Crisis of Conscience

by Raymond Franz

  To leave such a moral legacy deeply concerns me; nothing else surpasses it in the thoughts of my heart. As Phillips renders Romans 14:7, “the truth is that we neither live nor die as self-contained units. At every turn life links us to the Lord and when we die we come face to face with him.” I would hope that, if in no other matter, perhaps at least in this we share a mutual thought, a compatible depth of concern.

  As with other letters, this one received no response. I am, nonetheless, glad today that I wrote it. Viewing the end of my uncle’s life, the sadness felt is not only for what was, but more deeply for what might have been.

  Fred Franz’s death resulted in the naming of a new corporation president, and, as the material written in this book in 1983 indicated as a likely step, Milton Henschel was appointed as his replacement.8 Franz’s death did facilitate change. But this is not—as some would present the matter—because of a new corporation president, since the corporation presidency no longer carries with it any special power. Fred Franz’s voice had power, not because of the corporation office he occupied but because of his being viewed as the organization’s major scholar. His successor, Milton Henschel, possessed none of that prestige. The change in the interpretation of the expression “1914-generation,” considered in chapter 10 is perhaps the one major doctrinal adjustment that has been made since Fred Franz’ death, and even this leaves the basic teachings regarding the date of 1914 in place.

  If the ultimate effect of the restructuring of 1975-76 was like moving the inner walls of a house around, then whatever changes of personnel that take place within the administration might be compared to a rearranging of the furniture or adding new pieces—in both cases the house itself remains the same. As mentioned, of the 10 other men forming the Governing Body at the time of my appointment, none remains alive. Their deaths have produced no fundamental change in the essential character of the administration. For nearly two decades, those collectively exercising the most powerful influence among the members of the Governing Body, were Milton Henschel, Ted Jaracz and Lloyd Barry.9 From 1999 to 2008, Lloyd Barry, Lyman Swingle, Karl Klein, Milton Henschel, Dan Sydlik, Albert Schroeder, and Carey Barber have died. Ted Jaracz is 83, and Jack Barr is 95 years old. With these lifetime members of the Body becoming aged, some becoming incapacitated and others dying; these factors have undoubtedly led to the appointment of seven new members. Beginning with Gerrit Lösch, from Austria, appointed in 1994, four others were appointed in 1999, Samuel Herd (the first African-American member), Stephen Lett, Guy Pierce, and David Splane. Then two more members were added in 2005, Geoffrey Jackson and Anthony Morris III, bringing the total membership to nine.

  This highlights yet one more area where the use of special dates portends potential difficulty. These seven latest members are all of the professedly “anointed” class. Watchtower teaching is that the divine invitation to form part of such “anointed class” had accomplished the gathering of the full number of 144,000 as of the year 1935 and was replaced by the call to earthly life on the part of a “great crowd.”10 However, what is the case with Gerrit Lösch is evidently essentially true of the other new members. He was born in 1941, hence 27 years after 1914, and was baptized in 1959, or some 24 years after the supposed change of the call from a heavenly to an earthly class in 1935. Basically the same is evidently the case with the six newest members and their average age indicates that they too were likely born after the supposed “cutoff” date of 1935 (David Splane was born in 1944). Logically, for anyone today to have been of the “anointed” as of 1935, such one would have to have been at least in his or her teens in that year to make such profession, which would mean, at the very least, being beyond 85 years of age today. One can but wonder how many of the 9,100 “anointed” today are of that age. Even as the passage of years made the claims regarding the “1914-generation” embarrassingly difficult to sustain, so, too, with the date of 1935 as the time when the formation of an “anointed” class supposedly reached its divinely appointed point of closure.

  The introduction of new members to the Governing Body must meet the approval of the existing members and particularly of those with dominant influence and, rather than automatically increase likelihood of change, the selection process tends to maintain the status quo. There is no question but that it is becoming more and more difficult to find “suitable” candidates for membership on the Body in view of the dwindling number of “anointed” men. This conceivably could some day oblige the Governing Body to back away from its fundamental requirement that its membership is open only to those of such class. That would be difficult to harmonize, however, with their doctrine about the privileged status of the “faithful and discreet slave class.”

  Some viewed the announcement, in the April 15, 1992, Watchtower, page 31, as perhaps indicating a shift in this regard. Two main articles of this issue set forth the Watch Tower doctrine that Christians today fall into two main classes: “citizens” and “foreigners” or, put in other terms, “spiritual Jews” and “spiritual Gentiles.” Thus, the about 9,100 members of the “anointed” are “citizens,” the “spiritual Israelites,” forming the “chosen race” and “royal priesthood” of 1 Peter 2:9, while the several million “other sheep” are the “foreigners,” the “spiritual Gentiles,” spiritual “alien residents,” likened to those “foreigners” who would “build walls” or be “farmers” and “vinedressers” for Israel, the service in each of these cases being presented in the Bible accounts themselves as an evidence of subservience to the ones to whom it was rendered.

  This is all in striking contrast to apostolic writings, which know of no such class separation and stress instead the equality of standing among Christians before God, even as Paul stated that in Christ there is ‘no distinction between Jew and Greek, slave and free.’ (Romans 10:12; Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:11) Those literal racial and economic distinctions are replaced in Watch Tower teaching by distinctions of spiritual race and spiritual subservience or servitude. It does this by “overprinting” the Christian arrangement with Old Covenant circumstances and arrangements, in a sense spiritually “turning the clock back” to pre-Christian times and nullifying the radical change brought about by Christ.

  The April 15, 1992, Watchtower articles in effect introduce yet a third class, or sub-class, the spiritual “Nethinim” and “sons of the servants of Solomon.” The articles emphasize that these groups were elevated from mere slavery to a higher status, and quote reference works that speak of the ‘raised social position, station or status’ of the Nethinim and of their becoming “established as a sacred official class, [so] that privileges are accorded to them.” With no Scriptural evidence to show that it should be so, the articles assert that these Old Testament circumstances should have a modern-day parallel. (Initially the material linked with the Nethinim the non-Levite “male and female singers” at the temple but thereafter mention of them is dropped, undoubtedly because they include women. So, the writer of the articles arbitrarily decides just how far the claimed “parallel” should go and what it should or should not include.) The articles proceed to place emphasis on a class of men having privileges involving “administrative responsibilities,” and they thereafter represent the ancient “Nethinim” and “sons of the servants of Solomon” as typifying Witness men today who are traveling overseers, members of Branch Committees, men who prepare material for publication at the world headquarters, or who oversee Society residences and factories, or supervise construction work in various countries. Quite clearly, this leaves all the remaining “foreigners,” the other millions of “spiritual Gentiles” or “other sheep” as of lesser privilege and of unequal status with this newly identified sub-class. The articles breathe an underlying spirit of love for special privilege and organizational position, a spirit that is embodied in the supremacy of privilege and authority held by the Governing Body members, who are undeniably ‘in a class by themselves.’

  The arrangement that evidently prompted the writing of these
articles—that of having other men sit in on committee meetings of the Governing Body—is actually new only in the sense of the number involved. From early on, following the formation of Governing Body committees in 1976, men from the headquarters staff were appointed to serve as secretaries to the five Governing Body committees (Personnel, Publishing, Service, Teaching and Writing), and each of these five men (David Mercante, Don Adams, Robert Wallen, David Sinclair, and Karl Adams) were from the “non-anointed” class. These secretaries not only sat in on the respective committee meetings but were also allowed to participate in the discussions, though not to vote. Nothing is said of voting in the April 15, 1992, Watchtower announcement and it may be assumed that this remains the prerogative of the Governing Body members at the committee meeting. Only Governing Body members evidently continue to be present at sessions of the full body (where even the mentioned secretaries did not attend).

  So, the new arrangement meant nothing more than that, instead of one non-Governing Body member present at the committee meetings, there would now be two or three. Only in an organization where position and privilege are viewed with such concern could this simple adjustment be presented as of notable significance, needing a worldwide announcement.

  The organization could not actually introduce “non-anointed” men into the Governing Body itself without critically weakening its claims regarding a “faithful and discreet slave class” composed solely of “anointed” persons. From personal knowledge I would say that there is no question that there are scores of “non-anointed” men in various countries who are far more capable, who have a better knowledge of Scripture and greater ability to convey that knowledge, demonstrate more insight, even a higher level of spirituality, than many of the current members of the Governing Body. But to admit them to that elite body would be to place spiritual “foreigners” on an equality with the spiritual “citizens,” move the spiritual “non-Levite temple helpers” up to equality with the spiritual “royal priesthood” class. That would blur and, in a practical sense, dissolve all the distinctions the Watch Tower’s doctrine has called for during the past half century. I would think the Governing Body would resist doing that as long as it is humanly possible. As with 1914, the very traditional views so ardently advocated may thus become frustrating chains that hinder them from doing what prudence and practicality would normally call for. They may be helped by the fact that periodically down through the years younger members in the organization have decided that they were “of the anointed” (as was the case with the seven latest members) and thus have become possible candidates for membership in the Body.

  A major mistake in looking for reform from the direction of personnel changes is, I believe, in thinking that the situation owes to the particular men in charge. Only in a secondary sense is that the case. Primarily, it is not the men. As stated, it is the concept that controls, the premise on which the whole movement is founded.

  It can never be overlooked that what most markedly distinguishes the beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses is not their disbelief of eternal torment or of the inherent immortality of the soul or of the trinity, nor their use of the name Jehovah, or their belief in a paradise earth. Every one of these features can be found in other religious organizations.11

  What especially distinguishes their teachings from any other denomination is the keystone doctrine centered on 1914 as the date when Christ’s active rulership began, his commencing judgment then and, above all, his selecting the Watch Tower organization as his official channel, his assigning full control of all his earthly interests to a “faithful and discreet slave class” while giving ultimate authority to its ruling body. Any abandoning of that keystone teaching would affect the whole doctrinal structure and is extremely unlikely, would be very difficult to explain. There is no reason at present to expect other than a determined effort through the columns of the Watchtower and other publications to shore up their defense of the interpretations supporting, or resulting from, that date, and to sustain faith in the claims based on it. Most important among those claims is that related to organizational authority, and here again there is presently a very intensive campaign to solidify support of, and loyalty to, that authority structure. If the past is any indication, the direction taken by the current leadership will follow that course, resisting whatever does not uphold and promote the traditional teachings, methods and policies now in force.

  True, each year that passes places more of a strain on the 1914 teaching and those claims of divinely assigned authority coupled with it. As the evidence indicates, the teaching about the “generation” living in 1914 simply became too difficult to sustain with any credibility and so an “adjustment” was made. Despite this, with the advent of a new millennium, and particularly with the year 2014 approaching, the year 1914 is certain to seem quite ancient to many. The change in the teaching about the “1914-generation” may thus prove to be only a temporary postponement of the problem, a sort of “delaying action” in their struggle against the effects of the unrelenting advance of time.

  There is a French expression that says, Plus ça change, plus ça reste le même, meaning basically, “The more things change, the more they remain the same.” The changes that have been made in recent years ultimately only demonstrate the core nature of the organization, the unchanging character and mindset that dominates. As with the changes that have been made, so too with whatever future changes that may yet come, they will most certainly be heralded, not as the correction of error, but as the product of progressive revelation, and the past doctrines or arrangements that may be discarded will be depicted as ‘God’s will for that time.’

  All this reminds me of some comments that Charles Davis, a former priest and leading Catholic theologian of Great Britain, wrote in his book A Question of Conscience. He said of the writings of the church’s principal authority figures:

  The words are not alive. They are not at the service of living minds, but in slavery to a fixed unalterable pattern. . . . Any suggestion of questioning . . . or humble searching after truth not yet possessed is carefully avoided. Above all, there is never an admission of past error or a frank avowal that present statements contradict past teaching. . . . Official documents as an habitual rule cover over changes of attitude and teaching with specious claims to continuity with illustrious predecessors.

  As the evidence has shown, that is essentially what the Watch Tower organization does whenever it acknowledges a change in its teachings. Showing the effects upon people within the system, Davis goes on to say:

  . . . all genuine love rests upon truth. Christian love is no exception. It rests upon faith as an entry into the truth of God and a liberation of man to all truth. Christians for whom doctrine is distorted into prejudice and who are rendered tense and fearful by the suppression of questioning, cannot love as they should. They are without the full basis of Christian truth for their love. They fear the freedom that would liberate them for love. They are too repressed and anxious to meet others with joy and tolerance. . . . Only those who shake off the pressure of the institution and manage largely to ignore it are able to release the full expansive dynamism of Christian love. . . .

  People are, however, held by an institution in which they have no real part or say and in which they cannot be themselves. They are reluctant to release themselves from it because they see no alternative and instinctively they want some social structure in which to live as Christians. But the more earnest they are the greater the tension of living under a structure that simply does not correspond to their experience and needs. Recent changes have increased the tension by raising hopes without fulfilling them, and their chief effect has been to show that tinkering with the present structure is no solution. . . .

  There is great talk of renewal, couched in high-flown spiritual language, but when the first tentative reforms begin to have practical effects, the authorities draw back, uttering warnings and issuing new restrictions. . . . The plain fact is that the present system cannot
take more than superficial adjustments. I do not want to give the impression of disparaging the noble efforts of those working for reform. I admire their aims and determination. But it seems to me they cannot fully succeed within the present framework of the institutional Church. They are asking for more freedom than it can allow while retaining its present identity.12

  Again, there seems to be a strong parallel with those among Jehovah’s Witnesses who continue to hope, in spite of any evidence to the contrary, that some type of major reform will take place. As stated earlier, even the recent changes made seem to be simply a case of dealing with symptoms rather than the root cause of the illness or disease, which is the heavy emphasis on organizational authority and its right to dictate to human consciences and control personal thinking. As Davis puts it: “There is a possibility that the cause of the disease will be advocated as its remedy.”

  Thus, each Watchtower article setting out a major change, fails to face up to the problem of the original false reasoning and misuse of Scripture that makes change necessary. Rather, it consistently seeks to cast the change in the light of evidence for putting trust in, and being submissive to, the system that gave the wrong understanding, not only gave it but insisted on it and took action against any not accepting it. In each case, as well, one sees clear and regrettable evidence that the change results, not from pure love of truth or deep devotion to Scripture or compassionate concern for people, but comes instead when the previous position has become precarious, difficult to sustain, sometimes embarrassingly so, as with regard to certain teachings relating to 1914, or, in other cases, when interests in avoiding taxation or other restrictions are at stake.13 That is why the hopes for genuine and fundamental reform, for the present at least, give evidence of being essentially wishful thinking.14