Free will or learned choice?

Jehovah's Getuigen attach great value to free will. Jehovah does not force anyone to serve him. According to the doctrine, each person must decide for themselves whether they choose Jehovah. That is why babies are not baptized among Jehovah's Getuigen. Someone must be old enough to understand what they are doing and voluntarily dedicate themselves to Jehovah. That sounds like a free choice. But for 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 from birth is connected to everything and everyone you love? That is what this article is about. Not about whether parents are allowed to pass their faith on to their children. Virtually all parents pass on beliefs and values. The question is: What does a child need in order to eventually be able to make a truly independent faith choice? You don't choose from an empty room A child does not choose their faith without a history. A child who grows up as a Jehovah's Getuige may have been familiar for years with the Kingdom Hall, meetings, field service, conventions, prayers, Bible stories, and JG publications before they can judge for themselves whether they share those beliefs. They have learned who Jehovah is. They have heard about Satan. They know the paradise. They have heard about Armageddon. They know what is meant by 'the truth'. They have learned that there is a difference between Jehovah's people and 'the world'. And precisely within that faith world are often also the most important people in their life. Dad and mom believe it. Brothers and sisters maybe too. Grandpa and grandma maybe. Friends may be in the congregation. Elders are familiar adults. At conventions the child sometimes sees thousands of people who believe the same thing. A child therefore later does not choose between two abstract worldviews. They choose from a world in which one of them has already been home for years. The two options do not necessarily feel the same Suppose a fifteen-year-old girl says: 'I want to serve Jehovah.' Her parents can be very happy about that. Brothers and sisters encourage her. Maybe she spends more time in the field service. Maybe she thinks about pioneering. When she gets baptized, that can be seen within family and congregation as an important and beautiful step. Now suppose the same girl says: 'I don't believe this is the truth.' Formally, that is also her choice. But emotionally that choice can feel very different. Her parents may become sad or afraid. Not only because their daughter thinks differently. They may truly believe that her relationship with Jehovah and her future are at stake. Maybe they fear the world is influencing her. Maybe they think of Satan. Maybe they think of Armageddon. The girl does not need to hear anyone say: 'You are not allowed to leave.' She can see the sadness of her parents. And for a child, that can weigh heavily. Making dad and mom sad Children are naturally sensitive to the approval and emotions of their parents. A child usually wants their parents to be proud of them. That is why a choice in which one answer visibly makes the parents happy and the other answer causes sadness is not fully emotionally neutral. With: 'I want to get baptized' a child may hear: How wonderful. We are proud of you. Jehovah will be happy with you. But with: 'I don't want to become a Jehovah's Getuige' the atmosphere can be completely different. Then for a young person the question may no longer be only about: What do I believe? but also about: How much sadness do I cause my parents when I follow myself? That can create a loyalty conflict. And then there is Jehovah For a JG child, the relationship with Jehovah can feel very real. As a result, doubting the organization can feel much bigger than doubting a human institution. When a child learns that Jehovah leads his people through his organization, a question about the organization can also feel like a question about Jehovah. A young person may, for example, wonder: Am I rebellious? Am I spiritually weak? Am I making Jehovah sad? Does Satan have influence over me? Am I losing paradise? What happens to me at Armageddon? Investigating things independently can then take on a double burden. You are not only investigating whether something is true. You also risk discovering during that investigation that you no longer believe. And that outcome in particular can be frightening. Free will and fear That raises an important question: How free can a choice feel when one possible outcome is strongly connected with fear? Suppose someone says: 'You are free to choose one of these two paths.' One path has, since your youth, become associated with: Jehovah; your parents; your friends; the congregation; paradise; eternal life; and belonging. The other path may have become associated in your mind with: the world; Satan; spiritual danger; Armageddon; and possibly loss. Formally, there are two options. But for a child, they can feel very different. Having a choice is not the same as having two choices that feel equally safe. The world outside the congregation JW children simply go to school and therefore do not literally live cut off from society. At the same time, they are taught that Christians are 'no part of the world'. They do not celebrate birthdays or certain holidays. They are also warned against bad associations. As a result, a child can easily know and like classmates, while at the same time learning to be cautious about close association outside the congregation. That, too, affects the environment in which a faith choice is later made. Because if you want to compare two ways of life, you have to be able to get to know both to some extent. Rapunzel and the open door That is why the story of Rapunzel can be an interesting metaphor. Not because JW parents would consciously lock up their children. For many parents, it feels more like they are protecting their child. But imagine a child hearing for years that danger exists outside the tower. One day the door opens and it is said: 'Now you may choose for yourself.' Is that choice then completely free? The door may literally be open. But everything the child has learned for years about the outside world is still in their mind. The boundary may by now have moved from outside to inside. You do not have to physically hold someone back when that person has learned to be afraid of what lies beyond the boundary. Identity develops while growing up During childhood and especially in adolescence, questions about identity become increasingly important. Who am I? Where do I belong? What do I believe? Which people suit me? What do I think is right and wrong? What do I want later in life? A young person does not develop that identity only within the family. Peers, school, and experiences outside the family also play a role. But what happens when many important parts of that identity are already connected to one faith community? Your friends. Your family. Your faith. Your morals. Your social network. Your view of the future. Your possible partner. Your image of God. Then doubt about the faith can become much more than: 'I have changed my mind.' It can feel like: Who am I anymore if this is not true? And then comes baptism Jehovah's Witnesses do not baptize babies. A young person must indicate for themselves that they want to dedicate themselves to Jehovah and be baptized. From the perspective of Jehovah's Witnesses, that choice is seen as personal and voluntary. At the same time, minors are also baptized. And that creates a special situation. A minor can make a decision that is considered a lifelong commitment while still being in the middle of their development. That does not mean their faith cannot be sincere. But it does make it important to examine: What can a minor truly understand when making that decision? The questions before baptism Before baptism, elders discuss topics and questions with the candidate. They look at whether the candidate understands the doctrine, lives according to the standards of Jehovah's Witnesses, and understands what their dedication to Jehovah means. After that, it is assessed whether the person is ready to be baptized according to the elders. The principle behind this is understandable: someone should know what they are choosing. But with minors, an important second question arises: What does 'knowing what you are choosing' mean? Is it enough that a young person knows the beliefs? That they can explain what Jehovah's Witnesses believe? That they know which rules of conduct apply? Or does it also include understanding as well as possible what consequences this decision may have if they later start thinking differently? Knowing the right answers is something different from seeing your future life ahead A young person who has been raised as a Jehovah's Witness from birth may have a surprising amount of knowledge. They know Bible texts. They know the organization's language. They know what is taught about paradise, Armageddon, blood, sexual morality, associations, and congregation life. They can honestly say: 'I want to serve Jehovah all my life.' That may be their genuine conviction at that moment. But knowledge of doctrine is not the same as being able to foresee decades of future life. That distinction is important. Who decides whether a young person is ready? Elders may know a young person well. Some are fathers themselves. Some have a lot of life experience. And many elders will seriously try to assess whether a young person understands what he is doing. It would therefore not be right to say that elders are by definition unable to form a judgment about this. But their role also does not automatically mean that they are experts in: developmental psychology; identity development; adolescent development; neurological development; or informed decision-making in minors. That is why this question is justified: What expertise is needed to assess that a minor not only understands the doctrine, but can also sufficiently grasp the possible consequences of a lifelong decision? The adolescent brain is still developing Here we must be careful in our wording. A young person does not have 'too little brain capacity'. A fifteen- or sixteen-year-old can be intelligent, think very consciously, and have deeply held convictions. But their brain is still developing. The American National Institute of Mental Health describes that the brain continues to mature into the mid/late twenties. The prefrontal cortex — involved in, among other things, planning, prioritizing, and decision-making — is among the last brain regions to fully mature. That emphatically does not mean: young people cannot make choices. It does mean that adolescence is a developmental stage in which identity, social sensitivity, future thinking, and decision-making are still changing. And that is relevant when a decision is presented as: forever. You do not yet know at fourteen who you will be at thirty A young person who gets baptized may still be in high school. He may never have: lived independently; chosen further education; had a long-term adult relationship; had children; chosen a profession; run a household; or lived an independent life outside the parental home for years. He is still figuring out who he is. That does not make his current belief unreal. But it does mean that he is making a decision for his entire life before he has experienced a large part of that life. What if you think differently later? Maybe this is one of the most important questions before baptism. Much attention is paid to: What does it mean to serve Jehovah? But a fully informed choice also has another side: What does it mean if I no longer want to later on? Does a twelve-, fourteen-, or sixteen-year-old understand what can happen when he reaches the conclusion at thirty: 'I no longer believe this'? Does he understand what consequences removal from the congregation can have? Does he understand what this can mean for contact with people within the faith community? Does he understand what it means if his parents, brothers, sisters, and best friends are still Jehovah's Witnesses later on? And does he truly understand that his convictions as an adult may be very different from those at the time of his baptism? That goes beyond knowing the rules. That is about informed choice . A question that perhaps should also be asked before baptism Suppose a fourteen-year-old is asked not only: 'Do you want to serve Jehovah forever?' but also: 'Suppose that in twenty years, after extensive research, you truly believe that Jehovah's Witnesses do not have the truth. Do you understand what your decision today could then mean for your life?' That is a difficult question. Not only for a child. Adults also cannot predict their future convictions. But precisely because a minor is still developing their identity, this other possibility deserves attention. Religious maturity and psychological maturity Within a faith community, a minor may be regarded as spiritually mature. He gives good answers. He is happy to join in the field service. He studies the Bible. He prays. He behaves according to the standards of the congregation. He wants to serve Jehovah. All of that can be sincere. But: Religious maturity according to the standards of a faith community is not automatically the same as full developmental-psychological maturity. Both can be true at the same time: This young person believes sincerely. and This young person is still very much in development. A striking contradiction Minors are given extra protection in many areas of society because we recognize that they are still developing. At the same time, a minor can make a religious decision that is considered lifelong. That does not have to be problematic in itself. The complicated question arises when years later that decision can still be linked to very far-reaching social consequences, while the person who has since become an adult now thinks fundamentally differently. That is why, before baptism, perhaps not only this should be asked: 'Are you convinced that this is the truth?' but also: 'What happens if you later become convinced that this is not the truth?' And: 'Do you understand that you must also be able to consider that possibility today?' Free will does not only mean being able to say yes That brings us back to the core. Free will does not only mean: You are allowed to say yes yourself. True freedom of choice may also require: You are allowed to say no. You are allowed to wait. You are allowed to have doubts. You are allowed to investigate. And you are allowed to change your mind later. Without that automatically putting the love and connection of the most important people in your life at stake. No literal coercion does not automatically mean complete freedom A parent never has to say: 'You have to get baptized.' Influence can still exist. That is not unique to Jehovah's Getuigen. All people are influenced by their environment. But when it comes to a lifelong faith decision, it is interesting to look at all the signals a child receives. The pride when it answers. Compliments about spiritual progress. Other young people getting baptized. Conventions. Field service. Conversations about spiritual goals. The joy around a baptism. The hope of parents that their child will keep serving Jehovah. None of these things need to be wrong in themselves. But together they do form the social environment in which the decision is made. That is why: 'No one forced me' still does not tell the full story of how a choice came about. The parent is under pressure too And here the other side also explicitly belongs. Suppose you are a mother and sincerely believe that Jehovah's Getuigen have the truth. Your sixteen-year-old son says: 'Mom, I don't believe it anymore.' You love him. But at the same time you believe his future depends on it. Maybe you ask yourself: What did I do wrong? Should I have done more family worship? Did I fail to protect him enough from bad associations? Maybe you pray to Jehovah. Maybe you think about Armageddon. Maybe in your mind you see paradise without your child. The parent can also experience great pressure because of this. That is why this is not simply a story of: bad parents versus vulnerable children. It can be much more tragic. Parents and children can both fear losing each other out of love. But the roles are not equal Yet there remains an important difference. The parent is the adult. The child is dependent on the parent. That is why the adult has more responsibility to create emotional space. A child should not feel: I have to keep believing this so I don't destroy Mom and Dad. A parent may be sad. A parent may be afraid. A parent may themselves deeply believe. But in addition, the child needs something fundamental: The assurance that the love of his parents does not depend on his final choice of belief. What might free choice of belief look like? Maybe free will does not mean at all that JG parents should convey their faith less clearly. Maybe the difference lies in the space around that. For example: 'This is what we believe. But you may ask why.' 'You do not have to get baptized because we want you to.' 'Feel free to wait until you are sure.' 'You may say that you do not believe something.' 'You may ask questions to which we do not know the answer.' 'You may investigate.' 'You may get to know people who think differently.' And above all: 'If you choose differently later, you will still be my child.' Then free will changes from: You are free to choose our path. to: You are free to discover which path is truly yours. For young people who are doubting Maybe you are young and still one of Jehovah's Getuigen. Maybe you are being asked when you want to get baptized. Maybe your friends are already doing it. Maybe your parents really want you to take this step. And maybe you still don't know. Then: 'I don't know yet' is also an answer. You may need time for a decision that, according to your faith, is for life. You may ask questions. You may investigate. And if you notice that you mainly want to say yes because you are afraid of disappointing someone, you can ask yourself one question: What would I choose if no one became sad, angry, or disappointed by my answer? The answer to that does not automatically have to be the truth. But perhaps you will hear something of your own voice in it. For adults looking back Maybe you got baptized when you were young. Maybe you really did want that at the time. You do not have to tell yourself: 'That was never my choice.' It may absolutely have been your choice back then. But later, you are allowed to look at it again. What options could I see at the time? How much did I know about other religions? What did I think about 'the world'? What did I think would happen if I did not serve Jehovah? How important was my parents' approval? How important was the congregation? How important were my friends? Did I know what could happen if I later stopped believing? Was not getting baptized really a safe option for me? Those are not questions to condemn the child you were. They are questions that may help you better understand how your choice came about. Maybe free will begins with one sentence A JW parent does not have to give up their faith to give their child real freedom of choice. Maybe it begins with one sentence: 'I hope you choose Jehovah. But if you later believe something different, I will still love you just as much.' For a child, that can mean: I do not have to choose between my parents and myself. And perhaps it is precisely when both paths are allowed to exist emotionally safely that the best chance arises for a truly free religious choice. Join the discussion How free did your own religious choice feel? How old were you when you were baptized? Did you want that yourself? Why did you want it? Before your baptism, did you know what could happen if you later stopped believing? Can you remember an elder discussing the possible consequences of leaving later in detail with you? Could you have said without problems: 'I do not want to be baptized yet'? Could you explore other religious or non-religious beliefs? And for parents who are still Jehovah's Getuige: Could your child say to you, 'I don't believe what you believe' and at the same time know for sure that your relationship with them will still exist? The goal here is not to determine which faith is true. It is about a different question: What does a child need in order to experience a religious choice as truly their own choice? And perhaps the core is ultimately very simple: If a child has free will, then should they not be able to say no as safely as yes?