Crisis of Conscience

by Raymond Franz

  Lloyd Barry’s talk seemed to be an effort to refute some of the beliefs apparently held by those viewed as apostates and to sound a call for loyalty to the organization. He read Proverbs 24:21, 22, and warned that we should beware of “those who are for a change.” He spoke disparagingly of certain ones who were getting together to study the Bible in an independent fashion, claiming that some were even doing this instead of going to the Watchtower study on Monday evening.

  He likewise spoke in unfavorable terms of those inclined to use commentaries by writers of Christendom. (Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament were possessed by men in the Service Department and kept in open display; this remark prompted them to remove these and put them in drawers.) Barry spoke about our “rich heritage” as Jehovah’s Witnesses and was visibly upset by the possibility that some did not hold it in as high esteem as he did and seemed inclined toward thinking which could be detrimental to the organization’s growth and prosperity.

  Though he had never discussed any Scriptural points or any of the issues involved with any of us who were the target of these talks, Jon writes:

  This meeting and the events that followed had the effect of augmenting the sickening feeling developing in me since I first heard of the startling news of the disfellowshippings and Brother Franz’s dismissal.

  The August 1, 1980, Watchtower was to contain an article which listed what were considered to be various “signs of apostasy.” But I already had some very clear-cut ideas of what the actual signs were. I was deeply distressed by the realization that the organization more and more seemed to be displaying these signs itself, as follows:

  1) The suppression of free Bible reading. Though I knew it was not likely there would be Bible burnings, nonetheless, it was apparent that complete freedom to read the Scriptures and enjoy open Bible discussions was being curtailed. Why wouldn’t the Governing Body permit an open discussion of the issues as suggested, especially since it involved individuals who had contributed much to the organization and who were greatly respected as good Bible scholars? What were they trying to hide? Couldn’t the ‘truth’ stand up to such examination?

  2) The apparent shift in emphasis from the Bible to our “rich heritage” or organizational traditions. I knew quite well that this had been the failing of many religious sects, including the Pharisees. Matthew 15 and Mark 7 contain the words of Jesus wherein he denounced them for giving greater weight to tradition than to God’s word. The suggestion that a “loyalty oath” be required to ensure loyalty to an organization and its traditions was absolutely appalling to me. Yet it had been made in all seriousness.

  3) Inquisition tactics. It seemed clear that the Governing Body, which I had considered to be there more for the purpose of serving the brothers, was wielding a very powerful authoritarian hand and was determined to act quickly and decisively in its handling of the matter. Would it not have been far wiser and judicious for them to act carefully and deliberately, thoroughly weighing and considering matters and then slowly and cautiously reaching a decision?

  I remember thinking to myself at the Elders’ meeting, “Stop! Slow down! Can’t you see what you’re doing?” I felt this way, not because of being disloyal to the organization, but because I loved it and wanted more than anything else for it to be solidly based on a firm foundation of truth.1

  Like him, I initially retained hope that after the nightmare had passed, perhaps more rational thinking would begin to prevail, that the emotional, almost hysterical, “siege mentality” which treated a small number of conscientious individuals as if they constituted a mammoth threat to the worldwide organization, would be replaced by calmer, more judicious thought and action. The opposite took place.

  Perhaps nothing illustrates so clearly the incredible demands now made for total conformity as does the following letter, sent out to all traveling representatives, Circuit and District Overseers, by the Service Department of the international headquarters, dated September 1, 1980. Here presented is material from the first two pages of the letter, the section under the heading “Protecting the Flock” being of special interest in this discussion (particularly relevant points are underlined).

  The letter presents an official policy. It actually says that a person’s believing—not promoting, but simply believing—something that differs from the teachings of the organization is grounds for taking judicial action against him as an “apostate”!

  The letter makes no qualifying statements limiting such differences of belief to fundamental teachings of God’s Word, such as the coming of God’s Son as a man, the ransom, faith in Christ’s shed blood as the basis for salvation, the resurrection, or similar basic Bible doctrines. It does not even say that the person necessarily disagrees with the Bible, the Word of God. Rather, he disagrees with “the teachings of Jehovah, as presented by the faithful and discreet slave.” Which is something like saying that a man’s accepting and obeying a King’s written message is no guarantee that he is loyal; it is his accepting and obeying what a slave messenger claims the ruler meant that decides this!

  The symbol at the top of the September 1, 1980 letter (“SCG”) identifies the composer of it as Leon Weaver. But it should not be thought that this “thought-control” policy was the thinking of one individual, nor was it some momentary off-the-cuff expression of extremism which a person might make and afterward feel ashamed of as a rash, harsh and utterly unchristian position to take. The composer was a member of the Service Department Committee whose members, such as Harley Miller, David Olson, Joel Adams, Charles Woody and Leon Weaver, were all longtime representatives of the organization, with decades of experience behind them. They were agents of the Governing Body in supervising the activity of about 10,000 congregations and the activity of all the elders, Circuit and District Overseers in the United States, where nearly one million Jehovah’s Witnesses live. They were in regular contact with the Service Committee of the Governing Body and were supposed to be thoroughly familiar with the Governing Body policies, attuned to its thinking and viewpoint and spirit.

  But this only adds to the appalling aspect of the position the letter took. As I know from years on the Service Committee, any letter of this importance must be submitted to the Governing Body Service Committee for approval before being sent out.2 Objection by even one member of that Committee would have resulted in the letter’s going before the entire Governing Body for discussion.

  Whatever the case, the letter and its policy—which evokes memories of the position of religious authorities in the Inquisition—had to have been approved by a number of headquarters representatives, including several Governing Body members. Since people’s friendships, family relationships, personal honor and other life interests were all at stake, it should be presumed that these men gave long, careful thought to that statement of September 1, 1980, before approving it as an official expression from the “faithful and discreet slave” of Jesus Christ. What they there said was no light matter to be explained away later by saying, “Well, we really didn’t mean it exactly the way it sounded.” As the facts show, people, many persons, were actually disfellowshipped and continue to be disfellowshipped solely on the basis of this very thought-control policy sent out. The denigrating label of “apostate” is placed on their name simply because in their own hearts, they cannot accept all of the Society’s interpretations.

  Possibly this policy resulted from or was influenced by something that developed earlier that year in one of the New York congregations. Jon Mitchell, mentioned previously as working part time in the Service Department, relates:

  Somewhere around this time period [referring to the early summer of 1980] a memo came down from F. W. Franz, apparently in response to a question that had been sent in by Harold Jackson [part of the Service Department staff].

  It seems there was a pioneer (full-time preaching) sister in a Spanish congregation who felt she could not conscientiously teach that the 144,000 of Revelation 7 and 14 was a literal number. She said she would not pr
oselytize or seek to publicize an opposing view, but she did not want to teach that the 144,000 was a literal number to those with whom she studied the Bible.

  Brother Jackson’s question apparently was to the effect of wanting to know whether or not such a person could be classified as an “apostate.” The memo confirmed that such a person could indeed be viewed as an apostate and should be disfellowshipped if she did not agree to teach what the Society instructed her to teach. I recall someone in the Service Department referring to the outcome of this case and stating that the girl had “recanted.” I was amazed that such terminology could be used without any sense of shame.

  One might think that the extreme position taken in the September 1, 1980, letter, earlier quoted, conveyed to all elders by the traveling representatives, would produce, if not a storm of protest, at least some measurable expression of dismay from elders and others. They were too well trained for that to be the case. Some few individuals did express themselves, but cautiously, lest they also receive the label of “apostate.” Certainly the lack of protest was not because they had ‘proved to themselves that this was the good and acceptable and perfect will of God,’ as the apostle urges.3 Rereading the paragraph on page two, one finds not a single scripture advanced as proof that such thought-control policy has any Scriptural support. The Christian’s thoughts are to be ‘brought into captivity to the Christ,’ not to men or an organization.4 Why then this willingness to surrender one’s conscience to such total control?

  It is the concept of “the organization” that produces this. That concept creates the belief that, to all intents and purposes, whatever the organization speaks; it is as if God himself were speaking. Perhaps epitomizing the spirit that the Society’s pronouncements, including this letter, produced is an incident occurring at a Circuit Assembly meeting for elders of a section of Alabama. The District Overseer, Bart Thompson, held up a Society publication that had a green cover. He then said to the assembly of elders, “If the Society told me that this book is black instead of green, I would say, ‘Y’know I could have sworn that it was green, but if the Society says it’s black, then it’s black!’” Others have used similar illustrations.

  True, there are many thinking Witnesses who are repelled by such blatant expressions of blind faith. Yet most are still willing to conform, even to take “judicial action” against any who express doubts about the Society’s interpretations. Why?

  I try in my own mind and heart to understand the feelings of all these persons, including those on the Governing Body. Based on my own experience among them I believe that they are, in effect, the captives of a concept. The concept or mental image they have of “the organization” seems almost to take on a personality of its own, so that the concept itself controls them, moves them or restrains them, by molding their thinking, their attitudes, their judgments. I do not believe that many of them would take the position they now take if they thought only in terms of God, Christ, the Bible, and the interests—not of an organization—but of their Christian brothers, fellow humans. The insertion of the existing concept of “the organization,” however, radically alters their thinking and viewpoint, becomes, in fact, the dominant, controlling force.

  I believe that when the men on the Governing Body think about and refer to “the organization” they likewise think of the concept rather than the reality. They think of “the organization” as something far bigger and grander than themselves, thinking of it in its numerical aspect, in the extent of its scope of control, as something international, worldwide. They do not realize—apparently—that this aspect relates more to the organization’s domain than to what it itself actually is. When, however, they urge “loyalty to the organization” they must know, they certainly should know, that they are not talking about that domain—about the thousands of congregations and their members that the organization directs. They are talking about loyalty to the source of the direction, the source of the teachings, the source of the authority. Whether the Governing Body members acknowledge it or whether they prefer not to think about it, the fact remains that in these crucial respects they, and they alone, are “the organization.” Whatever other authority exists—that of the Branch Committees, that of the District or Circuit Overseers, that of Congregational Elder Bodies—that authority is totally dependent on that small body of men, subject to adjustment, change or removal at their decision, unilaterally, with no questions asked.

  The June 22, 2000 Awake! earlier referred to makes these comments:

  I believe that for most of these Governing Body members, like the rest of Jehovah’s Witnesses, “the organization” takes on a symbolic nature, something rather undefined, abstract, a concept rather than a concrete entity. Rather than the “mother church” it is the “mother organization.” Perhaps because of such an illusory view of “the organization” a man can be a member of such a Body that has virtually unrestricted power and authority, and yet not feel a keen sense of personal responsibility for what the Body does, for whatever hurt or whatever misleading information and consequent misdirection results. “It was the organization that did it, not us,” seems to be the thinking. And, believing that “the organization” is God’s chosen instrument, the responsibility is passed on to God. It was His will—even if later the particular decision or the particular authoritative teaching is found wrong and changed. People may have been disfellowshipped or otherwise hurt by the wrong decisions. But the individual member of the Governing Body feels absolved of personal responsibility.

  I express the above points, not as a means of condemnation but as a means of explanation, an attempt to understand why certain men that I consider to be honest, basically kind individuals could be party to what I feel that they in their own hearts, would normally have rejected. I think the concept earlier described is tragically wrong, as pernicious as it is tragic. I believe the drastic actions taken toward those persons accused of “apostasy” were, in almost all cases, not only unjustified but repugnant, unworthy not only of Christianity but of any free society of men. Yet this effort at comprehension enables me to be free from brooding or harboring bitterness toward the persons involved, either individually or collectively. Bitterness is both self-defeating and destructive. I do not know any person among those men that I would not be willing to express hospitality to in my home, with no questions asked, no issue of apology raised. Neither I nor any of my personal friends had any thought of cutting them, or any other persons, off from association because of a difference in understanding. The cutting off was not our thought, not our action.

  When I met with the Governing Body the meeting was taped and I had been promised a copy of the tape. What happened to this? I believe what occurred is illustrative of points that have just been made.

  About three weeks after returning to Alabama, I had occasion to write the Governing Body and took the opportunity to ask about my copy of the tape. I received a reply dated June 26, 1980.

  Two weeks passed and then this letter came:

  The letter unavoidably brought back memories of the way matters had been handled from the start, from the time the Chairman’s Committee had first put in motion the judicial machinery and actions that produced the various disfellowshippings. I had hoped all that was passed. I had no way of knowing what they were referring to in writing of “a confidential item which had been sent to the Governing Body in April.” While in Brooklyn I had not seen any of the disfellowshipped persons, nor did I see them between then and my return to Alabama. So I replied as follows:

  This is the answer the Governing Body sent me three weeks later.

  They answered not a single point I had raised. The sense of unreality I had experienced before now came back. It seemed difficult to believe that men in responsible positions could act so irresponsibly. The letter’s tone conveyed the attitude that all rights belonged to them (to “the organization”) and that the rights of individuals could simply be ignored, if that appeared desirable and advantageous, summarily set aside as of no
particular consequence. I wrote once more, as follows:

  Nearly one month later, another letter came:

  As the correspondence already presented shows, my “wishes” actually were for the copy of the tape to be sent as promised. Since they clearly were unwilling to part with it (recalling somewhat the “Watergate” attitude), I had offered them an option, which they finally exercised. At any rate, I was glad to have the matter settled and hoped that was the end of any further dealings with the Body. It was not.

  Some weeks after my return to Alabama, and prior to the exchange of letters set out above, the Society had sent me a check for $10,000, as a gift ‘to aid in reestablishing in the South.’ I had made no request for money and the action taken was both unexpected and appreciated. It took a loan of another $5,000 to obtain a mobile home, and Peter Gregerson allowed us to park this on his property. I was grateful to be able (as well as economically obliged) to do strenuous physical labor for Peter in yard work. Each day was spent mowing lawns, cutting weeds, trimming hedges, being stung by wasps and yellow jackets, bitten innumerable times by fire ants, sweating through one period when for 30 consecutive days the temperature out in the sun passed 100° Fahrenheit (38º C.). I cannot recall any other time in my life till then when I had experienced the constant physical pain that I did during those months. Yet I was glad for it, as it served to offset the emotional hurt I felt.5

  The greatest help, for both my wife and myself, was, however, our daily reading of the Scriptures. Each morning we read four of the Psalms, doing this consecutively until completing them. Though read many times before, they seemed almost new to us now. We could relate to them so much more. For if any one part of the Bible makes clear the very personal relationship that can and should exist between God’s servants and himself, the Psalms seem to do this, outstandingly so. The emotional upset, the sighing, the feeling of helplessness and despair that the writers so often expressed, their ultimate acknowledgment in each case that their full and final hope was and must be, not in men, but in Jehovah God as their Rock and high place of protection, struck a very responsive chord in both of us.