can be said on their view toward false religion, of course. The challenge is thus put forth by Jehovah’s Witnesses to all who are still a part of world empire of false religion, as well as individuals who are not necessarily associated with any form of organized religion and perhaps had taken a firm stand against participation in wars as a conscientious objector, along with the recurring theme of bloodguilt:

"We personally may not desire to show disrespect for God’s name, but, if we have any religious connection, the question for us to ask ourselves is: Do I belong to a religious denomination that disrespects and defames God’s name in these and other ways? Suppose that any of us do. Well, then, we should know the course for us to take if we respect God’s name. What? This, namely, to disengage ourselves from sharing in the community responsibility of such a religious denomination before the Bible God…" –Watchtower, November 1, 1971, page 647

"Some have not willfully and deliberately done so, but share community responsibility for supporting the spilling of blood in wars." –Watchtower, September 15, 1966, page 550.

"Another way in which a person can unwittingly become bloodguilty is by reason of the principle of community responsibility. If one belongs to a religious organization that has shed blood in times past, or that may bless those who do shed innocent blood, then by reason of association he would share in its bloodguilt." –Awake, October 22, 1970, page 28

I will return to these quotes a little later on. However my goal right now is to demonstrate that the issue of "community responsibility" is an important one to the Christian who is trying to be pleasing to God, and especially the Witness. Just the idea that one can become bloodguilty without actually realizing it is pretty scary stuff indeed. According to the Society’s All Scripture is Inspired, the principle of community responsibility is biblical (see SI, page 63, paragraph 30) and can even be found at 2 Samuel 3:29 and 2 Samuel 24:11-15. So let’s start with the Bible’s view on "community responsibility."

The most outstanding example we can look at initially is that of Egypt in the days of Moses. Here was the perfect example of "community responsibility" and how its implications make for several questions when we examine our own associations.

The first question one is likely to ask is: Why should an entire nation suffer on account of one man? This is exactly how the Society poses the question in the June 15, 1965, Watchtower on page 366. In the situation, Jehovah brought a series of plagues upon Egypt due to the Pharaoh’s hardheartedness. Logically, we can conclude that Egypt was not ruled by a democracy since the Pharaoh exercised "god-like" power over Egypt. So, why did Jehovah punish those who had no say in the release of the Israelites, much less a say in how the Pharaoh would decide on the issue?

The Society refers to it as "community responsibility." In that article, they explain:

"For one thing, Pharaoh alone could not have oppressed the nation of Israel or defied Jehovah. That took a mighty organization; and so all who supported Pharaoh in his God-defying and oppressive measures became parties to his crimes." –Watchtower, June 15, 1965, page 366

It becomes the suggestion, then, that in a case where the people do not "get up in arms" when their leader does something wrong, or seek to oust him, then they become accessories to the leader, in effect supporting him in his cause. This is clarified finally on page 369 of that same article:

If the Society is correct in this observation, then the "vast mixed company" of non-Israelites that left Egypt to march to freedom with the Israelites (Exodus 12:38) would still be guilty due to community responsibility since they were in Egypt at the time that Jehovah’s plagues came upon them. In fact, wouldn’t it be reasonable to say that it was only through their suffering and enduring the plagues that they (the vast mixed company) became convinced that they needed to leave Egypt to follow the True God, Jehovah? Before that time, they had their own Egyptian gods to worship, did they not?

Even if they had remained neutral, or perhaps sided with the Israelites, their lack of action against the Pharaoh and his loyal followers would be construed as support for the Pharaoh—after all, did they not receive of the plagues, too? Too, we may discern that because they left with the Israelites, thus taking action regarding the Egyptian way of life and the Pharaoh’s rule, they became at that point free of the "community responsibility" where Egypt was concerned. There is no Biblical indication that the Egyptians changed their mind prior to a possible loss of their firstborn, either. In fact, because the Bible is silent on that point, if we assume that it was perhaps this final plague that convinced many of the Egyptians that God was with the Israelites, we can also imagine what horrific plagues Jehovah God will rain down on mankind before many will finally begin to realize that there is an almighty God and that He reigns supreme over all other so-called gods that mankind has become subservient to throughout history. But the important thought here is that until action was taken by some people, they remain under the guilt associated with "community responsibility."

This illustration may also convey the sense that Witnesses have that those who remain a part of "Babylon the Great," that world empire of false religion, will find themselves in a similar situation to those in Egypt. And why share in the plagues when you can leave before it all takes place, right? But history shows us that there will be those who will insist on remaining a part of Revelation’s "Babylon the Great, " as far as Witnesses see it.

Returning to my earlier statement concerning a people supporting their leader (willingly or not), let me add something further from the Society’s publications:

"The people must accept responsibility for the nation’s acts… Nations operate according to the principle of community responsibility. Rulers may start wars, but the people fight them. It is upon the people generally, young and old, male and female, that the enemy nation rains destruction, and not upon the wicked rulers. The nations in their wars sow death on the basis of community responsibility… If the people either actively or passively support what is corrupt and immoral and murderous, do they not bear some responsibility therefore?" –Watchtower, June 1, 1952, pages 344-5, paragraph 14

This is a powerful argument, and brings home the reality of the political system governing the world. Somebody has to fight the wars after the political element decides that war is the only option remaining. And so while the political element carries bloodguilt for being the "pointer" in the wars and for insisting that its orders be followed, "community responsibility" dictates that the actual fighters are guilty as well for following the orders rather than obeying God’s mandate to not murder one’s "brother." It extends even to those who are on the homefront, according to the Society… those who do not bear arms but may continue to pray for those who are fighting. Why? Because of "community responsibility." Rather, they should be refusing to have any share in such a thing, and telling their leaders just as much, is the reasoning of Witnesses.

According to the above quote, even when someone "passively" supports such things, they bear responsibility.

Webster’s New World Pocket Dictionary defines "passive" like this: yielding, submissive. In the context of the Society’s article, this would then mean those people who refuse to support the war effort are "passive resisters" according to Webster’s definition, so long as their resistance is peaceful. There were and continue to be groups who refuse to participate in warfare. Among these "passive resisters" are the Amish and Jehovah’s Witnesses, and individuals who, as a matter of conscience, refuse to bear arms.

According to the Society, these "passive resisters" or "conscientious objectors" would not bear bloodguilt or come under "community responsibility" for shed blood. Does this agree with the Bible’s stance?

The issue is not directly addressed, actually. We can make assumptions and inferences, of course. And we have numerous examples of community responsibility being felt by a people.

Returning to Egypt once again, let us see how this may operate.

Let us assume that there were those who perhaps were "sympathizers" with the Israelites plight in Egypt under the hand of Pharaoh. They didn’t agree with every decree that was handed down by the ruling authority, but they weren’t brazen enough to say so publicly or to take action demanding that the Pharaoh change the policy. They perhaps weren’t directly in a position over the Israelites (a soldier, for instance, or a guard) so they did not exercise the authority of the Pharaoh much like a soldier today would exercise the authority of a nation that he serves. They might have been merely a person in a market who saw events transpire from day to day. Do they come under "community responsibility" even though they are in no position to effect change or to implement it? If the Society is correct, then the answer is yes, simply because they are Egyptians under the Pharaoh… until such time as they act in a way that demonstrates that they no longer will submit to the will of Pharaoh. They would demonstrate this later by applying the Passover requirements that marked the Israelites for survival in the final plague, and then by leaving Egypt with the Israelites when the Pharaoh finally released them.

We can conclude therefore that determination of "community responsibility" can be made under the following guidelines:

1. Action must be taken by the individual that sets him apart from those around him, usually in direct opposite to the course of the majority.

2. Inaction does not excuse an individual. It is the same as "going along with the crowd."

The Bible upholds this in the original issue of community responsibility: that of Adam and the rest of Mankind. We will not and cannot be considered for passing over in the day of Jehovah’s judgment if we do not take action on the issue… if we blindly go along with the course of imperfection and sin. The action we take, of course, is repentance and a turning to godly works and placing our faith in the blood of the Lamb, Christ Jesus. Interestingly, Witness theology cannot demonstrate a freeing from this "community responsibility" even when we do change our own individual life: we are still subject to the guilt brought upon us by Adam’s sin.

This raises the question: Even if a person demonstrates that they want no part of the course that others or the majority is taking, are they still locked into "community responsibility" from the Bible’s viewpoint. We can answer this by looking at any situation where a person took a particular stance, then later changed views after coming to the realization of error on their part. In such cases, it is likely that events were put into motion that have not come to their fruition. A good example would be a person who was sexually active outside of marriage. Upon repentance and actively changing their lifestyle, they demonstrated their new view, but perhaps they suddenly come to realize that they have contracted a disease from their earlier activities. Since events were already put into motion, a change of course doesn’t alter anything more than the person’s view.

The same could be said of a person who once served in the army but has since come to realize that they cannot continue in such a position because of a change in their view. Again, we see that the affect on the individual does not change what has already been set into motion. And in this case, it does not remove "community responsibility" for bloodguilt, as cited by this article published by the Society:

"Another way in which a person can unwittingly become bloodguilty is by reason of the principle of community responsibility. If one belongs to a religious organization that has shed blood in times past, or that may bless those who do shed innocent blood, then by reason of association he would share in its bloodguilt." –Awake, October 22, 1970, page 28

This was mentioned earlier but deserves to be further discussed since surely it extends beyond the borders of one’s religious affiliation… and into the realm of nationalism. And this statement is factualized by the guilt we all bear in the Adamic Sin I just addressed a few moments ago. Are we not all guilty under sin, even though the sin was from ages ago, on the basis that we belong to Adam’s family or organization? Therefore, if the statement that Witnesses make above is true, then this statement must also be true:

Again, we cannot limit it to merely a religious affiliation nor say the same principle does not apply in other associations, right? In all fairness, the article does not address such "other" associations as political or commercial or even social. But the principle does stay unchanged even in those situations as we have already seen.

Before I go on to the next point, let me repeat my thoughts of a moment ago: in the example I discussed, it starts with the "organization" of humankind, with Adam as its founder, and with us as his descendants. We fall under bloodguilt and are sentenced to sin’s costly price: death.

There are other examples in the Bible where the population suffered because of its leader or leaders. There’s King David. There’s the example of Israel, fresh out of Egypt, and for the actions of some, a sentence of wandering until a wicked generation died off.

But I want to look at something a little closer to home, something a bit more contemporary: following the lead of the Society’s "faithful and discreet slave," and how "community responsibility" can cause us, as Witnesses, to be bloodguilty according to the Society’s own definition. We’ll do that in Part Two.

Send mail to mindshadows@hotmail.com with questions or comments about this web site.
Copyright © 2000 Shadows of the Mind
Last modified: September 15, 2000