RICHARD SINGELENBERG (University of Utrecht, The Netherlands)

Abstract
For members of religious minorities, social stigmatisation and stereotyping is part of everyday life. Biased and incorrect opinions among the general population concerning beliefs and practices of these movements, no matter how controversial, are widespread. It appears that in some cases these sentiments are reflected in the administration of justice.

The present paper highlights the application of a specific area of law involving Jehovah’s Witnesses. Analysis of two court cases focusing on child custody disputes among members of this religious movement indicates that misconceptions about religious tenets, consideration of pseudo-scientific claims and emphasis on the ideological realm rather than individual circumstances may influence judicial decisions. It should be noted, however, that certain statements that have emanated from the umbrella organization of the Jehovah’s Witnesses might have contributed to these misinterpretations.

PUBLISHED IN
RELIGION, STAAT, GESELLSCHAFT (RELIGION, STATE, SOCIETY)
VOL 1 (2000) #1, PP 41-59

Introduction
One of the areas in which the state is able to penetrate the domain of the family is the well-being of children 1. Ill-treatment by adults through physical violence is the most obvious reason though in some cases the state assumes that certain religious practices may be harmful for the child’s body and mind. Particularly when the parents are involved in divorce proceedings and subsequent custody disputes, it is clear that unpopular or uncommon religious convictions of one of the parents may play a major role in the decision making. In many cases, these convictions are part of the ideological views of religious minorities; in fact, data from the United States indicate that a predominant feature in the majority of cases is that the dispute is between a member of a mainstream religion and a member of a minority religion. These statistics also indicate that the minority adherents are more likely to lose custody or receive restrictions on their religious practices during periods of visitation 2. In this respect, sociologist Bryan Wilson poignantly remarked: ‘Paradoxically, when both parents are sectarians of the same persuasion, the law does not see religious commitment as sufficiently injurious to the well-being of the child to interfere’ (Wilson 1990: 38).

But how do concerned parties define what expressions of religion are harmful and what methods are being used to examine these possible harmful effects? In this paper, I will focus on two custody cases, both involving a parent who is a Jehovah’s Witness 3. The cases have been selected because they include aspects, which are characteristic for similar discussions. Rather than detached fact finding, it appears that in these and comparable cases religious bias and social stigmatisation of a religious minority play a major role in the advisory and decision making process.

Case I The Netherlands, 1991
A husband initiates divorce proceedings against his wife. The woman has joined the Jehovah’s Witnesses a few years before. The husband strongly opposes his wife’s conversion and subsequent involvement with this religious movement. Her new faith is the main reason he wants to divorce. The couple has two children, aged 10 and 8 years. Pending an evaluation of the Dutch Child Care and Protection Board, the court grants temporary custody of the two children to the mother. This is mainly because of the irregular working hours of the husband, an airline employee. Among the children, there is no clear preference to reside with either the father or the mother. Evaluating the situation, though, the Board recommends granting permanent custody to the father. The argument is as follows:

[1] Concerning upbringing by the mother, there is less continuity. Until 1989, the children had a normal upbringing and now they have to comply with the rules of the Jehova-faith [sic]. [The Mother] makes the impression to have little confidence in herself. Joining the Jehovah’s Witnesses gave her a number of certainties. However, the faith appears to be a condition to stand her ground in life. Of course, the Board does not render an opinion about the religious conviction of the mother. However, the Board cannot ignore the fact that mother’s active involvement in this community will have consequences for the upbringing of the children (My emphasis).

The woman is highly critical of the report, particularly with respect to the remarks about her faith. The Board recognises some shortcomings and decides to implement an additional evaluation. It concludes that it is unable to render a sound and solid advice to the court, in spite of the observation that

[2] (…) though mother is able to put herself in the experience of the children, it remains to be seen if she, from her univocal view on the world and on mankind, can give the children enough opportunity to form an opinion of their own and enable them to unfold and develop their talents.

The Board instructs outside consultants on the field of child psychology to set up further expert examinations. Again, the focus of the inquiry is on the well-being of the children. Following the initial recommendation of the Board, the consultants conclude to grant custody to the father. Part of the argument is as follows:

[3] It remains to be seen if [the mother] can give enough room to the children, so they can unfold according to their nature. The fundamental as well as the relational anchorage of the children in the group of Jehovah’s Witnesses give reason for some concern, because B in case they react against this belief B there is a danger they end up in a social vacuum (My emphasis).

The Board accepts the evaluation of the consulting agency, which is passed on to the court. The court adopts the recommendation and grants full custody to the father. In the argumentation of the court, the consultant’s suggested possibility of faith rejection by the children and resulting ’social vacuum’ problem in a later stage of their life, is emphasised. However,

[4] ‘The court explicitly wants to advance that it does not subscribe to the disadvantages with relation to the children’s involvement with the Jehovah’s Witnesses, brought forward by the consultants. These considerations did not play a role in the decision to grant custody to the husband.

The woman decides to appeal to a higher court. The appeal is rejected.

Discussion
From this example, four elements are characteristic:

First, the observation by the Board (quote 1) about the woman’s faith and psychological well-being is remarkable. In this case, this relationship is implicitly considered questionable, probably because of the unpopular image of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. The truism, though, that for a large part of humanity a religious conviction is a sine qua non for personal comfort and security, is ignored. In this context, the remark that no opinion is rendered about the mother’s religious conviction is hollow. Furthermore, the embarrassing and popular misnomer ‘Jehova-faith’ indicates that the Board fails to recognize some basic notions about the belief system.

Secondly, the rearing of the children – see quotes 1, 2 and 3 – allegedly gives reason for concern. No doubt, the involvement of the mother with the Jehovah’s Witnesses will affect the upbringing of the children – as any involvement of parents with whatever ideology or religion will affect child socialisation. The relevant question is, will this effect be harmful? The wording of the Board suggests so. However, the Board, the consultants and the court fail to present any solid arguments such as assessment data of the children or results from scientific research in support of this assumption.

Third, the conclusion of the consultants and the court (quote 3) that reaction against the faith may lead to a ’social vacuum’ shows the same problems. There may be a reasonable chance that the children will react against the faith of their mother during adolescence or puberty. In fact, it is rather natural that children at a certain age react against their parents, including their ideology. As will be shown below, the fact that the offspring will somehow distance themselves from the faith is thinkable. If this will lead to a ’social vacuum’ – this undefined concept probably refers to a state of social isolation – is quite another matter and rather unfounded. Only if the children are excommunicated from the organisation of Jehovah’s Witnesses because of violation of basic rules of the belief system – such as involvement in premarital sex – and show no sign of remorse, the resulting process of shunning will impede association with former fellow believers.

Finally, the argumentation of the court is highly confusing. Though the children’s current involvement with the community of Jehovah’s Witnesses is considered harmless, their possible future reaction against the faith is regarded as harmful. Obviously, it does not occur to the court that the latter is inextricably intertwined with the former.

These assumptions are common property in the discussion of controversial religious movements. The facts, though, mostly derived from the results of social scientific research among religious movements, render a different view. In this case, the conclusions are not the result of consistent analysis of available data. Rather, it appears that they are founded on the often heard assertion that membership of closed groups is harmful because it excludes participation with the rest of society. It is assumed that if membership is terminated, traumatic effects will be the inevitable result since the only social network of the former member consists of fellow-believers who have orders to shun the apostate. Let us first discuss this specific issue and dwell on the issue of disaffiliation.

Regularly, the outside world is confronted with distressing experiences of disgruntled Jehovah’s Witnesses who are extremely disappointed or frustrated with their religious community. Usually through the media, they step forward and portray the movement as a dictatorial and brainwashing Moloch, which has caused psychological harm. But how many individuals have actually been affected? In order to answer that question, we need to do some simple calculations.

In 1988 the Dutch branch of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, the umbrella organisation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, had slightly more than 29.000 active adherents, i.e. those who regularly participate in house-to-house evangelising. These members are called ‘publishers’. Ten years later, in 1998, this active membership consisted of 30.200 publishers, a rather moderate increase of 1.200 individuals. However, in the same period, approximately 9.900 new members were baptised. This yields a gross ’shortage’ of 9.900 – 1.200 ‘ 8.700 adherents. (Watchtower Bible and Tract Society: 1989 through 1999) Accounting for mortality (approximately 2.900) some 5.800 are ‘missing’ from the movement’s statistics. Why are these baptismal figures not reflected in the growth of the amount of publishers? What has happened to those new converts?

It is assumed that this shortage can be regarded as a quantitative indicator of disaffection towards the movement (Cf.. Franz 1994: 31), of which marginalization is the first component. The discrepancy between the increase of publishers and the baptismal figures is a clear sign that a large part of the new membership does not participate in the movement’s core religious activity, the house-to-house preaching. A proportion of this inactive category may still be partly involved with the movement but these dormant believers refrain from involvement in the evangelising practices. Others may have stopped all activities, having cut off existing ties with fellow-believers, without officially having announced their withdrawal from the congregation. As long as they do not seriously offend against any of the basic rulings of the movement, severe sanctions such as expulsion will not be applied. Such ‘paper’ members may still adhere to the belief system or parts thereof, with the exception of the movement’s doctrinal obligation to proselytise.

The extreme consequence of marginalization is apostasy, the second component of disaffection, which can be distinguished in overt and covert apostasy. The first is characterised by ex-members who violated one or more of the major doctrines or announced their voluntary withdrawal from the movement and therefore have been excommunicated (In the jargon of the Watchtower Society, this expulsion is called ‘disfellowshipment’; voluntary withdrawal will lead to the same sanction). In The Netherlands, in the 5-year period 1992-’96, just more than 1.300 individuals have been disfellowshipped 4. So, during the 10-year period in question it is assumed – based on the fact that the worldwide average annual rate of excommunication is stable, around 1% of the active membership – that approximately 2.600 Jehovah’s Witnesses have been excommunicated.

The covert category consists of those who do not agree with the movement’s belief system any longer. However, they refrain from advertising their dissenting viewpoints among their ‘fellow’-believers because the effects of the inevitable disfellowshipment procedure may seriously hamper continued participation in the social network of the movement. I personally know of several dozens of Jehovah’s Witnesses, including local leaders, who profoundly disagree with the major body of doctrines of the movement and the organisation’s policy. They prefer not to discuss their feelings among co-religionists out of fear that the resulting sanctions will most probably obstruct familial contacts and association with relatives.

Summarised, in the 10-year period 1989-1998, approximately 2.600 members have been excommunicated which leaves around 3.200 who terminated their core activities with the movement. The Watchtower Society’s annual statistics do not present these figures. No doubt, this is the result of the problematic existence of the ‘inactive’ Jehovah’s Witness. From a strictly doctrinal point of view, this is a contradictio in terminis since ‘Each Witness is a Minister; one not preaching is not one of Jehovah’s Witnesses’. (Watchtower Bible and Tract Society 1953: 197) Consequently, the designation ‘paper’ or ‘dormant’ adherents, as mentioned above and the usual description of uninvolved membership is erroneous: as far as the Watchtower Society is concerned, such category simply does not exist.

The social profile of inactive and excommunicated members is unclear. However, from observation at baptismal rituals it can be inferred that new members are largely second, third and fourth generation Jehovah’s Witnesses. Since those receiving baptism do hardly contribute to the amount of publishers, it is assumed that the younger generation is the largest group within the disaffected category.

If the presumption is correct that former Jehovah’s Witnesses will be the victim of mental health problems such as psychological trauma’s after forced expulsion or voluntary withdrawal from the movement, it is highly unlikely that this relatively large group with such characteristics would go unnoticed. Distressing reports from national mental health services or social welfare sectors indicating requests for counselling from a steady stream of rebellious children from Jehovah’s Witness families suffering from psychological problems, are nonexistent. Neither does scientific research indicate any widespread problems among children who left the faith of their parents. Though it has been suggested that these postinvolvement problems require specific psychiatric diagnostics and treatment (e.g. Langone 1993), contrary evidence indicates that this process is in many ways similar to marital disengagement (Wright 1991). Any mental problems former Jehovah’s Witnesses may show, are caused in large measure by long-standing membership and substantial involvement in a close-knit group rather than by its sheer religious identity. As such, suggested special therapy for former members of religious movements is considered superfluous.

This is not meant to downplay the problem of possible consequences of disaffiliation. I am familiar with some cases of ex-Jehovah’s Witnesses who suffer from severe mental problems, partly due to their religious upbringing. It concerns individuals who were raised in a strictly orthodox environment where, for example, involvement in proselytising was demonstrated to such an extent that daily life was totally dominated by this activity. These adverse consequences suggest that the belief system contains elements that may harm individual well-being. Based on the next case, this issue will now be discussed.

Case II Germany, 1993
The wife is a Jehovah’s Witness since childhood, the husband has been disfellowshipped – the reason of his expulsion is unknown. Initially, both parties agree that the mother will take care of the child, aged four years. The court agrees and custody is granted to the woman. About a year later, the husband wants reversal of the custody, accusing his former wife of ill-treating the child. Before the court, eyewitnesses confirm these charges. It has been observed that the mother regularly beats the child. According to an eyewitness, the mother dealt heavy blows with her hand or with a ladle on the child’s buttocks. Occasionally, the mother hit the child in the face. The woman does not deny the charges. She states that the ill-treatment is caused by disappointment and frustration of the divorce. She further explains that ‘in my youth, I was hit with a ladle also. It did not harm me’. She has the impression that her son is getting ‘more and more like her husband’ – obviously, an undesirable prospect. ‘By giving these blows, I wanted to cast that out’. One time, an eyewitness found the child unconsciously in the hallway. The mother was unable to give an explanation. The child had to be hospitalised.

To the court, the woman’s religious conviction as a Jehovah’s Witnesses turns out to be an elementary and crucial disadvantage. The court makes clear that the child, brought up with these views, will probably be mentally harmed for the rest of his life. Individuals who are ‘indoctrinated by the educational rules of this community and apply them uncritically in the upbringing of their children, endanger the mental well-being of their offspring and offend against the legal rulings of proper parenthood’. In fact, the religious views of the woman are in ‘outright conflict with the German constitution’, according to the court. The magistrates particularly attach value to the expert testimony of the representative of the (dominant) church, the expert on ‘Cults and World Views’ from the Evangelical Lutheran Church. He states that problems concerning the upbringing of children within the community of Jehovah’s Witnesses are ‘confirmed by scientific research’ (My emphasis). Allegedly, from this research it can be concluded that:

[1] The educational target of the Jehovah’s Witnesses is subordination by coercion and uncritical acceptance of religious doctrines and teachings, in order to break the free will of the growing child and to mould it into an uncritical and dependent individual.
[2] It should be made clear that the outside world is a hostile environment, which has harmful effects on children of Jehovah’s Witnesses. But more than that, Jehovah’s Witnesses should fear a vengeful God and an imminent Armageddon. Unbelievers, including unbelieving children will be victims of a ‘bloody liquidation’ in that final battle.
[3] Children should be raised in a disciplined way, the proverbial and biblically founded rod should not be spared. Spanking will have very good results if applied with the hand, a stick or a cane. Then the child will be shown who is in charge. ‘The parents should firmly hold the rod of power, authority and responsibility because childhood is the best time to start the process of self-renunciation.
[4] The organisation of Jehovah’s Witnesses claims control over family affairs. When, for example, the child is being cast off from the community, family members are not allowed to have any spiritual contact with the child. The relationship between parents and child will be strictly limited to satisfy the biological needs of the child. The child will be treated as an outcast.
[5] Children of Jehovah’s Witnesses are not allowed to participate in extracurricular events such as class trips and school parties because such occasions will stimulate sexual contacts. Secondary education is looked upon with suspicion because ‘it has been proved that this will lead to a preference of satanic material things’ and a gradual withdrawal from the religious sphere. School politics, such as form representation, is a forbidden activity because in that way children learn to actively participate in politics, which is part of the satanic world.
[6] Jehovah’s Witnesses reject state and society. They do not participate in state institutions like politics – there is a ban on voting, the army and trade unions. Any positive token towards the symbols of the state such as national anthems and flags is prohibited.

Partly based on this evidence, the court concludes that prolonged upbringing by the mother will result in a harmful personality development of the child, the more so because the woman indicates that she wishes to continue this method. Therefore, custody is granted to the father. It has been arranged that relatives of the husband and a nursery school in turn will take care of the child when the father is at work.

The woman appeals and more than a year later a higher court partly reverses this decision and grants custody to the mother. The father, though, is given the decision about surgical treatment while the youth welfare officer has the right to determine residence of the child 5. Finally, in 1997, the local court grants the rights to determine residence to the Witness parent.

Discussion
Though in this case the physical ill-treatment of the child, particularly the resulting hospitalisation, stands out as a clear sign for questionable parenthood, the 22-pages argumentation of the court is almost completely focused on the religious-educational aspect.

In essence, statements 1 and 3 refer to conservative notions of socialisation, characteristic of many (Christian) fundamentalist religious groups. These include clear understandings of authority, particularly in family situations. For that matter, it is remarkable that the expert expresses concern about the alleged habit of spanking in Jehovah’s Witnesses families, when, according to a recent survey, 61% of the German population considers this practice useful when raising children. 6 Furthermore, hollow utterances such as ’subordination by coercion’, ‘break the free will’, ’self-renunciation’, and similar pointless terminology lack any scientific foundation. They serve as mere rhetoric, feeding existing stereotypes and fail to provide any insight in these specific sub-cultural socialisation methods.

Nevertheless, some autobiographical accounts suggest adverse effects of upbringing in Jehovah’s Witnesses families. Rather than doctrines as such, however, it appears that these narratives raise questions about the effects on family life in case of rigid adherence to religious scriptures and excessive involvement in organisational policy by one or both parents. This assumption corresponds with Bergman’s observation that ‘that it is more difficult for a child raised as a strict Jehovah’s Witness to be well adjusted in society (Bergman, 1996: 1488. My emphasis). In addition, from my own research I came across persons who were raised as Jehovah’s Witnesses and who, during childhood, were not allowed to get involved with ‘dissenters’, i.e. non-Jehovah’s Witnesses children, to set eyes on reading matter other than that published from the Watchtower Society while the outside world was portrayed as a place of Ultimate Evil. To a large extent, their social world was restricted to the life of the religious community. Life in the outside world was mainly confined to evangelizing, accompanying their parents on house-to-house calls while envying the leisure activities of their peers. This atmosphere is partly reflected in statements 2, 4, and 5. For example, the constituent parts of statement 2 are correct from a strictly doctrinal point of view. However, few present-day Jehovah’s Witnesses will wholeheartedly support the blunt phraseology, that ‘unbelieving children will be the victim of a bloody liquidation’ while many consider it bad education to instil fear of the apocalypse into the mind of their offspring. The same discrepancy between movement precepts and individual experience can be perceived in cases of disfellowshipped children; though procedures dictate that contact is strictly limited to satisfy the biological needs of the children, many parents ignore these rules and associate with their children at will.

In addition, it can be observed that obsolete doctrines or policies are quoted regularly in support of harmful elements of socialisation. Statement 5 concerning secondary education is an example. No doubt that the higher education phobia of the first leaders of the Watchtower Society has characterised the mediocre intellectual climate of the movement for a long time (Kosmin & Lachman 1993: 258, 272)7. Among some of the orthodox members of the movement this attitude can still be discerned and until recently secondary education was in some cases rather bluntly discouraged. The next fragment from the Watchtower Society’s printed matter, dating back to 1973, was meant as stimulant to increase the missionary activities of the adherents. In this example, secular education is clearly at odds with religious commitment:

An elder in Korea encouraged his four children to pioneer [to increase proselytising activities, RS]. At a circuit assembly [a regular regional gathering of Jehovah's Witnesses, RS] he and the children were interviewed. The oldest daughter related how she had been the highest scholastically in her high school. She herself wanted to go to college at one point. However, her father informed her that, while she was free to choose such a course, she could not expect financial support from him. She changed her mind about college, and now she is enjoying many blessings as a pioneer. The next oldest, a son, told how he also at one time wanted to go to college and follow a worldly course. But his father sat down and reviewed the Scriptures with him. His father also told him that, if he insisted on following a worldly course, he would also have to find another place to live. He heeded his father’s counsel and is very grateful that his father was kind but firm in his stand. The two younger children explained that they were impressed by what happened to the two older ones. From the beginning they planned to become pioneers. The youngest son gave up his high school education to pioneer8.

Following Wah (1999: 115) that ‘Religion, perhaps positive in itself, can have a negative effect on a person’s mental health when it is misused, abused, or excessive’, one is tempted to categorize this course of action, propagated by the Watchtower Society, as such. In spite of Wah’s somewhat idealized description of the practice of proselytising – certainly in relationship with the applauded example of the Korean paterfamilias – she is basically correct in her characterisation of evangelizing as a harmless activity:

‘Participation in dissemination of thoughts and exchange of religious or political ideals in the marketplace is the cornerstone of American democracy. Why should the child be denied an opportunity to observe and participate firsthand? (…) going from door to door talking about the Bible is certainly no more harmful than selling Girl Scout cookies (…)9.

Today, the text about the Korean family affair would be unthinkable in the movement’s literature. As the taboo on higher education is rapidly decreasing, more and more Jehovah’s Witnesses are earning college and university degrees. Furthermore, many parents do not object to school outings from their children and encourage associating with non-Witness children. Homans (1988) reports that children of Jehovah’s Witnesses in the UK are well integrated into the school’s community. Usually, the child refrains from celebrating birthdays, activities relating to Christmas and other holidays, though this depends on the individual stance of the parents. Many compensate for possible effects of exclusion. For example, the child treats his or her classmates to sweets or snacks on other occasions, not being the child’s birthday or similar celebrations. From the fact that The Watchtower of November 1, 1999 indicated that voting – until then understood to be a prohibited practice because politics is considered corrupt – is from now on a matter of ‘individual conscience’, members may construe that involvement in school politics is an authorised practice.10

The tension between the movement’s traditional views and pursued advancement is clearly visible in the publication Preparing for Child Custody Cases. The booklet, distributed in the US and for a restricted audience only, is ‘designed to help the [Jehovah's Witness] and attorney prepare for the difficulties Christian parents often face in child custody disputes’ (p. i). It presents recommendations such as how to deal with psychiatric evaluations and judicial cross-examinations. In some cases, the authors present a scenario as guideline for what is considered to be a favourable response from the Jehovah’s Witness. For example, the interviewer’s (a counsellor, lawyer or social worker) impression of a Jehovah’s Witness child should be that the youth is ’spiritually minded, but also enjoy the normal healthy things that young people do’. When role-playing this situation in the congregation, the elder is advised to ‘Be careful that [the children] don’t get the impression that they are in a demonstration at the circuit assembly when they would show that the first things in life are service (…)’ and furthermore ‘Be careful they don’t all say that they are going to be pioneers’ (p. 43). 11

The book evoked widespread comments from critics and adversaries because some of its contents were apparently at odds with standard literature from the movement. Regarding the downplaying by local leaders of children’s possible aspirations of doing ’service’ and becoming ‘pioneer’, one may conclude that such suggestions are noteworthy indeed in view of the organisation’s continuous appeals to its followers to do just the opposite. The Korean family affair quoted above is one example. Numerous others can be found:

‘If you are a parent, are you, by word and example, encouraging your children to pioneer? If you are a youth, are you responding appreciatively to the encouragement being given you? Is it your desire to add to the joy of your parents by exerting yourself in the pioneer ministry? Has your love for Jehovah and for fellow humans grown to the point where you want to spend as much time as possible in Kingdom-preaching?’ 12
‘PIONEERING is worth far more than a successful secular career. (…) For a young person, there is nothing finer than remembering Jehovah and walking in the way of the truth. (…) Yes, pioneering is a fine way for youths to demonstrate their love for Jehovah and closeness to him. Parents, are you instilling in your children the desire to pioneer? Pioneers, do you endeavor to kindle this desire in others? Elders, do you support the pioneers in your congregation and help to build a pioneer spirit in others? May more and more of Jehovah’s people be moved to reach out for such rich blessings as they engage in the pioneer service.’ 13

Opponents asserted that such inconsistency would harm the children psychologically or at least incite them to be dishonest to outsiders (Cf.. Bergman 1996: 1493). Though, in the context of the world view of the movement the ethics of some recommendations in the booklet are remarkable at least, is also possible to conclude, albeit cynically, that role playing in different social situations happens to be a matter of everyday life.

Until now, there is no support from current scientific research that any harmful effects will ensue from being raised in the faith of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Occasional reports indicating harmful effects of Jehovah’s Witness socialisation lack elementary methodological rigour (e.g. Singelenberg 1998) Though some anecdotal data point to ‘psychological adjustment’ problems, confirmation from clinical evidence is lacking. So, generalised assertions such as ‘(…) some [of the Watchtower's] teachings have clear negative influences on child development’ and ‘(…) it is very difficult for a child who is raised as a Jehovah’s Witness to be socially well adjusted (Bergman 1996: 1488, 1505) are unfounded, particularly because the exact nature of this ‘maladjustment’ remains indistinct. It should be realised that irrespective of religious or ideological contents, any socialisation in a sub-cultural environment of which the values are at odds with those of the dominant society may involve cognitive reorientation when the individual disengages himself from the minority group. The suggestion that this will lead to serious psychiatric disorders (Bergman 1996: 1488,1489) is unfounded. The author refers to studies, which allegedly indicate a high incidence of mental disorders among Jehovah’s Witnesses, implying a causal relationship between socialisation into and membership of the movement and psychiatric problems. Opponents of the Watchtower Society often refer to an Australian study, which found that Jehovah’s Witnesses are three times more likely to be diagnosed as suffering from schizophrenia and nearly four times more likely from paranoid schizophrenia than the rest of the population at risk (Spencer 1975). The article received serious criticism on account of its unsound foundation: ’serious errors of facts and method’ (Beckford 1975), ‘thoroughly unsatisfactory methodology’ (Penton 1985: 291) and ‘questionable findings’ (Rothberg 1975). Another example of dubious methodology is Bergman’s initial study (written under the pseudonym Montague) on psychiatric problems among the Jehovah’s Witnesses. The author, a former Jehovah’s Witness and notorious adversary of the movement, concludes that ‘the mental illness rate among JW’s far surpasses that of the population as a whole’, (Montague 1977: 146) and without any argument he advances ‘that [this] rate (…) is approximately 10 to 16 times higher than the rate for the general, non-Witness population’ (ibid.: 139). These statements are illustrative for the questionable methodological basis of the paper. The article is riddled with unfounded assertions such as ‘the high murder rate among the Witnesses’ (137), the rate of mental illness is significantly higher than the rate for the population as a whole’(138), ‘the writer has worked with a large number of JW’s who were clearly psychotic’ (139), about 10% (…) are in serious need of professional help’ (ibid.), et cetera. Furthermore, Bergman quotes from obsolete sources, since to support his argument he refers to psychiatric studies from the 40s through the early 60s among Jehovah’s Witnesses conscientious objectors. The author seems not to realize that in that period, society considered conscientious objection against the military a mental problem which had to be evaluated as such. No wonder that Jehovah’s Witnesses, who constituted the largest segment among conscientious objectors were highly visible in these studies. Even Penton, a fellow-adversary of the Watchtower Society, casted doubt on Bergman’s findings. ‘Some of the statements in their analyses of Witness men are so extreme that they raise questions regarding their objectivity’ (Penton 1985: 290, 291). 14

In general, scientific research of socialisation practices in religious movements is still in its infancy. Although specific data from Jehovah’s Witnesses are lacking, results from similarly controversial religious movements such as Hare Krishna, the Rajneesh Movement and The Family (the former Children of God) indicate that child-rearing practices in these groups have no adverse effects on the child’s general well-being (Lilliston & Shepherd 1994; Palmer & Hardman 1999). Concerning the question whether religious movements in general and teachings of the Jehovah’s Witnesses in particular are adverse or beneficial to individual mental health, it is clear that ‘contemporary research does not offer an unequivocal answer’ though ‘75% of the studies tend to show that the psychological profiles of individuals tested fall well within the Anormal@ bounds’ (Saliba 1993: 106, 110; Cf. Wah 1999: 128, fn. 15).

Conclusion
Both cases show that the decision making processes that led to the custody were hardly based on solid evidence. In the Dutch case, the notions of the consulting agencies regarding the faith and world view of the Jehovah’s Witnesses were based on negative stereotypes. The same applies to the decision of the court. Though the German court consulted an expert on the field of religion associated with a mainline church, it is clear that his opinion was similarly biased. In essence, the court accepted his point of view. Regarding the tense relationship between mainline churches and minority religion in Germany, the initial outcome of the custody dispute is hardly surprising (Cf. Besier & Scheuch 1999).

As shown, the controversial character of many of the teachings of Jehovah’s Witnesses has played a crucial role in these decisions. The nature of the debate focuses on the problems of social isolation from the surrounding society and resulting psychological trauma’s and – although it was only a marginal issue in the cases discussed – the medical issue of blood transfusion. With regards to the issue of social isolation, it is interesting to quote Bryan Wilson who approached this concern from the framework of the lenient society:

‘Paradoxically, although recreation is in every sense an area of voluntary choice, it is precisely because sectarians do not choose what others choose, holds themselves apart in their use of leisure time and (…) associate only with each other rather than with non-members, that sects elicit some of the strongest reactions from the general public. The child-centered society is inclined to see prohibitions respecting children’s play activities as wilful deprivation. These tensions may, however, also be fired by latent feelings of guilt on the part of parents who find it easier and pleasanter to indulge their children than to exercise discipline’ (Wilson 1990: 59)

In a similar fashion, in 1975, an English magistrate reconstructed the problem essentially to a minority-majority conflict:

‘We live in a tolerant society. There is no reason at all why the mother should not espouse the beliefs and practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses (…) There is nothing immoral or socially obnoxious in the beliefs and practice of the sect, in overplaying the dangers to the welfare of these children inherent in the possibility that they may follow their mother and become Jehovah’s Witnesses (…) It does not follow that it is wrong or contrary to the welfare of the children that life should be in a narrower sphere, subject to a stricter religious discipline and without parties on birthdays and at Christmas. (…) It is essential to appreciate that the mother’s teaching, once it is accepted as reasonable, is teaching that has got to be considered against the whole background of the case and not as in itself so full of danger for the children that it alone could justify making an order which otherwise the court would not make’ (Quoted in Wilson 1990: 37, 38).

It is rather cynically to note that more than 10 years after this comment was made, an expert witness testifying in an American case confirmed the underlying uneasiness in the statement of the British judge. Speculating about the prospects of a four-year-old girl raised by her Jehovah’s Witnesses mother, he advanced:

‘Living in this society, she needs to adapt herself to the mainstream culture. She’s growing up and it is not a country of Jehovah’s Witnesses. If the majority of the country was Jehovah’s Witnesses, we would not have any problem, except for physically (…) the philosophy of practicing the religion does not allow Rebecca to benefit and be safeguarded and living in this culture’ (Quoted in Wah 1997: 1437, 138).

In order to avoid custody decisions that have been influenced by biased opinions or questionable expertise, it is of primary importance to evaluate the condition of the child rather than the contents of the religious convictions of the parents. Concerning the nature of the harm that allegedly threatens the child and supposedly results from the religious beliefs, the American Supreme Court made clear that:

‘(…) governmental intervention in the parent-child relationship would only be justified when there exists a substantial threat of harm. (…) no inference of harm can be based on mere surmise, guess, speculation or probability … conjecture, speculation as to happenings, or the suggestion of a possibility cannot be made to take the place of evidence’ (Quoted in Wah 1994: 274).

Moreover,

‘(…) the immediacy of the harm must also be examined (…) Any speculation about remote and future harm is irrelevant. These principles are consistently applied by all state courts that have considered criteria for admissibility and use of religious testimony in best interest hearings’ (Ibid.: 275; my emphasis).

Clearly, the latter clause is important in view of the fact that in many custody cases the matter is raised of the controversial blood transfusion ruling (Singelenberg 1995; see note 5). Concerning the latter, if such necessity arises and parents refuse to consent, in most cases children are made wards of court on a temporary basis so the treatment can be administered. Yet, in view of the speculative nature of the question whether or not a child is prone to future accidents or to illnesses requiring blood transfusions, Wah advances that the blood transfusion issue is ‘not a valid consideration’, quoting from a case in which the court stated that it ‘cannot decide this case based on some hypothetical future accident or illness which might necessitate [blood transfusion]‘ (quoted in Wah 1997a: 118; see also Wah 1994: 276, 277). 15

Furthermore, expert testimony should be based on peer reviewed scientific theories. This would effectively rule out questionable pseudo-expertise from biased professionals. The same goes for former members. Scientific research demonstrates ample evidence that the credibility and liability of former members, particularly those who disaffiliated in discordant circumstances, leaves much to be desired (Bromley 1998). For example, in a case in Holland, a court-appointed family guardian attributed the problematic situation of the family to the parents’ involvement with the Jehovah’s Witnesses. She also asserted that the belief system would not be beneficial for the children. As it turned out, the guardian was brought up in a Jehovah’s Witnesses family herself and left the faith at a later stage. 16

Additionally, generalized conceptions concerning the religious behaviour of Jehovah’s Witnesses should be considered carefully if applied to individual cases. Many members do not strictly follow the organisational and doctrinal precepts of the Watchtower Society. From my own research, I met Jehovah’s Witnesses who do celebrate birthdays, vote for political candidates, sit around Christmas trees (albeit with the closed curtains), have premarital sex, let off fireworks at New Year’s Eve and smoke an occasional cigar after a good meal. So, drawing conclusions from the movement’s literature (particularly back editions) to evaluate the day-to-day practices of a specific family may render an inaccurate picture of their proper religious involvement (Wah 1997b: 306). Although I have no knowledge of similar cases in other European countries, the most recent data from Germany and The Netherlands indicate that in court decisions on custody cases which involve one of Jehovah’s Witnesses bias is decreasing gradually. Even in Russia, disreputable for its current stance towards religious minorities, in July 1999 the Supreme Court annulled three lower court decisions that denied custody to a mother based solely on religious grounds.17 It is to be expected that as the Watchtower Society is gradually renouncing its typically sectarian world-rejecting stance, the surrounding society will be more accommodating towards the movement’s practices of socialisation. Until then, child custody disputes should focus on the real issue: evaluate the individual, not the religion.

—————————————————————————————
1 Part of this paper was published in the Dutch journal Tijdschrift voor Familie en Jeugdrecht [Journal of Family and Juvenile Law], September 1992.
2 Annotation ‘Religion as a Factor in Child Custody and Visitation Cases’, American Law Reports, 971(1983). Quoted in Wah 1997a: 112.
3 In 1990, an official of the American Bar Association’s Child Custody Case Committee concluded that Jehovah’s Witnesses were probably responsible for half of the contested custody cases that are in courts of review around the country. Quoted in Bergman 1996: 1488.
4 Personal communication Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, Dutch Branch, letter June 3, 1997.
5 In case the child requires a blood transfusion, a prohibited practice among the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
6 Reader’s Digest, German edition, April 1997.
7 According to the founder of the Watchtower Society, education among the masses would lead to discontent and discontent to anarchy (Russell 1897: 450).
8Our Kingdom Ministry, May 1973, p. 6, US edition. This monthly periodical, distributed to members only, focuses on proselytising strategies. ‘Pioneers’ are Jehovah’s Witnesses who voluntarily commit themselves to proselytise at least 840 hours annually (In 1973 it was 1200 hours).
9Wah 1994: 283, my emphasis. Some of those familiar with the practice of proselytising – which would be only former and current Jehovah’s Witnesses as well as the occasional social scientist employing the research method of participant observation – may wonder about Wah’s characterisation of this activity as an ‘exchange (…) of ideals’. From my own observation of the practice, I noticed that the interaction is rather unidirectional, i.e. from the publisher to the house dweller and seldom vice versa. As a matter of fact, the concept of ‘exchange’, implying some form of dialogue, appears rather incompatible with the sacred assignment of preaching an urgent message originating from supernatural powers. Carolyn Wah, to whose papers I regularly refer, is a Jehovah’s Witness and practices law from the Watchtower’s Society’s headquarters near New York. She has published extensively about the relationship child custody and religion.
10 It also suggests that the sixth statement from the expert is obsolete. However, the ‘change’ is strictly cosmetic. From reading the text, one is tempted to conclude that the ban on voting has been lifted because the conceptual foundation of the doctrine has been transformed from an organisational precept into a matter of ‘individual conscience’. Nevertheless, a Jehovah’s Witness who takes the view that his conscience allows him to vote will still be subject to disciplinary sanctions, a consequence that has been omitted from the text. It is clear that by stating explicitly that the teaching is a matter of ‘individual conscience’, the Watchtower Society attempts to neutralize previous and current accusations of imposing undemocratic principles on its followers. In this respect, a former high ranking official of the Dutch branch remarked: ‘We are not a rigid cult telling people what to do and what not to do’.
11 So-called ‘demonstrations’ are role plays in which Jehovah’s Witnesses enact real life situations, varying from a rebellious child who clandestinely smoked a cigarette to house-to-house proselytising in a Muslim neighbourhood. This method is one of the pillars of the movement’s educational program. In essence, ’service’ is being active as a publisher, for ‘pioneers’, see note 8.
12 Our Kingdom Ministry, December 1972, p. 6, US edition. .
13 The Watchtower, 15 January 1994, p. 23.
14 My emphasis, RS. This questionable methodology may be one of the reasons that Bergman’s book The Mental Health of Jehovah’s Witnesses – an extended version of the ‘Montague-paper’ – has been printed by adversaries of the Watchtower Society rather than by any of the accredited academic publishers. 15 In a case in Germany, this line of reasoning was used in a custody decision: ‘(..) a threat to the children’s welfare as a result of a lack of consent to a blood transfusion on the part of the appellant is rather improbable and hypothetical. The danger would arise in a very improbable case, which would normally not materialize. Under the above mentioned circumstances it would be unreasonable, because of this truly small risk, to divide the custody. (Neue Juristische Wochenschrift, 44, p. 2962, 1997). In Hoffmann v. Austria, however, a Jehovah’s Witness parent from Austria appealed at the European Court of Human Rights against the decision of the national Supreme Court to grant custody of the child to the non-Jehovah’s Witness parent. By a narrow majority (five votes to four) the case was decided in favour of the Jehovah’s Witness parent, though from the dissenting opinions it emerges that the issue of blood transfusion refusal carried a lot of weight in this divided outcome (ECHR 15/1992/360/434).
16 By permission of the parents, this information was provided by the family’s attorney.
17 Press release Watchtower Society, New York, August 16, 1999. .
—————————————————————————————

References
Beckford J.A. (1975) ‘Correspondence. Psychiatry and Sectarians’. British Journal of Psychiatry, 127: 414
Bergman J. (1996) ‘Dealing with Jehovah’s Witness Custody Cases’. Creighton Law Review, 29: 1483-1516.
Besier G. & E.K. Scheuch, eds. (1999) Die neuen Inquisitoren. Religionsfreiheit und Glaubensneid [The new inquisitors. Freedom of religion and envy of faith]. 2 Vols. Zürich: Interfrom.
Bromley D.G., ed. (1998) The Politics of Religious Apostasy. The Role of Apostates in the Transformation of Religious Movements. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Franz R. (1994) Crisis of Conscience. Atlanta: Commentary Press (2nd ed., 2nd printing).
Homan R. (1988) ‘Teaching the Children of Jehovah’s Witnesses’. British Journal of Religious Education, 10: 154-159.
Kosmin B.A. & S.P. Lachman (1993) One Nation under God. Religion in Contemporary American Society. New York: Harmony Books.
Langone M.D., ed. (1993) Recovery from Cults. New York: Norton.
Lilliston L. & G. Shepherd (1994) ‘Psychological Assessment of Children in The Family’. Sex, Slander, and Salvation. Investigating The Family/Children of God, pp 47-56 (Lewis J.R. & J.G.Melton, eds.) Stanford CA: Center for Academic Publication.
Montague H. (1977) ‘The Pessimistic Sect’s Influence on the Mental health of its Members: the Case of Jehovah’s Witnesses’. Social Compass, 24: 135-147.
Palmer S.J. & C.E. Hardman, eds. (1999) Children in New Religions. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Penton M.J. (1985) Apocalypse Delayed. The Story of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Toronto: Univ. of Toronto Press
Rothberg M.A. (1975) ‘Correspondence. Psychiatry and Sectarians’. British Journal of Psychiatry, 127: 414-5
Russell C.T. (1897, 1976) The Battle of Armageddon. (Part IV of the reprinted series ‘Studies in the Scriptures’). East Rutherford, NJ: Dawn Bible Students Association.
Saliba J.A. (1993) ‘The New Religions and Mental Health’. Religion and the Social Order. The Handbook on Cults and Sects in America, Vol 3, Part B, pp 99-111 (D.G. Bromley & J.K. Hadden, eds.) Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Singelenberg R. (1990) ‘The Blood Transfusion Taboo of Jehovah’s Witnesses: Origin, Development and Function of a Controversial Doctrine. Social Science and Medicine, 31: 515-523. (Reprinted in D.C. Thomasma & P.A. Marshall (eds) Clinical Medical Ethics. Cases and Readings. Pp 297-309. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1995).
ibid. (1998) Book review of ‘Die Sekten-Kinder’ [Children in Cults] by K-H. Eimuth. Journal of Contemporary Religion, 13: 110-111.
Spencer J. (1975) ‘The Mental Health of Jehovah’s Witnesses’ British Journal of Psychiatry, 126: 556-559
Wah C. (1994) ‘Religion in Child Custody and Visitation Cases: Presenting the Advantage of Religious Participation’ Family Law Quarterly 28: 269-287.
ibid. (1997a) ‘Religion as a factor in best interest hearings’. Chapter 6 in Wiley Family Law Update, pp 111-138. New York: John Wiley.
ibid. (1997b) ‘Evaluating ANontraditional@ Religious Practice in Child Custody Cases’. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 35: 300-316.
ibid. (1998) ‘The Role of the Mental Health Care Professional in Evaluating a Minor’s Capacity to Select Religious Affiliation’. American Journal of Family Law, 12: 229-246.
ibid. (1999) ‘Religion and Minors. Evaluating Potential Benefit and Potential Harms’. American Journal of Family Law, 13: 115-132.
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (1953) Make Sure of All Things. New York: WTBTS.
ibid. (1988) Preparing for Child Custody Cases. New York: WTBTS.
ibid. (1989 through 1999) Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses. New York: WTBTS.
Wilson B.R. (1990) The Social Dimensions of Sectarianism. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Wright S. (1991) ‘Reconceptualizing Cult Coercion and Withdrawal: A Comparative Analysis of Divorce and Apostasy’. Social Forces, 70: 125-145.

© Richard Singelenberg, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands. May not be reprinted without permission.

This thorough Ph.D-dissertation can be considered the first comprehensive historiography of the fate of the Jehovah’s Witnesses (hereafter JW’s) in Germany during the Nazi-regime. Based on war records and complemented by interviews with JW survivors of concentration camps, the author presents an exhaustive study of a harrowing episode of religious persecution.

The book consists of six parts. The first introductory section portrays origins and early development of the Watchtower Society in Germany. Part two begins in 1933, the year Hitler took power, and ends in 1935. This period, characterized by the organization’s futile attempts to accommodate to the regime’s ideological demands, is the precursor for the ruthless efforts to crush the movement from 1935 onwards. The escalation of the conflict during the period 1935-’39 is described in parts three and four. The introduction of compulsory, military service in 1935 resulted in the JW’s imprisonments in concentra­tion camps, while their refusal to participate in the array of Nazi institutions and manifes­tations meant the beginning of their economic destruction: the boycott of their businesses, obstruction of employment, confiscation of properties, and withholding of welfare and pension claims. In several cases the state penetrated into family life by separating children from their parents and to place them under Nazi-tutelage. Part five concentrates on the wartime period. Special attention is paid to the JW-conscientious objectors, and the gruelling fate of them and their female fellow-believers in the concentration camps, to be followed by a remarkable improvement of their conditions (and even preferential treat­ment) during the final phase of the war. In the last section the author sheds light on the hitherto published vastly diverging estimates of casualties among the JW’s. According to his calculations approx. 1,600 JW’s, including 400 from Nazi-occupied territories, died because of executions or miserable conditions in the camps.

Though the Nazi system dealt the JW’s and their organization several heavy blows, it never succeeded to paralyse them completely. Garbe presents many examples of the ingenuity by which the believers continued their underground religious activities, and their methods to avoid compromising their principles. (To elude the Hitler salute, for example, some carried two, ostensibly heavy, shopping bags in each hand). Surely, sincere adher­ence to doctrine played an important role in the JW’s indomitable attitude, all the more since in most cases a signed declaration in which the follower renounced his or her belief was sufficient for release from the camps and safeguard against further persecution. Relatively few of the 10,000 detainees accepted this tempting offer. However, based on information from his interviewees, Garbe indicates that, rather than the voice of con­science, the proverbial social control in the JW’s community may have inspired this refusal. Since, in the eyes of the believers, signing the document, motivated by either physical of economic survival, meant to be in league with the enemy. On pain of tangible ostracism from the religious community and future supernatural sanctions, the cohesive group of fellow-inmates continuously impressed any despairing individual believer with the importance of divine allegiance. After all, hardship, whether or not resulting in death, was only a transient phase on the path that ultimately led to eternal blessing.

In spite of Garbe’s laudable and painstaking research, which at some points poignantly demythologizes the Watchtower Society’s own official historiography, some parts of his analysis are debatable. Firstly, he disputes, what I will call, the ‘totalitarian similarity’ thesis as explanation for the confrontation. Advanced in previous studies, this interpreta­tion departs from the incompatibility of the authoritarian Nazi system and the correspon­ding structure of the Watchtower Society, causing the sharp conflict. Garbe argues that irrespective of these social structural characteristics, the Watchtower Society’s doctrines per se collided with the Nazi-ideology in a context of gradual escalation. In other words, would the Nazi’s have responded differently if the JW’s refusal to discontinue their proselytizing activities or their unwillingness to let their children join the Hitler Youth were not based on legalistic doctrine and authoritarian leadership, but rather on other ideological premises? (p. 518) Obviously, in regard of his reasoning, his answer is nega­tive. In my opinion it is rather naïve, though, to suppose that the social fabric of a relig­ious movement with a non-legalistic doctrine and non-authoritarian leadership – at least, that’s my understanding of Garbe’s postulated ‘other ideological premises’ – would sustain even a fraction of the atrocities that fell to the JW’s organization. The writer seems to miss the point that the totalitarian structure of the Watchtower Society guaranteed the social cohesion which in its turn was a prerequisite enabling the JW’s to collectively oppose.

My second criticism concerns Garbe’s analysis of the alleged anti-Semitism of the Watchtower Society in the period 1933-’35. Because the regime was under the impression that the movement had links with Judaism, the German branch, in close cooperation with its American based highest echelon, issued a public statement which made clear that such association was absolutely out of the question. (Ten years earlier, similar stories were going around in Germany, causing the organization’s national leadership to challenge anyone to present solid evidence of such affiliation. The reward would be 1,000 marks.) As a clear sign of the movement’s inclination to placate the Nazi state in order to prevent any further harassment, this manifest not only showed unmistakable support for the new government but also a paragraph with a plain anti-Semitic tenor. For example: ‘It has been the commercial Jews of the British-American empire that have built up and carried on Big Business as a means of exploiting and oppressing the peoples of many nations’. Though Garbe acknowledges the statement’s “polemic and verbal overplay”, he takes the view that this and similar remarks are not to be subsumed under the definition of anti-Semitism because “among the JW’s hostility towards the Jews was absent”. (p.100, fn 69). Granted, but these assertions ignore Rutherford’s, the then president of the JW’s organization, bigotry towards the Jews in his speeches and writings since the 20s. Though outright and virulent anti-Judaism was never a hallmark of the Watchtower Society, the early prejudice towards the Jews appears to be in accordance with the often observed relationship between anti-Semitism and premillennialism as shown, for instance, in Boyer’s When Time Shall Be No More. Garbe’s implication that the declaration’s anti-Semitism served as an attempt to appease the Nazi’s is partly accurate, though his rejec­tion of its ‘religiously motivated’ character trivializes an occasional feature of the Watchtower Society’s doctrinal system in the prewar period. Instead of dismissing this highly sensitive and controversial issue in a footnote, a more sophisticated elaboration should have been appropriate, particularly in view of the American millennial climate of the 20s.

In spite of these analytic shortcomings – and the book’s extraordinarily high price – this study deserves the status of standard work of a still conspicuously visible religious move­ment.

It separated the wheat from the chaff

[Sociological Analysis 50(1)1989, pp 23-40 ]

(Also published in Jon R. Stone (ed.)  Expecting Armageddon. Essential Readings in Failed Prophecy. New York, Routledge, 2000)

Abstract

  The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, the world-wide organization of Jehovah’s witnesses, marked the year 1975 as significant: the apocalypse might take place. The proselytizing activities of the Dutch adherents were greatly influenced by this prediction: a significant increase in missionary zeal prior to that date, followed by a similar decline afterwards.
The latter phenomenon looks contrary to cognitive dissonance theorizing, according to which an increase in missionary attempts is hypothesized (Festinger et al. 1964). It is questionable, however, if Festinger’s theory is relevant in this particular case, mainly because of the ambiguous formulation of the prophecy and in-group characteristics among the adherents. Also it is proposed, that dissonance may have played a greater part in the period prior to 1975 than afterwards, mainly because of doctrinal characteristics of the Watchtower ideology.

Introduction

  In 1966 the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, the organization of Jehovah’s witnesses, published a book, which said on pages 28 and 29:

"According to … trustworthy Bible chronology six thousand years from man’s creation will end in 1975, and the seventh period of a thousand years of human history will begin in the fall of 1975 CE. So six thousand years of man’s existence on earth will soon be up, yes, within this generation." ¹

It was the first of a sequence of statements in the Society’s literature on the importance of ‘1975′: would that year herald the beginning of Christ’s millennium reign, implicating doom for the non-believers?

Let it be clear from the outset, that the Society in its literature never proclaimed flat out that 1975 would be the definite end of this world and its population. Nevertheless, the formulations from 1966 onward on what might happen in that year, the sense of urgency on a probable apocalyptic event, later followed by a possibility of a cataclysm, had a startling impact on the proselytizing activities of the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

  As Festinger et al. hypothesized, non-materialization of a religious movement’s prophecy will result in increased proselytizing in order to reduce cognitive dissonance (Festinger et al. 1964: 25). However, up to now, the theory has only been tested among relatively small, isolated groups with a distinctive ideology, not being part of an umbrella organization (see, for example Hardyck & Braden 1962, Balch et al. 1983). In contrast, what were the effects among the 30,000-odd Jehovah’s witnesses in Holland when the, it’s true, ambiguous prophecy did not occur? The ambivalence of the prophecy poses the problem as to the applicability of the theory, since one of the conditions Festinger states is that "the belief must be sufficiently specific."  As will be shown below, this requirement is hardly met. Based on quantitative data of the proselytizing activities of Dutch Jehovah’s witnesses during the period 1961-1987, an attempt will be made to explain the rise and decline of the missionary zeal of the adherents.  

The Prophecy

  According to the Watchtower Society’s doctrine, man was created in the autumn of 4026 BCE.² So, in the fall of 1975, the first 6,000 years of human existence would come to an end. The crucial question if this period corresponded with God’s ‘rest day’, to be followed by the seventh millennium of God’s reign, as stated in the Book of Revelations, was the essence of the prophecy. For, this transition had to be marked by the final battle of Armageddon, implicating world-wide doom. From 1966 through 1975, this theme was a recurring topic in the Society’s literature.

Analysis of these articles reveals three characteristics. First, contrary to the Society’s marked uncompromising ideological jargon, the prophecy contains a definite ‘uncertainty’-clause. The following example is illustrative:

"It (the book Life Everlasting, see note 1. RS) shows that 6000 years of human experience will end in 1975, about nine years from now. What does that mean? Does it mean that God’s rest day began in 4026 BCE? It could have. The … book does not say it did not. … You can accept it or reject it. … Does it mean that Armageddon is going to be finished … by 1975? It could! It could! All things are possible with God. Does it mean that Babylon the Great is going to go down by 1975? It could. … But we are not saying." [Frederick Franz, the then vice-president of the Society, during a speech, quoted in The Watchtower (hereafter WT) Oct. 15, 1966].

  Secondly, the degree of uncertainty in the prophecy’s formulations increases, as 1975 drew nearer. Were the chances on Armageddon initially considered as ‘feasible’, ‘appar­ent’ or ‘appropriate’, from the end of 1968 onward it is a mere ‘possibility’ (WT Oct. 15, 1966; May 1, 1968; Awake! [hereafter Aw] Oct. 8, 1966; Oct 8, 1968;  WT Aug. 15, 1968). So, in 1968 the Society considered its chronological calculations as "reasonably accurate (but admittedly not infallible)", while two years earlier they were ‘trustworthy’. (WT Aug. 15, 1968; Life Everlasting…)

"Reports are heard of brothers selling their homes and property and planning to finish out the rest of their days in this old system in the pioneer service. Certainly this is a fine way to spend the short time remaining before the wicked world’s end." (KM May 1974, English ed., Dec. 1974 Dutch ed.).

The Society’s literature was one channel to disseminate the prophecy, the other was made up of lectures in congregations and during assemblies. The scanty data on what the Witnesses was told, also reveal a considerably less sophisticated view on the ‘1975′-events. During an assembly in 1974 the then Dutch branch-overseer tells the audience:

"The youth has a bright future. Many of us suffered from misery, sickness and death. You don’t have to experience that any more. The new order is near. … There will be a very special Service Meeting (a weekly congregational gathering, RS) in the week of 8 September 1975. Invite everybody. And what will then happen? Well, we don’t tell. You think, that if Jehovah makes such an appeal, that there’s nothing unusual behind it? Yes? …Well, sell your house, sell everything you own and say oh boy, how long can I carry on with my private means. That long? Get rid of things! Pioneer! (more or less full-time proselytizing, RS). Plan to shower people with magazines during these last months of this dying system of things! Everybody you meet!" (source: tape-recording, Divine Purpose District Assembly, Utrecht, Holland, Aug. 1974. Also cf. Penton 1985: 327, fn. 9).

  The October 1, 1975 edition of The Watchtower explains why the final battle has not taken place. Sure enough, the time lapse between the creation of Adam and Eve proved to be the weak link in the prophecy. The Society, in earlier publications convinced that this period would be "weeks or months, not years", had now substituted the word ‘not’ by ‘or’, thus concluding that any speculation on that date does no good. Apparently, many Witnesses were not satisfied with the way the prophecy or rather the correction, had been proclaimed (cf. Penton 1985: 100). So the July 15, 1976 Watchtower came back to the issue and repeated the argument. Much more important, however, was the way in which the Society distanced itself from its earlier highly suggestive recommenda­tions to part with one’s possessions. The Witnesses themselves were to blame for their carelessness, for they had misread the bible. Since, the scriptures do not reveal a specific date: "…it was not the world of God that failed or deceived him (i.e. the Witness) and brought disappointment, but … his own understanding was based on wrong premises."
It took the leading members of the Society four years, before they decided to acknowl­edge their error in the initial formulation of the prophecy (Franz 1985: 209). During the summer assemblies of 1979 the Society accepted the responsibility for a part of the disappointment among the adherents who felt victimized by the prophecy’s disconfirmation. The final word on the topic was stated in the WT March 15, 1980 edition in which utterances regarding ‘1975′ were regretted. The case was closed. 

  In January and February 1987, the Dutch branch of the Society offered a bargain of a package of nine, averaging 20-year old publications. The Witnesses were encouraged to distribute them as a ’special book offer’ during their house-to-house calls. Included was the book Life Everlasting – in freedom of the Sons of God, the first source of the prophecy.

Methodology

According to the Society’s branch office in Holland, the introduction in 1968 of a new study aid for potential converts, was another major contribution to the increment. This book, called The Truth that leads to Eternal Life was used as an introductory course during home bible studies among those showing interest in the Society’s ideology. Important however, was the Society’s advise on this issue. After six months, the poten­tial convert should have visited the Kingdom Hall. If not, the study should be discon­tinued and conducted among those, "who really want to know ‘The Truth’ and are willing to make progress."¹⁰  

  Defection in this period is low. Some 1,8% leaves the Watchtower Society, while the D/R-ratio is extremely high in favor of the recruitment: 0,09. Strictly quantitatively spoken, this is not surprising in view of the baptismal figures: in this period 16,660 new Witnesses join the Society, amounting to an average of 1851 annually.

  3. The disconfirmation phase: 1976-1979

  Obviously, many Witnesses believed that Armageddon might be postponed for a short while (the Society was rather explicit on that possibility), therefore 1976 doesn’t show a significant decrease in the amount of active members. Other commitment indicators however, had leveled off earlier. A definite diminishment of the Society’s following started in the summer of 1976, a process that would continue till 1980. It is estimated that in Holland approximately 5000 Witnesses either left the movement, were excluded or became marginal members, which amounts to 4% annual defection and a D/R-ratio of 1,32.

  The annual average baptismal figure drops to 952. This combination of baptisms and defectors may partially answer Wilson’s question, who, after mentioning the stagnation in growth of the Society’s global following in 1976, wonders if this is caused by a decrease of recruitment or defection (Wilson 1978:184). The Dutch case clearly points to both phenomena.

Illustrative for the total decline of proselytizing-activities are the figures in Table 1. It is clear, that all proselytizing aspects suffered a severe drawback, both at the individ­ual and collective level. 

TABLE 1

COLLECTIVE AND INDIVIDUAL PROSELYTIZING ACTIVITY 
OF DUTCH JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES, 1975 VS. 1979

Note: On the collective level, the data refer to total annual amounts
Source: Kingdom Ministry, Dutch eds. 1975, 1979  

In-group socialization of new adherents entails both cognitive mastering of the Society’s ideology and affective incorporation into a new community. At least, this situation is conceivable in circumstances of a non-stirring doctrinal climate, implying a more or less stable amount of congregation members. However, during the four year period 1972-1975, in Holland almost 10,000 new adherents joined the organization, increasing the total amount with approximately 50%, while at the same time the number of congregations increased with only 15%. Apart from this quantitative momentum, which must have been a barrier for a thorough enculturation, there is also a qualitative dimension: ‘1975′ as the main motive to join the movement.

According to the Witnesses, that would have been an inadequate attitude towards ‘The Truth’. After all, there is a rather complicated ideology to be absorbed, of which, no doubt, the eschatological component is the most significant and it is highly questionable, if the newly baptized were completely familiar with the remainder of the Society’s teachings. So it seems unlikely, that the main part of the new members were fully integrated in the movement’s congregations because of the amount involved vs. the capacity of the organization to absorb them within a relatively short time, and the neophytes’ focused ideological orientation. When disconfirmation occurred, the com­mitted were able to revert to the basic teachings of the Society, also supported by the group, which functioned as a defensive shield for the individual arousal of dissonance. (Beckford 1975: 221). It is likely, that for the newly baptized, those possibilities were lacking. Brose, quoting her informants, notes:

"… those who left … were really opportunists. … they had postponed joining until a more convenient time. When the end appeared imminent … they became afraid and joined the group. When disconfirm­ation occurred, they had little investment in the group and found it easy to leave". (Brose 1982: 159, 160. Also cf. Wilson 1978:184).

Hardyck, J.A. & M. Braden. (1962) "Prophecy fails again: A report of a failure to replicate."  Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 65(2):136-141.

Jonsson, C.A. & W. Herbst. (1987) The "Sign" of the Last Days – When? Atlanta: Commentary Press.

Penton, M.J. (1985) Apocalypse Delayed. The Story of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Rogerson, A.T. (1969) Millions Now Living Will Never Die. London: Constable.

Schwartz, Th. (1976) "The cargo-cult: a Melanesian type response to change," pp. 157-206 in De Vos, G.A. ed. Responses to change. Society, culture and personality. New York: Van Nostrand.

Stevenson, W.C. (1967) Year of Doom, 1975. The Story of Jehovah’s Witnesses. London: Hutchinson (Also published as: The Inside Story of Jehovah’s Witnesses. New York: Hart Publishing 1968).

Wallis, Roy. (1987) "New Religions and the Potential for World Re-enchantment: Religion as Way of Life, Preference and Commodity," pp 87-98 in Secularization and Religion: The Persisting Tension. Acts of the XIXth ICSR, Tübingen 1987. Lausanne: CISR.

Weiser, Neil. (1974) "The Effects of Prophetic Disconfirmation of the Committed." Review of Religious Research 16(1)19-30.

Whalen, W.J. (1962) Armageddon around the Corner. New York: John Day.

White, T. (1967) A People for His Name. A History of Jehovah’s Witnesses and an evaluation. New York: Vantage Press.

Wilson, B. (1978) "When Prophecy Failed." New Society 25 January.

Zygmunt, J.F. (1972) "When Prophecies Fail." American Behavioral Scientist 16 (2)245-267.

─────────     (1977) Jehovah’s Witnesses in the USA: 1942-1976." Social Compass 24(1) 45-47.

────── (1981) "Prophetic Failure and Chiliastic Identity: the case of Jehovah’s Witnesses," pp. 195-220 in Jansma L.G. & P. Schulten eds. Religieuze Bewegingen. The Hague: Mouton [orig. in American Journal of Sociology 1970(76)926-948]

© Richard Singelenberg. May not be reprinted without permission.

[Social Science & Medicine 31(4)1990, pp 515-523]
&
     [Thomasma, D.C. & P.A.Marshall (eds) Clinical Medical Ethics. Cases and Readings Lanham MD, University Press of America, pp 678-682]

Abstract

 Jehovah’s Witnesses are not allowed to accept a blood transfusion. According to the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society this therapy is a transgression of divine precepts. Additionally, in the judgement of the believers, secular proof is abundant these days; to them AIDS is a powerful justification to abstain from blood.

Founded on the work of the anthropologist Mary Douglas, it is argued that the rejection of this medical therapy is based on perceptions of pollution and purity inherent in the Watch Tower Society’s ideological concept of anti-worldliness. Rooted in the movement’s pre-war opposition to vaccination the implementation of the taboo was triggered by the prevailing social-political climate surrounding the Society during the Second World War, resulting in this intriguing and controversial religious pro­scription. For the community of Jehovah’s Witnesses the blood transfusion taboo still functions as a significant mechanism of sectarian boundary maintenance.

  Key Words:

  Jehovah’s Witnesses; blood transfusion; AIDS; boundary maintenance.

  Introduction

Part of the underlying tension between religious healing and secular medicine can be found in particular within non-mainline Christianity. Certain biblical doctrines as interpreted by followers of particular religious groups, were, and still are, at odds with established medical practice, creating "a degree of tension between the medicine of the soul and the medicine of the body" (1). Accordingly members of Christian Science hold that their faith is "a panacea (…) and the only real remedy for sin, disease and death" (2). Rather than consult secular physicians, orthodox believers would prefer to seek healing from the movement’s practitioners. Faith healing or the conviction that the supreme being punishes the sinner by sending illness, thus causing them to reject "worldly" health care, can be found among conservative Pentecostalists within the Holiness Church (3,4). Similarly, based on the Mathian verse "persons in health do not need a physician", fundamentalistic groups within the Dutch Reformed Church in the Netherlands refused to have their children vaccinated against poliomyel­itis in the 60s and 70s, as well as during an eruption of the measles in February 1988 (5).

Perhaps the best known example of this general phenomenon is the blood transfu­sion refusal of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Promulgating the rule in 1945, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (hereafter "the Society"), generated one the most controversial issues on the interface of religion and health care. Based on Genesis 9 verse 4, Leviticus 17 verses 11 and 12 and the Pauline New Testamentary reiteration in Acts 15, the Society declared that, irrespective of the mode of consumption, the eating of blood was an unscriptural practice (6,7). Besides the array of scriptural references the Witnesses have at their disposal legitimizing the regulation, they feel heavily sup­ported by extra-doctrinal arguments. The second part of the 80s provided them, from their point of view, with a powerful secular ally: AIDS emerged as a macabre confirmation of the doctrine.

  The first part of the present paper explores origin, development and the arguments used to justify the prohibition. The second part offers a functionalist analysis of the doctrine. It appears legitimate to wonder why, of the wide range of possible interpre­tations of divine precepts, the Society has formulated this extended exegesis of the rule to abstain from blood. However, the anthropologist searches for the taboo’s implicit meaning, trying to explain an idiosyncrasy within the context of a specific religious system. So, going beyond doctrine, the questions that must be raised are: why was the rule promulgated in 1945 and not earlier (since blood transfusion was already in use at the beginning of this century) and what is its function within the community of believers? In order to grasp meaning and function of the doctrine, it appears useful to apply the concepts of purity and pollution as formulated by the anthropologist Mary Douglas (8).

As far as I can tell, the blood transfusion doctrine is unique. I found no evidence in ethnography or medical anthropology of an identical taboo (9)

  Origins, Development and Justification

  Prior to its prohibition of blood transfusion, the Society had objections to another medical treatment, namely, vaccination and inoculation. To be sure, this disapproval was never framed in an official doctrine based on biblical articles of faith and prom­ulgated like the ruling on blood, but the practice was vehemently discouraged. This position emerges most clearly during the 30s in The Golden Age, one of the prede­cessors of Awake!. A quote may illustrate this:

Thinking people would rather have smallpox than vaccination, because the latter sows the seed of syphilis, cancers, eczema, erysipelas, scrofula, consumption, even leprosy and many other loathsome afflictions. Hence the practice of vaccination is a crime, an outrage and a delusion

The treatment was further described as "defiling", "devilish" and "influencing the criminal tendencies of the present generation" (10), expressions similar to those uttered by resisters of compulsory vaccination in 19th century Britain and Holland (5,11). In some instances, letters from readers pointed to the biblical foundation of the evil of inoculation, referring to the appropriate text in Leviticus in which the inter­mingling of animal matter with human blood is prohibited (12). Besides the perceived dangers of vaccination and inoculation, the markedly cynical writings also breathe of an antagon­istic attitude towards the medical profession, the pharmaceutical industry, and, above all, the state as an active agent which compels its citizens to have them­selves vacci­nated. It is doubtful whether this doctrine enjoyed large support. In one of the first studies of the Witnesses, undertaken in the early 40s, it is noted that the majority of the adherents would accept medical services (13). Also indicative may be the case of the approximately 4300 American Witnesses who were in prison as conscientious objectors during World War II (14). According to Macmillan, member of the Society’s leadership, only a small minority concentrated in one prison refused to submit to the vaccinations compulsory for all inmates. It was only after his inter­vention convincing them there were no scriptural objections that they complied. Of interest, however, is Macmillan’s argument for the prisoners refusal. In his autobi­ography (one of the few eulogies on the Jehovah’s Witnesses which have not been published by the Society), he notes "(…) our boys (…) considered [vaccinations] the same as blood transfusions (…)" (15,16). As the doctrine on blood had yet to be promulgated his assertion may exemplify the psychological repression of obsolete doctrines or unpopular policy and subsequent reinterpretation into acceptable and plausible ideological statements; a mechanism not uncommon among Jehovah’s Witnesses and adherents of similar religious groups. In the Society’s own official historiography this particular event has been omitted (17). Furthermore, as noted by Penton, it is not entirely clear whether the aversion against vaccination represented the Society’s viewpoint in general or rather a personal grudge of Woodworth, the editor of Awake! (18). Macmillan’s explanation may therefore reflect the possible disagree­ment among the Society’s leadership among this specific issue. After 1945 the animosity against vaccinations disappeared from the reading matter, but until the 60s it was still considered an act of pollution of blood and body (19).

  The origins of the ruling on the use of blood are somewhat obscure. To be sure, the Society promulgated the doctrine in 1945, but that was not the first time the matter was brought up. As early as 1939, Rutherford, the then president, wrote that ‘life is in the blood and that the blood must not be eaten’, in answer to a letter of a Witness who wondered if the eating of pork was scripturally allowed (20). Blood transfusion was not mentioned: a year later he even seemed to be in favour of it (21). According to Penton the matter did not rise until 1937, the year in which the first large-scale blood bank was established in Chicago, but the author does not elaborate on the Society’s reaction (18, p. 153). Then, in the Dec. 22, 1943 edition of Consolation, Awake!’s immediate predecessor, a short article mentioned the development of a serum against meningitis, which includes horse blood. The writer concluded that "the divine prohib­ition as to the eating or partaking of blood does not appear to trouble the ’scientists’". About that time, at the other side of the Atlantic, a Jehovah’s Witness, inmate of the women’s concentration camp Ravensbrück in Nazi-Germany, one day approached her warden, announcing that the eating of blood-sausage was a violation of the scriptures. According to Deuteronomy 12:24, she declared that "the blood should not be eaten, but should be poured upon the ground as water". So, from now on, she and her fellow believers would abstain from this food, in spite of the alarmingly low rations. This time, even for the cohesive group of Witnesses, things were being pushed too far: according to the warden’s eyewitness account, only 25 out of the 275 detained Witnesses followed their inspired "sister". (22)

Nevertheless, The Watchtower of July 1 1945 introduced the prohibition. Ironically, two months later, the Dutch edition of Consolation states:

God never issued provisions prohibiting the use of medicines, injections or blood transfusion. It is an invention of people who, like the Pharisees, leave Jehovah’s mercy and love aside (23).

  This notorious quote, often used by the movement’s (Dutch) adversaries as proof of doctrinal inconsistency, did not emanate from the Society’s headquarters in New York, but was written by its regional editor, who, apparently, was unaware of the new doctrine: a situation unthinkable today and probably a result of post-war com­munication breakdowns. During the late forties, the Society hardly paid any attention to the new ruling. From 1949 onwards, some back-up material was published, such as the statement by a homeopathic physician, who warned that "complications and chronic conditions follow as a rule those who live long enough to pay the penalty of such repugnant measures" (24). Also, readers started to ask questions about the prohibition. One of them, apparently worried about one of its implications, was reassured by the editorial staff that "human copulation for the reproduction of man­kind cannot be viewed as a blood transfusion from the male to the female". According to another reader, the element of "greed", indissolubly bound up with the biblical injunction of blood eating, is absent in transfusions. "How can you say this", was the Society’s reply, "For when a doctor tells a patient that he must have a blood transfu­sion or else he cannot get well and live, what does the doctor create in the patient but a greed for the blood of another human creature?" (25): Hence the theme of patient as vampire emerged, as noted also by Tannahill, and the preamble for the regularly used parallel of blood transfusion with cannibalism (26).

Until the mid-fifties the issue received only marginal attention in the Society’s publications, measured by the number of articles covering the taboo. According to the Society’s subject index, during 1946 and ‘47 nothing appeared in its literature. In 1948 and ‘49 only four editions paid attention to the issue. In contrast, in 1971 the subject was covered in 16 editions. Gradually, the medical world was confronted with the doctrine, resulting in an increasing tension between two value systems. An extreme example is that of the father and two brothers of a victim of an automobile accident in Texas in 1952, who kept guard in her hospital room to prevent doctors from giving a transfusion, in spite of the fact that the patient herself was not a Witness (16, p. 187). From the medico-legal angle an important ethical problem arose: was the Hippocratic oath more important than individual religious freedom? In particular, attention was paid to the element of "forced" transfusions as imposed by court orders. In fact, questions were raised of a persons’s constitutional rights, resulting in extensive legislative debates (27,28). Besides, the medical profession was challenged to adapt its skills and technology to a clientele who refused to accept a treatment that had hitherto hardly been questioned. The doctrine unlocked considerable upheaval within as well outside the Witnesses’s community. Particularly in the case of minor’s whose parents refused to consent to the administering of possibly life-saving blood, emotions ran high; more often than not parental authority was temporarily divested by state agencies, to be followed by the forbidden treatment. Reports such as the transfusions forced upon twelve infants in Canada, who were returned dead to their families resulted in bitter legal debates, as the parents were convinced that the transfusions had caused their children’s death (29). Conversely, many press reports voiced the feelings of society at large, appealing to the fundamental values of parental love and care. Not surprisingly, the Witnesses felt they were under siege. The more outside resistance increased, the more vehemently the Society’s defense. Opposing doctors were labelled "bloodthirsty physicians", the divesting of parental authority was compared with the "recruitment of the Hitler Youth", while one of the Society’s legal counsels qualified the forced transfusions in Canada as a form of "rape" (30; 18, p. 154).

Until 1960, violation of the injunction had supernatural consequences only. "We will not take any spiritual action against anyone", replied the Society to those who dis­agreed (34). The offender eventually had to stand trial before God. Even an "anointed sister", member of the elite of the 144,000 chosen, who had accepted a blood transfu­sion, did not face expulsion from the Society (31). All that was to change. In the "Questions from Readers" part in the Jan 15, 1961 edition of The Watchtower, it was stated that the taking of a transfusion would be followed by excommunication (in the Society’s jargon "disfellowshipping"). If the offender would refuse to acknowledge his transgression or would persist in accepting or donating blood, he would be considered "a rebellious opposer and unfaithful example to fellow members" and therefore should be cut off from them. It is likely that this rigid measure was taken in view of the increasing application of blood transfusions. During the sixties medical science had progressed rapidly, in particular in the field of cardiac technology. Open heart surgery was brought into American homes via live TV-broadcasts and within a few years heart transplantations would become a fact of life. What these new methods, to overcome hitherto fatal disorders, needed were, first and foremost, blood. From that time on, the Society paid more attention to the matter. Long articles, in which the doctrinal foundations were highlighted and reiterated, possible dangers of the therapy, stories in which Witnesses miraculously survived drastic surgery without transfusions and descriptions of perceived maltreatment, filled the pages of the magazines.

It is beyond the aim of the present paper to describe in detail how the ruling vacillated through the late 50s and 60s, in particular if applied to specific cases. Questions like "can one take medicines containing blood products, should a Witness surgeon give a blood transfusion (in the Netherlands a Witness hospital physician solved this dilemma by opting for laboratory research in order to avoid any possible participation in blood therapy)?, can a chicken be fed by products containing blood substances", etcetera, appeared in the "Questions from Readers" pages of The Watchtower. One example, taken from a former Society’s top-official experiences, may illustrate the rather fluid character of the rule. Hemophiliacs, inquiring on the permissibility if they could accept medication of blood fractions were told that "(…) to accept such blood frac­tions one time could be viewed as not objectionable (…) but to do so more than once would constitute a "feeding" on such blood fractions and therefore be considered a violation (…)". (38). Autologous blood transfusion is also forbidden unless the patient’s blood continues to circulate through an external surgical device. Prior storage of one’s own blood is not allowed by way of "On the earth you should pour the blood out as water" (Deuteronomy 12:16). Nowadays, the ruling’s derivatives are more or less left to the individual. The Society has withdrawn from the exegetic casuistry concerning the use of blood products and its wide variety of applications, appealing instead to the Witness’s conscience; cases that are not clear cut are in unprecedented "grey area", an indistinct doctrinal territory within an otherwise absolutistic ideologi­cal system. Besides, the research involved in checking the purity of products is "not the responsi­bility of the Christian, for, doing that, it would give him less time to preach" (33).

Although the Society’s primary justification for the doctrine is based on biblical exegesis, an array of secular arguments usually accompany the scriptural ones. Prior to the outbreak of AIDS the amount of medical objections was rather limited. Errors can be made in administering an incompatible blood type and the receiver can be infected by hepatitis,  malaria and syphilis. A considerable factor in the Society’s abhorrence has been (and still is) the practice of some commercial blood banks. For example, in his description of the life style of an American skid row population, the urban ethno­grapher Spradley reports that "making the blood bank" provides a signifi­cant way to obtain alcoholic beverages. According to one of his informants "it is usual to drink some wine before donating blood in order to avoid too much shaking and to calm the nerves". In case the individual has no means to purchase the liquor in advance, the blood bank provides an advance, to be subtracted from the revenues of the donation (34). The Society’s magazines regularly mentioned similar occurrences, yet, statistical­ly, such reports were hardly significant. certainly not within the context of the Western European situation in which blood donation is usually a free gift: Altruism and life-saving are easy competitors for insignificant casualty rates. This draws attention to the Society’s decision making which is primarily an American affair.

Besides the perceived hazards for physical health, as emanating from the exploita­tion of the penurious urbanites, the Society was convinced that blood transfusion would incur mental contamination. So until the 70s the Society frequently defended its policy by arguing from the perspective of the humoural physiology. The following quote provides an example:

Some say blood transfusions are harmless. Do you believe that? For 40 years K. was known as an honest man. Then he was given a blood transfusion after a fall. "I learned the donor was a thief" K. told police. "When I recovered I found I had a terrible desire to steal". And steal he did. He confessed to stealing ,10,000 in six robberies in three months. K. threatened to sue the doctor who arranged the transfusion, if he receives a severe sentence for his thievery.

To stress the imaginary danger of contagion with less enviable psychological donor traits, in conformity with the biblical adage "the soul of the flesh is in the blood", the Society regularly quoted from a type of literature which in medical circles would probably be considered controversial. So, according to the book "Who Is Your Doctor and Why?":

blood contains all the peculiarities of the individual from whence it comes. This includes hereditary taints, disease susceptibilities, poisons due to personal living, eating and drinking habits…The poisons that produce the impulse to commit suicide, murder, or steal are in the blood.

In the same edition, a Brazilian medical journal was quoted, according to which: "Moral insanity, sexual perversions, repression, inferiority complexes, petty crimes – these often follow in the wake of blood transfusion". It is important to note how the Society stresses the perceived quality of blood through this negative characterization of the donor. If he is not a criminal, then at least there exists a social distance from the receiver. It is mentioned, for example, that Witnesses will try to protect their children from taking strange blood. And in spite of the fact that the donor may be a respect­able member of the family, leading an immaculate life, the danger still looms. To make things worse, however, the donor usually is an unknown person, perhaps even a convict of a penitentiary or an alcoholic, as the Society reports (35). With even more horror the Society refers to the use of cadaver blood for transfusion purposes, a method in vogue in the Soviet Union during the thirties (36).

The Society has no need to revert to these arguments any more. Obviously, the more widespread blood transfusion was applied, the more adversely medical side-effects became known. The old humoural physiology, presented in the 1961 brochure Blood, Medicine and the Law of God has been omitted in the updated version pub­lished in 1977 and been replaced by more sophisticated, although still highly selective refer­ences. During the late 70s and 80s the provocative rhetorics have gradually been replaced by a tone of accommodative restraint, which, for example, emerged in the publication of the viewpoint by the Society’s medical staff in The Journal of the American Medical Association (37)

The last part of this decade provides the Witnesses with an even more powerful argument: AIDS has become the ideal case to convince the outside world that the doctrine is legitimate. The macabre relationship "Blood transfusion – AIDS", as back-up argument to the primordial scriptural semantics, facilitates the Society’s justifica­tion for the rule. Also, recent medical discoveries have demonstrated that contro­versies now surround the once hardly questioned efficacy of blood transfusion (38). Special editions of Awake! quote medical experts who agree with the Witnesses in their refusal of blood transfusions, as well as scientific articles in which the hazards of the treatment are highlighted (39). Whether the disease and other recently discovered possibly adverse medical effects diminishes the controversy among the general public, is less clear. For example, in the Netherlands, during spring 1989, a TV-station reported the case of a Witness who died as a result of blood refusal during obstetrical surgery. The program definitely exuded an atmosphere of antagonism towards the prohibition. Not in the least this was probably due to the reaction of an official of the Society’s Dutch branch office who asserted that ultimately the decision to refuse blood has to be made by the individual, thereby disclaiming any responsibility on the part of the Society. Similarly, the day after a broadcast of a recent TV-discussion, in which Witnesses defended their point of view, those engaged in house-to-house calls received several scornful remarks. Apparently the majority of medical personnel usually respects the patient’s conviction (40). A leading Dutch anesthesiologist, though, confronted with a fatal surgery as a result of blood refusal, formulated the dilemma pithily: "It’s their conviction, but they do it under my nose".

For the individual believer the doctrine appears to be of minor importance. Although systematic data collection is still in progress, my fieldwork impressions among the Witnesses do not show a particular concern with the rule. Surely the doctrine is not experienced as profoundly as the Kosher dietary laws among orthodox Jews, consider­ing them "conditions for holiness over against profanity and pollution" (41). After all, the major part of the adherents will never directly be confronted with the prohibition. New members know they have to accept the doctrine before they are allowed to gain access in their new religious environment. In order to establish the ideological suitabil­ity for entrance, the candidate has to prove agreement with the Society’s theology. In addition to an evaluation of the prospective member’s general conduct and attitude based on a recruitment and resocialization phase which may vary from a few months to several years, congregation elders examine the neophyte by way of an oral test. These so-called 124 "baptismal questions" cover the entire doctrinal corpus and include several items on the blood issue (42). If the elders are convinced that the candidate will accept the new belief system, the subsequent rite de passage through baptism initiates the inductee into the status of "full-fledged minister". Proselytizing activities then become the most important visible "cognitive commit­ment" indicator (43). The blood transfusion matter manifests itself in the background only: the Witness has to fill out a codicil in which it is declared that the bearer of this document will not accept a blood transfusion. Alternatives like dextran or hetastarch are allowed. Further, medical personnel will be discharged of any responsibility for the consequences resulting from this refusal. Except during July and August 1988, when the Society’s brochure Jeho­vah’s Witnesses and the Question of Blood was discussed world-wide among the more than 3 million Witnesses, the annual renewal of the codicil will be the only ritual confrontation with the doctrine, thus constituting another proof of cognitive commit­ment.

On the weekly Sunday gatherings, during which topics from he Watchtower are lectured, the matter is sparsely discussed. After all, from the secular point of view, the hazards of refusal have diminished. Medical technology has found alternatives for those refusing blood, not in the least as a result of the guinea-pig position of the Witnesses: how to do major surgery without blood transfusion has been (and still is) a topic for a considerable amount of papers in medical literature (28,44). In spite of future divine judgement and medical alternatives, whether the Witnesses will persist in a refusal at the crucial moment, in particular if their children are endangered and in need of a transfusion, is a matter of which some are not entirely confident. "Only that moment will show if I am really committed to Jehovah", is a standard reaction of the doubters. Some have bitter memories of the moment when their authority was tempor­arily divested in order that their child received a transfusion. Yet, others confided to me they felt relieved to be deprived of the ultimate responsibility for life and death. According to dissident sources Witnesses accept blood transfusions. This was con­firmed to me by medical authorities although the magnitude seems limited. It is only when one of the fellow believers is in a physical condition that requires the therapy that some tension in the congregation is noticeable, though the matter will not be on the agenda of the service. Particularly if there is pressure from hospital staff upon a Witness to accept a transfusion, congregation elders and other senior members will assist the patient and immediate relatives in order to reduce all possible doubts. Simultaneously, to the physicians in attendance, they elucidate the Society’s viewpoint on this matter, thus providing a protective shield between doctrinal imperatives and secular temptation. It is during such dramatic events and, even more, when the outside world takes offence, that ranks close.

Discussion

Unlike the objections raised against medical treatment, uttered by certain members of the religious groups exemplified in the introduction, the Society’s present objection against blood transfusion and previous aversion against vaccination are not founded on divine providence or the availability of alternatively spiritual methods. Pollution, in particular in the context of compulsion, appears to be the key word through which the antagonisms can be understood. As far as vaccination was concerned, the objections appear to have been founded on the perceived polluting characteristics of the sub­stances: the introduction of evil humours into one’s system, a conception similar to the argument for vaccination refusal in 19th century Britain (11, p. 162)

But above all, it was the compulsory character of vaccination that rubbed the Society the wrong way. Stressed particularly in the pre-60s, in the Society’s theology, the state and industrial corporations embody Satan, whereas no good could come from academic professionals. These ideological adversaries, in the shape of public health authorities, the pharmaceutical industry and the medical profession, compelled its citizens to take an evil drug. As Smith notes: "Compulsory vaccination represented a new, and for many people, the first, intrusion into the family of state authority (…) raising funda­mental issues about authority and morals" (11, p. 159,161). To be sure, in the US state vaccination had caused a considerable number of casualties during the first decades of this century and some medical authorities held extreme views on the eradication of germs. The Old Testament scriptural back-up, brought out at a later stage, only emphasized the polluting aspects of vaccination, thus reiterating the importance to distance oneself from secular dirt: to reject vaccination was part of rejecting the world. The opposition against vaccination never received the aura of divine sanctioning. After all, in certain cases, public health was involved. Besides, as noted previously, it is questionable if the opposition was unequivocally supported by the Society’s leadership.

If vaccine and inoculant are perceived to pollute the receiver, the same can be said about blood. Ubiquitously, blood has a disquiet cultural connotation, specifically within the religious domain. "Blood is perceived as being simultaneously pure and impure, attractive and repulsive, sacred and profane; it is at once a life-giving substance and a symbol of death" (45). Its metaphorical importance has been widely documented in the ethnographic literature. Blood points to group identity, it is the idiom of kinship, which in its turn constitutes the elementary fabric of social organiz­ation. Alliances between groups or individuals or between their deities are often established by a covenant in which blood plays a crucial role. In present-day western societies, its importance is obvious from proverbial expressions like "’blood will tell’, "blood is thicker than water", etcetera, let alone the sinister applications in racial ideologies. The closed character of the Indian caste system, for example, is based on the idea that parental blood is transferred to the offspring: the purity of a caste is defined by the purity of the blood of each individual member. Pollution of an individual’s blood means a stain on the whole caste (46). Related to our subject-matter, a blood transfusion in India is a family affair: a patient accepts blood only from his next of kin. This cultural concept of blood pollution may have been the reason behind the murder of two English medical students who transfused their own blood to a patient in an Indian operating theatre (47).

In the Society’s blood transfusion doctrine, this consanguinity aspect plays a partial role. As shown above, the Society often stressed the questionable characteristics of the donor category, transferring its evil qualities into the believer’s bodily system. Recep­tion meant individual, and accordingly, group pollution. The analogy with the Indian caste is obvious. However, a significant flaw emerges: why is transfusion among Witnesses not allowed? It should be noted that defection among the Society’s adherents is considerable (15,26,38,57). In the view of the Society, apostate members belong to the realm of Satan. Though the transfusion might have been life-saving, the thought of a believer who once received blood from someone who is now in the devil’s category, is almost an obscenity within the Society’s ideological schemes. Insiders, thus, can also defile, so a absolute prohibition is the most secure defense for spiritual pollution.

Even more important for our discussion is the entwined relationship between blood and war. It points to the socio-historical setting in which the doctrine emerged. Blood transfusion had a definite martial component. World War I had been the first large-scale test-case for blood transfusion, followed by the Spanish Civil War. Surely the Society regards the labeling of Jehovah’s Witnesses as "pacifists" a defilement (48), but the army is considered an odious institution at the disposal of a reprehensible state authority. When, during World War II, the American population was regularly incited to donate blood for its injured soldiers, it is imaginable that this patriotic climate, ideologically anathematized by the Society, provided the breeding ground on which the prohibition crystallized. To put it bluntly: blood donation was considered an act of sacrifice to a false deity. In this way blood transfusion was part of nationalistic manifestations like flags, national anthems and armies. To make things worse, other adversaries like politicians, the established churches and the world of entertainment participated in the blood donation campaigns, rendering the act even more loathsome (49), to be compared with one of the explanations of the Jewish pork taboo: Pork is impure because the hostile Canaanite neighbours eat it.

The above may explain the choice for this specific taboo, but not the reason to implement it. To explore this question, I will turn to the thought-provoking theoretical framework of Mary Douglas. A central theme in Douglas’s work is the relationship between symbolic and social order in different cultural systems. In her seminal study Purity and Danger she presents a thought-provoking analysis of the symbolic meaning of pollution. Departing from Durkheim’s view that religion expresses social experi­ence, Douglas hypothesizes that rituals of pollution mirror concerns of the social order, creating "unity in experience" and providing "positive contributions to atone­ment" (8, p.2). For Douglas, the human body mirrors the surrounding society and as such symbolizes social structure. The body’s orifices and emissions are society’s margins, representing points of entry or exit to social units. Social dangers, threaten­ing the structure, are reflected in the polluting bodily orifices and substances. Basing her assertions mainly on ethnographic material from India she connects the elaborate purification rituals of specific castes with their perceived minority position within the system of Hindoo castes. Also the Israelites seem to conform to the hypothesis in view of the relationship between their status as a "hard pressed minority" and "their care for the integrity, unity and purity of the physical body", thus considering "blood, pus, excreta, semen, etcetera" as polluting substances (8, p.124; 50). As such, rules of pollution and purity are instrumental in creating structural boundaries around group members and "(…) expected to be found in situations were the social order is threatened" (51).

It is exactly this situation in which the Jehovah’s Witnesses found themselves when the doctrine was promulgated. For the Witnesses World War II marked the climax of their persecution when in Nazi occupied Europe they were put in concentration camps. This had already been preceded by opposition in other parts of the world during the 30s. Because of the Society’s ideological rejection of state authority, the Witnesses were harassed for their alleged anarchistic, communist or whatever perceived extrem­ist political stance. Since, the refusal to salute the flag, not to sing the national anthem, to oppose the established churches and to be a conscientious objector are, in a patriotic atmosphere, obvious indicators of deviant social behavior. Add to that the fierce opposition they encountered as a result of their contentious missionary zeal and the picture emerges of a religious minority to be regarded as the most persecuted group of Christians in the twentieth century (18, p. 130).

Though specific local hostility may have contributed to the sect’s cohesion on a regional or national level, and the recognition that fellow believers were in more or less comparable trouble elsewhere, it is not clear whether the Society as a world wide movement was a cohesive unity. It is conceivable that external threat, more than internal theology, supported the mutual solidarity among members. Surely the act of proselytizing was an ideological necessity welding people together, but it lacked the sacral symbolism that divides the pure from the impure. In the terminology of Douglas, the element of "holiness" was lacking (8, p.49). "Holiness", or its Hebrew original meaning "to set apart" was needed in order to re-establish the movement’s universal collective identity: a clear doctrine of purification, connoting a rule of mental and physical hygienics was called for. Blood was decided upon. That is to say, the complete avoidance of it. In that way it is functionally analogous with the Jewish dietary laws: its observance means an encounter with the supreme being. As such, rules of pollution and purity are instrumental in creating structural boundaries around group members. And, the more distinctive when formulated into divine precepts, the clearer the dividing lines between the faithful and those excluded (52). For the faithful, the relinquishing of this possibly life-saving medical therapy can be con­sidered a sacrifice as part of the price of membership, thus increasing motivation to remain participant (43, p. 505). The annual renewal of the codicil can partially be considered a test of their cognitive commitment. For the inductee the prohibition can also be considered a barrier prior affiliation. Not until the recruit’s motivation is at its maxi­mum full membership is possible (53). In that way the rule functions as one of the Society’s selection criteria: Its endorsement by the individual far surpasses non-committal membership. It is unlikely, however, that the majority of the recruits deal with this specific issue at great length. After all, cognizance of the doctrine is only one part in a  usually protracted introductory period. For it is more than doctrinal attraction that ties an individual to a religious movement: the emotional dimension may play an even more important role than the cognitive. In Kanter’s scheme this component underlies the community’s "cohesion commitment": "(…) the attachment of an individ­ual’s fund of affectivity and emotion to a group" (43, p. 507). Numerous studies have pointed to the individual’s affiliated networks as the primary sources of recruitment to sectarian groups (54). The new member enters an inner circle in which emotional bonds will be established and reinforced. It is when the outside world takes offence at the blood doctrine that the solidarity of the group becomes visible. As such the blood transfusion has an important secondary function: the opposition reinforces the Witnesses’s internal cohesion by distinguishing even more clearly between purity and pollution. The Society’s abhorrence of blood also emerges in the annual celebration of the Lord’s Supper: the drinking of the wine, symbol of Jesus’s blood, is only reserved for the remainder of the elect 144,000. For 1989 that meant 0,2% of the Witnesses. In that way the old church maxim "Ecclesia abhorret a sanguine" applies, in the most literal sense, to the Society.

  Conclusion

In the 50s Werner Cohn characterized the Jehovah’s witnesses as a proletarian movement: a social category not participating in societal institutions. In order to show this social estrangement, such movements had "separation rites" at their disposal: "demonstrative practices by which the proletarians set themselves apart from everyone else" (55). Though this is not the place to argue about Cohn’s use of the adjective "proletarian", his observation of the creation of social boundaries is relevant. World rejection, a major ideological characteristic of the Watch Tower Society, appears to be at the root of the prohibition of blood transfusion among the Jehovah’s Witnesses. For the Jehovah’s Witnesses purity means to be separate from the outside, "the world". "The world" is the major part of mankind with exception of the Witnesses (7, p. 427). An array of biblical references indicate that "true Christians", though living in "the world" performing their daily human activities are not part of "the world", the classic sectarian position as noted by Beckford. (56) For analytical purposes, secular anti-institutionalism and inter-group purity are the rule’s two components. The former is rooted in the Second World War, being part of the patriotic complex which already included the state, flag, army and church. The latter seems to have its origins in the Society’s pre-war opposition to vaccination: Blood transfusion emerged as a similar act of pollution. The important difference, however, was the rule’s radius: it only afflicted individual group members. Public health was not at stake. Furthermore, as in the case of compulsory vaccinations, here also the arch-enemy state intruded into the private domain of the family or the individual by forcing the polluting treatment on the victim.

Since its promulgation in 1945, the scriptural base of the taboo has not changed, in contrast to its implementations and additional, secular arguments. The amount of attention the Society paid to the subject seems directly related to its rate of application in medical practice, where it initially encountered little tolerance. Eventually, doctrinal imperatives were more or less forced to find a compromise with societal acceptation, in particular concerning the ruling’s derivatives concerning blood in food and medical products. This more or less conforms to Beckford’s remark that the justification on certain doctrinal views was a response "(…) to requests for assistance from individual Jehovah’s witnesses". As such, the decision making process may partly have been inspired by "(…) the defending and promoting [of the Society's] interests", character­ized by "ad hoc responses to immediate problems without an underlying rationale". Tactics and strategy may have prevailed over principle (56, p. 59). These dialectics between legalistic dogmatism and adherents’s commitments may have been the reason that the pre-war vaccination objection never received the aura of divine sanction. The same process created the rather unique "grey area": a doctrinal territory on which the Witness had to decide personally. The same applied to the so-called "1975" prophecy: the Society left it to the individual believers to accept or reject the possibility of an apocalyptic event in that year (57). In spite of these less stable features, the central issue stands its ground through its complementary function. The rule demarcates the believers from the non-believers thus being one the most salient identity markers. Its controversial character contributes to the internal solidarity, since the enemy is an indispensable ingredient of the survival of any millennial movement.

Although, since the 50s the Society’s attitude towards the outside world has evolved from a rigid "anti-worldliness" to a moderate "world-indifference" (56, p. 47,48), "the world", though still anathema, is a millenarian prerequisite: it must exist to show how evil it is. Simultaneously, as a consequence of some adverse effects of blood transfu­sion the Society is eager to quote assenting opinions from the hostile external world. And, ironically, even apostate members, actively engaged in opposing the sect, still abhor blood transfusion. As one stated:

Most Witnesses can forgive adultery, smoking, bad business practices, and above all drunkenness, but they find it virtually impossible to forgive the ban on blood and apostasy. (…) the idea of taking blood is still dreadfully abhorrent to me. I know how an orthodox Jew must feel when asked to eat pork or shellfish (59).

It is highly improbable that the Society will quote this phrase, in particular the source, in its magazines. After all, the ultimate enemy is needed for contrast, not consent.

  Acknowledgements.

  A condensed version of this paper was read at the 1989 Annual Meeting of the Association for the Sociology of Religion, San Francisco, USA. The author extends his gratitude to his colleagues at the Dept. of Anthropology, in particular to Walter van Beek.

  References

1.Amundsen D.W. and Ferngren G.B. Medicine and Religion: Early Christianity through the Middle Ages. In Health/Medicine and The Faith Traditions (Edited by Marty M.E. and Vaux K.L.), p. 100. Fortress Press, Philadelphia 1982. See also Amundsen D.W. Medicine and Religion in Western Traditions. In The Encyclopedia of Religion (Edited by Eliade M.), Vol.9, pp. 319-324. MacMillan, New York, 1987.

2.Wilson B.R. Sects and Society p. 128,129. Heinemann, London, 1961

3. Numbers R.L. and Sawyer R.C. Medicine and Christianity in the Modern World. In Health/Medicine and The Faith Traditions (Edited by Marty M.E. and Vaux K.L.), p. 153. Fortress Press, Philadelphia, 1982

4. Redlener I.E. and Scott C.S. Incompatibles of Professional and Religious Ideology: Problems of Medical Management and Outcome in a case of Pediatric Meningitis. Soc. Sci. Med. 13B, 89-93, 1979

5. Douma J. and Velema W.H. Polio: Afwachten of Afweren. Bolland, Amsterdam, 1979

6. The Watchtower, July 1, 1945

38. For example, it is assumed that a relationship exists between the administering of donor blood during cancer surgery and the tumor’s metastasis. Ned. T. Geneesk. 131, 1255-1257, 1987.

39. Awake!, Apr. 22, 1986; Oct. 8, 1988 Dutch ed.

40. Weinberger M. et al. The Development of Physician Norms in the United States. The Treatment of Jehovah’s Witness Patients. Soc. Sci. Med. 16, 1719-1723, 1982

41. Levin J.S. & Vanderpool H.Y. Is Frequent Religious Really Conducive to Better Health?: Toward an Epidemiology of Religion. Soc. Sci. Med. 24, 596, 1987

42. Organized to Accomplish Our Ministry p. 190-191 WBTS, New York, 1983 Dutch ed.

43. Kanter R.M. Commitment and Social Organization: A Study of Commitment Mechanisms in Utopian Communities. Am. Sociol. Rev., 33, 500, 1968

44. Jarvis G.K. and Northcott H.C. Religion and Differences in Morbidity and Mortality. Soc. Sci. Med. 25, 819, 1987

45. Roux J. Blood. In The Encyclopedia of Religion Vol. 2, p. 254

46. Östör A. Concepts of Person: Kinship, Caste and Marriage in India p. 13-15 Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA, 1982

47. Saunders J.B. A Conceptual History of Transplantation. In Transplantation (Edited by Najarian J.S. & Simmons R.L.) p. 11 Urban & Schwarzenberg, Munich, 1972

48. The Watchtower, Apr 1, 1951, p. 99 Dutch ed.

49. Awake!, Aug. 8, 1950

50. One wonders if there is any relationship between these remarks and the opposition of the residents of Jeruzalem’s orthodox quarter Mea Shearim against a governmental anti-poliomyelitis vaccination campaign, as shown by a picture in a Dutch newspaper in October 1988. According to several scholars on Chassidism, there is no foundation in the Mosaic Law whatsoever justifying this protest.

51. Douglas M. Implicit Meanings. Essays in Anthropology, p.55 Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1975

52. Caplan L. Introduction. In Studies in Religious Fundamentalism (Edited by Caplan L.) p. 15 MacMillan, London, 1987

53. Borhek J.T. and Curtis R.F. A Sociology of Belief p. 99 Wiley, New York, 1975.

54. To mention one example: Stark R. and Bainbridge W.S. The Future of Religion ch. 14. University of California Press, Berkeley, 1985

55. Cohn W. Jehovah’s Witnesses as a Proletarian Movement. The American Scholar, 24, 283, 1955

56. Beckford J.A. The Trumpet of Prophecy. A Sociological Study of Jehovah’s Witnesses, p. 56 Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1975

57. Singelenberg R. "It Separated the Wheat from the Chaff": The "1975" Prophecy and its Impact among Dutch Jehovah’s Witnesses. Sociological Analysis 50, 23-40, 1989

59. Penton, personal communication

© Richard Singelenberg. May not be reprinted without permission