[Editor’s note: Ray Franz was a member of
the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses, which oversaw the operations of this
international religious group. He wrote
Crisis of Conscience, his story of how he left the Watchtower Society, and In
Search of Christian Freedom, his advice and vision for Christian fellowship]
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Ray & Cynthia Franz
…….
Winston GA 30187
8/21/01
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Gordon Coulson
…….
Dear Gordon,
I appreciated your good letter and I am
happy if the books proved to be of some assistance. I am 79 now and last year suffered what was
diagnosed as a moderate stroke, no paralysis resulted but it took a lot out of
me. So I am not able to keep up with
correspondence as I would like. Crisis of Conscience is now in 11
languages, which brings in more mail.
Many who write have expressed recognition
that bitterness and anger only take away credibility from any discussion of the
Witnesses. Unfortunately a large portion
of the books referred to on Internet web sites on the subject are almost
entirely negative.
I can sympathize with you in the
adjustment you and others face. One
invests so much as regards relationships and the seemingly unavoidable loss of
many of these is painful. As you
evidently recognize, simply withdrawing from a system that one has found to be
seriously flawed is not a solution in itself.
It is what one does thereafter that determines whether there has been
progress and benefit or not. It is also
true that any transition—even if only one in outlook—can require not only time
but also mental and emotional adjustments.
Haste is obviously not advisable as it often only leads to new problems
or to new errors. There is always need
to exercise patience, trusting in God’s help and direction.—Proverbs 19:2.
It seems, however, that we can often learn as much from the
“unpleasant” experiences of life as we can from the pleasurable ones—perhaps more that is of lasting value. While separation from a
large organization and former associates unquestionably produces a degree of loneliness, even that can have its beneficial aspects. It can bring home to us more than ever before
the need for full reliance on our heavenly Father, that only in Him have we
genuine security and the confidence of his care. It is no longer a case of flowing along with
the stream but
of developing a personal inner strength, gained through faith, of growing up so as to no longer be
children but grown men and women, a
growth achieved through our growth in love for God’s Son and the way of life he
exemplified. (Ephesians 4:13-16)
I don’t view my past experience as all loss, nor feel that I learned nothing from it.
I find great comfort in the words
of Paul at Romans 8:28 (the New World
Translation changes the meaning
of this text by inserting the word “his”
in the expression
“all his works”
but this is not the way the original Greek text reads). According to a number of translations, Paul states:
We know that by turning everything to
their good God cooperates with all
those who love him.—Jerusalem Bible
translation.
Not just in “his works” but in “all
things” or in “everything” God is
able to turn any circumstance—however painful or, in some cases, even tragic—to
the good of those who love him. At the
time we may well find this difficult to believe but if we turn to him in full faith and
allow him to do
so, he can and will cause that to be the
result. He can make us the better person
for having had the experience, enrich
us in spite of the sorrow we may undergo.
Time will demonstrate this to be so and
that hope can give us courage to continue on, trusting
in his love.
You will find that many of what are
called “ex-JW ministries,” have often simply exchanged their previous
beliefs for what is known as orthodoxy.
Orthodoxy undoubtedly contains its measure of what is sound. But it also contains elements that are the
result of imposition of religious authority, rather
than belief clearly set forth in Scripture.
It is difficult, for example, to
find any reputable reference work that does not acknowledge the post-Biblical origin
of the trinity doctrine. I feel that the
main problem with the trinity doctrine is the
dogmatism and judgmentalism that customarily
accompanies it. That to me is but
another evidence of the fragility of its foundation. Were it clearly taught in Scripture, there would be no need for authoritarian
imposition of the teaching and heavy pressure to submit to it.
So many former Witnesses are at a
disadvantage when pressured by others to conform to views these
have adopted. Dogmatic assertions from
sources that claim to base their arguments on knowledge of Biblical Greek often
awe former Witnesses—even as they were previously awed by claims of a similar
nature from the
Paul stressed that knowledge has merit
only when it is expressive of, and
productive of,
love, that while knowledge often puffs up, love builds up. Human language, remarkable
though it is,
is limited to expressing
what relates to the human sphere. It
could never adequately be used to describe in detail and fullness things of the
spirit realm, such as the exact nature of God, the
process whereby He could beget a Son, the relationship resulting from such begettal, and
similar matters. At the very least, it would take the language of angels,
themselves spirit persons, to do
this. Yet Paul says, “If I speak in the tongues of mortals and
of angels, but do not have love, I
am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.
And if I have prophetic powers, and understand
all mysteries and all knowledge and
if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but
do not have love,
I am nothing.”—1 Corinthians 8:1; 13:1-3.
When I listen to some harp on a particular doctrine which professes
to express in specific terms things
which the Scriptures state in general
terms, to set out explicitly things on which the Scriptures are not explicit,
and define what the Scriptures leave undefined,
I ask myself how much love
this shows, what loving benefit they think results from this, how it could possibly be of comparable
benefit to discussing something that is presented straightforwardly and
unambiguously in Scripture and the appreciation of which would have real
meaning and benefit in the person’s life.
I’m afraid much of what many hear carries echoes
of the noisy gong and clashing cymbal.
It reminds me of a statement found in the
book The Myth of Certainty, in which
university professor Daniel Taylor writes:
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. Supposedly they are
protecting God… 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.
Having seen the truth of this in the
Witness religion and its organization and creed, we
should not nearsightedly fail to realize how equally true it is in the larger
religious field.
I think we need to recognize that, even
as God is not governed by organizational or denominational membership in
blessing or dealing with individuals, in
the same way neither is he prevented
from blessing or dealing with them because of such membership. He is simply above all such factors, even as he is above the dividing and
limiting effects of race, color, national and political boundaries, etc. So, I feel that I often had evidence of
divine guidance and help and protection as a Witness. The determining factor was my heart attitude
and what it was I was seeking to accomplish.
One need not take an all or nothing
viewpoint of what is done by individuals or systems. God sees fit to let political institutions
exist and operate
and they act as his servants
in the sense of providing some order and
security for people. That does not
indicate his blanket approval of all that they are and do. Paul wrote of his experience with others
professing Christianity
and showed that while some
proclaimed the message about Christ out of good will, others did not do so in a right way or
from right motivation,
some doing so out of
rivalry, selfish ambition and insincerity.
Yet he ultimately states, “What
does it matter? Just this, that Christ is proclaimed in every way,
whether out of false motives
or true; and
in that I rejoice.” (Philippians 1:15-18) Obviously, God
will eventually judge persons on the basis of their heart motivation, but
meanwhile good can result in spite of the lack of right motivation. (1 Corinthians
4:5) As a Witness, I acquainted many people with the
Scriptures,
something of which they
previously knew nothing. To that extent,
at the very least, there is some benefit.
I realize that while I sincerely sought to direct people to God and
Christ, they were in effect appropriated by a system and their loyalty and trust were directed to it. Something similar happens in other
churches. Yet they do accomplish benefit
in their translation and distribution of the Bible in many lands and in their directing attention to
it. I remember when I visited the
African country
then called
When I tried to be of service to people
(Witnesses) within the
While one is within a system, his
horizons can be extremely limited. He is
like a person on a small island who thinks the island is the principal part of
the whole world. I do not believe that
God’s attention is preoccupied with some particular system or systems, like that of the
Of one thing I feel quite certain and
that is that neither the Witness organization nor any other today occupies a
position comparable or parallel to that of ancient
As regards association and fellowship, I
recognize the dilemma some face. But I
do feel that as time goes
on one can find
others whose association and companionship can be healthful and upbuilding, whether
among former Witnesses or others. In
one’s daily course of life one meets a variety of people and over a period of time may find at
least some whose association is healthful and upbuilding. We get together with others for Bible
discussion and though our group is quite small we find it satisfying. Naturally there is a certain benefit to
similarity of background, but it doesn’t seem as if this should be a major
goal. I personally have no interest in
affiliating with a denomination. Some
have expressed that most denominations have more in common than the points on
which they disagree, which has some truth in it. Yet they still prefer to remain as separate
denominations
and affiliation with any of
them does have at least some divisive effect, since one is expected to uphold and favor
the growth of the denomination involved.
When Paul wrote to the Corinthians in his
first letter he initially had many good things to say to them as a body, things
they had in
common. (1 Cor.
1:4-9) But he went on to show that
divisions existed with some saying “I
am of Paul”
or “I am of Apollos” or “I am
of Cephas.” As
he asked, “Has Christ been divided?” (1 Cor. 1:10-13) He did not say they had ceased to be
Christians by these attitudes, but he
certainly made clear that he did not view it as good or commendable. Much the same language could be used today,
that some say
“I am of Luther” or “I am of Calvin [as are Presbyterians]” or
“I am of Wesley [as
are Methodists],” and so on. There is no need to deny their basic
Christianity but there also is no basis for speaking well of their
divisions. I do feel that there is need
to look for people rather than for
systems.
I wish it were possible to have extensive communication with all who write but
my age, health
factors and the volume of correspondence
received precludes that. You may find
helpful the articles now appearing on the Commentary Press web site
(www.commentarypress.com). Several have responded with comments as to their
helpfulness.
Best
wishes,
Ray
[Transcribed by J.B. Parkinson,
2010 August 04,
with approval of Gordon Coulson, the recipient. The original is 5 pages.]
Four corrections of typos are shown in Blue. (The web address is not
a correction, though the following period is.)
Addresses
at the top have been abbreviated.
Otherwise, after proofreading by G.H. Coulson and by J.B. Parkinson,
this is believed to be a faithful transcription of the original letter.