Before a child can choose for themselves.

Free will or learned choice? How free is a religious choice when faith, family, identity, and future are all interconnected? Jehovah's Getuigen place a great deal of value on free will. Jehovah does not force anyone to serve him. Each person must decide for themselves whether to choose Jehovah. That is why babies among Jehovah's Getuigen are not baptized. A person must be old enough to understand what they are doing and must dedicate themselves to Jehovah of their own free will. That sounds like a free choice. But with a child who is raised as a Jehovah's Getuige from birth, an interesting question arises: How free does a choice feel when one option is connected from birth to everything and everyone you love? That is what this article is about. Not about whether a parent may pass on their faith to their child. But about the question: What does a child need in order to eventually make a truly personal choice? You do not choose from an empty room A child does not choose their faith without a history. As we saw in the previous article, a child growing up as a Jehovah's Getuige may already have spent years familiar with the Kingdom Hall, meetings, field service, conventions, prayers, Bible stories, and JG publications before they can even assess whether they share these beliefs themselves. They have learned who Jehovah is. They have heard about Satan. They know paradise. They have heard about Armageddon. They know what 'the truth' means. They have learned that there is a difference between Jehovah's people and 'the world'. And it is precisely in that same world that the child has built their most important relationships. Mom and dad believe it. Brothers and sisters maybe do too. Grandpa and grandma perhaps. The family's friends may be in the congregation. The children they spend a lot of time with may be children of other Witnesses. The elders are familiar adults. At conventions, they see thousands of people who believe the same thing. A child therefore does not later choose between two abstract worldviews. They choose from a world in which one of them has already been home for years. The two choices do not have the same meaning Suppose a fifteen-year-old girl says: 'I want to serve Jehovah.' What may follow? Her parents are happy. Brothers and sisters encourage her. She can do more in the field service. Maybe she starts pioneering. She makes spiritual progress. And when she is eventually baptized, it is seen as a wonderful decision. Now suppose the same girl says: 'I do not believe this is the truth.' Formally, that is also a choice. But emotionally, it is a very different choice. Her parents may become sad. Perhaps they become afraid. Not only because their daughter chooses a different worldview. They may truly believe that her eternal future is at stake. That she is leaving Jehovah. That the world is influencing her. Or that Satan is trying to pull her away from Jehovah. The girl does not even need to hear her parents say: 'You are not allowed to leave.' She sees their sadness. And for a child, that can already weigh very heavily. Making mom and dad sad Children are sensitive to their parents' approval. That is normal. A child usually wants their parents to be proud of them. That is why a choice in which the child knows that one answer will make their parents happy and the other will make them deeply sad is not psychologically entirely neutral. Think of a child who says: 'I want to get baptized.' The reaction may be: How wonderful. We are so proud of you. Jehovah will be very happy with you. But what if they say: 'I do not want to become a Jehovah's Getuige.' Even loving parents can be shocked by that. And precisely because the child loves their parents, their fear can become part of the child's own weighing of the matter. Then the child is not only choosing: What do I believe? but possibly at the same time: How much sadness can I cause my parents? That can create a loyalty conflict. And then there is Jehovah For a JG child, there is also a relationship that can feel very real to the child: their relationship with Jehovah. Doubting the organization can therefore feel much bigger than doubting a human institution. If the child has learned that Jehovah leads his people through his organization, doubting what the organization teaches can be experienced as doubting Jehovah himself. A young person may therefore think: Am I rebellious? Am I spiritually weak? Am I making Jehovah sad? Is Satan influencing me? Am I losing paradise? What will happen to me at Armageddon? That makes independent research emotionally charged. Because there is a possibility that while searching you discover that you no longer believe. And that very outcome can be frightening. Free will and fear This raises an important question: How free can a choice feel when one of the possible outcomes is linked to fear? Suppose someone tells you: 'You are free to choose which path you take.' There are two paths. On one side it says: Jehovah. Your family. Your friends. Paradise. Everlasting life. Safety. On the other side, you may have been taught to think of: the world. Satan. spiritual danger. Armageddon. Maybe even death in the end. Formally, there are two paths. But for a child, those paths do not necessarily feel equally balanced. Having a choice is not the same as having two choices that feel equally safe. 'The world' That becomes even more important when a child is not allowed to become familiar with life outside Jehovah's Witnesses without restriction. JW children usually just go to school and therefore are not literally shut off from society. But they are also taught that they must 'not be part of the world' . For example, they do not celebrate birthdays and certain holidays and are warned about bad associations. As a result, a child may know people outside the congregation, but at the same time learn to be cautious about close friendships and certain activities. And that affects the environment in which a later faith choice is made. Because to truly compare two worlds, you must be able to get to know them to some extent. Rapunzel and the open door That is why the comparison with Rapunzel is interesting. Not because parents of Jehovah's Witnesses deliberately lock their children up. Most JW parents will actually believe they are protecting their children. But imagine a child who hears throughout their entire childhood: 'Outside is dangerous.' One day the door opens and they are told: 'Now you can choose for yourself.' Is the child then completely free? Technically, the door may be open. But in the child's mind, everything they have heard for years about the outside still remains. They no longer need to be physically restrained. The boundary may by now have moved from the outside to the inside. That is the difference between a visible restriction and a belief that someone has come to carry themselves. Identity does not develop in isolation During childhood and especially adolescence, identity becomes increasingly important. A young person discovers: Who am I? Where do I belong? What do I find important? Which people suit me? What do I believe? What do I want to become later? Peers and experiences outside the family play an increasingly large role in this. But what happens when many parts of your identity are already connected to one community? Your friends. Your faith. Your view of the future. Your morals. Your social activities. Your family. Your possible future partner. Your image of God. Then doubting one part may mean that other parts also begin to move. That can explain why religious doubt for someone who grew up as a JW can feel so much bigger than: 'I changed my mind.' It can feel like: 'Who am I if this is not true?' Baptism makes the choice even more important Among Jehovah's Witnesses, baptism is not infant baptism. A young person must indicate for themselves that they want to be baptized. That is an important difference from religions in which babies are baptized. At the same time, minors are also baptized among Jehovah's Witnesses. And that creates a special situation. A minor can make a religious decision intended for life and that may later have major social consequences if that same person comes to different beliefs as an adult. That is why not only baptism itself deserves attention. The process before baptism also deserves attention. The questions before baptism Anyone who wants to be baptized among Jehovah's Witnesses goes through a process with elders in advance. Topics and questions from the doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses are discussed. This is not only about belief in God and Jesus, but also about understanding the place of Jehovah's organization and living according to the standards that apply within Jehovah's Witnesses. The candidate discusses these topics with elders and answers questions. After that, it is assessed whether the candidate has sufficient understanding and is ready for baptism. The thinking behind that is understandable: a person should know what they are choosing. But with a minor, a second question then arises: What does 'knowing what you are choosing' actually mean? Is it enough for a young person to know the teachings and be able to answer the questions? Or should he also be able to foresee what this choice could mean in ten, twenty, or thirty years? Knowing the right answers is not the same as being able to foresee the future A child who has been raised as Jehovah's Witnesses from birth may know an exceptional amount about the faith at a young age. He may be able to look up Bible texts. He knows the language of the congregation. He knows what Jehovah's Witnesses believe about Armageddon, paradise, blood, sexuality, association, and the congregation. He knows which answers go with certain questions of faith. And a young person can honestly say: 'I want to serve Jehovah forever.' No one needs to deny that feeling afterward. But religious knowledge and sincere conviction are not automatically the same as the ability to foresee all the future consequences of a lifelong decision. That distinction is important. Who decides whether a minor is ready? Ultimately, elders play an important role in assessing whether someone is ready for baptism. Many elders may have known the young person for years. Some are fathers themselves. Some have a lot of life experience and can deal with young people very carefully. It would therefore be incorrect to say that elders, by definition, cannot judge whether a young person is seriously engaged with their faith. But there is another question. Elders are not automatically experts, by virtue of their role, in: developmental psychology; adolescent development; identity formation; neurological development; or informed decision-making in minors. And that raises a justified question: What expertise is actually needed to determine that a minor not only understands what baptism means today, but can also sufficiently foresee the possible consequences for their future life? The teenage brain is still developing Here we need to be careful in how we phrase this. A young person does not have a "half brain" and is not incapable of making important decisions. A fifteen- or sixteen-year-old can be intelligent, think deeply, have strong convictions, and make very conscious choices. At the same time, their development is not yet complete. The American National Institute of Mental Health describes that the brain continues to develop and mature into the mid-to-late twenties. The prefrontal cortex — important for things like planning, prioritizing, and decision-making — is among the last brain regions to fully mature. National Institute of Mental Health - The Teen Brain: 7 Things to Know That does not mean: a young person cannot choose. It does mean that adolescence is precisely a life stage in which development, identity, social environment, and decision-making are still very much in motion. And that makes a lifelong religious commitment particularly significant. At fourteen, you still don't know who you are at thirty A young person who gets baptized may still be in secondary school. He may never have lived independently. Not yet chosen further education. Not yet had a profession. Not yet had a long-term adult relationship. Not yet raised children. Not yet signed a mortgage or rental contract. Not yet lived independently outside the parental home for years. He is still in the process of discovering who he is. That does not mean his faith is not real. But it does mean that he is making a decision for life before a large part of that life has been experienced. Is it also explained what happens if you later think differently? This may be one of the most important questions. During baptism preparation, a lot of attention is given to what it means to serve Jehovah. But a fully informed decision also has another side: What happens when you no longer want to later? Before baptism, is a minor clearly told what can happen if, at thirty, he says: 'I no longer believe this'? Does a twelve-, fourteen-, or sixteen-year-old understand what consequences it can have if he later displays behavior that leads to removal from the congregation? Does he understand what it can mean for contacts within the faith community? Does he understand what can happen when his parents, brothers, sisters, and best friends are still Jehovah's Witnesses decades later? And does he understand that the person he is at forty may think fundamentally differently from the person he was at fourteen? Those are not small details. They touch on the meaning of informed choice. Now ask the question the other way around Suppose that before baptism, a fourteen-year-old is not only asked: 'Do you want to serve Jehovah forever?' but also: 'Suppose that in twenty years, after extensive research, you come to the conclusion that Jehovah's Getuigen are not God's organization. What do you think your decision today could mean for your life then?' Can a fourteen-year-old really imagine that situation? Does he know who he will be at thirty-four? Who his partner is? Who his friends are? Whether he has children? What beliefs he will have developed by then? No one can fully know that. Not even an adult. But with a minor, there is something else added: his identity and brain development are still very much in progress. The responsibility of the person who approves the baptism That is why, when minors are baptized, you might perhaps not only ask: Does the young person have sufficient Bible knowledge? Does he give the right answers? Does he live according to the congregation's standards? But also: Does this young person truly understand the consequences of both staying and leaving? And if the elders ultimately judge that he is ready: How did they establish that? That is not an accusation against individual elders. It is a question about the system. Because the younger someone makes a lifelong commitment, the more important the responsibility of the adults who say: 'Yes, you are ready to make this decision.' Religious maturity and psychological maturity are not the same Within a religious community, a young person can be considered spiritually mature. He gives good answers. He goes in the field ministry. He has a good reputation. He reads the Bible. He prays. He wants to serve Jehovah. But spiritual maturity according to the standards of a religion is not automatically the same as developmental psychological maturity. A child can know an exceptional amount about his faith and at the same time still be in the middle of identity development. Both can be true at the same time. A striking contrast In society, we protect minors in all kinds of areas precisely because we recognize that they are still developing. Yet within a religious community, a minor can make a decision that is regarded as a lifelong commitment to God. That in itself does not necessarily have to be a problem. The difficult question arises when social consequences remain attached to that decision years later , while the beliefs of the now-grown person have changed. That is why, before baptism, perhaps one should not only ask: 'Are you convinced that this is the truth?' but also: 'What happens when, fifteen years from now, you become convinced that this is NOT the truth?' If that second possibility cannot truly be discussed and understood, the question arises of how fully informed the first choice is. Free will does not only mean being free to say yes. Free will also means that saying no — now and later — must remain a truly possible choice. No literal coercion does not automatically mean complete freedom A parent never has to say: 'You must get baptized.' Pressure can still exist. Pressure can be subtle. A proud look when a child answers. Much appreciation when it does more in the field ministry. Examples of other young people setting spiritual goals. Conversations about baptism. Congresses where young people are encouraged to make spiritual choices. The joy around someone getting baptized. None of these things has to be wrong or coercive on its own. But together they do form the social environment in which a child makes his decision. Incidentally, that applies to many groups and families. We humans are constantly influenced by the people around us. Precisely for that reason, when a decision has such major consequences, it is important to look beyond only: 'No one forced him.' The JG parent is also in a conflict of loyalty And now comes the other side. Suppose you are a mother and truly believe that Jehovah's Witnesses have the truth. Your sixteen-year-old son says: 'Mom, I don't believe it anymore.' What are you supposed to do? You love your son. But you also believe his life depends on it. Maybe you think you fell short in his spiritual upbringing. Maybe you ask yourself whether you should have done family worship more often. Maybe you fear that bad association influenced him. Maybe you pray to Jehovah at night. Maybe you think about Armageddon and picture your own child not being in paradise. Then that parent is under enormous emotional pressure too. We must not forget that. Because otherwise we turn a complicated system into a simple story with a perpetrator and a victim. The reality can be much more painful: parent and child can both be afraid of losing each other. But the responsibility is not equal Still, there is an important difference. The adult is the parent. The child depends on that adult. Therefore the parent has more responsibility to create space. A child should not be made responsible for the emotional well-being of their parents because they believe differently. A fifteen-year-old should not have to think: I have to remain Jehovah's Witnesses, otherwise I'll destroy mom. A parent may be sad. A parent may be afraid. A parent may believe. But the child should also be able to experience: My choice does not change how much my parents love me. What could true freedom of choice mean? Maybe religious free will for a child does not mean that parents are no longer allowed to teach anything. Maybe it means, rather, that parents may clearly pass on their conviction while at the same time creating space to examine that conviction. For example: 'This is what we believe. But you may ask why.' 'You do not have to get baptized because we want you to.' 'Please wait until you know for sure what you want.' 'You may say what you do not believe.' 'You may ask questions we do not know the answers to.' 'You may get to know people with different beliefs.' 'If you later choose differently, you will still be our child.' Then free will takes on a different meaning. Not: You are free to choose our path for yourself. But: You are free to discover which path is truly yours. For young people who are doubting Maybe you are still one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Maybe you live at home. Maybe people are talking about your baptism. Maybe you just do not know. Then: 'I do not know yet' is also an answer. A lifelong religious decision does not have to be made because other people are ready for it. You may think. You may ask questions. You may need time. And when you notice that you mainly want to make a certain choice because you are afraid of disappointing someone, it can be valuable to ask yourself: What would I choose if no one were sad, angry, or disappointed? Not because the answer that appears then is automatically the right one. But because it can tell you something about your own voice . For adults looking back Maybe you were twelve, fourteen, sixteen, or eighteen when you got baptized. Maybe you truly wanted it then. That does not have to be denied afterward. A choice can have been completely sincere at the time and later change. The more interesting questions may be: What options could I truly see at the time? How much did I know about other worldviews? How did I feel about the world outside the congregation? What did I think would happen if I did not choose Jehovah? How important was my parents' approval? How important was belonging? Did I truly know what would happen when I no longer believed twenty years later? Was not getting baptized really an option for me emotionally? Those questions are not an accusation against the child you were then. They can help explain how your choice came about. Maybe free will begins with one sentence A JW parent does not have to give up their own belief to give their child space. Maybe it begins with a sentence that can mean an enormous amount to a child: 'I hope you choose Jehovah. But if you later believe something else, I will still love you just as much.' Then the child knows something that may be even more important than the answer to the question of faith: I do not have to lose my parents in order to become myself. And maybe from that safety comes the best chance to truly choose freely. Join the conversation How free did your choice of faith feel? Did you want to get baptized as a young person? How old were you? Do you still remember why you wanted it? Did you feel that you could also have said you did not want to? Before your baptism, did you know what the consequences could be if you later left the congregation or were removed? Can you remember an elder discussing that with you in detail? Could you doubt at home? Could you explore other beliefs? And for parents who are still Jehovah's Witnesses: What would you do if your child one day says: 'I no longer believe what you believe'? The purpose of these questions is not to determine which faith is true. It is about a different question: What does a child need to truly make a faith choice their own