Crisis of Conscience

by Raymond Franz

  When the subject “Chronology” was assigned to me this similarly led to serious questions.27 A major teaching of Jehovah’s Witnesses is that Bible prophecy had pointed to the year 1914 as the end of the “Gentile Times” of Luke chapter twenty-one, verse 24, and that in that year Christ Jesus actively took up his Kingdom power and began to rule invisibly to human eyes. In Daniel chapter four, references to a period of “seven times” were the foundation for the calculations leading to that date and, by use of other texts, these “seven times” were translated into a period of 2,520 years beginning in 607 B.C.E. and ending in 1914 C.E. The starting date, 607 B.C.E., was held to be the time of the destruction of Jerusalem by Babylonian conqueror Nebuchadnezzar. I knew that the 607 B.C.E. date seemed to be peculiar to our publications but did not really know why.

  Months of research were spent on this one subject of “Chronology” and it resulted in the longest article in the Aid publication.28 Much of the time was spent endeavoring to find some proof, some backing in history, for the 607 B.C.E. date so crucial to our calculations for 1914. Charles Ploeger, a member of the headquarters staff, was at that time serving as a secretary for me and he searched through the libraries of the New York City area for anything that might substantiate that date historically.

  We found absolutely nothing in support of 607 B.C.E. All historians pointed to a date twenty years later. Before preparing the Aid material on “Archaeology” I had not realized that the number of baked-clay cuneiform tablets found in the Mesopotamian area and dating back to the time of ancient Babylon numbered into the tens of thousands. In all of these there was nothing to indicate that the period of the Neo-Babylonian Empire (in which period Nebuchadnezzar’s reign figured) was of the necessary length to fit our 607 B.C.E. date for the destruction of Jerusalem. Everything pointed to a period twenty years shorter than our published chronology claimed.

  Cuneiform tablet

  Though I found this disquieting, I wanted to believe that our chronology was right in spite of all the contrary evidence, that such evidence was somehow in error. Thus, in preparing the material for the Aid book, much of the time and space was spent in trying to weaken the credibility of the archeological and historical evidence that would make erroneous our 607 B.C. E. date and give a different starting point for our calculations and therefore an ending date different from 1914.

  Charles Ploeger and I made a trip to Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, to interview Professor Abraham Sachs, a specialist in ancient cuneiform texts, particularly those containing astronomical data. We wanted to see if we could obtain any information that would indicate any flaw or weakness whatsoever in the astronomical data presented in many of the texts, data that indicated our 607 B.C.E. date was incorrect. In the end, it became evident that it would have taken a virtual conspiracy on the part of the ancient scribes—with no conceivable motive for doing so—to misrepresent the facts if, indeed, our figure was to be the right one. Again, like an attorney faced with evidence he cannot overcome, my effort was to discredit or weaken confidence in the witnesses from ancient times who presented such evidence, the evidence of historical texts relating to the Neo-Babylonian Empire.29 In themselves, the arguments I presented were honest ones, but I know that their intent was to uphold a date for which there was no historical support.

  So, despite our heightened appreciation of certain principles, the Aid book nonetheless contained many examples of our efforts to be loyal to the Society’s teachings. In many respects, what we learned through our experience did more for us than it did for the publication. Still, the Aid to Bible Understanding book did serve to quicken interest in the Scriptures among many Witnesses. Perhaps its tone, its approach, the effort put forth by most of the writers to avoid dogmatism, to acknowledge that there might be more than one way of seeing certain matters, not to make more of something than the evidence honestly allowed—these things may have been of principal benefit, though in these too we certainly fell short at times, allowing preconceived ideas to control, failing to hold as firmly as we should have to the Scriptures themselves. I know this was true in my own case in preparing such subjects as the “Appointed Times of the Nations,” “Faithful and Discreet Slave,” and “Great Crowd,” all of which contain arguments designed to uphold current teachings of the Watch Tower publications. Simply because in my mind those teachings were then equivalent to “fact,” I found myself doing what the “Foreword” I later wrote said was not intended. On page 6 under the heading “Its Aim,” the words appear, “Aid to Bible Understanding is not intended to be a doctrinal commentary or an interpretative work.” Also, that whatever application was made of figurative and symbolic expressions, this was not done “arbitrarily or to conform to a creed.” In the main, that was true. But ingrained beliefs sometimes overrode our efforts to hold to that standard.

  The year the completed Aid book was released, I was invited to become a member of the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Body that now directs the activity of Jehovah’s Witnesses in some 230 countries of the world. Up to that point it had been composed of seven members who were identical with the seven members of the Board of Directors of the corporation called the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, a corporation founded originally in Pennsylvania by Charles Taze Russell, the first president. On October 20, 1971, along with three others, I was appointed as a member of the now expanded Governing Body. This circumstance, perhaps more than any other, brought me face to face with some realities that I had never expected to encounter.

  Many of Jehovah’s Witnesses took exception to a statement that appeared in a Time magazine article (February 22, 1982) in which my name figured prominently. The writers of the article referred to the organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses as “secretive.” It may seem odd to use a term like that about an organization that encourages vigorously a work of the most public kind—house-to-house activity in cities, towns and countryside around the world. The Time reporters evidently wrote what they did because they found it extremely difficult to obtain any comment from the international headquarters about the situation described in the first chapter of this book.

  But the fact is that even among Jehovah’s Witnesses very few have any clear idea as to how the central part of the organization functions. They do not know how decisions as to doctrinal teachings are reached, how the Governing Body that directs all their activities worldwide conducts its discussions, whether decisions are consistently unanimous or what is done if there is disagreement.

  All this is cloaked in secrecy as the Governing Body meets in closed sessions. I can only recall two or three occasions in the nine years that I was a part of the Body when persons other than appointed members were allowed to be present at a regular session of the Body. And on those occasions their presence was simply to give a report requested by the Governing Body, after which they were dismissed and the Governing Body then carried on its deliberations in private—the importance of their reports did not qualify those persons to share in the discussion. Also, no specific information is ever given to Witnesses as a whole as to the Society’s income, expenditures, assets or investments (although they have received a brief expense report in the annual Yearbook).30

  Thus numerous factors that are relatively common knowledge in many religious organizations are known only vaguely, if at all, by the vast majority of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Yet the decisions made by the small group of men forming that Body can, and often do, affect their lives in a most intimate way and are supposed to be applied globally.

  Which brings me to the final reason for writing, the most important since without it the previous ones are of little consequence.

  OBLIGATION

  Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; for this is the law and the prophets.

  — Matthew 7:12, Revised Standard Version.

  That principle stated by Jesus Christ binds any of us claiming to be Christian, in whatever we do. No honest person can claim to carry out those words
perfectly and I make no such claim. But I believe I can say that what is here written owes to a sincere desire to follow that principle.

  The apostle Paul spoke of himself as a “debtor” to persons of all kinds.31 He felt an obligation toward them, and I feel a similar sense of obligation. If someone else had knowledge of facts that could be of value to me in making vital decisions, I would want him to make these available to me—not to make my decision for me, but to supply the information, leaving it to me to weigh its value or significance. If he were a friend, a genuine friend, I believe he would do that.

  The nine years spent on the Governing Body had great impact on me and particularly on my conscience. I found myself facing a major crisis in my life, a crossroads situation I had never expected to encounter. The decision I made was my own and the resulting cost was considerable. But I do not regret it nor do I regret having gained the information that contributed toward it. Others might decide differently; some have. That is their privilege, something between them and God.

  After I resigned as a member of the Governing Body in May 1980, I received numerous calls from newspapers and magazines wanting information about the situation existent within the organization. I consistently directed the inquirers to the headquarters in Brooklyn. The inquirers, in turn, consistently said that they had tried that avenue with no success: “No comment.” My reply was simply that I could not be their source of information. I maintained that position for nearly two years. What happened in those two years, not merely as regards myself but as regards others, caused me to reassess that position.

  During those two years, the motives, character and conduct of persons who conscientiously disagreed with the organization were portrayed in the worst of terms. Their concern to put God’s Word first was represented as the product of ambition, rebellion, pride, as sin against God and Christ. No allowance was made for the possibility that any of them acted out of sincerity, love of truth or integrity to God. No effort to distinguish was made, but all were “lumped” together. Any misconduct or wrong attitude on the part of some who had left the organization was attributed to all who have left. For those who did display a wrong attitude, no effort was made to appreciate the part that frustration, disappointment and hurt may have played in that conduct. An enormous amount of rumor and even gutter-level gossip circulated among Witnesses, internationally. Faithful Christians with high standards of morality were spoken about as being wife swappers, homosexuals, hypocrites, egoists interested in establishing their own personal cult. Older ones were often dismissed as being “mentally disturbed” or “senile.”

  The only ones who could have restrained such talk, simply by pointing out the possibility that such persons could be genuinely sincere, could have true concern for conscience—as well as by reminding the sowers of rumor how repugnant false testimony is to God—these persons in reality contributed to the spread of rumor by what they published.32

  Consider, for example, this material found in the August 15, 1981, Watchtower (pages 28, 29), circulated in the millions of copies in many languages around the earth:

  Thus, in one paragraph, persons are described as like Satan, independent, faultfinding, stubborn, reviling, haughty, apostate and lawless. What had they actually done to earn this array of charges? Among the “wrongs” mentioned is that of disagreeing in some unspecified way with some unspecified part of the organization’s teachings; also, holding that God’s inspired Word alone is sufficient and that large meetings in a building are a nonessential.

  Could these things of themselves place a person in the Satan-like category described? Nothing is said to indicate otherwise and, incredible as it may seem, in the minds of many Witnesses, including elders and traveling representatives, this has been considered enough to so categorize them and to deal with them accordingly.

  Compare this blanket condemnation with articles in the June 22, 2000 issue of Awake! They warn that “generalizations tend to obscure important facts about the real issues in question, and they are frequently used to demean entire groups of people.” A paragraph on page 6 reads:

  Re-read the Watchtower material on the preceding page and compare it with this statement. The thrust of the Awake! article is to defend Jehovah’s Witnesses against labels such as “sect.” Certainly the label of “apostate” is equally or more demeaning. Yet Witnesses are expected to apply it to any member who may disagree with positions taken by the leadership. The practice of “tarring everyone with the same brush” is unfair and therefore unchristian. The reasons why people separate from the Witness organization are many and varied. And the number who do leave on a yearly basis is remarkable.

  Tabulating the world reports for the years 1970 through 1999 one finds that a total of 6,587,215 persons were baptized worldwide. The organization customarily estimates that 1% of those associated die each year. Figuring this out year by year, it would mean an estimated 985,734 members were lost through death. If we reduce the baptismal figure by that amount it leaves 5,601,481 as the increase gained in that 30-year period if all surviving persons remained in the organization.

  What do we find? The year previous to this 30-year period (1969) the report showed a total of 1,256,784 persons actively associated. Adding 5,601,481 to that number gives a total of 6,858,265 that should be associated in 1999. But the report for that year shows only 5,912,492 associated. That means that during the 30-year period some 945,773 persons left the organization or ceased activity. This is equal to 14% of the total number of new members baptized.

  Specific examples from the 1999 world report illustrate graphically the situation currently prevailing in many countries, particularly the industrialized nations.

  For the 12 major western European countries and for the British Isles the report provides the following figures:

  Baptized in 1999:

  21, 376

  Average publishers reporting in 1998:

  933,043

  Average publishers reporting in 1999:

  923,143

  Although 21,376 new persons were baptized, there was a decrease in total publishers of 9,900. That means that over 31,000 persons either left of became “inactive” during that period.

  For 3 major Pacific Rim countries (Japan, Korea and Australia) the following figures result:

  Baptized in 1999:

  12,162

  Average publishers reporting in 1998:

  325,316

  Average publishers reporting in 1999:

  325,972

  Again, 12,162 entered as newly baptized persons, yet the growth was only 656 persons. Hence, 12,162 entered and 11,506 left or became “inactive.”

  For the United States and Canada, similar results are seen:

  Baptized in 1999:

  34,123

  Average publishers reporting in 1998:

  1,055,950

  Average publishers reporting in 1999:

  1,051,124

  Although 34,123 were baptized, the number of “publishers” decreased by 4,826, meaning that 38,949 left or became “inactive” between 1998 and 1999.

  If we combine the figures for all these 19 major countries listed, we reach a total of 67,661 baptized, but rather than a growth of equal numbers, the 1999 figures show a decrease of 14,070, meaning that in those 19 major countries 81,731 left or became “inactive.”

  Since worldwide the 1999 report showed a 2% increase, it is clear that some countries did experience growth. But the “revolving door” situation in the major countries listed is not only notable, it is striking. Particularly since, aside from Japan and Korea, they represent the countries that figure earliest in the history of the Watch Tower Society, the countries of its initial development and growth.

  The reasons for persons leaving or ceasing activity are multiple. I have no illusions that all of the nearly one million persons who left the organization during the thirty-year period from 1970 to 1999 did so for reasons of conscience or that every one of them is necessarily a humble, rightly motivated pers
on, more concerned about truth than about self. Many quite evidently are not; some have pursued a course of immorality either before or after leaving; some who left because of disagreement have become guilty of the same wrongs they objected to, expressing vindictiveness, using ridicule, half-truths and exaggerations. Some have even created disturbances at meetings or assemblies of Jehovah’s Witnesses, conduct that I find deplorable. But I know personally many, many persons who are not like that, who give every indication of being decent, God-fearing, compassionate persons. If viewed from a selfish standpoint, they had everything to lose and nothing to gain from the stand they took and the course they have followed thereafter.

  In many cases it was not some unkind treatment they themselves experienced that disturbed them; it was seeing such treatment meted out to others, seeing people suffer because of the rigidity, narrow-mindedness, even arrogance of men in charge, elders and others, or recognizing the hurtful effects of certain edicts of the organization that did not rest on a solid Scriptural foundation. Rather than disgruntled, vindictive complainers, they have simply pleaded for greater compassion, a closer adherence to the example of God’s own Son, the Master of the Christian household of faith.

  This feeling for others is, I believe, a decisive factor as to the genuineness of motive. Similarly, a concern for truth, a concern not to be guilty of misrepresenting God’s own Word, a concern not to be hypocritical in appearing to believe what they do not believe, support what they cannot conscientiously support, condemn what they cannot see that Scripture itself condemns—such concern is, I think, also determinative as to genuineness of motive of any taking such a stand. I know many persons who clearly evidence such concern, yet who are labeled as “apostates,” “antichrists,” “instruments of Satan.” In case after case after case, the sole basis for such condemnation is that they could not honestly agree with all the organization’s teachings or policies.