Critical thinking is an essential life skill that improves the quality of our lives, but it can be a vague concept to grasp, particularly for anyone who has not been taught what it is and how to go about it. In this post we will explore a practical example by applying the critical thinking process to a claim made in the the November 2013 Study Edition of the Watchtower. It is the type of claim we read all the time throughout JW literature and on the surface, really doesn’t seem like a big deal. It’s just typical Jehovah’s Witness rhetoric that we heard all the time:

“When addressing the overseers of the first-century congregation in Ephesus, the apostle Paul pointed out that holy spirit had appointed them overseers “to shepherd the congregation of God.” (Acts 20:28) The same is true of Christian overseers today, since they too are appointed on the basis of Scriptural requirements inspired by the holy spirit. Thus, obeying Christian overseers shows our respect for Jehovah and Jesus, the two greatest Shepherds. Surely this should be the foremost reason why we desire to be submissive to the elders[2].^”

Let’s pull this claim apart using the critical thinking process. It will highlight just how much is going on in a few seemingly ‘normal’ sentences of JW reasoning.

The critical thinking process[1]:

• Defining the topic or issue in question
• Identifying complexities and inter-relationships with other topics or issues
• Accessing and assessing relevant information, data, and evidence from a range of sources
• Assessing the reliability of sources by identifying any biases and inaccuracies
• Interpreting the information and drawing inferences from it
• Drawing conclusions based on those inferences
• Recognising any assumptions and implications you are making in coming to those conclusions
• Being open to having your conclusions challenged

Let’s begin:

What are the topic(s) or issue(s) being raised here?

• Submission and obedience to the Jehovah’s Witness organisation and/or people within it.
• Personal autonomy over life and decisions.
• The question of whether showing respect for humans equates to showing respect for God/Jesus.

What complexities or inter-relationships are being raised?

• What qualifies someone to be a ‘Christian overseer’, and who judges whether someone meets those qualifications?
• Are those judging the appointment doing so objectively? How well do they really know him?
• Do ‘Christian overseers’ deserve respect and obedience simply because of this appointment?
• Is a ‘Christian overseer’ appointed on the basis of scriptural requirements inspired by the holy spirit (which is what the paragraph actually says), or appointed by holy spirit itself? These are two different things.
• If he is appointed because other humans have judged that he meets the scriptural requirements, is this really the same thing as the first century Christian overseers who were directly appointed by holy spirit?
• What evidence is there that the first century Christians were directly appointed by holy spirit?
• What evidence is there that the position of JW Christian overseer should be equated to Jehovah and Jesus, so much so that showing respect to anyone in that position is the same as showing respect for Jehovah and Jesus?
• What evidence is there that Jehovah and Jesus want humans to be submissive to other humans instead of them?
• On what basis is it ok for some humans to be in control of other humans? Is that ethical?

What information, data, and evidence do I currently have to assess the claim made?

• Information provided by the Organisation.
• Personal experience.

What is the reliability of this information (assessing viewpoint, biases, and inaccuracies)?

• Information from the Organisation is only considering one point of view (theirs).
• What is the Organisation’s viewpoint?
• Why is the Organisation writing this?
• Why does the Organisation want me to accept this information?
• What is in it for the Organisation if I go along with this?
• What is the Organisation’s track record for producing reliable information?
• How reliable is my own experience for informing these issues and questions?
• What are my own biases?
• How have I been influenced by the religion? (a difficult one to answer without other perspectives).
• Should I obtain other viewpoints and evidence?

What other sources of information do I need?

• Bible scholars and academic understanding/interpretations of any biblical passages or bible-based evidence regarding humans obeying other humans as a means to please God and/or Jesus, and whether there is any present day application.
• Psychological perspectives of how hierarchies within organisations function (both religious and secular), the impacts and ethics of humans controlling other humans, and the qualities of high-control groups.
• External perspectives of the JW organisation’s credibility more broadly, including scholars, academics, psychologists, and those with personal lived experience.

As a JW, can/should I access those other sources?

• We all know the answer is no, and when you are a believing JW, you simply won’t even try.
• Let’s assume that you do though… or that you are no longer a believing or practicing JW and this is no longer a limitation.

How reliable are these other sources?

• Bible scholars may have their own biases and religious beliefs behind them, so check that the material has been peer-reviewed by others in a similar field and level of expertise, and published in a reputable journal or source.
• Academics should be reasonably impartial unless they are being funded by an organisation with a religious or political agenda, so check on any religious or political affiliations which may be influencing their work, and again, ensure their research has been peer-reviewed. Having religious or political affiliations doesn’t necessarily mean that an academic’s work should be discredited entirely; but being aware of their biases will help you assess the extent to which you incorporate their research into your own analysis.
• Ensure any referenced sources or psychologists are qualified to comment on the ethics and impacts of coercive control (ie. professional qualifications and experience).
• Those with personal experience of the Organisation may be embittered and resentful, but they may also have legitimate reasons for feeling that way. Listen to their story and assess their credibility for yourself. What evidence do they have to support their claims?
• How does all the above information compare with the Organisation’s information?
• How does all of this information fit with your own experience?

What is my interpretation of this information, and what is the inference I am making?

• How much evidence is there for or against the Organisation’s viewpoint?
• How does the Organisation want me to interpret this information?
• After looking at all these other sources, do I still agree with the Organisation’s interpretation?
• If I interpret the information the way the Organisation wants me to, the inference is that the Organisation is correct, and I should be obedient to other humans within the Organisation.
• A further inference is that I will remain in the Organisation and therefore make it through Armageddon.

What if my interpretation does not agree with the Organisation?

• If you interpret the above information to mean something other than what the Organisation intended, the inference is that you don’t agree with the Organisation’s viewpoint on this.
• From here, the next inference is that either the Organisation has it wrong, or you do.
• At this point, you either let it go to align with the Organisation’s views (ignoring your cognitive dissonance), or you trust your critical thinking skills and investigate further…

What is my conclusion, and is it logical?

Based on the above scenario, your conclusion will likely be one of the following:

• Accept that the Organisation’s information/claim is correct. The elders have the backing of God’s holy spirit and therefore I need to be in submission to them.
• Accept that there are issues with the Organisation’s information/claim, but the evidence against it is not enough to reject it.
• Reject the Organisation’s information/claim as incorrect. This is an example of the Organisation persuading its members to give up their own autonomy and submit to people in positions of authority, but with no real basis for that authority.

What assumptions am I making if I conclude the JW information is correct?

• I’m assuming that humans are able to accurately judge when someone meets the criteria to be a ‘Christian overseer’.
• I’m assuming that being obedient to elders/’Christian overseers’ shows my loyalty to God and Jesus.
• I’m assuming that God and Jesus want me to obey other humans.
• I’m assuming that the command in the bible to ‘obey God as ruler rather than men’ doesn’t apply here.
• I’m assuming that God and Jesus are essentially the same as the Watchtower Organisation. I can’t have one without the other.
• I’m assuming that being within the Organisation is the only way to make it through Armageddon.
• I’m assuming that the Organisation’s past record of producing inaccurate statements has no impact on their current credibility.
• I’m assuming that evidence from other sources which does not support the Organisation’s viewpoint is either inaccurate or untrustworthy.

Are these assumptions reasonable and logical?

What assumptions am I making if I conclude the other sources of information are correct?

This will depend on the sources you used and their reliability and credibility. Compare the assumptions you need to make if the JW material is true, with the assumptions you need to make with credible, well researched and peer-reviewed information. You will likely find you need to make fewer assumptions when using credible sources, and at the very least, any assumptions you need to make will seem more plausible. 

What are the implications of my conclusion?

• If I conclude that the Organisation’s information as correct, I remain within it and nothing changes.
• If I conclude that other sources of information are correct or at least have a point, the authority and credibility of the Organisation has now been called into question. At this point, everything changes.

Remaining open to new information

Regardless of the conclusion you may come to, a critical thinker will always remain open to new information and having their conclusions challenged. They will not feel threatened by information, and will not hesitate to change their view if evidence in the other direction is overwhelming.

To wrap up

Regardless of the issue or topic you are thinking critically about, only you can decide, based on the sources you access and your interpretation of the information, whether you are comfortable with the assumptions you are making and the conclusions you are drawing. If nothing else, through the process you will become more aware of other viewpoints so can more easily relate to them, but also more respectfully stand up for your own if need be.

You have also shown yourself that information is just that, information. You don’t need to be afraid of it. You can accept and reject it as you see fit. There is no shame in changing your mind, and in fact, this shows that you are capable of maturing and growing, amending your views in light of new evidence, rather than staunchly sticking with beliefs that are either proven to be false or are no longer serving you.

If you made it this far, thank you, and all the best with your efforts to improve your critical thinking skills! It is an uphill task after being a JW, but as with everything in our recovery process, it is worth it.

Until next time,

Renee

---

[1] Adapted from Dr Richard Paul & Dr Linda Elder (2008), The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking: Concepts and Tools. www.criticalthinking.org

[2] https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/w20131115/obey-jehovahs-shepherds/ (paragraph 6)