Crisis of Conscience

by Raymond Franz

  My determination on leaving the international headquarters had been not to precipitate problems. I did not go looking for trouble. The trouble came looking for me.

  For a number of months we enjoyed a pleasant relationship with the members of the East Gadsden Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, sharing in their meetings and in the “field activity.” A few months after my arrival the local body of elders wrote to Brooklyn recommending my appointment as an elder in the congregation. The brief reply that came back said succinctly that the Society did not think it advisable for the elders to recommend me as such (or as a ministerial servant). The only reason given was that the notice of my resignation (published in the same Our Kingdom Service as the information about the disfellowshipping of several staff members) was still recent. The presiding overseer of the congregation seemed upset by the spirit of the letter but I recommended he simply forget about it.

  With this letter, plus the information given out to elders as a result of the September 1, 1980, Society letter (stating that mere belief that differed from the published teachings of the Society was grounds for disfellowshipping), the atmosphere gradually began to change. The Watchtower magazine began publishing articles clearly designed, not to calm matters, but to focus discussion on the supposed “apostasy” taking place. From then till now, by word and by printed page, a concerted campaign has apparently been under way to justify the extreme treatment meted out to those brothers in Brooklyn who were so swiftly expelled, and more particularly the viewpoint and policy behind this that continue to operate. Rather than a lessening of dogmatism the claims of divine authority and the accompanying calls for unquestioning loyalty became more strident. Issue after issue of the Watchtower magazine focused on points that had been questioned, insisted on their rightness, and in general produced a definite entrenchment of position rather than a moderating thereof. The argumentation used to achieve this seemed to reach new lows in misrepresentation of any contrary views.

  An atmosphere of both suspicion and fear developed. Elders who were by nature moderate men felt hesitant about calling for moderation lest this be viewed as evidence of disloyalty. Those who were inclined toward tough action found favorable opportunities to express their hard-line attitude. It recalled the McCarthy period in the United States, when anyone who spoke on behalf of civil rights and freedom and expressed disapproval of ruthless methods of crushing unpopular ideologies was in real danger of being classed as a “Communist sympathizer,” a “fellow traveler” of radical elements.

  Under these circumstances, meeting attendance for me became more and more depressing, as it meant hearing God’s Word misused, made to say things it did not say, as well as hearing the constant self-authentication and self-commendation of the organization. It made one wish that there was at least the freedom of expression found in the first-century synagogues that granted persons, such as the apostles, opportunity to speak out in favor of truth (though even there this inevitably led to a hardening of attitude that eventually would close the doors of the synagogue to them). But, as I remarked to Peter Gregerson, I considered myself simply a guest at the Kingdom Hall; it was their Hall, their meetings, their programs, and I had no desire to put a “damper” on their carrying them out. So, I limited my comments to the reading of relevant scriptures, simply emphasizing whatever portion was applicable. It was a rare meeting that someone, often an older member, did not come up afterward and make some expression of appreciation.

  The “crusade” atmosphere developing, however, gave me reason to believe it was just a matter of time until some further action would be taken toward me. And so it happened.

  THE CRIME AND THE SENTENCE

  Both the Pharisees and the scribes kept muttering, saying: “This man welcomes sinners and even eats with them.”

  — Luke 15:2.

  One meal was all the evidence needed. It happened this way:

  Within about six months of my return to northern Alabama, the Society sent a new Circuit Overseer into the area. The previous man had been a moderate person, inclined to play down problems rather than make issues of them. The man who replaced him had a reputation for greater aggressiveness. This was about the time the Society’s letter to District and Circuit Overseers had come out saying that “apostasy” included persons who even believed something different from the organization’s teachings.

  On his second visit to the East Gadsden Congregation (March 1981) the new Circuit Overseer, Wesley Benner, arranged to meet with Peter Gregerson, going to his home along with a local elder, Jim Pitchford. The reason? Benner told Peter that there was a “lot of talk” about him in the city and in the circuit. Peter said he was very sorry to hear that. Where was the “talk” coming from? Benner was reluctant to say, but Peter pointed out that he needed to know to remedy the situation. Benner then said the source was an in-law of Peter’s family.

  Peter made clear that he had put forth every effort to be circumspect in his expressions and that any conversations on Scriptural matters he had had with anyone in the area were strictly with his own relatives. He was deeply concerned that persons outside his family relationship were now engaging in “a lot of talk,” as the Circuit Overseer had said. “How could that be?” he asked. Wesley Benner offered no explanation.

  What, then, were they talking about? Benner brought up a point in a certain Watchtower article that Peter had reportedly objected to. Under no circumstances could the point be called a “major teaching” of Scripture; it actually involved a technicality.6 Nonetheless, since Peter had not agreed with the organization it became important. After long discussion, the Circuit Overseer was finally obliged to acknowledge that the point might indeed be in error. (In actual fact, the Watchtower Society acknowledged the error in a letter dated May 11, 1981, sent in response to an inquiry. The letter stated that “point three in the summary that appears at the bottom of page 15 was deleted in translating this article for publication in foreign language editions of The Watchtower.” (This statement, however, was not true.)7

  Peter said afterward, “I was determined not to let a ‘confrontation’ situation develop and I did everything I could to keep the conversation calm and reasonable.” When the Circuit Overseer and the local elder left, Peter felt the matter had ended on a friendly basis and was glad that was the case. It was not.

  The following week, the Circuit Overseer sent word that he wanted a second meeting to pursue the matter further.

  Peter told me he felt that the time had come to make a decision. The spirit that had been generated by the Governing Body, its Service Department and its letter of September 1, 1980, and a succession of Watchtower articles, had built up to the point where a “witch hunt” atmosphere prevailed. He felt it would be naïve on his part if he failed to recognize the strong likelihood that efforts were under way to bring about his disfellowshipment. His befriending me, he felt, was at least a contributing factor. As he saw it, he had two choices: either voluntarily disassociate himself from the congregation or let the efforts under way continue to their goal of disfellowshipping him. He found neither choice desirable but of the two he believed he should take the first, voluntarily disassociate himself.

  When I expressed doubt as to whether things had reached that stage yet, he said he had weighed the matter, prayed about it, and felt it was the wiser course. The factor that most concerned him, he said, was his family. Of his seven children, three were married, some had children, and he had three brothers and two sisters living in the area and many nephews and nieces. All of them were Jehovah’s Witnesses.8 If he allowed the organization’s representatives to push matters to the point of disfellowshipping, it would make for a very difficult situation for all these family members. It would put them in a serious dilemma as to whether to associate with him as their father or grandfather or brother or uncle, or, instead, to be obedient to the organization and shun him. Additionally, there were about thirty-five Witnesses in the employ of his grocery company. Voluntary disassociation seemed bet
ter since, as he understood it, it simply meant that he was no longer a member of the congregation. But it did not call for the rigid cutting off of relations that organizational policy required in cases of disfellowshipping9

  Peter submitted his letter of resignation on March 18, 1981. It was read to the congregation. Although normal comment followed, inasmuch as Peter had been a Witness from childhood and had taken the lead for many years in local congregation activity, the letter seemed to clear the air since it calmly presented his reasons and expressed no animosity. With rare exception, Jehovah’s Witnesses in Gadsden, on meeting up with Peter, treated him in a manner that was at least cordial. I think they would have kept on doing so had they been governed by their own sense of right and wrong. It seemed that a crisis situation had been averted.

  Within six months the Watchtower magazine published articles changing the whole picture. Some commented to me, “They did everything but put your name and Peter Gregerson’s in the magazine.” I do not believe the situation in Gadsden was solely responsible for the articles. I do believe, however, that it did have some effect on the ones motivated to prepare these. What was the change made in these articles?

  Back in 1974 the Governing Body assigned me to write articles on the treatment of disfellowshipped persons. (The Body had just made a decision that made this advisable.)10 Those articles, duly approved by the Body, greatly moderated the attitude that had prevailed up to that time, encouraged Witnesses to manifest a more merciful attitude in many areas of their contacts with disfellowshipped persons, reduced the rigidity of policies governing dealings with a disfellowshipped family member.

  The September 15, 1981, Watchtower not only reversed this, on some points it carried the matter backward to an even more rigid position than had existed previous to 1974. (An example of “tacking” backwards, this time to a point behind the starting place.)11

  A major change made was with regard to any voluntarily disassociating themselves (as Peter Gregerson had done a few months previous). For the first time the policy was officially published that anyone doing this was to be treated in the same way as if he had been expelled from the congregation.12

  When I read the material, viewing it against my background of experience on the Governing Body (and particularly in the light of my recent experiences with the Chairman’s Committee) I had little doubt as to where this would lead. I did not have long to wait.

  What is now related is given in detail not because my own case is involved or because it is so unusual, but instead because it is so typical of what others experienced, the methods and actions of elders of Jehovah’s Witnesses in case after case of this kind. It is illustrative of the thinking and spirit inculcated in them, a thinking and spirit derived from a central source.

  Though published with a September 15 date, the Watchtower magazine in question arrived over two weeks before that date. Within a few days, came a visit from a local elder of the East Gadsden Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, Dan Gregerson, Peter’s youngest brother. He asked if he and a couple of other elders could come out and speak to me. I said that would be all right; what did they want to talk about? After some hesitation, he said first that it was to discuss my having made remarks of an adverse nature about the organization. When I inquired who was the source of such a claim, he said the person preferred to remain anonymous. (This ‘shooting of spears out of the fog’ is quite common and the one accused is supposed to take this all as quite normal and proper.)

  I asked him, however, if he did not think that Jesus’ counsel at Matthew, chapter eighteen, verses 15 to 17, should apply (the counsel there being that one with a complaint against a brother should first go himself and talk with his brother about the problem)? Dan agreed it did apply. I suggested that as an elder he see the individual and recommend that he come and talk to me about the matter and thus apply Jesus’ counsel. He replied that the person did not feel “qualified.” I pointed out that that really was not at issue, that I had no interest in arguing with anyone, but that if I had disturbed someone I would appreciate that person’s telling me personally so that I could apologize and set matters straight. (I still do not know of whom he was speaking.) Dan’s reply was that I had to realize that the elders also had “a responsibility to protect the flock and watch out for the interests of the sheep.” I agreed fully and said I was sure he realized that doing this certainly meant that elders should encourage everyone in the flock to hold carefully to God’s Word and apply it in their lives. In this case, they could help the party involved to see the need to apply Jesus’ counsel and come and speak with me, then I could know what had offended the person and make whatever apology was needed.

  He said he would drop that point and went on to say that they wanted to discuss my “associations” with me. They would be welcome to do that, I said, and it was agreed that he and another elder would come two days later. Dan and an elder named Theotis French came. The conversation started with Dan’s reading Second Corinthians, chapter thirteen, verses 7 to 9, and informing me that they were there to “readjust” my thinking in connection with the September 15, 1981, Watchtower, particularly as regards my association with his brother, Peter Gregerson, now disassociated. Dan had been in a restaurant in August when Peter and I and our wives had a meal there.

  I asked them if they realized they were right then on Peter’s property, that in that sense he was my landlord. That I was also in his employ. They knew that.

  I explained that, as in all matters, I was governed by conscience as regards my associations and I discussed Paul’s counsel about the importance of conscience in his letter to the Romans, chapter fourteen. Whatever the Scriptures instructed, I would be happy to do, but I saw no evidence to support the view now adopted as to disassociated persons. What Scriptural support was there?

  The conversation now followed an easily predictable course: Dan referred to First Corinthians, chapter five, in support of the position. I pointed out that the apostle there spoke of not associating with persons called brothers who were fornicators, idolaters, revilers, drunkards and extortioners. I had no such persons among my associates and would not want them in my home. But surely they did not consider Peter Gregerson as included among that kind of people? Neither responded.

  Dan then referred to the apostle John’s words at First John, chapter two, verse 19: “They went out from us, but they were not of our sort; for if they had been of our sort, they would have remained with us.” When asked what the context showed as to the kind of persons John spoke of, they acknowledged that he was speaking of “antichrists.” I pointed out that the same was true in John’s Second Letter, verses 7 to 11, which deals with association with such ones. I assured them that I would never fellowship with an antichrist, one who had rebelled against God and Christ, but that again I had none such among my acquaintances. Surely they were not saying that Peter Gregerson was an antichrist? Again, no response.13

  This was, actually, the extent of the Scriptural “readjustment” that I received from these two shepherds of the flock. From that point on their only references were to the Watchtower magazine. Did I accept what it said on this subject, did I submit to the organization’s direction? I stated that in the end the real question was what God’s Word says on any matter, that some teachings are clearly solid, founded immovably on God’s Word; other teachings can be subject to change.

  In illustration, I asked Dan if he thought it possible that the organization could, at some future time, change its view as to the application of Jesus’ expression about “this generation” in Matthew, chapter twenty-four? (I did not tell them that Governing Body members Schroeder, Klein and Suiter had in fact suggested a change that would have moved the start of that “generation” from 1914 up to 1957.) Dan’s reply was, “If the organization sees fit to change it at some future time, then I will accept it.” While not a direct answer, that indicated he recognized the possibility of a change. I then asked him if he thought the organization could possibly change as rega
rds the teaching that Jesus Christ gave his life as a ransom for mankind? He just looked at me. I said I was sure that he did not think that could take place, for that teaching was solidly based on Scripture. The other teaching was a “current understanding,” subject to change, certainly not on the same level with the teaching of the ransom sacrifice. I viewed the material in the September 15, 1981, Watchtower and its prohibitions regarding association with disassociated persons in the same light.

  Dan now began speaking of the “need to be humble” in accepting God’s direction. I could wholeheartedly agree to that and said I was sure they would also agree that those who preach humility should be the first in exemplifying it.

  Again to illustrate, the example was given them of a group of people in a room, conversing. One person expresses his views very emphatically on a variety of matters. When he finishes, another person in the room comments, saying he agrees wholeheartedly with the initial speaker on several points; however, he feels differently on a couple of them, giving his reasons. At this the first individual becomes incensed and calls on the group to expel this person from the room as unfit company—because he did not agree with him on every point. Who, I asked, is the one needing to learn humility? Again, no response. The conversation ended not long thereafter and they left.

  Peter visited me that evening to find out the results. He was very sorry about the position taken toward me and knew to what it could lead. He said he wanted me to know that if I thought it advisable not to have any further association with him that he would understand.