# Alternative Service — 50 Years of Needless Imprisonment

*Romans 13:1-7 / Matthew 5:41 — 'If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two'*

**Strength:** Very Strong | **Tone:** Good | **Topic:** Authority

## Doorstep Question

> "Did you know that from the 1940s to 1996, the Watchtower required young brothers to refuse alternative civilian service — like hospital work or forestry — and go to prison instead? And that in 1978, the Governing Body itself voted 11 to 5 to change the policy, but one member switched his vote and destroyed the required two-thirds majority? For nearly twenty more years, young men kept going to prison. What does that tell you about how the Governing Body makes decisions?"

## JW Claim

Jehovah's Witnesses maintain political neutrality. From the 1940s to 1996, the
Watchtower taught that accepting alternative civilian service was equivalent to
supporting the military system. Young JW men who refused both military and
civilian service were imprisoned worldwide. The organisation presented this as
a matter of conscience directed by Jehovah, not a policy decision by men.

## Strategy

This argument is powerful because it is entirely factual and documented — much of it from Raymond Franz, who was on the Governing Body when the 1978 vote took place. The goal is not to make the JW feel guilty, but to raise a serious question about the nature of Governing Body authority.
1. Establish the facts calmly: "From the 1940s to 1996, the Watchtower taught that accepting alternative civilian service — like working in a hospital or doing forestry — was the same as military service. Young brothers who refused were imprisoned. This happened across dozens of countries."
2. Introduce the 1978 vote: "In 1978, the Governing Body voted on whether to change this policy. Eleven members voted to allow alternative service. Five voted against. But the Watchtower required a two-thirds majority to change doctrine. One member — Lloyd Barry — changed his vote at the last moment, bringing the total to 10-6. That fell short of two-thirds. The policy stayed."
3. Let the implications land: "For the next eighteen years, thousands of young men continued going to prison over a policy that the majority of the Governing Body had already voted to change. One switched vote kept brothers behind bars."
4. Note the branch committee testimony: "Branch committees from Belgium, Canada, Spain, and other countries wrote to headquarters saying that brothers on the ground could not explain the policy scripturally. They submitted only because the Society told them to."
5. Note the silent reversal: "In the May 1, 1996 Watchtower, the policy was quietly reversed. Alternative service was now a matter of personal conscience. There was no apology, no acknowledgment of the years of imprisonment, no recognition of the families affected."
6. Connect to Matthew 5:41: "Jesus specifically addressed state-compelled civilian service — the Roman practice of angaria. He told his followers: 'if someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.' Jesus commanded compliance and going beyond, not refusal. How could the Watchtower forbid something Jesus explicitly endorsed?"
7. Connect to Romans 13:1-7: "Paul wrote that Christians should be in subjection to the superior authorities. Hospital work is not military service. The Bible did not require this sacrifice — the Governing Body did."
8. Ask the question: "If the Governing Body is directed by Jehovah's spirit, why did it take eighteen years after their own majority vote to correct a policy that was putting innocent young men in prison? And why was there no acknowledgment of the suffering caused?"

## Key Insight

For nearly twenty years after the Governing Body itself voted 11 to 5 to change this policy, young men continued going to prison. One switched vote kept thousands behind bars. When the policy was finally reversed, there was no apology. And Jesus in Matthew 5:41 specifically addressed state-compelled civilian service and told followers to comply and go beyond — not refuse.

## JW Responses & Counters

### Response 1

**JW says:** "Brothers went to prison out of love for Jehovah and desire to remain neutral."

**Counter:** Their sincerity is not in question — it is deeply admirable. The question is whether the policy that sent them there was from God or from men. The Governing Body's own majority wanted to change it in 1978. Branch committees reported that brothers could not defend it scripturally. And when it was finally reversed in 1996, there was no acknowledgment of error. The brothers' courage was real. But the policy that demanded it was a human decision, not a divine command.

### Response 2

**JW says:** "New light comes progressively — Jehovah reveals truth gradually."

**Counter:** This was not a matter of gradually understanding a difficult Bible passage. Eleven out of sixteen Governing Body members understood the issue clearly enough to vote for change in 1978. The delay was not about understanding — it was about a procedural rule requiring a two-thirds majority. Young men went to prison not because of unclear Scripture, but because of a voting threshold. Is that how divine guidance works?

### Response 3

**JW says:** "We cannot judge past decisions by present understanding."

**Counter:** But this is not a case of hindsight. The majority of the Governing Body recognised the problem at the time. Branch committees wrote letters saying the policy was scripturally indefensible. The understanding was there in 1978. The change simply was not enacted. And the human cost — years of imprisonment for thousands of young men — was real, not theoretical.

### Response 4

**JW says:** "The organisation is imperfect but still used by Jehovah."

**Counter:** If an imperfect organisation makes a policy error, the loving response is to correct it as quickly as possible and to acknowledge the harm caused. The Governing Body did neither. It waited eighteen years despite its own majority vote, and when it finally changed the policy, it offered no apology. Does that reflect the character of a God who "does not desire any to be destroyed" (2 Peter 3:9)?

### Response 5

**JW says:** "Acts 5:29 says we must obey God rather than men — civilian service supports the military system."

**Counter:** What command of God does hospital work or forestry violate? Name the scripture. Paul said to submit to the authorities (Romans 13:1-7). Peter said to submit to every human institution (1 Peter 2:13). Jesus said if forced to go one mile, go two (Matthew 5:41). The Bible never prohibits civilian community service. Acts 5:29 applies when authorities demand something that directly contradicts God's commands — but no biblical text equates caring for the sick or planting trees with sin.

## What to Avoid

Do not use this argument to mock or shame the JW at your door. The brothers who went to prison were courageous and sincere — honour their sacrifice. The critique is directed at the institutional decision-making process, not at the individuals who suffered under it. Also avoid exaggerating the numbers — the documented facts are powerful enough without embellishment.

## Homework

Read Raymond Franz's account of the 1978 vote in Crisis of Conscience, chapter 5, for yourself, so you can state the 11-to-5 count, Lloyd Barry's changed vote and the two-thirds rule accurately. Then read the May 1, 1996 Watchtower that reversed the policy, and notice what it does and does not say about the years before. Read Matthew 5:38-42 and Romans 13:1-7 in context so you can explain the "one mile, go two" command without notes. Practise the doorstep question aloud, honouring the brothers who went to prison. Prepare for the "new light comes progressively" reply, and have 1 Peter 2:13 ready for the Acts 5:29 objection.

## Next Moves

- [The Governing Body — Eleven Men in New York](/arguments/governing-body.md)
- [Dual Prophet Test](/arguments/dual-prophet-test.md)
- [Blood Transfusions](/arguments/blood-transfusion.md)

---
*Source: Raymond Franz, Crisis of Conscience, Ch. 5; Watchtower May 1, 1996 (reversal); Romans 13:1-7; Matthew 5:41*