Crisis of Conscience

by Raymond Franz

  Indicative of this, the Society’s president, Fred Franz, also expressed doubt as to the weight to be given to the expressions of the Branch Committee members. He reminded the Body that he had not voted in favor of the worldwide survey and then, sharply increasing the force of his tone, asked: “Where does all this information come from anyway? Does it come from the top down? Or from the bottom up?” He said that we should not build our decision around the situations found in different countries.

  As noted, this phrase regarding “top” and “bottom” was not new to me. As recently as 1971 in a Watchtower article, Fred Franz had used it, along with reference to the “rank and file” members of the organization. But the whole tone of the discussion was extremely upsetting to me, particularly such expressions as “If we allow the brothers this latitude.” When recognized by Chairman Klein, I reminded the members that it was the Governing Body’s decision to write the Branch Committee members, that those men were among the most respected elders in their respective countries, and if we could not give weight to their expressions then to whose expressions could we do so? I felt compelled to add that my understanding was that we considered ourselves as a brotherhood and had no reason to look on ourselves as the “top” of anything, that we should even find the concept personally repelling.

  What, then, was the final outcome? At the October 11, 1978, meeting, of the sixteen members then on the Body, thirteen were present and nine voted for a change in the traditional policy, four (Henschel, Jackson, Klein, and Fred Franz) did not. This not being a two-thirds majority of the total membership, no change was made. On November 15, the vote showed eleven of sixteen in favor of a change, a two-thirds majority. The motion voted on was one of several suggested and happened to be one I had submitted. It read:

  MOTION

  That where the superior authorities in any land, acting through whatever constituted agency they use, order a brother to perform some form of work (whether because of his conscientious objection to military service or for other reasons), there will be no congregational action taken against such a brother if he submits to that order, provided always that the work he is ordered to do is not in violation of direct commands or clear Scriptural principles found in God’s Word, including that at Isaiah 2:4. — Matt. 5:41; 22:21; 1 Cor.13:1-7; 1 Pet. 2:17; Titus 3:1; Acts 5:29.

  We will continue to exhort our brothers to guard against becoming a part of the world and that in whatever circumstances they find themselves they must keep God’s kingdom foremost, never forgetting that they are slaves of God and of Christ. Thus they should seek to avail themselves of any provision that allows them the greatest freedom to use time, strength and funds for that Kingdom. — John 15:17-19; Acts 25:9-11; 1 Cor. 7:21, 23.

  A two-thirds majority had voted in favor of the motion—but the two-thirds majority did not last long. During a momentary break in the session, a member remarked that there evidently was going to be a change in the vote. He quoted President Franz (who was among those not favoring any change) as saying, “It isn’t over yet; Barry has had second thoughts.” Lloyd Barry had been among the eleven voting in favor of the motion. Why the change? Since the decision could make the difference between men going to prison or not going to prison, I think it is enlightening to realize just what sort of things can happen in a religious governing body holding power to affect the lives of thousands of persons.

  You will note that in the cited texts at the end of the first paragraph of the Motion the citation “1 Cor. 13:1-7” appears. I had meant to put “Rom. 13:1-7” but, perhaps because of familiarity with Paul’s well-known description of love in First Corinthians chapter thirteen, I mistakenly wrote it down as I did. Someone called the matter to my attention during the intermission and the Body was informed of the need to correct this one reference.

  When we reconvened, however, Lloyd Barry stated that he would not vote in favor of the motion with Romans chapter thirteen listed in the citations. Given the opportunity to speak, I suggested to Lloyd that we could simply eliminate the reference completely or even remove all the cited texts if need be to make the motion acceptable for him. Without explaining the basis for his objection, he said he would still not vote for the motion and that he was withdrawing his previous vote. Other members endeavored to find some conciliatory adjustment but were unsuccessful. Though no provision had existed for withdrawal of one’s vote after a motion had passed, we acceded to Barry’s action. The two-thirds majority was gone. After further discussion, when another vote was taken it read: Nine in favor, five against, one abstention.25 Though still a definite majority it was no longer a two-thirds majority. Though only a minority of the Governing Body favored the continuance of the existing policy and the sanctions it applied toward any who accepted alternative service (unless sentenced thereto), that policy remained in effect. Year after year, hundreds of men, submitting to that policy although neither understanding it nor being convinced of its rightness, would continue to be arrested, tried, and imprisoned—because one individual on a religious council changed his mind. Witness men could exercise their conscientious choice of accepting alternative service only at the cost of being cut off from the congregations of which they were a part, being viewed as unfaithful to God and Christ.

  Surely such instances make clear why no Christian should ever be expected to mortgage his conscience to any religious organization or to any body of men exercising virtually unlimited authority over people’s lives. I found the whole affair disheartening, tragic. Yet I felt that I learned more clearly just to what ends the very nature of an authority structure can lead men, how it can cause them to take rigid positions they would not normally take. This case illustrated the way in which the power of tradition, coupled with a technical legalism and a mistrust of people’s motives, can prevent one from taking a compassionate stand.

  The matter came up on one other occasion and the vote was evenly split. Thereafter it was dropped and for most members it seemed to become a non-issue. The organization, following its voting rules, had spoken. The Branch Committees’ arguments need not be answered—they could simply be informed that “nothing had changed” and they would proceed accordingly. The men in prison would never know that the matter had even been discussed and that, consistently, half or more of the Governing Body did not believe they needed to be where they were.

  Illustrating the frequent flaw of inconsistency found in such reasoning is the way a parallel issue was later handled. It originated in Belgium; the country from which the whole issue of alternative service had arisen. The Belgian branch office asked for a ruling on another issue. Belgian law provided for the selecting and assigning of certain persons, generally attorneys, to serve at voting locations during political elections, to assure that the voting procedures were carried on properly. The Branch Committee wanted to know if this was permissible for Witness attorneys. Remarkably, the Governing Body ruled that to serve in this manner would not disqualify one as an approved Witness—though it is difficult to imagine an assignment that would place one in closer contact and involvement with the political process than this.

  1The Watch Tower, April 1882.

  2When the book The New Creation was published in 1909 the viewpoint of organization remained as has been presented. It said, for example: “The test of membership in the New Creation will not be membership in any earthly organization, but union with the Lord as a member of his mystical body; as saith the Apostle, `If any man be in Christ, he is a New Creature …’”

  3The term “Theocratic organization” has been used since the December 1, 1939 Watchtower in particular.

  4Watch Tower, September 15, 1910.

  5The Watch Tower, December 1, 1916, page 356.

  6Charles Taze Russell’s will and testament is presented in full on the first and second page of Appendix A of this 2018 edition of Crisis of Conscience.

  7The Watch Tower, July 15, 1906, page 229. See Chapter 3 footnote 19 of this book.

  8It is worthy of note that when th
e December 15, 1981, Watchtower (page 25) quoted this article it left out entirely the reference to other Watch Tower associates being “fellow servants” along with “that servant” who is the “one channel.” This allowed the magazine to give the false impression that the “faithful slave” was understood as applying to the Watch Tower magazine rather than to Charles Taze Russell. This type of editing can only be termed journalistic dishonesty.

  9The Watch Tower; December 1, 1916, page 356. See also this 2018 edition of Crisis of Conscience, Chapter 3, for photocopied documentation of the Society’s insistence during the 1920’s that Russell was the “faithful and wise servant.”

  10Three months later, in the December 15, Watch Tower, page 371, he warned the magazine’s readers that a test was on and that the “wily adversary” was attempting to “prejudice them against the very instrumentalities God provided to keep the ‘feet’ [the final body members] of Christ in this evil day.” This was being done through certain class leaders who were attempting to supplant the Watch Tower publications with the Bible and Russell states that in so doing they were endeavoring “to come between the people of God and the divinely provided light upon God’s Word.”

  11Compare John 14:26; 1 John 2:27; 5:20.

  12See this 2018 edition of Crisis of Conscience, Chapter 8.

  13As shown earlier, this sometimes, particularly where military issues are involved, comes in the form of automatic “disassociation.”

  14Though saying initially that such “use of leeches would conflict with what the Bible says, “the only Scriptures referred to thereafter are God’s words to Noah that humans should not eat blood (Genesis 9:3, 4), and his command through Moses that the blood of slain animals be poured onto the ground. (Leviticus 17:10-14) Since no human will eat the leech, and no one will likely retain the blood the leech sucks, it is difficult to see what possible connection there is here.

  15See this 2018 edition of Crisis of Conscience, Chapter 5.

  16See this 2018 edition of Crisis of Conscience, Chapter 6, footnote 10.

  17All of these technical distinctions were worked out from the 1940s on through the 1960s. While final approval unquestionably rested with Nathan Knorr, and while the Society’s attorney Hayden Covington was involved during the 1940s and 1950s, the style of reasoning is not typical of either man but is typical of Fred Franz, then vice president. I believe that the later technical distinctions were designed to moderate somewhat the organization’s position, thereby reducing the number of those going to prison (in cases where judges were willing to sentence them to hospital or other work) and yet allow for appearing to be upholding the original position in its basic premise as having been right, God-directed. This elaborate policy remained in effect until the May 1, 1996 Watchtower declared it a matter of conscience.

  18See Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Divine Purpose, page 157.

  19Amnesty International Report for 1988, pages 199, 206.

  20In these, and in the quotations that follow, key points have been underlined.

  21The Swedish government finally solved the matter by exempting Jehovah’s Witnesses totally from all service.

  22It may also be remarked that Paul is notable among the writers of the Christian Scriptures in his frequent use of the Septuagint renderings when quoting from the Hebrew Scriptures, and this is particularly true in his letter to the Romans.

  23The November 1, 1990, Watchtower, page 11, gives a typically one-sided presentation of the matter, stating that Paul’s references to “tax” (and “tribute”) at Romans 13 “refer specifically to money paid to the State.” It cites Luke 10:22 as proof, as if the single reference to a monetary tax there is binding on the sense of phóros everywhere. Evidently the writer made only a cursory study of the subject, yet writes with great definiteness. Even the organization’s own Kingdom Interlinear Translation acknowledges the breadth of application of the term phóros. For the term’s basic meaning, its interlinear reading shows—not “money paid,” or even “tax”—but simply “the thing brought.” The “thing” brought could have been money, or produce or service in the form of compulsory labor. In Biblical times tax could and did involve any of these.

  24The question of substitution equaling equivalency had been raised in the letter (from Belgium) that initiated the whole discussion. The writer, Michel Weber, was an elder who had visited Witnesses in prison in his country and realized their inability to grasp the reasoning behind the Society’s policy. Among other things, he asked why, after refusing a blood transfusion, we did not consistently also refuse any substitute given in place of blood? Should not the reasoning apply in the same way?

  25Lloyd Barry had left on some business matter and so was not present for this vote made necessary by his withdrawal of his previous vote. The five voting against change were Carey Barber, Fred Franz, Milton Henschel, William Jackson and Karl Klein. Ted Jaracz abstained. See this 2018 edition of Crisis of Conscience, Chapter 5, footnote 14.

  APPENDIX C:

  Where is The “Great Crowd” Serving God?

  A discussion of Revelation 7:9−17 in light of events at the Watchtower Society’s headquarters in 1980

  As told by

  Jon A. Mitchell

  1951 − 2004

  Former Secretary to

  The Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses

  Jon Mitchell spent ten years in the full-time ministry of Jehovah’s Witnesses from February, 1971 to February, 1981. The first five years and four months of that period were devoted to “regular pioneering,” and the balance was served at the World Headquarters of the Watchtower Society in Brooklyn, New York, as a member of the “Bethel family.”

  As part of the “Bethel family”, Mr. Mitchell served initially as a receptionist in the lobby of 117 Adams Street, where he organized tours for visitors from 1977 to 1978. From 1979 to 1981, he worked in the Service Department and “Tenth Floor Offices” (later known as the “Executive Offices”) where his responsibilities included doing secretarial work for members of the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

  Much of the research contained in this treatise was completed from 1980 to 1981, while Jon Mitchell was still at the Brooklyn headquarters of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Jon’s conscience troubled him as he reflected on this material, especially in light of Biblical texts like Revelation 22:18−19. Ultimately this motivated him to leave the headquarters staff in February of 1981.

  Appendix C contains Jon Mitchell’s story of the events he observed at Brooklyn Bethel in 1980 to 1981.

  Preface

  The Scriptures teach that Christians are to worship God “with spirit and truth.” (John 4:24) They also indicate that the search for truth must be an ongoing, continuous process, which never ends during the believer’s lifetime. Jesus taught his followers to “keep on asking, … keep on seeking, … keep on knocking, …” (Matthew 7:7, New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures) Paul wrote at 1 Thessalonians 5:21 that we should “make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine.” John admonishes us to “test the inspired expressions to see whether they originate with God …” (1 John 4:1) And the Beroeans are commended at Acts 17:1, for “carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether [the things taught by Paul and Silas] were so.”

  Unfortunately, many people confuse Christian faith with un-questioning acceptance of the things they have been taught by the religious organization to which they belong. This attitude has even been praised by religious leaders as the proper one to have. For example, in the year 1541, “Saint” Ignatius Loyola, founder of the Roman Catholic religious order known as the Jesuits, wrote in Exercitia spiritualia (Spiritual Exercises):

  We should always be disposed to believe that that which appears to us to be white is really black, if the hierarchy of the Church so decides.

  Possessing genuine Christian faith, however, does not mean reaching a point in life where you no longer question the validity of your present religious views. It is, instead, an inner assurance that no matter
how many questions we ask, no matter how much “seeking,” “knocking;” “test[ing],” and “examining” we do, our basis for a substantive faith will be strengthened and not undermined. (Compare Hebrews 11:1 in the New World Translation where faith is defined as “the assured expectation of things hoped for” [Emphasis added.]

  While this treatise discusses portions of the Bible that are commonly understood to relate to the subject of where redeemed mankind will enjoy their eternal reward, it is not intended to establish the answer to this question with finality. Instead, the discussion limits itself specifically to the more narrow focus of the location of “great crowd” described at Revelation 7:9-17 which may or may not have relevance to the future of the earth in God’s great plan for blessing the faithful. The primary purpose of what follows therefore is to examine the methods of Biblical interpretation employed by the Watchtower Society in its explanations of these texts, and to allow the reader the opportunity to determine whether these are in accordance with the principles of sound and honest Biblical scholarship.

  Below is page 1080 of the 1985 edition of the Watchtower Society’s publication, The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures. Note the circled word naos (naõ in this instance since it is in the dative case) translated by the expression “divine habitation” in the literal translation of Revelation 7:15. It is here that the Bible teaches the “great crowd” is serving God.

  (Note To Reader: In Biblical Greek. noun endings change according to case. A singular, masculine noun of the second declension may appear with the endings -os, -ou, -õ, -on, or -e as it appears in the nominative, genitive, dative, accusative and vocative cases, respectively. At Revelation 7:15, naos appears in the dative case [expressing location] and thus is spelled naõ. The general, nominative form, of this word. however, is naos.)

  Where Is The “Great Crowd” Serving God?

  In the summer of 1988, the Watchtower Society released a commentary on the entire last book of the Bible, entitled Revelation—Its Grand Climax At Hand! It is enlightening to consider the information this book contains against the backdrop of events that occurred at the world headquarters of Jehovah’s Witnesses during the early part of the 1980’s. When this is done, it appears that one of the purposes of this book is to shore up the foundations for some of the unique interpretations advanced by Jehovah’s Witnesses relative to this part of the Bible, and to rework some information found in previous commentaries on John’s Apocalypse which may actually be somewhat embarrassing to those who advocate the Society’s explanations.