Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2002, Page 90
if it appears ―regularly.‖ Answering no to the question ―does the doctrine appear in your
writings‖ would be against the facts.
The term ―theocratic warfare‖ is the term that the Watchtower Society itself coined and
regularly uses. In the 1930-1985 Watchtower Publications Index, the term ―theocratic
warfare‖ refers the reader to the main topic, ―warfare, spiritual.‖ The official Watchtower
teachings, such as in the official Watchtower reference book Insight on the Scriptures,
(1988) plus many articles in The Watchtower (e.g. June 1, 1960, p. 351, May 1, 1957, p.
284, and February 1, 1956, p. 78) show that this teaching is officially required dogma. To
deny the existence of the doctrine is an illustration of its application. In answer to the
question if a person is justified in not telling the truth under some circumstances, Mr.
Schabow avoided the question by answering, ―we hold highly to telling the truth‖
(Schabow‘s testimony, p. 762-763).
Another witness for the Watchtower, Walter Kobil, in answer to the question ―had you, in
your 60 years of being a Jehovah‘s Witness, ever heard of that doctrine [theocratic warfare]
before?,‖ said ―no, I hadn‘t.‖ Mr. Kolb then asked Mr. Kobil, ―is it preached? Is it discussed
in your literature extensively?‖ (note again the use of the word extensively) In answer,
Kobil stated ―no, it isn‘t.‖ Then, in answer to the question about the testimony on this
doctrine ―two days ago‖ the attorney asked ―have you researched that topic?‖ Kobil said
Yes, I have. ..I was curious about what he was talking about, so I did
extensive research and I located a question and answer to. ..from the
readers in Watchtower, June the 1st 1960, which is 30 years ago, and. .
.those two words appear together, theocratic warfare and. ..the question
was: if testifying in court or dealing with officials, must we always speak the
truth? And the. ..answer was that we must always speak the truth. The
only variation. ..in court or dealing with public officials. ..was that in the
case of one of the people in our church who's lives are in jeopardy, that we
would avoid giving all of the truth. ..so the article had applications to living
under totalitarian governments, and it only had to do with saving lives. ..our
beliefs are that we must tell the truth, and this was only that we didn‘t have
to tell all the truth if it put. ..somebody‘s life in jeopardy‖ (Court transcript,
pp. 823-825).
Note, Mr. Kobil did not deny the existence of the doctrine, only the specifics as to when it is
appropriate to apply it. This is something quite different than stating the doctrine does not
exist as the court implied. Actually, the article says nothing about saving lives or that
theocratic warfare is to be used only under totalitarian governments. As the article makes
clear, it applies to all governments (see Reed, 1997). Furthermore, the attorney for the
appellee, Richard Kolb, in his closing argument, admitted that the appellants do ―not deny
the existence of the controversial church [theocratic] war strategy doctrine‖ (Appellants‘
Reply Brief p. 2 emphasis mine).
In the closing argument, counsel for appellee conceded that the theocratic war doctrine
exists, but said that the jury should conclude that it did not apply to Kobil‘s or Schabow‘s
testimony in this case (Court Transcript, pp. 1037-1038). Why it would not apply was never
documented. Mr. Kolb contended in his closing argument that the doctrine taught
Witnesses don‘t have to ―squeal on your friends,‖ (Court Transcript, pp. 1037-1038),
meaning you need not tell ―the whole truth‖ in court in contrast to the court oath that
requires ―the whole truth.‖ Furthermore, appellant stated
Mr. Kobil‘s been a Jehovah‘s Witness all of his life, [and has] never heard of
the doctrine, and neither did Schabow, but when Kobil looked it up, they
found that under certain circumstances such as when your member‘s life is in
jeopardy. ..if you‘re supposed to testify and squeal on your friends then you
if it appears ―regularly.‖ Answering no to the question ―does the doctrine appear in your
writings‖ would be against the facts.
The term ―theocratic warfare‖ is the term that the Watchtower Society itself coined and
regularly uses. In the 1930-1985 Watchtower Publications Index, the term ―theocratic
warfare‖ refers the reader to the main topic, ―warfare, spiritual.‖ The official Watchtower
teachings, such as in the official Watchtower reference book Insight on the Scriptures,
(1988) plus many articles in The Watchtower (e.g. June 1, 1960, p. 351, May 1, 1957, p.
284, and February 1, 1956, p. 78) show that this teaching is officially required dogma. To
deny the existence of the doctrine is an illustration of its application. In answer to the
question if a person is justified in not telling the truth under some circumstances, Mr.
Schabow avoided the question by answering, ―we hold highly to telling the truth‖
(Schabow‘s testimony, p. 762-763).
Another witness for the Watchtower, Walter Kobil, in answer to the question ―had you, in
your 60 years of being a Jehovah‘s Witness, ever heard of that doctrine [theocratic warfare]
before?,‖ said ―no, I hadn‘t.‖ Mr. Kolb then asked Mr. Kobil, ―is it preached? Is it discussed
in your literature extensively?‖ (note again the use of the word extensively) In answer,
Kobil stated ―no, it isn‘t.‖ Then, in answer to the question about the testimony on this
doctrine ―two days ago‖ the attorney asked ―have you researched that topic?‖ Kobil said
Yes, I have. ..I was curious about what he was talking about, so I did
extensive research and I located a question and answer to. ..from the
readers in Watchtower, June the 1st 1960, which is 30 years ago, and. .
.those two words appear together, theocratic warfare and. ..the question
was: if testifying in court or dealing with officials, must we always speak the
truth? And the. ..answer was that we must always speak the truth. The
only variation. ..in court or dealing with public officials. ..was that in the
case of one of the people in our church who's lives are in jeopardy, that we
would avoid giving all of the truth. ..so the article had applications to living
under totalitarian governments, and it only had to do with saving lives. ..our
beliefs are that we must tell the truth, and this was only that we didn‘t have
to tell all the truth if it put. ..somebody‘s life in jeopardy‖ (Court transcript,
pp. 823-825).
Note, Mr. Kobil did not deny the existence of the doctrine, only the specifics as to when it is
appropriate to apply it. This is something quite different than stating the doctrine does not
exist as the court implied. Actually, the article says nothing about saving lives or that
theocratic warfare is to be used only under totalitarian governments. As the article makes
clear, it applies to all governments (see Reed, 1997). Furthermore, the attorney for the
appellee, Richard Kolb, in his closing argument, admitted that the appellants do ―not deny
the existence of the controversial church [theocratic] war strategy doctrine‖ (Appellants‘
Reply Brief p. 2 emphasis mine).
In the closing argument, counsel for appellee conceded that the theocratic war doctrine
exists, but said that the jury should conclude that it did not apply to Kobil‘s or Schabow‘s
testimony in this case (Court Transcript, pp. 1037-1038). Why it would not apply was never
documented. Mr. Kolb contended in his closing argument that the doctrine taught
Witnesses don‘t have to ―squeal on your friends,‖ (Court Transcript, pp. 1037-1038),
meaning you need not tell ―the whole truth‖ in court in contrast to the court oath that
requires ―the whole truth.‖ Furthermore, appellant stated
Mr. Kobil‘s been a Jehovah‘s Witness all of his life, [and has] never heard of
the doctrine, and neither did Schabow, but when Kobil looked it up, they
found that under certain circumstances such as when your member‘s life is in
jeopardy. ..if you‘re supposed to testify and squeal on your friends then you
