Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2002, Page 72
… know the truth and that if a person makes a false statement without
intending to ―work injury‖ to another, it isn‘t a lie, but what Goodrich called a
―Rahab technique.‖ Otherwise, why didn‘t Rutherford simply say a lie is a
knowingly false statement, period? Goodrich viewed it this way and this is
the way the Society has since defined lies versus using ―theocratic war
strategy.‖ (Raines, 1996, p. 20).
An early example of the use of theocratic warfare by one Witness on another Witness that
occurred in the early 1940‘s involved Roy Goodrich, a former science teacher and for many
years a congregation overseer. Goodrich sent a letter to a Mr. M. A. Howlett at the
Watchtower world headquarters expressing his concern about the Watchtower‘s use of the
E.R.A. machine to treat illness. E.R.A. is an ―oscilloclast machine‖ invented by Dr. Abrams,
a notorious quack well known to historians of science quackery (Warner, 1941). Goodrich
was concerned because he concluded the E.R.A. technique involved demonism. For this
reason he wrote Howlett to determine if the rumors he heard about the E.R.A. machine still
being used at Bethel (the Watchtower headquarters) were true.
Howlett answered Goodrich as follows ―You have evidently been misinformed regarding my
connection with E.R.A. I know nothing of it and have never used it. There is none such in
Bethel‖ (Goodrich, 1944). Goodrich knew that Howlett‘s claim was erroneous because he
possessed firsthand knowledge that a Chester Nicholson was ―treated‖ with the E.R.A.
machine by Howlett. Goodrich also knew that the E.R.A. had been used by a ―Dr.‖ Work at
Bethel since 1922. Furthermore, since Howlett started working at Bethel before 1922,
Goodrich knew Howlett‘s claim about not having ―even heard of the ERA‖ was absurd
because Howlett was a Bethel doctor. Consequently, ―Goodrich therefore believed that
Howlett lied to him‖ (Raines, 1996, p. 20).
In response to Howlett‘s letter, Goodrich wrote a lengthy letter to both the Watchtower
board of directors and Watchtower‘s president, Nathan Knorr. Goodrich, who was then a
Witness in good standing, wrote specifically about what he believed was Howlett‘s misuse of
theocratic war strategy (in the 1940s the doctrine was called the Rahab technique, after
Rahab who lied to protect the spies). Raines notes this technique involved ―misdirecting‖
someone with ―false information,‖ a response that ―most people would call … lying‖ (Raines,
1996, p. 20). Goodrich was nonplused because, as he explained to Howlett
the one possible import of those words [from Howlett] conveys an impression
entirely contrary to the fundamental facts as I know them. I must believe,
however, that your motive in writing them is the highest—a desire to honor
Jehovah‘s name. Remembering Rahab‘s approval and the statements at the
top of Page 177 in RICHES, you have seemingly clear and logical justification,
no doubt, in your own mind [to lie]. (Goodrich, 1944, p. 1)
What Goodrich was concerned about was that the doctrine justifies lying only to those who
are not entitled to know the truth, and Goodrich felt as a fellow Jehovah‘s Witness, and for
many years a presiding overseer, he did have a right to know the truth in this matter.
Raines comments that the Theocratic War doctrine
implies there are some who are simply not ―entitled‖ to know the truth and
that if a person makes a false statement without intending to ―work injury‖ to
another, it isn‘t a lie, but … a ―Rahab technique.‖ Otherwise why didn‘t
Rutherford simply say a lie is a knowingly false statement, period? Goodrich
viewed it this way, and this is why the Society has since defined lies according
to their ―theocratic war strategy‖ doctrine. (Raines, 1996, p. 20)
Goodrich responded charitably, concluding that Howlett
… know the truth and that if a person makes a false statement without
intending to ―work injury‖ to another, it isn‘t a lie, but what Goodrich called a
―Rahab technique.‖ Otherwise, why didn‘t Rutherford simply say a lie is a
knowingly false statement, period? Goodrich viewed it this way and this is
the way the Society has since defined lies versus using ―theocratic war
strategy.‖ (Raines, 1996, p. 20).
An early example of the use of theocratic warfare by one Witness on another Witness that
occurred in the early 1940‘s involved Roy Goodrich, a former science teacher and for many
years a congregation overseer. Goodrich sent a letter to a Mr. M. A. Howlett at the
Watchtower world headquarters expressing his concern about the Watchtower‘s use of the
E.R.A. machine to treat illness. E.R.A. is an ―oscilloclast machine‖ invented by Dr. Abrams,
a notorious quack well known to historians of science quackery (Warner, 1941). Goodrich
was concerned because he concluded the E.R.A. technique involved demonism. For this
reason he wrote Howlett to determine if the rumors he heard about the E.R.A. machine still
being used at Bethel (the Watchtower headquarters) were true.
Howlett answered Goodrich as follows ―You have evidently been misinformed regarding my
connection with E.R.A. I know nothing of it and have never used it. There is none such in
Bethel‖ (Goodrich, 1944). Goodrich knew that Howlett‘s claim was erroneous because he
possessed firsthand knowledge that a Chester Nicholson was ―treated‖ with the E.R.A.
machine by Howlett. Goodrich also knew that the E.R.A. had been used by a ―Dr.‖ Work at
Bethel since 1922. Furthermore, since Howlett started working at Bethel before 1922,
Goodrich knew Howlett‘s claim about not having ―even heard of the ERA‖ was absurd
because Howlett was a Bethel doctor. Consequently, ―Goodrich therefore believed that
Howlett lied to him‖ (Raines, 1996, p. 20).
In response to Howlett‘s letter, Goodrich wrote a lengthy letter to both the Watchtower
board of directors and Watchtower‘s president, Nathan Knorr. Goodrich, who was then a
Witness in good standing, wrote specifically about what he believed was Howlett‘s misuse of
theocratic war strategy (in the 1940s the doctrine was called the Rahab technique, after
Rahab who lied to protect the spies). Raines notes this technique involved ―misdirecting‖
someone with ―false information,‖ a response that ―most people would call … lying‖ (Raines,
1996, p. 20). Goodrich was nonplused because, as he explained to Howlett
the one possible import of those words [from Howlett] conveys an impression
entirely contrary to the fundamental facts as I know them. I must believe,
however, that your motive in writing them is the highest—a desire to honor
Jehovah‘s name. Remembering Rahab‘s approval and the statements at the
top of Page 177 in RICHES, you have seemingly clear and logical justification,
no doubt, in your own mind [to lie]. (Goodrich, 1944, p. 1)
What Goodrich was concerned about was that the doctrine justifies lying only to those who
are not entitled to know the truth, and Goodrich felt as a fellow Jehovah‘s Witness, and for
many years a presiding overseer, he did have a right to know the truth in this matter.
Raines comments that the Theocratic War doctrine
implies there are some who are simply not ―entitled‖ to know the truth and
that if a person makes a false statement without intending to ―work injury‖ to
another, it isn‘t a lie, but … a ―Rahab technique.‖ Otherwise why didn‘t
Rutherford simply say a lie is a knowingly false statement, period? Goodrich
viewed it this way, and this is why the Society has since defined lies according
to their ―theocratic war strategy‖ doctrine. (Raines, 1996, p. 20)
Goodrich responded charitably, concluding that Howlett
