36929 Row River Road
Cottage Grove, Oregon 97424
Ernie Garrett, Elder
Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, East Unit
Cottage Grove, Oregon 97424
Dear Br. Garrett,
Thank you again for your warm approach and gentle dealings with my wife and family. I too wish that we could have become acquainted years ago before I was disfellowshipped.
This whole situation has me deeply concerned. It’s not for my safety, as I’ve no concern on that matter at all. Rather, it has to do with the principles involved with the case, for there is no way to compromise on such matters without violating one’s conscience. As you know, a violation of conscience is considered a sin, whether that conscience is accurate on the subject or not. Heaven knows I’ve received enough scoffing when I say that I won’t violate mine, as most people question whether I have one in the first place.
I’m also especially concerned about what would be the right and fair thing to do in light of other’s safety and welfare.
Bear with me for a few minutes and I’ll try to explain.
As to the principles: For many years now I’ve been made to know that my application to be reinstated would be welcomed. My standard answer to them was that sure, I’d like to be reinstated. However, first, we would have to have a thorough discussion of the circumstances around my disfellowshipping. They have always maintained that could not be done, and my position is that it not only can, but will be, and that their only choice was where and how public it would be. This in a nutshell, has been the impasse.
I suppose this appears to be resentfulness and stubbornness on my part, and it has been portrayed that way. But the way I see it, the principles behind this are far more important than even the one of which Jesus made an issue when he refused to wash his hands (Matt. 15:2), and therefore all the more important that they be considered. Here are a few of them:
WHY I’M RELUCTANT TO SUBMIT A LETTER REQUESTING REINSTATEMENT
1. This Organization claims to be Jehovah’s chosen path for people to approach him, to the exclusion of all others, and is under his divine direction. If this is true, then there are certain things that one could expect of it. That includes:
That scripture should take precedence over any other consideration, including such things as the personal pride of people in official positions or any ‘established’ procedures. He speaks of himself as “loving” (1 John 4:8), “just” (Deut. 32:4), “understanding” (John 12:12), “merciful and gracious” (Ex. 34:6), and “good and ready to forgive” (Ps. 86:5), among other things. Therefore, any organization that is indeed Jehovah’s spokesman will put these qualities first and foremost and no ‘procedures’ and/or pomposity would be allowed to interfere. If they don’t do this, then they are liars for having claimed to be Jehovah’s servants in the first place and are serving themselves instead.
Yes, it is true that all organizations are imperfect and cannot live up to Jehovah’s standards completely. But we must not use that fact as an excuse to encourage wrongdoing by ‘accepting’ a minimal amount as normal and then allowing it to slide by without doing all that’s humanly possible to correct it. That someone wishes to save face is not important and their problem, not mine. To compromise with this is to become part of the problem.
That is why I pose the question to everyone, especially those in Brooklyn: “If I did nothing deserving of disfellowshipping, for what reason should I need to do anything (other than calling it to their attention) to be reinstated?” Those who actually are Christian in the true sense of the word would be hastening to do something about it as soon as they became aware of it, not demanding that I jump through hoops in order to guarantee that their grandeur remains unsmirched.
This is also the reason that I declare openly that if this is indeed Jehovah’s organization, then I will be vindicated. If it is not, then for what reason should I care? In addition, if it is not, then of what use is either their approval or disapproval?
If the organization that I gave 45 years of my life to cannot bring itself to do even this simple, elementary act of Christianity, then it looks like to me that I’ve wasted those 45 years. Worse, I’ve taught my family to have faith in an organization that follows the conduct of the rest of Christendom in using the name as a front to hide their personal agendas and pride behind.
And I’m not interested in that nonsense about going along with such things in order to keep reproach away from Jehovah’s name. See item 2 below.
To sum up: If ‘procedure’ is used to either commit or prolong an injustice, then that procedure, and their priorities, are wrong.
2. It appears to me that there is a complete reversal of priorities here in another manner. Jehovah speaks of himself as the God of the “fatherless boy and the widow” (Deut. 10:17, 18), and the number of scriptures that emphasize the care and gentleness that should be exercised toward them is impressive. Yet it seems to me that no one in this organization gets justice or fair play unless they have the political pull to force it into being. That’s wrong, and the finger of blame points right at the top. It begins with ‘established procedures’ and those who ‘established’ them.
The institution of Christianity was not created for the purpose of impressing the elite. Rather, while all were welcome, it was the widows and orphans, the sick and weak, the ones loaded down with sins and depression --- in other words, the very ones that the elite classifies as losers --- that were the special assignments of those who would be Christians. Remember how Jesus answered when he was condemned for associating with prostitutes and tax collectors? (Matt. 9:10-13)
Yet we have a widespread attitude --- especially in the ranks above elder --- that is fairly well summed up by one elder’s comment after a committee meeting, “I feel like I’ve been eating dirt.” How would you feel if you were sick and needing an operation and all the doctor could worry about was getting his hands dirty?
But the fact is that such conditions exist, and are then exacerbated by intransigent officials worried about their dignity by covering up their transgressions and stone walling people when they object. This means that the reproach already exists in the minds and hearts of those who count, the very ones of whom Jehovah claims to be their God. And why does it count more with them? Because it makes them afraid to approach their own Creator. (Luke 17:2)
To sum up: Apparently there is a widespread impression that no reproach is a real reproach unless the elite says it is.
3. There is also far too much emphasis put on 1 Cor. 15:33: “Do not be misled. Bad associations spoil useful habits.” Yes, they do, but it is primarily among those same “bad associates” that we are to find and help those who have good heart conditions, and that holds true whether those individuals are in or out of the Organization. If we allow an over application of that scripture to inhibit our reaching out to those individuals, then we are not only using the scripture wrong, we are failing in our God-given commission.
As it is now, many congregations have been reduced to little more than ‘one-up-man-ship societies’ whose prime function seems to be to keep an eagle eye on one another to see who is the most ‘worthy’. It’s kind of a religious equivalent of “Everyone in the whole world is an idiot except you and me, and I’m not too sure about you.”
To sum up: There is far too much time being spent in judging people instead of “feeding” them. (John 21:15-17)
4. Next, don’t blame the local elders. I don’t see how they could be expected to be any other way considering the example the ones at the top have set.
That begins with the endless drumbeat of articles that propose to impress others with how holy and important they are and how they are the embodiment of so many prophecies. None of them, or for that matter, all of them rolled in together, are as holy and important as Jesus Christ was and is; yet he did not see the need to endlessly boast of that importance. Rather, he let his works and words do the convincing, one heart at a time. (John 10:2-5) Sometimes it seems they have subscribed to the worldly philosophy, “If you can’t dazzle ‘em with brilliance, bury ‘em in bullshit.” Such as:
They become guilty of Matt. 23:5 by taking scriptures such as Psalms 45:16 and Isaiah 32:1 and construing them as applicable to the elders of today. I remember when this was first brought out in a study article. It was carefully and correctly applied to the New Order, and the suggestion was made that the elders of today could be their forerunners. Gradually it came to be applied in full force to the elders now. What is the difference between this and what the Corinthian elders did in their day? (1 Cor. 4:8) (I’m using the term “scripture-containing cases” in the sense of the doctrines taught, not some item of apparel.)
But tacked on top of this is something else that has been a curse to all of the rank and file, and an especially heavy millstone around the neck of any elder that has a lick of sense or an ounce of integrity. It’s one of the biggest reasons that so many elders quit and that the increase has stalled and even regressed in places. What is it? This:
Such scriptures as Matt. 18:18-20 went to the heads of those in power. If a meeting was introduced with prayer, then Jehovah’s spirit was guiding them. No consideration at all was given as to whether those present at the meeting were in an approved state in God’s eyes, whether the things prayed for were in harmony with God’s will, whether that passage applied to them as well as the apostles, or any of a dozen other things. All of it was just assumed. Suddenly it became a sin to even ask questions about what we were being told.
I remember the final words of one drama at a District Assembly (1989, I think), and this is a direct quote: “This man was appointed by Holy Spirit! Why would you even question such a man?” Why??? Good Lord! Let me list just a few of them.
a. Because 1 John 4: 1 commands us to do so, while Hebrews 13:7 and Acts 17:11 cannot be obeyed without questioning, and doing so in a manner that certainly takes in the possibility of the information being wrong.
b. Because the only way that flaws and cracks in our faith can be reinforced and repaired is to pose those questions in the first place. Those that are not dealt with become like abscesses that grow until they weaken the whole body. Far better it is to deal openly and non-judgmentally with an unseemly reality than it is to pretend it doesn’t exist and then find they are our Achilles heels during crunch time.
c. We are told in scripture that the Truth should be sounded down into our hearts, so that we will be building on the “rock mass” and not “sand” (Matt 7:24-27). The only way that can be done is to have the freedom to question, test, or do anything else that will convince our hearts that it is something worth putting our confidence in.
d. If we wish to respond to Jehovah’s request that we give him an answer (Prov. 27:11), our answer must contain two special elements. First of all, our testimony must be just that: ours, and it will need to be obvious to all that that is the case. Secondly, carefully memorized lists of "'sposed to's" and "not 'sposed to's" won't work, and neither will any careful repetition of dogma. If that were all that was needed, then Jehovah would have created us to be like glorified tape recorders, faithfully spouting only that which had been recorded. The only way we can possibly formulate such an answer is to have the freedom to question.
To sum up: We all have the scriptural, God given freedom, right, and responsibility to think independently and critically regarding any information that is set before us. No one has either the authority or the importance to demand that we accept anything without question.
5. This leads to something even more critical. The words at the end of that drama and the attitude since has been (again): “This man has been appointed by Holy Spirit! Why would you even question such a man?”
The implication of those two questions is that the Holy Spirit is guiding that man in his thinking and decisions. To be appointed by and have that guidance --- what is the difference between that and being inspired by Holy Spirit? None, that I can see. They are claiming to be inspired, and any denials to the contrary will be hairsplitting and mere cant.
Do you realize that not even the Catholic Church with its 2,000-year history of tradition has the utter gall to claim such a thing? Sure, it does in a partial way, in regard to the Pope himself, but that’s only in a limited way. But it doesn’t even begin to do that in regard to all of its priests. What does that say about us?
And that leaves begging such questions as would be raised by the case of King Saul proving that being appointed by Holy Spirit is no guarantee that the individual will remain faithful, or that 1 John 4:1 commands us to test all utterances, whether they are inspired or not.
To sum up: The manner in which these scriptures have been misconstrued and the resulting shift in teachings is not only utter hogwash, it has been an unmitigated disaster for the faith of millions. This includes those still in the organization, for the gullible have been led to place their faith on blind obedience. That’s not only building on sand, it’s preventing them from forming the answer that Jehovah desires from us. Both are forms of futility.
As to those who can see through it --- They stay in, not due to love for Jehovah and his ways, but due to the fear of the devastation that this organization will deliberately wreak upon their families if they don’t go along. That too is a form of futility. Am I to compromise with this?
I’m sure that many thousands of elders would throw a conniption fit upon reading these words and instantly label me one of the worst apostates that ever lived. But am I? Or am I merely doing all I know how to live up to Ezekiel 3:20, 21?
6. I listened with interest to the ‘service talk’ Greg Olds gave on that Saturday. I can understand and respect his joy and enthusiasm in defending Jehovah’s organization and people, and I identify with his desire to be on the front lines. I have found, though, that sometimes this zeal can be overdone unless it is tempered with insight, knowledge, and wisdom.
I wonder if he has considered that maybe Jehovah would prefer to have his society lose some of its assets rather than perpetrate an injustice? I’d like to ask him if, in his opinion, Jehovah wouldn’t prefer that wrongdoing be corrected immediately, even if it does leave his organization legally vulnerable? I think that monetary assets are the last of Jehovah’s worries. Matt. 17:27. His hand is not short. (Num. 11:23; Isa. 59:1)
Could it be that in his zeal, Br. Olds actually forestalls any opportunity Jehovah may have to exercise his own abilities to protect? Could it be that in his haste to protect he has overlooked an opportunity that Jehovah has arranged in order to allow His ways to bring forth beauty from ugliness? It can, you know.
A good example of this is in his stories of the child custody cases. One man simply gave up when he learned that the Society was entering the case on her side. The audience laughed at this, but I didn’t. Why?
Because in nearly every case of where “widows and fatherless sons” are spoken of as in need of special consideration, the “temporary residents” are also mentioned. In fact, they are usually listed first. Would this not indicate that while it is highly important that we exercise justice and fair play with one another, it is doubly important to exercise it with persons on the outside? There is no witness that can attract other people and convince them that this is God’s organization better, than to see it exercise these qualities when they have no reason other than the principle of justice itself.
Please note that this, the fair dealing with the temporary resident, was one of the principles that was to be inculcated into the Israelites (Deut. 27:19) and one of the reasons that the nation eventually fell out of Jehovah’s favor and was destroyed. (Ezekiel 22:7 and Mal. 3:5) Those who feel that this organization is to be exempted from such principles are utter fools. Why do you think Jehovah allowed such things to occur to his chosen nation if they were not to be signs and portents (and therefore warnings) to us now?
Sadly, this is an area where we as Witnesses have failed miserably. Everywhere I turn out here, I meet those who have attempted to approach the elders trying to get justice due to some “brother” doing them an injustice, only to be scoffed at and turned away. What kind of a name does this give Jehovah?
To sum up: This entire organization needs to get down out of its ivory tower and realize that being Jehovah’s spokesman is a privilege, yes, but it is a far greater responsibility. If we get blinded by our own brilliance, that privilege will be taken away from us.
And now, my friend, lets get to the bottom line. Would I be willing to submit a letter to the elders concerning reinstatement? Yes. But only under the strictest of conditions. They include:
a. That all parties concerned know in advance that I have no feelings of repentance whatsoever concerning the events for which I was disfellow-shipped. In addition, should the occasion call for it, I will repeat my conduct of before, and probably do so even more emphatically.
b. That I have every intent to speak freely of the things I have listed above –-- and more --- to my family, friends, and in writing to the Society itself.
c. That I will continue to think independently and critically, if necessary, and freely express those thoughts to those they apply to, regardless of rank, position, or any other distinction.
d. If I can see that there is some hope that my efforts could have some effectiveness.
However, if it appears that I will get nothing more than the “shut up and sit down” routine that has been almost my sole experience in the past, then I pass. I would far rather follow Moses’ fine example and take my place with the “riff-raff” that the super-fine apostles have determined everyone else is.
Now, if in the face of all this you would still wish to speak with me, I would ask one favor of you. It involves the thing I mentioned to you before, that of your own safety. I’m vulnerable in only one way (Heb. 13:6) --- through those who would dare get too close to me, and thereby getting hurt themselves. In one case in Alaska I had to stand by and watch two fine men, managers of a good-sized corporation, get fired in order that the powers that be could get to me, not that it did them much good.
Here in Oregon, I had a case involving a multinational corporation and two national labor unions embroiled in a donnybrook involving the sexual harassment of one of my fellow workers. I took a hand and warned those near me to get away. One just laughed at me. About two days later I saw him again, and he looked at me like he’d seen a ghost. He’d been chewed to a frazzle and was transferred about a day later. I never saw him again.
Some of these men were just as capable as you are. I don’t want that to happen to you.
So before anything goes further, please take this letter and send it to whomever necessary. Make sure of your backing. If you don’t, and in the remote possibility that I would be reinstated, I predict that I’ll be disfellowship-ped again within 90 days, and you will be booted right along with me.
I’m taking the liberty to enclose two other things that, if you’re interested, will throw light on why my stance is so adamant. You will see that I’m looking at something that is far greater than my own welfare, or even that of my family’s.
One of them, “What Is Truth?” you will need to familiarize yourself with in order to understand what I mean when I say that all of the above are “relative truths”, as well as why freedom of thought is so important.
The second, “The Natural Life Cycle of a Religion” places everything in context and shows the pitfalls that nearly every one of them are prone to, including this one.
In any event, thank you again, and I sincerely hope that Jehovah will bless you for your efforts.
Sincerely,
Tom Howell