In the 1999 edition of Chrisis of Conscience, page 79, Ray states, I was assigned chapters...Safeguarding the Cleanness of the Congregation; in the book, Organization for Kingdom-Preaching and Disciple-Making, 1972. It is here that this policy was laid out as church procedure. Ray went on to describe the publication as, a form of church manual setting out organizational structure and policy governing the entire arrangement, from the headquarters through to the branches, districts and circuits, and on to the congregations. The Governing Body was not asked to supply material for the book.
The policy for ALL difficulties within the Christian congregation called for: minor problems to be dealt with between the two parties involved. Then a meeting was to be sought between the two parties with witnesses to the evidence. If that failed to produce reconciliation then the matter could be brought before the elders. The issue was not to be discussed with anyone not directly involved with or affected by the case. By contrast, all allegations of a serious nature were REQUIRED to be dealt with directly by the elders. The issue was not to be discussed with anyone not directly involved with or affected by the case.
If he felt that a different policy should have been set out for Jehovahs Witness victims of rape, molestation, and domestic violence, he did not say that he said so then and he did not say so in any of his books from 1983 to 2002. Even after becoming aware, in early 2002 that thousands of individuals were coming forward to state how harmed they have been by the two-witness rule policy, reporting, confrontation with abuser, etc., he still did not come forth and clearly state his intentions regarding this policy.
Did Ray truly never even broach the subject of molestation with anyone in over 40 years of full-time service as Jim Witney assures us he accurately quoted him as saying?
Consider. In the WT, 1970 which was written while Ray was on the writing committee, it states,
In the Christian congregation there are definite laws against adultery, incest,and other things, any of which, when committed by a Christian, would bring reproach from the world against the congregation. These things the Bible has put under the authority of the congregation, that is, it is required to take some action.. The congregation acts according to the authority given it by God to maintain the congregations good standing before God and to vindicate Gods righteousness before the world.
Likewise, in the Watchtower of 2/1/75, while he was on the Governing Body, it states,
Some of the penalties for incest are very heavy. And, for deliberately breaking the civil law regarding incest, a Christian would also come under discipline by the Christian congregation.
So, in light of the above, it would appear that there was SOME policy SOMEWHERE set out to handle incest which is just another word for child molestation. So, naturally the question is begged; where was it set out then if not in the Organization Book of 1972 in the chapter, Safegarding the Cleanliness of the Congregation that Ray claims he authored?
There is nothing during this time period that indicates there is ANY other arrangement for rape, molestation, or domestic violence victims. The same rules apply to all gross sin according to the information in this book, as well as every other piece of literature that came out of the Watchtowers headquarters during the time that Ray was there.
Again, according to Jim Witney, Ray claims he did not support these policies and did not intend for these polices to be used the way they were concerning abused children. If this is true, he stood silently by for decades while they WERE used this way.
This is not about morals, ethics, value systems, or defaming someones character; it is simply about the Watchtower organizational history. It is about accuracy in reporting, it is about diligence in research, it is about fairness in publication. It is about truth.
I received the above basic document via e-mail immediately after you contacted Ray and wrote your take on the matter on another thread. The following represents my thoughts.
This in no way diminishes the character of Ray or the great good he has done since leaving. I can see many ways that Ray could rationalize his thoughts in such a way so as to feel confident that he did not intend the policy to be used in any harmful way.
In a large organization there are varying responsibilities many of which overlap and others that are outright shared by many others. The net result is that it is sometimes easy to spread blame or hard to determine culpability (especially about oneself), because there most likely may not be just one person to consider.
If Ray had never personally implemented the policy in a molestation case, and did not consider the policy's effect on that kind of wrongdoing, I can see where he could technically disavow any knowledge of child molestation, even if it does smack a bit of self-deception. But realistically, who of us can say we have never done that?
That was why I asked you the following questions in that thread:
Amazing,
Could it be that Ray was talking about never having opportunity to look at the issue in an official capacity? Perhaps he may have even more narrowly restricted his answer to apply to the short time that he was a GB member?
I guess I was just curious about the context of the quote and if you felt it may have had a bearing on what he meant. You stated that you accurately reproduced his comments. I do not doubt this but simply wondered if an alternate interpretation could be meant in view of the context.
Is it possible that the context of his reply could narrow the answer to simply mean it never came up for discussion while he was serving in some capacity so as to effect the policy's application or lack thereof?
Edited by - Perry on 13 October 2002 11:0:53
Edited by - Perry on 13 October 2002 11:6:36
Edited by - Perry on 13 October 2002 11:29:7
