D - The truth

Recognizable questions What does a Jehovah’s Witness mean when he says “the truth”? Why do Witnesses say “come into the truth” instead of “become a Jehovah’s Witness”? What does “raised in the truth” mean? Why are people asked, “Are all your children in the truth?” Is it just a way of speaking, or does language also affect how you view your faith? What happens when a child hears from an early age that their faith is “the truth”? Can that be harmful? And as an adult, can you still fully and freely examine whether something is true when you’ve spent years learning to call it “the truth”? What does “the truth” mean? In ordinary Dutch, truth means that something corresponds to reality. Within Jehovah’s Witnesses, “the truth” has also acquired a specific religious meaning. The term is used for Bible truth as Jehovah’s Witnesses understand and teach it, and in everyday speech often more broadly for the faith and life of a Jehovah’s Witness . That gives rise to phrases that may sound unusual to someone outside the community: “When did you come into the truth?” “I was raised in the truth.” “My husband is not in the truth.” “Are all your children still in the truth?” “He left the truth.” An outsider would probably say: When did you become a Jehovah’s Witness? or Do your children still believe? Within the community, “the truth” can convey the same information in just two words. A religious language of its own That phenomenon is not unusual in itself. Religious, professional, and social groups all develop their own words and expressions. Jehovah’s Witnesses, for example, talk about the truth, the organization, the world, spiritually strong, good association, publishers, pioneers and brothers and sisters . For members, such words are efficient. Everyone immediately understands what is meant. They can also create a strong sense of belonging: we understand the same language and share the same frame of reference. Language can therefore strengthen both communication and group identity. But “the truth” is a particularly powerful phrase There is an important difference between: “I was raised as a Jehovah’s Witness.” and: “I was raised in the truth.” The first sentence describes which religious community someone belonged to . The second also contains a statement about the correctness of that religion . The same happens with: “My daughter is no longer a Jehovah’s Witness.” versus: “My daughter left the truth.” In the first formulation, her religious status has changed. In the second, she does not merely seem to have left a community, but also something that the wording already assumes is true . That makes “the truth” psychologically more interesting than just an internal phrase. If you are born into it An adult who studies with Jehovah’s Witnesses for the first time usually already has a different worldview with which to compare new ideas. A child generally has far less prior life experience and fewer other frameworks for comparing such ideas. Children learn their first picture of reality largely from the adults on whom they depend. They learn not only that fire is hot, that certain things are dangerous, and how people interact with one another. Ideas about God, right and wrong, death, the future, and what a trustworthy person believes can also become part of that first worldview. That does not mean children mindlessly accept everything. Children ask questions, differ in personality, and can later change their beliefs. But a child does not begin developing a worldview from a neutral position in which all possible religions are first examined side by side. “This is our faith” and “this is the truth” That is why the difference between those two formulations can matter to a child. A child who constantly hears: “This is our faith” learns that the family holds a certain belief. A child who constantly hears: “This is the truth” may at the same time learn: this is not one possible explanation of reality — this is how reality is. That does not have to be taught consciously by parents. Parents who are themselves fully convinced will naturally pass their faith on to their children as truth. From their perspective, it might even feel strange to tell their child that something is “just a possibility” when they are convinced that Jehovah has actually revealed it that way. How beliefs become taken for granted In psychology, people speak of socialization : the process through which children learn norms, values, language, and beliefs from their surroundings. This happens in every family. When a belief is reinforced for years by parents, relatives, friends, meetings, publications, and other important adults, it can increasingly stop feeling like something someone once accepted and start feeling like something he simply knows . By the way, that doesn’t happen only in religion. One of the psychologically interesting questions is therefore: ‘When do I remember that I started believing this myself, and when do I mostly remember that I always knew it?’ Belief becomes part of your identity When someone has grown up “in the truth” from childhood, the belief can also become connected to much more than doctrine. It can be linked to parents, grandparents, friends, the congregation, safety, approval, morality, expectations for the future, and the image of yourself as a good person. “I am in the truth” can therefore mean much more than: “I subscribe to a number of religious doctrines.” It can also mean: “This is where I belong. These are my people. This is how I understand the world. This is how I know what is right. This is what my future looks like.” That gives a belief great emotional weight. ‘Are all your children in the truth?’ Among Jehovah’s Witnesses, a question like: ‘Are all your children in the truth?’ can feel completely natural and well-intentioned. Even so, there is a lot of information in it. A child can be in the truth . A child can later go out of the truth . In this way, religious belonging is linguistically linked to a contrast between truth and something outside it . For parents, it can therefore mean much more when an adult child no longer wants to be a Jehovah’s Witness than merely that they are making a different religious choice. From their perspective, the child has left something precious and true behind. And for the adult child, doubt can also become heavier because of that: ‘I am not just examining my religion. I am doubting the truth.’ What happens when a child later starts to doubt? Then an interesting inner conflict can arise. An adult may think rationally: ‘I want to examine whether this teaching is actually correct.’ But at the same time, a much older, learned response may arise: ‘Why am I doubting the truth?’ In a sense, the conclusion is already partly built into the language in which the question is asked. Compare: ‘Is this explanation correct?’ with: ‘Why am I having trouble accepting the truth?’ The first question leaves room for different answers. The second already assumes that the explanation is true and then looks for the reason why the person is struggling with it. Language influences thinking, but does not determine it Caution is important here. Psychology does not support the simplistic conclusion: ‘If you call something the truth often enough, you can no longer think critically.’ People are certainly capable of that. Many people re-evaluate beliefs they grew up with. Language guides thinking rather than fully determining it. Words make certain distinctions feel more obvious. When a particular phrasing is used thousands of times, it can become a familiar mental framework. “The truth” can therefore not only describe what someone believes , but also provide the framework within which new information is assessed. Inside and outside This becomes stronger when “the truth” is combined with other group terms. You can be in the truth . Someone else is not in the truth . You can learn the truth . You can leave the truth . And you can come back into the truth . In this way, a clear boundary between inside and outside is created linguistically. That too is not unique to Jehovah’s Witnesses. Many groups use language to make boundaries and identity visible. The relevant question is not whether group boundaries exist, but what meaning is attached to them and how many consequences there are when someone crosses the boundary . Can this be harmful to a child? Not automatically. It would go too far to claim that a child suffers psychological harm simply because their parents call their religion “the truth.” Children are raised everywhere with beliefs that their parents think are true and important. A religious upbringing can also give children community, meaning, structure, hope, and moral direction. Possible psychological burden may arise more when doubting, researching, or later choosing differently becomes linked to strong fear, guilt, shame, loss of relationships, or the feeling of being a bad person. Then it is no longer solely about the word “truth,” but about the entire social and emotional system in which that word has taken on meaning. When doubt feels dangerous As an adult, someone may discover that an intellectual question hits much harder physically or emotionally than expected. For example: “What if the Governing Body is wrong about this?” can rationally be just a question for investigation. But someone who was taught from a young age that they have found the truth may experience fear, guilt, or tension. That feeling does not prove the teaching is true. But it also does not prove the teaching is false. The feeling is real; its meaning is worth examining. “I knew it was the truth” An adult looking back later may say: “I never experienced this as one religion among others. It simply was the truth.” That is psychologically understandable. When a belief is reinforced from childhood by nearly all the important people around you, the distinction between: “this is what my environment taught me” and “this is what I established for myself” can become hard to see. That does not mean the belief is therefore false. The origin of a belief does not determine whether it is true or false. It does, however, tell you something about how that belief came to be. That is precisely what makes adult investigation valuable This is perhaps the most important distinction. If you were raised as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, you do not have to conclude: “Because I was raised with it, it must not be true.” That would be the same reasoning error in reverse. You can say instead: “Because I was raised with it, as an adult I want to examine which beliefs I still find true after researching them myself.” Maybe you will end up with exactly the same belief. Maybe part of it will change. Maybe a lot will change. The investigation does not predetermine the outcome. That is precisely when “the truth” can gain more value For a believer, that can even have a positive meaning. When someone learned as a child “this is the truth” , but as an adult examines sources, asks hard questions, seriously considers alternative explanations, and then still concludes: “Yes. I believe this is true,” that belief has acquired a different basis. Then it is no longer only: “This is the truth because I grew up with it.” but: “I examined what I was given as a child, and as an adult I choose consciously to believe this.” For someone who wants to remain one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, critical examination does not necessarily have to threaten their faith. It may actually give their personal conviction more meaning. And if you come to a different conclusion? That in itself still does not say why. Maybe someone changes their faith because of new research. Maybe because of experiences. Maybe because of both. Maybe they continue to believe in Jehovah but think differently about the organization. Maybe they join another Christian community. Maybe for a while they no longer know at all what they believe. “No longer in the truth” tells you almost nothing about those different stories. That is why, outside the internal language of faith, it can be more precise to ask: “What do you believe now?” instead of only: “Are you still in the truth?” A small language experiment You can explore for yourself what words do to you. Read these questions slowly: “Why am I doubting the truth?” And then: “Why am I doubting what I was taught?” Then: “Are Jehovah’s Witnesses the truth?” And after that: “Which teachings of Jehovah’s Witnesses do I think are true, and why?” Maybe the questions feel the same. Maybe not at all. The experiment proves nothing about the truth of the faith. It only makes visible how the wording of a question can influence the starting point of thought . Something to reflect on When did I first use the words “the truth” myself? What does “the truth” mean to me: Jehovah, the Bible, the teachings, or the organization? Are those things the same for me, or can I examine them separately? Which beliefs have I personally examined, and which have I mainly been given from an early age? Do I feel fear or guilt when I critically examine a teaching? If so, what is that feeling really telling me? Can I examine a belief without deciding in advance that it must be true or false? If no one would judge me for changing my mind, would I still reach the same conclusion? If, after thorough investigation, I still want to be one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, does my faith feel more like my own choice? And if truth really is truth, what could honest examination do to it? In closing ‘The truth’ within Jehovah’s Witnesses is much more than a dictionary term. It is a familiar label for the faith and religious framework through which millions of people understand their lives. For someone who grows up with it, that language can become deeply tied to family, safety, identity, morality, Jehovah, and expectations for the future. That is not automatically harmful, and it proves nothing about whether the faith is right or wrong. It does mean, however, that later examination may affect more than just a number of teachings. Perhaps that is why, for someone who has heard from an early age ‘this is the truth’ , one of the most important adult questions is not: ‘Should I reject this now?’ but: ‘If I leave the word truth aside for a moment: what do I believe is actually true — and how did I come to that conclusion myself?’ Sources JW.org - publications in which ‘the truth’, ‘in the truth’, and ‘to learn the truth’ are used Watchtower Online Library - publications about ‘the truth’, faith-based upbringing, and spiritual development of children New World Translation - John 8:31, 32; John 14:6; John 17:17 Peter L. Berger & Thomas Luckmann - The Social Construction of Reality Leon Festinger - A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance Henri Tajfel & John Turner - research and theory on social identity American Psychological Association - information about development, socialization, and beliefs See also in the A-Z Glossary of Jehovah’s Witnesses A - Apostate - What does this designation mean among Jehovah’s Witnesses? A - Apostasy - When is someone considered an apostate? B - Governing Body - What place does the Governing Body have in determining religious explanation? F - Faith-based upbringing - How do children develop religious beliefs? J - Jehovah’s organization - What is meant by ‘the organization’? W - Worldly - What does it mean when someone or something is called ‘worldly’?