I reminded him of an incident that took place a year and a half earlier one evening shortly before I went to Brooklyn in May, 1980, for my final session with the Governing Body. He and I were alone in his car and I told him that Cynthia and I had talked things over and decided it would be better not to return to Alabama after the session, but instead go to the home of members of Cynthia’s family. I said that I did not know what might come of the meeting, perhaps “the worst,” and I did not want to create problems for him and his family.14 We felt there was less likelihood that problems would be made for my wife’s family if we went there. He replied that they very much wanted us to return, were counting on it. I told him we appreciated that greatly, but that he had a large family—wife, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, grandchildren and in-laws, all Witnesses—and that if disfellowshipped, my returning could result in considerable difficulty and unpleasantness for them on the part of the organization.
His response was, “I realize that, and don’t think I haven’t thought a lot about it. But we’ve talked it over among ourselves and we’ve crossed that bridge. We want you to come back no matter what.”
It would be difficult to say how much those words had meant to me at that particular time. Now the situation was the other way around and I now told Peter that I did not see how I could do any less than he had done for me. I could not be party to something that labeled a man wicked who had simply acted according to conscience, out of concern for truth and for the interests of others, as he had done.
After the “readjustment” meeting with the two elders of the East Gadsden Congregation, nothing further was said to me until the arrival of Circuit Overseer Wesley Benner, some weeks later. He arranged to come to my home with Dan Gregerson. Tom Gregerson, also a brother of Peter and the second of the four sons of the Gregerson family, was also present at his own request.
The discussion followed the same predictable pattern, except that the Circuit Overseer was inclined to interrupt my statements to the point that I finally had to request that, as a guest in my home, he at least wait until I had finished an expression before breaking in. The “readjustment” was once more based on the Watchtower, not on Scripture. Again, when asked if they really considered Peter Gregerson to be a “wicked” man of the kind described at First Corinthians, chapter 5, or an “antichrist” as described by the apostle John, neither had any comment.
I drew their attention to Romans, chapter fourteen, where the apostle stressed the need to be true to conscience, that anyone who does something while doubting that it is approved of God thereby sins, since “everything that is not out of faith is sin.” Since the Scripture states that, “Anyone pronouncing the wicked one righteous and anyone pronouncing the righteous one wicked—even both of them are detestable to Jehovah,” I could not conscientiously violate that principle by viewing or treating Peter Gregerson as a wicked person, when all I knew about him told me otherwise.15
Benner’s response was that, if I had to be guided by my conscience, so did the elders have to be guided by theirs. That if this was my position then “they would have to take action accordingly.” (Evidently the conscience of the elders did not allow for respecting the conscience of another man, showing tolerance.) What kind of “action” was meant was made quite clear by his further expression. He said he simply viewed himself as one who conveyed the things provided by the organization. Quoting his own words, he said, “I parrot what the Governing Body says.” This was stated with evident pride, for what reasons I could not understand. I have never viewed being a parrot as an achievement of any great merit.
Not long after this the conversation ended and they left. Tom Gregerson shook his head in disbelief, saying the experience had been revealing but depressing; that he would not have believed that men would say things such as he had heard.
By the first of November the same judicial machinery that had functioned in Brooklyn, began functioning in Gadsden. Phone calls asking one thing after another came from the elders. I was advised that a judicial committee would meet with me.
I had been planning to write to the Governing Body to submit my resignation to membership in the Society’s corporations. (I had been a voting member of both the Pennsylvania and the New York corporations for several years.).16 Along with informing the Body that I was resigning from such membership, on November 5, I wrote:
That same day a phone call came from the elders. Their calls had been so numerous and the approach so unbrotherly that my wife and I both began to feel emotionally upset every time we heard the phone ring. I instructed my wife that if the elders phoned and I was not there that she should inform them that anything they had to say to put it in writing. So, she now passed this information on. The next day the appointed judicial committee wrote, the letter arriving November 10, 1981.
Many of Jehovah’s Witnesses find it incredible that I was actually disfellowshipped because of eating a meal with a man, Peter Gregerson. Some insist that this could not be the case. I believe the correspondence that now developed makes the matter plain. The first letter, sent by the judicial committee, was dated November 6, 1981.
This letter makes clear that one charge, and one charge only, formed the basis for their “judicial action,” namely, my “association with a disassociated person.”
In my written response, I pointed out to the Gadsden elders that, I had written to the Governing Body for clarification of the meaning of the material published in the September 15, 1981, Watchtower, and wondered why they had given no consideration to this, evidently being unwilling to allow time for me to receive a reply. I also pointed out the unreasonableness of having Dan Gregerson serve on the judicial committee when he had already presented himself as my accuser. I expressed the hope that the judicial committee might be enlarged to make more likely a fair and impartial discussion of this new policy and its application.17
I sent this letter and a week later, on Friday, November 20, when I arrived home from work, my wife told me that Elder Theotis French had phoned. They would be meeting as a judicial committee the very next day, Saturday afternoon, he said. They had sent me a letter to that effect.
In that afternoon’s mail there was a notice of a certified letter. I hurriedly drove to the Post Office and was able to obtain the letter before closing time. The letter was dated November 19, 1981.
The letter was not merely formal. It might as well have come from some civil court, for, although signed “Your brothers,” it conveyed none of the warmth of a Christian brotherhood. Cold legalism dominated its tone. Yet, unless I had already been prejudged (which they affirmed was not the case), there surely should have been a brotherly spirit expressed, a sense of compassionate concern for the life interests of the man to whom they wrote. Setting aside my entire adult life’s service among Jehovah’s Witnesses or my having served on their Governing Body or my age and existing circumstances—setting all that aside, they still should have manifested some measure of loving interest, even if they viewed me as ‘one of the least of Christ’s brothers.’ (See Matthew chapter twenty-five, verse 40.) I do not believe the unfeeling spirit expressed originated with these men. It had another source. The letter was typical.
My wife had already informed Elder French in the phone conversation that we had guests arriving from out of state on Saturday and that there was no way to communicate with them or change our plans.
The following Monday, November 23, I again wrote to express my dismay at the hurried and inconsiderate manner in which the judicial committee was proceeding.
That very afternoon a phone call came from Elder French stating that the judicial committee would meet two days later, on Wednesday evening (November 25) and make their decision whether I was present or not. I decided that it was useless to mail the letter I had written to them. They seemed to be in an enormous hurry, a “rush to judgment.” I do not personally think that this was of their own initiative. As the chairman of the committee later acknowledged, they were in communication with th
e Society’s representative, Circuit Overseer Wesley Benner. Many of their expressions and attitudes reflected remarkably those made by him in my home. He, in turn, was almost certainly in touch with the Service Department of the Brooklyn headquarters, and that department was—beyond any doubt—in communication with the Governing Body. This is not unusual; it is the usual way in which things work. The methods employed were not surprising to me; they were simply depressing.
When Wednesday (November 25) came, I decided that, rather than be tried in absentia, I would go to their meeting which Elder French said would be held “Wednesday evening.” That afternoon I called the home of one of the committee members to ascertain the exact time. The man’s wife said that he was already at the Kingdom Hall. I phoned the Hall and found that they were going to have the meeting in the afternoon—to them the “evening” apparently meant any time after 3 p.m. I told them that I had not understood that, that no specific time had been given me and asked it they could postpone their meeting till after 6 p.m. They agreed.
Tom Gregerson had said that he wanted to accompany me and I now phoned him. On arriving at the Kingdom Hall we went into the conference room where the judicial committee, Elders French (chairman), Bryant and Johnson were. They informed Tom that he could not be present except to give testimony. He said he wanted to be present since about thirty-five Jehovah’s Witnesses worked for the company (Warehouse Groceries) of which he was an officer. He wanted to know just what position was being taken on this issue. Their answer was still, No.
After his departure, the committee opened the hearing and called in the witnesses. There were two: Dan Gregerson and Mrs. Robert Daley.
Dan spoke first. He said he had seen me in the Western Steak House along with Peter Gregerson (and our wives). This was the essence of his testimony. When he finished, I asked him when this was and he acknowledged that it was in the summer and hence before the September 15, 1981, Watchtower, with its new ruling that called for treating anyone voluntarily disassociating himself the same as though he were disfellowshipped. I told the committee that unless they believed in ex post facto laws, Dan’s testimony was irrelevant.
The other witness was then asked to present her testimony. She testified to essentially the same thing as Dan, except that the occasion in the restaurant was after the publishing of the September 15, 1981, Watchtower.
I readily acknowledged that I had indeed had a meal with Peter at the time she referred to. I also asked her if it was not the case that she and her husband (an elder in the East Gadsden congregation) had similarly eaten a meal with Peter? (Peter had gone to Morrison’s Cafeteria one day and found himself in line right behind Elder Daley and his wife. Since, previous to his present marriage, Daley had been Peter’s stepfather, having married Peter’s mother after his father’s death, Peter now nudged Daley and Daley turned, began talking with Peter and asked Peter to sit with them and the three conversed throughout the meal. This, too, was after the September 15, 1981, Watchtower’s appearance.)
The witness became quite excited at this and said that while that was true, afterward she had told some of the “Sisters” that she knew it was not right and would never do it again. (Later, after the hearing, I mentioned this to Peter and he said, “But they ate with me twice! Another day I went into Morrison’s and they were already seated and when they saw me they waved to me to come and sit with them.” The witness said nothing of this second occasion, which was unknown to me at the time of the hearing.)
That was the absolute sum and substance of the “evidence” against me. The two witnesses left.
The judicial committee then began asking me about my position toward the September 15, 1981, Watchtower. I inquired why they had not been willing to wait for the Governing Body’s response to my inquiry on this, written on November 5? The chairman, Theotis French, brought his hand down on the September 15 Watchtower open before him and said, “This is all the authority we need.”
I asked if they would not feel more confident if they had confirmation of their viewpoint from the Governing Body? He repeated that ‘they had to go by what was published,’ and that, anyway ‘they had called Brooklyn on the matter.’ This was the first I had heard anything about such a call. Evidently that was why, when I spoke to the committee chairman, Elder French, on the phone two days earlier he had said that the body of elders “did not feel it was necessary” to wait for the Governing Body to answer my letter! They followed the same secretive course followed earlier by the Chairman’s Committee and apparently did not feel any need whatsoever to let me know that they had already communicated by telephone with the Brooklyn headquarters.
I asked if they spoke with someone on the Governing Body. The answer was, No, that they talked with a member of the Service Department. What had they been told? French said they were told, “Nothing has changed and you can go ahead.”
French said that his understanding was that “the Society has taken a hard look at the previous position [in the 1974 Watchtower] and they are now going back to the way it was before.” (This is basically the way Circuit Overseer Benner expressed himself in my home.) Theotis went on to say that “the Watchtower helps us to see where to draw a fine line” in these matters. Elder Edgar Bryant added, “We are all trying to put ourselves in line with what the Watchtower requires.”
Up to this point none of the three men had made any reference to the Bible. I stressed that this was my guide. On what Scriptural basis should I consider Peter Gregerson as a person unfit to eat with?
Elder Johnson turned to First Corinthians, chapter five, began reading a couple of verses, hesitated and stopped, making no application of the information. I asked each member of the committee individually, if he himself could say he honestly believed Peter Gregerson was the kind of person described in such texts, including John’s writings about “antichrists”? Theotis French reacted with some agitation, saying ‘it wasn’t up to him to make a judgment of the man,’ that ‘he didn’t know everything about Peter so as to make such a judgment.’ I asked him how, then, they could possibly ask me to make such a judgment and be governed by it, when they themselves were not willing to do so?
His response was, “We didn’t come here to have you teach us, Brother Franz.” I assured him that I was not there to “teach” them, but that my whole course of life as a Christian was being put in question, was at issue, and I felt I had a right to express myself. Neither Edgar Bryant nor Larry Johnson would make any clear statement as to how they viewed Peter Gregerson, eating a meal with whom was now being treated as a “criminal” act.
The chairman then said he saw no purpose in further discussion. Tom Gregerson was called in to see if he had any testimony to give. When he asked what effect this Watchtower position would have on Witness employees in his company who periodically might travel with, or attend a meal in company with, a disassociated person, Larry Johnson said they were not there to answer that question, Tom could bring the question up at another time.18 Tom replied that he had been asking the question for some time, had asked the Circuit Overseer, and still had no answer. There was no response, the meeting concluded and we left. The judicial committee remained behind to discuss the “evidence.”
About a week later, the phone rang and Larry Johnson informed me that the committee’s decision was for disfellowshipping. I had seven days from the date of his phone call in which to appeal their decision.
I wrote them a lengthy letter, my “appeal” letter. I felt that whatever I had to say it would be best to put it in writing. What is spoken can be easily changed, twisted or simply forgotten; what is written remains and is not so easily ignored. My experience at the previous hearing made it obvious that a very unhealthy climate prevailed and that even in an appeal hearing the likelihood of any calm, reasoned Scriptural discussion of matters was quite remote.
In the letter I called their attention to the Society’s published counsel that elders on a judicial committee should “weigh matters carefully,” that they shoul
d not look for “rigid rules for guidance,” but “think in terms of principles,” that they should “be sure the counsel is based solidly on God’s Word,” should “take sufficient time and endeavor to reach the heart of the person,” should “discuss the application of the scriptures that apply and be sure that he [the one accused] understands.” That was what was said; it was not what was being done (yet what was being done was known to the ones responsible for the publishing of that same counsel). The essence of my position is perhaps summed up in these two paragraphs:
I closed making yet another appeal that they honor my request to wait for a reply from the Governing Body to my letter of November 5.19
By now, however, I had little doubt but that the Governing Body had no intention of answering my letter. One month had already passed and they were well aware of my circumstances and how critically some statement from them was needed. From my years of experience on the Body I knew that, though preferring to remain in the background, they were very definitely kept informed of every development in my case. The Service Department would be expected to pass on all information, and it in turn would be supplied with reports from the Circuit Overseer. Both the actions and the expressions made by the local elders indicated that procedures were orchestrated from the center of authority, through the Circuit Overseer. The center of authority, the Governing Body, was willing to communicate with those who were judging me, doing so through their Service Department, but they were not willing to respond to my petition written to them, not even to acknowledge receipt of the letter.
So, on December 11, seven weeks after my initial letter, I again wrote the Governing Body, sending them a copy of my “appeal letter” and reminding them of my letter to them dated November 5.20
Crisis of Conscience Page 38