Open Side Menu Search Icon

    Index Downloading...

    16. Chapter 13. Perspective

    Crisis of Conscience (1983)

    Crisis of Conscience

    Chapter 13. Perspective

    Therefore we do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day. For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all. So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.

    — 2 Corinthians 4:16-18 New International Version.

    THIS, then, is my account and these are the fundamental issues that produced in me a crisis of conscience. The effect they had, my feelings, reactions, conclusions reached, are set forth and the reader can assess them for whatever they are worth. Simply put, my question is: How would your own conscience have been affected?

    What with nearly six thousand million people on earth and only God knows how many generations in the past, the life of any one person is but a minute fraction of the whole. We are very tiny drops in a very big stream. Yet Christianity teaches us that, small and inconsequential as we are, we can each contribute good to others that is out of proportion to our own smallness.1 Faith makes that possible, and, as the apostle expresses it, “the love of Christ urges us on.”2

    We do not need the bulk of a big organization to back us up, nor its headship, control, proddings and pressure, to accomplish this. Heart appreciation for God’s undeserved kindness in making life a “free gift,” not dependent on works but on faith, is sufficient, more than enough, to motivate us. If we respect and cherish our Christian freedom, we will respond to no other compulsion. Neither will we submit to any other yoke than the one offered in these words:

    Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.3

    I feel certain that when life comes to its close the only thing that will, in retrospect, bring any true sense of satisfaction is the extent to which life was used to contribute to the welfare of others, primarily spiritually, and, secondarily, emotionally, physically and materially.

    I cannot believe that “ignorance is bliss,” or that there is any kindness in encouraging people to live in illusions. Sooner or later, illusion must meet up with reality. The longer it takes for this to happen, the more traumatic the transition—brought on by disillusionment—can be. I am only glad it did not take any longer than it did in my own case.

    That is why I have written what I have written. I have sincerely sought to be accurate throughout the account. Based on what has happened already and what has been published and circulated through rumors and gossip, I have no doubt but that effort will be made to disparage the significance of the information. Whatever may be said, I can only say that I am willing to stand by what I have presented. If there are errors, I will be grateful to anyone who will point such out to me and I will do whatever I can to make correction.

    What does the future hold for the organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses and its central Governing Body? Though often asked this, I have no way of knowing. Time alone will tell.

    There are some things that I feel a measure of certainty about, but only a few. I do not personally foresee a mass movement out of the organization. The reports worldwide at the start of the new millennium indicate problems, as shown in a previous chapter, yet there is still some measure of growth, even if diminished. The vast majority of Jehovah’s Witnesses are simply unaware of the realities of the authority structure. From lifelong experience among them, in many countries, I know that for a large percentage the organization has a certain “aura,” as though a luminous radiation surrounds it, giving its pronouncements an importance above and beyond that normally accorded the words of imperfect men. Most assume that Governing Body sessions are on an unusually high level, manifesting more than ordinary Scriptural knowledge and spiritual wisdom. As Witnesses, all are, in fact, admonished thus:

    After being nourished to our present spiritual strength and maturity, do we suddenly become smarter than our former provider and forsake the enlightening guidance of the organization that mothered us?4

    There are constant admonitions to be humble, which translates into accepting whatever the organization provides as coming from a source of superior wisdom. The fact that the average Witness has only a misty idea of the way that the leadership arrives at its conclusions adds to the aura of esoteric wisdom. It is, they are told, “the only organization on earth that understands the ‘deep things of God.’”5

    Few of these Witnesses have ever confronted the issues dealt with in this book, the challenge to conscience they raise. I incline to believe that many, perhaps most, would prefer not to face those issues. Some have personally expressed their feeling to me that they enjoy their friendships within the organization and would not want to see these disturbed. I also enjoyed mine and had no desire to see them disturbed; I felt, and still feel, affection for the people with whom I spent most of my life. But I also felt that there were issues of truth and honesty, of fairness and justice, of love and mercy, that were bigger than those friendships and my enjoyment of them.

    By this I am not saying that I think anyone should precipitate difficulty, seek or force a confrontation that is unnecessary. I can sympathize wholeheartedly with those who are of families composed of Jehovah’s Witnesses and who know full well the wrenching effect it could have on family relationships if the members were called upon to treat a son or daughter, brother or sister, father or mother, as an “apostate,” a God-rejected, spiritually unclean person. I have never encouraged anyone to precipitate such a situation; I tried to avoid precipitating it in my own case.

    But given the existing climate in the organization, it has become increasingly difficult to avoid this without compromising conscience, without ‘acting a part,’ pretending to believe what one may not believe, what one may actually be convinced is a perversion of the Word of God, producing unchristian fruitage, hurtful results.

    I know a number of persons who have tried to withdraw quietly and some who have been, in a sense, “in hiding,” persons who actually went to the extent of moving to another area and who sought to keep their whereabouts unknown (organizationally) so as to avoid harassment. I could cite case after case where, despite all efforts at avoiding confrontation, elders have sought the persons out, their only concern apparently being to extract from them some statement of their position—not toward God, Christ or the Bible—but toward “the organization.” If the persons fail in this “loyalty test,” presented as a clear ultimatum, they are almost always disfellowshipped, cut off from friends and family if these are members of the organization.

    Typical is the experience of one young woman, a wife and mother, in southern Michigan. She had been interrogated by the elders because of her doubts about certain teachings and had been so emotionally affected by the experience that she had withdrawn from attending meetings. After some months, a phone call came from the elders requesting that she meet with them again. She said she did not want to undergo that experience again. They urged her to do it, saying that they wanted to ‘help her with her doubts’ and that this would be the last time they would ask her to meet with them. Her husband, not a Witness, recommended that she go and “have it over with.” She went.

    As she said, “Within the first ten minutes I could see the direction they were taking.” Half an hour from the start of their questioning they had disfellowshipped her. She says the time factor alone stunned her. As she put it, “I couldn’t believe they were doing this. I sat there the whole time sobbing and within thirty minutes they had ‘kicked me out of the Kingdom.’ I would have thought they would have got down on the floor with tears in their eyes, pleading with me for hours, to prevent that from happening.” One of the five elders, a man who dozed off during the discussion, later said in her hearing, “The nerve of that woman to say that she wasn’t sure if this was God’s organization or not.”

    If efforts to avoid the unwanted confrontation fail, I think there is then consolation in knowing that the reason for any family distress and heartache rests on one side only. It is fully and entirely the fruitage of an organizational policy that calls upon members to report to the elders any expression of dissent, even if by family members, and a policy backed by the threat of expulsion for anyone who fails to treat disassociated or disfellowshipped persons as though they were rejected by God, no matter how sincere and devoted one may know them to be. The religious intolerance that acts as the divisive force, destructive of family oneness and affection, is not mutual therefore. Jesus said that it would be his disciples who would be handed over to religious judicial bodies for trial, not that they would be the ones handing others over to such bodies. He warned that those who held true to his teachings would be “betrayed even by parents and brothers, by relatives and friends,” not that they would be the ones doing the betraying.6 As in Jesus’ day, so today, the divisive force comes from one side, one source, a source that equates conscientious disagreement with disloyalty. There is where the real responsibility for the broken family relationships, ruined friendships and the accompanying emotional hurt and distress ultimately rests.

    Many Witnesses, though deeply concerned over what they see, find it difficult to adjust to the thought of serving God without being connected to some powerful organization, having the benefit of its largeness, its strength of numbers. True, Jehovah’s Witnesses are a small organization compared to many, but they are widespread. Their visible structures are not as impressive as those of the Vatican or of some other major religions; nonetheless, the expanding international headquarters, which now owns a sizeable chunk of Brooklyn, the many Branch facilities, some with large printing establishments, all built or bought at the cost of millions of dollars and staffed by hundreds of workers (in Brooklyn, by around three thousand), the large Assembly Halls and the many thousands of Kingdom Halls (not a few costing more than a quarter million dollars to build), are sufficient to impress the average person. Every new acquisition or expansion of material properties is hailed as indicative of divine blessing and evidence of the organization’s spiritual prosperity and success. Above all, the teaching that they are, exclusively, the one people on earth with whom God has dealings, and that the direction they receive from the Governing Body is from a divinely appointed “channel,” helps produce a sense of cohesion, of specialness. The view of all other persons as “worldlings” contributes to this feeling of a close-knit relationship.

    Because of this, I think it is equally as difficult for the average Witness to contemplate serving God without these things as it was for Jewish persons in the first century to contemplate such service apart from the religious arrangements they were accustomed to. The impressive temple buildings and courtyards at Jerusalem, with temple service carried out by a large staff of hundreds and thousands of dedicated workers, Levites and priests, their claim to be exclusively the chosen people of God, with all others viewed as unclean, stood in tremendous contrast to the Christians of that time, who had no large buildings, who met in simple homes, who had no separate priestly or Levite class, and who humbly acknowledged that ‘in every nation the man that fears God and works righteousness is acceptable to him.’7

    Quite a number, particularly among elders of Jehovah’s Witnesses, express the sincere hope that some kind of “reform” will take place to correct the wrongs they are conscious of, both doctrinally and organizationally. Some have looked for this to come about by a change of personnel in the leadership. Even before I went on my leave of absence from the headquarters in early 1980, a member of a Branch Committee of a major country, a discerning person who realized the distress I felt over the existing attitudes and situation, said to me, “Ray, don’t give up! These are old men, they will not live forever.” This expression was not reflective of a hard, unfeeling, cynical personality, for the person who spoke it is just the opposite of that; he is a very kind, warmhearted man. Such expressions are often born of a belief that some change must come, that the trend toward an ever harder line and an increasingly dogmatic stance must give way to a more Christian approach, a more humble presentation of beliefs.

    Personally, I do not believe that fundamental change is to be expected simply as a result of men in authority dying. I say fundamental change, for there have been changes in varying degrees throughout the history of the movement, some as a result of the deaths of Russell and Rutherford. During Russell’s life a considerable measure of autonomy existed, and though disagreement with his views may have been deprecated, it was not crushed by his exercise of authority. Russell’s death and the issue of control his successor faced led to the extreme focus on “organization” and organizational authority and control that has ever since characterized the Witness community. Whatever moderating changes that have followed Rutherford’s death, the basic foundation has remained the same. The change in the authority structure in 1975-76 was as major an adjustment as has taken place in the whole history of the organization. Authority was spread out to a body of men, with many new faces coming to the fore. Yet the power of traditional beliefs and traditional policies has overcome any effort to bring about a genuine change from speculative interpretations, dogmatism, Talmudic legalism, control by an elite group, repressive measures, replacing these with a simple brotherhood, united in essentials, tolerant and yielding in nonessentials, both in belief and practice.

    In questioning the validity of points made in this chapter with regard to prospects of reform, the book Apocalypse Delayed by M. James Penton (2nd edition, on pages 333, 334) refers to major changes in other organizations brought about by change in leadership. The book then states: “It is therefore wrong to discount the possibility of change from the top within Jehovah’s Witnesses.” As a review of the material found in this and previous editions of Crisis of Conscience shows, there is no denial of the possibility of change from that source but rather the point is made that the evidence points to an obstacle greater than the personnel of the leadership.

    Of the eleven men who were on the Governing Body when I entered it in 1971, I am the only one yet alive. Of the seventeen members shown in the photo at the beginning of Chapter 4, of this edition, 2008, fifteen have died. The corporation presidency has passed from Nathan Knorr to Fred Franz, then to Milton Henschel and most recently to Don Adams. Seven new members have been added to the Governing Body. But despite all the changes in personnel the course of the organization has continued essentially the same, its essential character seems unaltered. As stated in this book, it is the concept that controls the men, the concept that the Watch Tower organization was divinely chosen by Christ Jesus and constitutes God’s “channel of communication” for all his servants on earth, and that their functioning as a governing body is a divine arrangement. As evidence indicates, the changes in teaching or policy that have occurred, some discussed in this book, have resulted from force of circumstance rather than personnel changes.

    From the other direction, those who feel that some kind of “grass roots” expression will bring about change are quite unaware of the spirit that characterizes Governing Body meetings. Having attended many hundreds of these, I know the disregard, often approaching disdain, with which questioning and objections from the “rank and file” are considered.

    Concern about the benefits of preserving or attaining certain relationships with governments does manifest itself and so, too, does concern over numbers. The annual reports for the years since the year 2000 have revealed a notable decrease in growth in all of western Europe and in the United States. Japan, which for years was seen as a shining example of expansion, had zero growth in the year 2000 report and minus growth the following year. A continuance of this trend may produce additional changes. But as has been the case till now, the root cause of problems is rarely addressed and the changes often are designed to perpetuate a traditional stance.

    Recently, in a seminar for elders called the Kingdom Ministry School, the organization altered its policy on “reporting” as a “publisher.” Formerly the minimum amount of time for qualifying as an active “publisher” during a given month was one hour. For elderly and infirm Witnesses this has now been reduced to fifteen minutes. Presented as evidence of compassionate concern for such ones, it seems more likely that it is a measure taken to bolster the declining annual reports.

    After all is said and done, it needs to be recognized that separating from the Watch Tower Society and its control—or any other flawed system—is of itself no solution, no guarantee of improvement. Some who separate are essentially no better off than before, have no idea how to use Christian freedom in a good and beneficial, God-honoring way; some exchange one set of combined true and false beliefs for another combined set of true and false beliefs. The purity of one’s motivation is crucial. So, my interest is not in “getting people out of an organization” but in enhancing and deepening their appreciation of a genuine personal relationship with God and Christ.

    The death of Fred Franz in 1992, at the age of 99, in a sense did indeed mark the end of an era—he was the only Governing Body member baptized as of 1914, the year so crucial to Witness beliefs. And he likely was the only member who had personally met the founder of the organization, Charles Taze Russell. He was the architect of by far the major part of the post-Rutherford doctrinal structure as well as the formulator of much of the policy relating to disfellowshipping matters. The divine “mantle” supposedly passed on by Rutherford (see pages 117 to 119 of this book) disappeared with him.

    I had written to my uncle a few times since my resignation from the Governing Body, never with the thought of receiving a reply (and none ever came), nor as to an authority figure, but solely because of my feeling for him as a family member and as a person. I wrote to express interest in his health, and to assure him that my concern for him was not governed by policies of any human system. My main wish is that it might have been possible to sit down and talk with him person to person, for I am fully convinced in my own mind that he realized the fragility of the Scriptural foundation for many of the organization’s teachings. He was a man of intellectual power and of mental discipline, and he was capable of writing sound Biblical exposition. But his unremitting devotion to a humanly-founded organization apparently allowed him to act as its prime apologist whenever its distinctive teachings were subjected to questioning or when its organizational interests appeared to be threatened, even when this meant “accommodating” the Scriptures in such a way that they appeared to support the organization’s position. In such cases his intelligence was diverted into what ultimately was only imaginative inventiveness, an ability to lead readers’ minds to desired conclusions by mere rhetoric and plausibility.

    I find a definite sadness in all this. Although he witnessed the increase of organizational membership from a few thousands into several million, saw its headquarters property grow from a handful of buildings into entire city blocks of multi-storied structures, saw its publishing operations expand from a relatively modest status to that of an international printing empire, none of this goes with him to the grave—and none of these numerical and material factors surely has any bearing whatsoever on the way God will express either his commendation or his reproof. Already years before his death all the books written by him had been allowed to go out of print (though some are available on CD-ROM disks), essentially relegated to the status of mere memorabilia which the writings of Rutherford and Russell occupy. His very creative interpretations of prophecies, such as that of Daniel, in many cases are being replaced by other interpretations, made necessary by force of circumstance. (The dissolution of the Soviet Union, as one example, critically undermined his interpretation of the “king of the north” and the “king of the south” of Daniel 11:29-45.)

    In 1988, after learning of his health problems, including the implantation of a heart pacemaker, I felt moved to write again to my uncle. I reviewed with him a few of what I considered his finest writings and talks, statements presenting valid principles which, if genuinely held to, would call for a reassessing of many of the organization’s present positions and claims. Among other things, my letter said:

    For both of us life is in its final stages. I am very conscious of the certainty declared by the apostle that “we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God” where “each one of us will render an account of himself to God.” His Son, as judge, will then “both bring the secret things of darkness to light and make the counsels of the heart manifest, and then each one will have his praise come to him from God.” (Romans 14:10-12; 1 Corinthians 4:5) Convinced of your knowledge of Scripture, I am unable to think that you believe organizational affiliation or loyalty to the interests of an organization will be a determining factor in that personal judgment, or that in most cases it will have any relevancy whatsoever. The more I advance into older age and the more imminent the end of life becomes, the more convinced I am that the most valuable thing any of us can leave behind is a moral legacy, and that the worth of that moral legacy will be determined by the principles for which we have stood, principles that can never be sacrificed or rationalized away in the interests of expediency. Those principles are primarily complete, unalloyed devotion to God, unqualified submission to his Son as our sole Head, integrity to truth, and compassionate concern for others, not as part of a favored system, but as individuals.

    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

    Turning to a source having a protestant or evangelical background, one finds these expressions in the book The Myth of Certainty, by scholar Daniel Taylor:

    The primary goal of all institutions and subcultures is self-preservation. Preserving the faith is central to God’s plan for human history; preserving particular religious institutions is not. Do not expect those who run the institutions to be sensitive to the difference. God needs no particular person, church, denomination, creed or organization to accomplish his purpose. He will make use of those, in all their diversity, who are ready to be used, but will leave to themselves those who labor for their own ends.

    Nonetheless, questioning the institutions is synonymous, for many, with attacking God—something not long to be tolerated. . . . Actually, they are protecting themselves, their view of the world, and their sense of security. The religious institution has given them meaning, a sense of purpose, and, in some cases, careers. Anyone perceived as a threat to these things is a threat indeed.

    This threat is often met, or suppressed even before it arises, with power. . . . Institutions express their power most clearly by enunciating, interpreting and enforcing the rules of the subculture. Every institution has its rules and ways of enforcing them, some clearly stated, others unstated but no less real.15

    It should be noted that the author was not writing about Jehovah’s Witnesses but of religious institutions in the broader spectrum. People in many denominations fall into the common error of thinking that commitment to a religious system is equivalent to commitment to Christ as Lord.

    I think here of a saying that was passed on to me by a friend. It says:

    The mind which renounces, once and forever, a futile hope, has its compensation in ever growing calm.

    I have found that saying true in my own case. I know that it has proved true in the case of many others.

    Whatever the initial distress—a distress that sometimes follows the demeaning experience of being interrogated by men who, in effect, strip one of human dignity, make the weight of their authority felt, and presume to judge adversely one’s standing with God—however torn one may feel inside, afterward there does come a distinct feeling of relief, of peace. It is not just knowing that one is finally outside the reach of such men, no longer subject to their ecclesiastical scrutiny and pressure. Truth, and the refusal to compromise truth, brings freedom in other fine and wonderful ways. The more responsibly one makes use of that freedom the finer the benefits.

    The greatest freedom enjoyed is that of being able to serve God and his Son—as well as serve for the good of all persons—untrammeled by the dictates of imperfect men. There is freedom to serve according to the dictates of one’s own conscience, according to the motivation of one’s own heart. The sense of having a great burden lifted off, the lightening of a heavy load, comes with that freedom. If genuinely appreciated, this gives one the desire to do, not less, but more in service to the Ones giving that freedom.16

    Traumatic as the initial transition may be, it can lead to the development of a truly personal relationship with these two greatest Friends. Perhaps nothing is more crucial or more helpful in making the transition than to come to a full appreciation of the need for that personal relationship with God and his Son. Without that, one may feel unable to have any sense of identity without membership in some system.

    Christ clearly emphasized the personal nature of that relationship. (Matthew 10:32, 33) His call is, not “come to my organization” or “come to a certain church or denomination,” but rather it is, “Come to me.” (Matthew 11:28) In giving the illustration of the vine and its branches, his words were not “I am the vine and religious organizations are the branches and you are the twigs or the leaves connected to those branches,” but rather “I am the vine and you are the branches,” connected directly to him. (John 15:5) In his beautiful description of the good shepherd, he says, “I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father. And I lay down my life for the sheep.” (John 10:14, 15) Among Eastern shepherds of that time, a shepherd gave names to each of his sheep and so could “call his own sheep by name.” (John 10:3, NRSV) It is wonderfully comforting and assuring to know that as our good Shepherd, God’s Son knows each individual in his flock by name and cares for us personally and individually.

    Whatever sense of “belonging” that membership in some religious system may create, it can never compare with the power and beauty and strengthening benefit of the intimate personal relationship the Scriptures present. The Son’s love mirrors that of his Father, of whom the apostle writes, “Cast all your anxiety on him, because he cares for you.”17

    We need, as well, to recognize that to be genuine, faith must be truly personal, individually arrived at and attained. There is no group or collective faith—except as each individual therein has gained and expressed such faith on a personal, individual basis. So, too, with conviction, it has no meaning or validity unless it is individual, personal. To believe because others believe is to have a borrowed conviction and a borrowed faith. To be genuine and to lead to life, these must be the product of one’s own mind and one’s own heart.

    The apostle puts the matter on that individual basis when he writes, “For one believes with the heart and so is justified, and one confesses with the mouth and so is saved. . . . For, ‘Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.’” (Romans 10:10, 13, NRSV) Mouthing words that merely repeat traditional teachings of a religious system is not what is here described, but rather constitutes what the prophet calls worship based on a “human commandment learned by rote.” (Isaiah 29:13, NRSV) At the time of divine judgment we do not appear before God and his Son as members of some church group or organization. We stand as individuals, and “each of us will be accountable to God.”—Romans 14:10-12, NRSV.

    Sadly, in the case of most Witnesses, the organization has so persistently pushed its own self to the fore, has occupied such a large place on the spiritual scene, focusing so much attention on its own importance, that it has kept many from the closeness of fellowship with the heavenly Father that should have been theirs. The figure of the organization has loomed so large that it has overshadowed the greatness of God’s own Son, has clouded the vision of many from appreciating the warm relationship he invites persons to share with him, has distorted their perception of his compassionate personality.18 It is not surprising, then, that many persons, if expelled from the organization, feel a sense of aloneness, of being adrift, floundering, due to no longer being tied to some visible authority structure, no longer having their lives channeled into its routine of programmed activity, no longer feeling the restrictive pressures of its policies and rulings.

    In a sense, it seems that often one must undergo a measure of such painful adjustment to come to appreciate fully what complete dependence on God and his Son really means. I do not know personally of anyone who, in such circumstances, has recognized the need to draw closer to God, to give serious attention to the reading of his Word, to show interest in others by trying to be of spiritual uplift and encouragement, who has not been able to weather the experience well, to come through it feeling greatly strengthened, more strongly fixed on the only solid foundation, faith in God’s provision of his Son.19 They have realized more than ever before the intimate relationship they have with their Master and Owner as his disciples, whom he treats as personal friends, not like sheep that men have penned off in a mass enclosure, but sheep to whom the Shepherd gives individual, personal attention and care. Whatever their age, whatever the length of time it took them to come to this realization, the feeling they have fits the well-known saying, “Today is the first day of the rest of my life.” Their outlook is both happy and positive, for their hopes and aspirations are dependent, not on men, but on God.

    To feel this way does not imply any failure to recognize that there is indeed a flock of God, a congregation headed by Christ Jesus. How does one become a member thereof? One factor and one factor only is determinative. It is not membership or affiliation with some denomination, church group or organization. Scripturally, this has no relevance or bearing on the matter. One shows that he or she is a member of that body of believers by being joined to its Head, God’s Son, responsive to that Head’s direction and guidance, and that alone is determinative. There is only one mediator in God’s arrangement and that is Christ Jesus, and no human organization can insert itself into that picture as a co-mediator or supplementary mediator. (Ephesians 4:11-16; 1 Timothy 2:3-6) Between those in that congregation of believers there is an interrelationship and interdependency, not because they are subject to some organizational structure but because “we are members of one another,” and so we are subject, not to some authority group but are “subject to one another out of reverence for Christ.”—Ephesians 4:25; 5:21, NRSV.

    God’s Son gave the assurance that he would have true followers, not just in the first century or in this twentieth century, but in all the centuries in between, for he said, “I am with you always, to the close of the age.”20 Intermixed though they were among all the “weeds” that were bound to come, he would know who these genuine disciples were, not because they belonged to some organization but because of what they were, as persons. Wherever they were, however indistinguishable from the human standpoint their being part of his congregation may have been, down through the centuries he has known them, not only collectively but individually, and led them as their Head, their Master. His apostle tells us, “But God’s firm foundation stands, bearing this seal: ‘The Lord knows those who are his.’”21 Why should we doubt that this continues to be the case right up to the present time? God’s Word shows that it is not up to men—not even possible for men—to separate people out so as to say that they have now gathered all the “wheat” into one neat enclosure. The Scriptures make clear that only when God’s Son makes known his judgments will that identification become manifest.22

    It is a pleasure now to be free to meet people and not feel obliged to look for some “label” in order to know how to view them. One feels no need to classify them automatically as either a Witness or a “worldling,” as either “in the Truth” or “part of the Devil’s organization,” as either someone who, by virtue of having the Witness “label,” is automatically one’s “Brother” or “Sister” or, because of lacking such, is a person only to be “witnessed to” but unworthy to associate with on a friendly basis. In place of this, there is a healthful feeling of being able to do what is fair and just by assessing each person in an unbiased way for what he or she is—as a person. It is reassuring to be able to do this because of knowing that “God is not partial, but in every nation the man that fears him and works righteousness is acceptable to him.”23

    Certainly one of the most painful experiences for many who have tried to be true to conscience is to realize how quickly long-term friendships within the Witness community can end, how abruptly an atmosphere of apparent love can change to one of cold distrust. A Witness in a southern state, one of the most active in her congregation, began to see how far the organization had strayed from Scriptural teaching. She told an acquaintance that, despite this, she had no thought of withdrawing. As she expressed herself, “There are so many people in our congregation that I personally studied the Bible with and helped to bring into association with the congregation. I feel a deep love for them and for others and for that reason I feel I should stay. I can’t walk away from these people I love.” Not long after this, the elders, becoming aware that she had reservations about some teachings, began questioning her “loyalty.” Almost overnight, attitudes toward her underwent change. She found herself being convicted by congregational innuendo and gossip. As she said, “I discovered that the deep love I thought existed was actually a one-way thing. Without even talking to me to find out how I really felt, persons I had dearly loved suddenly turned cold to me.”

    When your very reverence, devotion and integrity toward God have been defamed—the greatest calumny possible—it is a chilling experience to hear someone that you considered a solid friend say, “I don’t know what happened and I prefer not to know.” Or to learn that such a one has said, “I don’t know the facts but whatever the organization did there must have been a good reason.”

    All too often the vaunted love claimed as part of the “spiritual paradise” shows itself to be quite superficial. In a phone conversation, a Witness in a nearby state, still actively associated, told me that her husband, a prominent elder in their city, had for some time been under considerable pressure from other local elders. “If they could get anything at all against him, they’d hang him from the highest tree,” she said. My comment was that this reminded me of the saying, “With friends like these, who needs enemies?” “You don’t know how many times we’ve repeated that,” she replied.

    My feelings are like those contained in a letter from a person who had experienced cold rejection and who wrote:

    Even the hurt I felt when many former friends of many years chose to believe these stories rather than come to me and find out the truth, was dimmed by my joy . . . and also the knowledge that the reason they were acting this way was because of the fear in them. I can really forgive them from my heart because I truly know how they felt—at best that I had abandoned Jehovah (by leaving his organization) and at worst that I was deceived and led astray by Satan. Either way put me in an unapproachable position. I am really sorry for any hurt that I have caused them or anyone in the organization. I really love them and would do anything in my power to reach them and try to explain the truth of what is happening to me.

    My feelings coincide because I believe that the turning off of one’s affection with the apparent ease of turning off a light switch is also a product of organizational indoctrination, not something normal to most persons’ natural feelings.

    Whatever the case, the Witness who follows his or her conscience may indeed find terminated virtually every friendship that he or she has had. In such circumstance, one surely needs to embrace the attitude voiced by the psalmist:

    In case my own father and my own mother did leave me, even Jehovah himself would take me up.24

    Only an increased awareness of God’s friendship and that of his Son can compensate, can put all other relationships in proper perspective as to their relative worth. Though it may take time, there is good reason to trust that other friendships will become available, if one is willing to make the needed effort. And there is a likelihood that they will prove more enduring, the affection being predicated, not on organizational membership, a sort of “club spirit,” but on what one really is as a person, on the Christian qualities demonstrated, the realities of one’s heart. I did not personally lose all my friends by any means. But for every one that I did lose I have found another. They are persons who have made clear that they are determined not to let differences of opinion or viewpoint have a disruptive effect on that friendship. This follows the counsel given:

    Accept life with humility and patience, generously making allowances for each other because you love each other. Make it your aim to be at one in the Spirit, and you will be bound together in peace.25

    The oft-quoted words at Hebrews 10:24, 25 are frequently made to say something different from what they actually say. If we love God and his Son we will also love those who share that love. We will want to associate with them, share companionship with them, benefit from them and seek to be of benefit to them. The writer of Hebrews says nothing as to time or place or manner. He does not speak of some formalized service or meeting, organizationally generated and supervised. Any of those things would have to be read into his words, superimposed on them. He speaks simply of getting together with other fellow believers, and doing so, not to absorb some particular format of church teachings but to be mutually upbuilt and to encourage one another to good deeds. Among early Christians this was customarily done in homes and, evidently, often in connection with shared meals.26

    It may be difficult, because of being so long accustomed to the organization’s extreme emphasis placed on numbers and the pretension that numerical growth is proof of divine direction and blessing, to take a humbler, more modest outlook, to scale down one’s viewpoint in such areas. For the first time, one may come to appreciate and cherish Jesus’ assurance that ‘where two or three are gathered together in his name he is present with them.’ In my own experience, I can say that sharing with only one or two others in reading and discussing the Scriptures has proved fully satisfying and rewarding. True, when at times a larger number of persons have shared with us, there has been a greater degree of interest and variety of comment. Yet the fundamental strengthening power and richness of God’s Word have not been diminished on those occasions when we have been just “two or three.” I can honestly say, in each case, that it has resulted in my carrying away with me things worth remembering to a greater extent than on so many occasions in the past when I met with hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of persons in organizationally programmed functions.

    …

    Also in this issue