http://www.thejournal.org/issues/issue92/crisiscn.html
A 'Crisis of Conscience'
opens eyes
Part 1
By Dave Havir
The writer pastors the
Church of God Big Sandy and is a regular columnist for The Journal.
BIG SANDY, Texas--Since I like to help people
who have been traumatized by domineering religious organizations, I would like
to recommend a particular book to readers of The Journal.
|
|
Crisis of Conscience is a book about the struggle between
loyalty to God and loyalty to one's religion. The author is Raymond Franz, a former
member of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Although he wrote
the first edition in 1983, I read the fourth edition from 2002.
This book has 408 pages with another 20
pages of appendixes. There are 13 chapters. If you are pressed for time, you
can consider reading only the first three and last three chapters.
This book is
advertised as a penetrating view of a religion's supreme council and its
dramatic power over people's lives.
|
What's the issue?
Let's go to the
beginning of the book and identify Mr. Franz's main issue.
On page 1 he writes that
the examples found in his book "may have little of the high drama found in
the heresy trial of a John Wycliffe, the intrigue of the international hunt for
an elusive William Tyndale, or the horror of the burning at the stake of a Michael
Servetus."
From page 2:
"The people I write
of are from among those I know most intimately, persons who have been members
of the religious group known as Jehovah's Witnesses. I am sure, and there is
evidence to show, that their experience is by no means unique, that there is a
similar stirring of conscience among people of various faiths. They face the
same issue that Peter and John and men and women of later centuries confronted:
the struggle to hold true to personal conscience in the face of pressure from
religious authority. [All emphasis is Mr. Franz's.]
"For many it is an
emotional tug-of-war. On the one hand, they feel impelled to reject the
interposing of human authority between themselves and their Creator; to reject
religious dogmatism, legalism and authoritarianism, to hold true to the
teaching that Christ Jesus, not any human religious body, is 'the head of every
man.'
"On the other hand,
they face the risk of losing lifelong friends, seeing family relationships
traumatically affected, sacrificing a religious heritage that may reach back
for generations. At that kind of crossroads, decisions do not come easy."
Mr. Franz continues by
showing a remarkable contrast about conscience.
On page 6 he writes:
". . . They
[Jehovah's Witnesses] have taken some fifty cases to the Supreme Court of the
United States in defense of their freedom of conscience . . . In other
countries they have experienced severe persecution, arrests, jailing, mobbing,
beatings, and official bans prohibiting their literature and preaching.
"How, then, is it
the case that today any person among their members who voices a personal
difference of viewpoint as to the teachings of the organization is almost
certain to face judicial proceedings and, unless willing to retract, is liable
for disfellowship? . . ."
Mr. Franz expressed his
understanding for the need of unity, of order, of protection from pernicious
teaching and of a proper respect for authority.
But on page 7 he asks
some good questions:
- What is the effect when spiritual "guidance"
becomes mental domination, even spiritual tyranny?
- What happens when the desirable qualities of unity and
order are substituted for by demands for institutionalized conformity and
by legalistic regimentation?
- What results when proper respect for authority is
converted into servility, unquestioning submission, an abandonment of
personal responsibility before God to make decisions based on individual
conscience?
Hating sin, not sinners
At this time I want to
cite for you some references to show that Mr. Franz's stated motivation is not
bitterness. I believe his approach is to hate the sin but not the sinner.
Mr. Franz says on page
346 that his understanding of the root cause of the problems he has encountered
"enables me to be free from brooding or
harboring bitterness toward the persons involved, either individually or
collectively."
On pages 347 he writes:
"Bitterness is both self-defeating and
destructive. I do not know any person among those men [who participated in his
disfellowship] that I would not be willing to express hospitality to in my
home, with no questions asked, no issue of apology raised . . ."
Let's look at the
preceding page to see why he gives these people some slack concerning their
actions. He claims to understand why the religious organization shields people
from personal responsibility in hurting other people.
- He describes how the organization seems to take on a
life of its own that supersedes in importance the actions of any
individual. "It was the organization that did it, not
us," seems to be the thinking. People do not feel a keen sense of
personal responsibility for whatever hurt might be caused.
- He continues on page 346:
".
. . And, believing that 'the organization' is God's chosen instrument, the
responsibility is passed on to God. It was His will--even if later the
particular decision or the particular authoritative teaching is found wrong and
changed. People may have been disfellowshipped or otherwise hurt by the wrong
decisions. But the individual member of the Governing Body feels absolved of
personal responsibility."
Mr. Franz seeks not to
condemn the people involved.
He continues: "I
express the points above, not as a means of condemnation but as a means of
explanation, an attempt to understand why certain men that I consider to be
honest, basically kind individuals could be party to what I feel that they, in
their own hearts, would normally have rejected."
Although Mr. Franz does
not condemn the people involved, he still denounces their behavior.
He continues:
"I think the concept earlier described is
tragically wrong, as pernicious as it is tragic. I believe the drastic actions
taken toward those persons accused of 'apostasy' were, in almost all cases, not
only unjustified but repugnant, unworthy not only of Christianity but of any
free society of men. Yet this effort at comprehension enables me to be free
from brooding or harboring bitterness toward the persons involved, either
individually or collectively . . ."
Earlier in the book Mr.
Franz gives some insight concerning why he has compassion for those who perpetuate
certain myths.
On page 274 he writes:
". . . In a long-distance phone call, a
former Witness said to me, 'We have been followers of followers.' Another said,
'We have been victims of victims.' I think both statements are true . . . In
place of rancor, I feel only compassion for those men I know, for I too was
such a 'victim of victims,' a 'follower of followers.' "
Not stuck in the past
Now let's go to the end
of the book and see a glimpse of his conclusion. On the last page Mr. Franz
recommends that mistreated people not stay in the past.
On page 408 he writes:
"Life is a journey, and we cannot make
progress in it if our focus is mainly on where we have been; that could lead to
emotional inertia or even spiritual decline. What is done is done. The past is
beyond our changing, but the present and future are things we can work with,
focus on. The journey inevitably contains challenge, but we can find
encouragement in knowing that we are moving on, making at least some progress,
and can feel confident that what lies ahead can be fulfilling."
|
|
|
|
LEFT: Raymond Franz in
1982 at age 59. TOP: Mr. Franz more recently. The writer of Crisis in
Conscience is now 81.
|
Why write the book?
Someone could say: If
Mr. Franz were really willing to move forward, why did he write about the past
in his book?
We'll let him answer the
question.
On page 33 he mentions
that, after nine years on the "Governing Body" of the Jehovah's
Witnesses, he resigned. For two years he maintained his silence about the
reason and details of his decision.
On page 34 he writes:
"During those two years, the motives,
character and conduct of persons who conscientiously disagreed with the
organization were portrayed in the worst of terms. Their concern to put God's
Word first was represented as the product of ambition, rebellion, pride, as sin
against God and Christ. No allowance was made for the possibility that any of
them acted out of sincerity, love of truth or integrity to God."
He was disappointed
about the approach of the leadership toward people of conscience. He described
their behavior in the following ways.
- Any misconduct or wrong attitude on the part of some
who had left the organization was attributed to all who have left.
- For those who did display a wrong attitude, no effort
was made to appreciate the part that frustration, disappointment and hurt
may have played in that conduct.
- An enormous amount of rumor and even gutter-level gossip
circulated among Witnesses.
Still, on page 34 he
writes:
"The only ones who could have restrained
such talk . . . in reality contributed to the spread of rumor by what they
published."
Mr. Franz shows some
excerpts of what the church's headquarters said about people who left the
Jehovah's Witnesses.
On page 35 he analyzes
the official material this way:
"Thus, in one paragraph, persons are
described as like Satan, independent, faultfinding, stubborn, reviling,
haughty, apostate and lawless. What had they actually done to earn this
array of charges? Among the 'wrongs' mentioned is that of disagreeing in some
unspecified way with some unspecified part of the organization's teachings . .
."
Mr. Franz describes his
motive. On pages 37-38:
"This feeling for others is, I
believe, a decisive factor as to the genuineness of motive . . . I know many
persons who clearly evidence such [conscientious] concern, yet who are labeled
as 'apostates,' 'antichrists,' 'instruments of Satan.' In case after case after
case, the sole basis for such condemnation is that they could not honestly
agree with all organization's teachings or policies."
Mr. Franz describes how
the practice of disfellowship was used.
On page 38 he writes:
". . . After the reading of that
[disfellowship] announcement no Witness was supposed to talk with the persons disfellowshipped,
thereby shutting down any possibility of their expressing themselves by way of
an explanation to friends and associates. For them to have done so before
the disfellowshipping would have been counted as 'proselytizing,' 'undermining
the unity of the congregation,' 'sowing dissension,' 'forming a sect.' For
anyone to talk to them afterward would jeopardize that person's own standing,
make him liable for similar disfellowshipment."
Mr. Franz mentions how
disfellowshipped people found out they did not have as many true friends as
they thought they had.
On page 38:
"The Scriptures tell us that, 'A true
companion is loving all the time, and is a brother that is born for when there
is distress.' I once thought I had many, many such genuine friends. But when
the crisis reached a decisive point, I found I had only a few. Still, I count
those few precious, whether they said little or much on my behalf . . ."
Mr. Franz said he
believes his discussion of the absurdities that marked his time on the
Governing Body is more valuable than anything he might have accomplished while
he was a member of the body.
On page 39 Mr. Franz
writes:
"If my past prominence could now contribute
in some way to the conscientious stand of such persons being considered with a
more open mind and could aid others to revise their attitude toward persons of
this kind, I feel that such prominence would thereby have served perhaps the
only useful purpose it ever had."
Although Mr. Franz
mentions that he did not intend his book to be some kind of expose, some of the
material would be shocking to unsuspecting Jehovah's Witnesses.
On page 40 he writes
that his presentations of certain details
"demonstrate the extremes to which 'loyalty
to an organization' can lead, how it is that basically kind, well-intentioned,
persons can be led to make decisions and take actions that are both unkind and
unjust, even cruel . . ."
Mr. Franz shows that he
understands the difference between condemning people and discussing their
actions.
On page 41 he writes:
". . . Undeniably, He [God] alone can fully
and finally right all wrongs committed . . . Does this, however, call for
maintaining total silence about injustice? Does it require keeping silent when
error is propagated in the name of God? Is, perhaps, the discussion thereof
evidence of 'disrespect for divinely constituted authority'?"
On page 42 Mr. Franz
reminds the reader that the apostles and disciples spoke up against
"the very authority structure of God's
covenant people--its Sanhedrin, its elders, and the divinely constituted
priestly authority."
He writes:
". . . Those publicizing the wrongs did so
out of respect for, and obedience to, a higher authority, and in the
interests of the people who needed to know."
Mr. Franz reiterates his
desire to help other people.
On page 43 he writes:
". . . My hope is that what is presented in
this book may be of help and I feel it is owed to them . . ."
Protecting the
organization
In the past decade many
people have been appalled to watch the Roman Catholic Church ignore the
children wounded by their priests as they sought to protect the image of the
church and the priesthood.
Mr. Franz describes this
kind of justification among the Jehovah's Witnesses.
He describes the words
of a leader in the organization that reflected the thinking of others.
On page 118:
". . . In this
particular session he [Ted Jaracz] acknowledged that 'the existing policy might
work a measure of hardship on some individuals in the particular situation
being discussed,' and said, 'It is not that we don't feel for them in the matter,
but we have to always keep in mind that we are not dealing with just two or
three persons--we have a large, worldwide organization to keep in view and we
have to think of the effect on that worldwide organization.'
"This view, that
what is good for the organization is what is good for the people in it, and
that the interests of the individual are, in effect 'expendable' when the
interests of the large organization appear to require it, seemed to be accepted
as a valid position by many members."
His view changes
In his book Mr. Franz
gives many informative details about the history of the Jehovah's Witnesses.
Along the way he describes how he previously believed that the organization was
the official channel of knowing God's will on the earth. Through time his
belief changed.
Even though his view
about government changed, notice that he was not opposed to authority,
organization and teaching.
Not opposed to authority
On page 274 he writes:
"I was not opposed to authority. I was
opposed to the extremes to which it was carried. I could not believe that God
ever purposed for men to exercise such all-pervading authoritarian control over
the lives of fellow members of the Christian congregation. My understanding was
that Christ grants authority in His congregation only to serve, never to
dominate."
Not opposed to
organization
On pages 274 he
continues:
"Similarly, I did not object to
'organization' in the sense of an orderly arrangement, for I understood the
Christian congregation itself to involve such an orderly arrangement . .
."
On pages 274-275 Mr.
Franz uses some interesting phrases to discuss organization.
- The organizational structure "was only as an aid
for the brothers; it was there to serve their interests, not the other way
around."
- "It was to build men and women up so that they
would not be spiritual babes, dependent on men or on an institutionalized
system, but able to act a full-grown, mature Christians."
- "It is not to train them to be simply conformists
to a set of organizational rules and regulations, but to help them to
become persons 'having their perceptive powers trained to distinguish both
right and wrong.' "
- "It must contribute toward a genuine sense of
brotherhood, with the freeness of speech and mutual confidence true
brotherhood brings--not a society composed of the few who are the
governors and the many who are the governed."
- It must not be "by 'making people feel the weight
of one's authority' in the way the great men of the world do. It must be
in the exaltation of Christ Jesus as the Head, never in the exaltation of
an earthly authority structure and its officers."
Continuing on page 275
Mr. Franz writes:
". . . As it was, I felt that the role of
Christ Jesus as active Head was overshadowed and virtually eclipsed by the
authoritarian conduct and constant self-commendation and self-praise of the
organization."
READ
PART 2 OF ARTICLE
http://www.thejournal.org/issues/issue92/crisicn2.html
