Ray Franz requested that I post the following comments written by him:
As has been stated already, the presentation made from the Silent Lambs source in connection with the child abuse issue completely misrepresents my position. When I spoke by phone recently with the author of that presentation, and pointed out that I had never expressed the views presented, his comment was that from his previous conversation with me (held some months earlier) he "got the impression that I was not on the same wave length" with him. I could not help but be reminded of the events at the Watch Tower headquarters in 1980 when Governing Body members questioned Ed Dunlap and other members of the Writing Department to see if they, in effect, were on the same wave length with the organization in its official teachings and policies. I would make clear that I look to God and his Son as the sole transmitters, by holy spirit, of any "wave length" with which I feel I should be in harmony, not any human source or movement. Watch Tower leaders view negatively any "independent thinking" and feel justified with criticizing harshly those who do not line up with them. I find it depressing that many former Witnesses who attack the Watch Tower organization, proceed to manifest a similar spirit and use similar tactics toward those who do not line up with their thinking. I am reminded of Pauls letter to the Romans in which he wrote of some who boasted of their relation to God, as knowing his will and determining what is best, seeing themselves as guides to the blind, a light to those in darkness, correctors of the foolish and teachers of children, and spoke of them as having no excuse since, when they engaged in adverse judging of others they passed judgment on themselves, because, as he said, "you, who judge, are doing the very same things."Romans 2:1-3, 17,18.
As related in the book Crisis of Conscience, I was assigned to write a chapter in the manual titled Organization for Kingdom Preaching and Disciple-Making dealing with the handling of judicial hearings. The fact is that in that material I simply repeated the words written by the inspired Apostle Paul at 1 Timothy 5:19 when he says: "Never accept any accusation against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses." Paul quite evidently was drawing upon the provision in the Mosaic Law at Deuteronomy 19:15 which states: "A single witness shall not suffice to convict a person of any crime or wrongdoing in connection with any offense that may be committed. Only on the evidence of two or three witnesses shall a charge be sustained." Christ Jesus himself referred to this "two or three witnesses" principle. (Matthew 18:16) And his apostle, Paul, not only wrote it to Timothy but also included it in his second letter to the Corinthian congregation.2 Corinthians 13:1.
What I wrote back in 1972 has now been portrayed by the Silent Lambs source as being the basis for the Watch Towers twisted policy regarding the handling of child molestation cases. If so, then Paul, and Christ himself, as well as Moses who first set out the principle, bear similar responsibility since I was being guided by and quoting from their teachings. And, if we accept the divine inspiration of what they taught and wrote, then the slur conveyed by this charge must reach back to God himself. Paul makes plain that he knew what it was to have his statements and teachings distorted so as to convey something completely at odds with his intent. As he writes at Romans 3:8: "And why not say (as some people slander us by saying that we say) Let us do evil so that good may come? Their condemnation is deserved."
The fact that the Watch Tower Society distorts the purpose of that law principle referred to by Paul and Christ (which was to protect the innocent against a false accuser) does not justify ones distorting the meaning or intent of a quotation of that principle such as is found in the chapter of the manual referred to. As I have already expressed, I do not believe the Mosaic Law was designed to be rigid and "cut and dried." One person (Robert Frazier) commenting on this issue cites an example from the Law itself that gives evidence of circumstances where the two or three witness rule might not apply and this example cited simply exemplifies the point I have made. In a similar manner, the law regarding the Sabbath was very forcefully stated: "the seventh day is a sabbath to Jehovah your God; you shall not do any workyou, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns." Yet, when accused for doing healing on the Sabbath, Jesus said to his accusers: "Suppose one of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the sabbath; will you not lay hold on it and lift it out? . . . So it is lawful to do good on the sabbath." (Matthew 12:11, 12; in Luke 14:5 he refers to an ox falling into a well; obviously in both cases the extraction of the animal involved work, even heavy work, even though on the sabbath day.) God had good reason for inspiring each of the provisions in the Law given through Moses, and all of its provisions were designed to benefit and do good. That is why the Psalmist could write: "Happy are those who do not follow the advice of the wicked, or take the path that sinners tread, or sit in the seat of scoffers; but their delight is in the law of Jehovah, and on his law they meditate day and night." "Oh, how I do love your law! It is my meditation all day long."Psalm 1:1,2l 119:97.
I am puzzled that in commenting on this point (from that source citing the example from the Law indicating an exception to the "two or three witness" rule), some, in effect, seem to seek to discredit or tarnish the use of Pauls statement in the Organization book by reference to the fact that as Christians we are not under the law. This is of course true. But, as such individuals must realize, it is also true that the Christian writer who most forcefully taught that truth (Paul) is the same writer who applied the principle of this particular rule (regarding two or three witnesses) in his writing to Timothy (and to the Corinthians).
What is here stated is in defense of the rightness of Gods law and the validity of citing its principles, not in defense of the misuse of that law by a religious system. One would have to be blind to the evidence of history not to realize the value of this principle contained in the Law and referred to by Paul. Unsubstantiated accusations have brought untold suffering and even death to countless persons down through the years, notably in the Inquisition, as also following the French Revolution when one person could accuse another and the accused be tried and even executed on that basis (the resulting period becoming known in France as the time of le Terreur) and more recently in the vilifying, ravaging and slaughter of the Jewish people in the Holocaust. Gods own Son was the victim of false charges and untrue accusations. Who today would wish to turn the clock back to the dark period before enlightened nations began to apply the principle that a person is to be considered innocent until proved guilty? As with other principles, this principle of the divine Law can be misused in a harmful way and this is evidently the case with Watch Tower policies regarding child molestation cases. But that does not argue against the value of the law regarding witnesses here being discussed. In the same letter to Timothy which includes his reference to this principle, Paul, after referring to persons who presented themselves as teachers, but "without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make assertions," then went on to say: Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it legitimately. This means that the law is laid down not for the innocent but for the lawless and disobedient." (1 Timothy 1:7-9) At Romans 7:12 he said that "the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good." An organizations misuse or perversion of any part of that law is no basis for our viewing a particular principle as though something noxious and hurtful, so that the mere quoting of it can be seized upon as basis for tying one in with the perverters of its good and just principle. (This is known in the field of flawed argumentation and flawed logic as "tarring others with the same brush.") Any who would make it appear that way are once again doing the same thing as those toward whom they express condemnatory judgment, condemning those who engage in perversion and misinterpretation of information, while themselves engaging in perversion. Similarly, to say that because one does not choose to align himself with a certain movement (whether Silent Lambs or any other anti-Watch Tower movement) he thereby can be labeled an apologist for the skewed Watch Tower policies is unjust and hence unchristian.
In his second letter to the Corinthians the apostle wrote: "Though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to tear down strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ." (2 Corinthians 10:3-5, NIV.) If some choose to engage in what might be termed a form of media-oriented, political activism to fight wrongdoing, that is their privilege. If the goal is the protection of the innocent it is a worthy goal. The worthiness of the goal, however, gives no justification for impugning the motives of any who make a personal choice not to pursue that same media-oriented route.
As I have stated, during my 40 years of Witness membership any cases of child molestation never came to my attention. During my 9 years on the Governing Body and my years on the Service Committee of the Governing Body, the issue was not presented, though matters of sexual immorality of many kinds did surface. I recently spoke with a man in Nevada who was baptized in 1951. His father was a very prominent Witness in the southern California area where this man grew up. He says that he likewise did not hear of child molestation charges during his decades of association. It is quite nave of persons to assume that the intense publicity on this issue in recent times necessarily means that the situation was similar in earlier periods. The issue of legalizing homosexual unions is prominent in current times but was definitely not so in previous decades. Regrettably, the willingness of some former Witnesses to accept sensational claims madeif made with a pretension of insider knowledgebetrays a lack of critical thinking, the same lack of critical thinking endemic in the Witness membership.
Of the many sexual crimes, child molestation is unquestionably one of the most despicable. Those who shield child molesters certainly bear a very heavy responsibility. Nonetheless, to focus on certain specific policies as if these are the root problem is, I believe, to think superficially. There is a more basic problem underlying not only these but all the legalisms promoted by the system here involved. In Jesus day people were in awe of religious leaders from the Pharisee division of Judaism. The blind trust and subservience this produced was harmful to the people. Jesus did not seek to achieve their relief by endeavoring to create problems for the Pharisee movement with the Roman officials, so that the government would take punitive action toward them. Rather, Christ Jesus spoke truths which enabled people in his time to free themselves from domination by the thinking and traditional teaching of the Pharisees and any like them, enabling people to see that God is not honored by mens "teaching human precepts as doctrines".Matthew 15:8, 9 (note that in his exposition of matters, Jesus had no hesitation in quoting [verses 1-6] from the Law given through Moses, calling it "the word of God.")
I wrote two books, Crisis of Conscience and In Search of Christian Freedom, and in these endeavored to help people realize that there is no Scriptural basis for subservience to any human religious organization and its decrees and humanly-originated policies; in both books emphasizing the crucial importance of a personal relationship with God and Christ, and the importance of being true to personal conscience and conviction. How anyone could read their contents and then seek to portray the author as a sympathizer with the Watch Tower organizations legalistic policiesof whatever kindis difficult for me to understand and I cannot fathom what motivation would cause a person to do this.