Crisis of Conscience Page 7
30In 1978 a financial report to the Governing Body itself listed $332 million in assets (properties, deposits and so forth). Even on the Governing Body, few members knew much about the nature of the financial holdings of the Society. Beyond doubt, the present-day assets far exceed this amount.
31Romans 1:14.
32Exodus 20:16; Leviticus 19:16; Psalm 15:3; 1 Peter 2:21-23
33Proverbs 17:17.
342 Corinthians 5:11, 12; 7:2, 3, NIV.
35Matthew 12:36, 37, NIV
36Psalm 37:5-9, 32, 33; Romans 12:17-21; 1 Peter 2:21-23.
37The August 15, 1982, Watchtower in discussing Jude’s remarks regarding those “speaking abusively about glorious ones” (verse 8) states that those glorious ones include “appointed Christian overseers” and warns against the “tendency to disregard God-given authority.” See also the boxed information on page 29 of that issue.
38See the book “All Scripture Is Inspired of God and Beneficial,” published in 1963, page 341.
39Acts 4:5-23; 5:17-40
40Matthew 5:11, 12, compare James 5:10, 11.
411 Corinthians 11:1; Ephesians 5:1; l Peter 2:2l.
3
GOVERNING BODY
Not that we are the masters over your faith, but we are fellow workers for your joy, for it is by your faith that you are standing.
— 2 Corinthians 1:24.
THE above-quoted statement of Paul repeatedly came into my mind during the nine years of my participation in the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses. I could wish that all Witnesses might have the experience of participation. Perhaps then they could understand what words alone cannot convey.
To clarify what the Governing Body is:
Jehovah’s Witnesses understand that Christ Jesus, as Head of the congregation, feeds and governs his congregation by means of a “faithful and discreet slave” class. This class is now said to be composed of a remnant of the 144,000 persons anointed as heirs of Christ’s heavenly kingdom.1 But from among such class there is a small number of men who act as a Governing Body and perform all administrative functions for the global congregation, not only for the present number of about 9,100 “anointed ones” out of whom these men are drawn, but also for the approximately 6.1 million other persons associated who are not considered to be among the heavenly heirs.2
It seemed an awesome responsibility for me when I became one of eleven members of the worldwide Governing Body in 1971 (the number later grew to as many as eighteen in 1977 and as of the year 2008 now stands at nine).3 The first sessions of the weekly meetings (held every Wednesday) that I attended, however, proved quite different from what I had expected.
A rotational chairmanship had recently been put into effect and Vice President Fred Franz was that year’s chairman. But the matters to be discussed were determined by the corporation president, Nathan Knorr. Whatever he considered advisable for the Body to discuss he brought to the meeting and generally that was the first time we had any knowledge of the matter under discussion.
During some weeks the meetings consisted simply of a consideration of lists of recommendations for traveling representatives in different countries—the name, age, date of baptism, whether of the “anointed” or not, the years of full-time service being read out. In the vast majority of cases these were no more than names to us; we seldom knew any of the individuals involved. So after listening to such readings of lists from Suriname or Zambia or Sri Lanka, we would vote on the appointment of these men.4 I recall that Thomas Sullivan (usually called “Bud”) was then in his eighties, nearly blind and in poor health. He repeatedly would give in to sleep during these sessions and it seemed a shame to wake him to vote on things he knew little about. At times the entire meeting lasted but a few minutes; one that I recall lasted only seven minutes (including the opening prayer).
Then from time to time President Knorr would bring some “problem correspondence” involving questions as to certain conduct by individual Witnesses, and the Body was to decide what policy should be adopted regarding these, whether the particular conduct called for disfellowshipping, some lesser discipline, or no action at all. During that period (and on up until 1975) all decisions were expected to be unanimous. After discussion, a motion would be made, seconded, and then the Chairman called for a show of hands. If a unanimous vote was not obtained, as occasionally different ones would not vote for a motion, generally some compromise solution was developed that could gain unanimity.
As is but natural in those circumstances, there was a certain sense of pressure to go along with the majority rather than take a lone stance on matters and thus appear as independent or out of harmony. There were votes where I did not raise my hand, but as a rule I conformed. In the few instances where my not having voted resulted in someone’s proposing a compromise motion, even though the compromise motion still did not seem fully right to me I would concede and vote with the majority. It appeared necessary to conform if matters were to be decided and expedited rather than stalemated. However, issues began arising that made this more and more difficult for me.
As weeks went along discussions were held on such subjects as whether a father qualifies as an elder if he allows a son or daughter to marry when only eighteen years of age; whether one qualifies as an elder if he approves of his son or daughter taking higher education;5 whether one qualifies as an elder if he does shift work and sometimes (while on night shift) misses congregational meetings; whether elders can accept circumstantial evidence of adultery, or the testimony of a wife that her husband confessed adultery to her, and whether this is sufficient to allow for Scriptural divorce and remarriage; whether a divorce is Scripturally acceptable if, even where adultery has been committed, the one obtaining the divorce is the guilty mate rather than the innocent mate;6 what validity a divorce has when obtained on grounds other than adultery if, after the divorce is granted, evidence of pre-divorce adultery comes to light; what the situation is if such a divorce is obtained and there is post-divorce adultery; whether an innocent mate’s having sex relations with an adulterous mate (subsequent to learning of the adultery) cancels out the right to divorce that mate and be free to remarry; whether it is proper for a Witness to pay a fine if that fine is imposed because of an infraction of law resulting from his witnessing activity or because of some stand he had taken in order to adhere to Witness beliefs;7 whether it is proper to send food or other assistance to persons by means of the Red Cross (the main issue here being that the cross is a religious symbol and so the Red Cross organization might be quasi-religious; this discussion was quite lengthy and was carried over to a subsequent meeting); issues about the Society’s then-existing practice of using irregular channels to funnel money into certain countries (Indonesia as one example) in a way that would gain greater value for the American dollars involved, doing this even though the particular country had laws ruling this illegal; also as to getting certain equipment into some countries without having to pay the heavy import tax imposed by law; whether Witnesses belonging to labor unions can accept strike duty assignments or can accept a union order to do cleaning work on the union premises in lieu of accepting such assignments as picketing; whether Witnesses could respond to military conscription simply to do work in cotton fields (this from Bolivia).
These are only a partial sampling of things discussed during the first two years or so of my being on the Body. The effect of our decisions was considerable in its impact on the lives of others. In matters of divorce, for example, the congregation elders serve as a sort of religious court and if they are not satisfied as to the validity of a divorce action, the individual who goes through with such a divorce and then later remarries becomes subject to disfellowshipping.
A matter, not among those just mentioned, but which brought considerable discussion involved a Witness couple in California. Someone had seen in their bedroom certain literature and photographs dealing with unusual sex practices. (I do not recall that we learned just how or why the Witness individual repor
ting this happened to have access to the couple’s bedroom.) Investigation and interrogation by the local elders confirmed that the couple did engage in sexual relations other than simple genital copulation.8 Correspondence from the elders came in to Brooklyn and the Governing Body was called upon to rule as to what action if any should be taken toward the couple.
Until the correspondence was read to us that morning, none of us aside from the president had had any opportunity to think about the subject. Yet within a couple of hours the decision was reached that the couple was subject to disfellowshipping. This was thereafter set out as a formal published policy, applicable to any persons engaging willfully in similar practices.9
The published material was understood and applied in such a way that marriage mates generally felt obliged to report to the elders if any such practice existed or developed in their marriage, whether mutually agreed upon or done solely at the initiation of one of the mates. (In the latter case the non-initiating mate was expected to come forward and convey this information to the elders if the initiating mate was unwilling to do so.) To fail to come forward generally is viewed as indicative of an unrepentant attitude and as weighing in favor of disfellowshipping. The belief that disfellowshipping cuts one off from the one organization where salvation can be found, as well as from friends and relatives, exercises heavy pressure on the person to conform, no matter how difficult confession (or reporting) to the elders may be.
The Governing Body’s decision in 1972 resulted in a sizeable number of “judicial hearings” as elders followed up on reports or confessions of the sexual practices involved. Women experienced painful embarrassment in such hearings as they responded to the elders’ questions about the intimacies of their marital relations. Many marriages where one of the mates was not a Witness underwent a turbulent period, with the non-Witness mate objecting strenuously to what he or she considered an unwarranted invasion of bedroom privacy. Some marriages broke up with resulting divorce.10
An unprecedented volume of mail came in over a period of five years, most of it questioning the Scriptural basis for the Governing Body members inserting themselves into the private lives of others in such a way, and expressing inability to see the validity of the arguments advanced in print to support the stand taken. (The principal portion of Scripture relied upon was Romans, chapter one, verses 24-27, dealing with homosexuality, and those writing to the Society pointed out that they could not see how it could rightly be applied to heterosexual relations between man and wife.) Other letters, often from wives, simply expressed confusion and anguish over their uncertainty as to the properness of their “sexual foreplay.”
One woman said she had talked to an elder and he had told her to write to the Governing Body “for a sure answer.” So she wrote, saying that she and her husband loved each other deeply and then she described the “certain type of foreplay” they were accustomed to, stating, “I believe it’s a matter of conscience, but I am writing you to be sure.” Her closing words were:
I am scared, I am hurt, and I am more worried at this time about [my husband’s] feeling for the truth. . . . I know you will tell me what to do.
In another typical letter an elder wrote, saying that he had a problem he wanted to get straightened out in his mind and heart and that to do this he felt “it’s best to contact the ‘mother’ for advice.”11 The problem dealt with his marital sex life and he said that he and his wife were confused as to “where to draw the line in the act of foreplay before the actual act of sex.” He assured the Society that he and his wife would “follow any advice you give us to the letter.”
These letters illustrate the implicit trust these persons had come to place in the Governing Body, the belief that the men forming that Body could tell them where to “draw the line” in even such intimate aspects of their personal lives, and that they should rightly hew to that line “to the letter.”
Many letters went out from the Society in response. Often they endeavored to provide some limited clarification (saying without exactly saying) as to what sexual foreplay fell within the bounds of condemned actions, other foreplay thereby being exempt.
A memo from a member of the Society’s Service Department, in June of 1976, discusses a telephone conversation with an Instructor of seminars (held with elders). The memo relates that the Instructor had phoned about an elder attending the seminar who confessed to certain disapproved sexual practices within his marriage. The memo states:
Brother [here giving the name of the Instructor] closely discussed the matter with him to determine whether it was really oral copulation that was involved. . . . [The Instructor] had told him in view of the circumstances that he ought to go to the other members of the committee and it happened that the other two members of the committee were in the class and so he went and talked with them. Now [the Instructor] was wondering what else should be done. . . . It was suggested to [him] that he write a full report on this to the Society so that in the future when he has any such case come up he will have direction on how to handle the matter and he will not have to call.
This illustrates the extent to which interrogation went in intimacy and the extent to which the headquarters organization supervised the whole situation.
Letter after letter revealed that the persons involved felt positively responsible before God to report to the elders any deviance from the norm established by the Governing Body. A man in a Midwestern state who confessed to an infringement of the Governing Body’s decision as regards his marital relations with his wife was told by the elders that they were writing about this to the Society; he also wrote an accompanying letter. Eight weeks passed and finally he wrote again to Brooklyn, saying that “the waiting, anxiety and anticipation is almost more than I can bear.” He said that he had been removed from all congregational assignments, including offering prayer at the meetings, and that “almost weekly I am losing something that I have worked and prayed for for thirty years.” He pleaded for an early answer, saying:
I do need some mental relief as to how I stand with Jehovah’s organization.
Some elders endeavored to take a moderate approach to the matter. Doing so, however, could make them liable for reprimand from the headquarters’ offices in Brooklyn. Consider the following letter. It is a photocopy of that sent by the Society’s Service Department to one body of elders (names and specific places have been blocked out).12
Interestingly, some elders actually felt that the Governing Body’s position was, if anything, somewhat lenient or limited. A letter sent by an elder in the United States says:
Some of the older brothers felt that the Governing Body could have gone even further in condemning unnatural practices among married couples to include assuming certain positions when performing the sexual act. . . .
Later this elder expressed his own feelings saying:
Since Jehovah went into great detail in this chapter [18] of Leviticus as well as other chapters on sexual behavior, why is there no statement made to married couples as to acceptable or unacceptable forms of copulation? Would it not be likely that Jehovah would have done so if he wanted this personal and private area of the marriage union open to the scrutiny or opinions of the “Judges” or “Older men” of Israel so that appropriate action could be taken against offending individuals?
Some of those affected by the organization’s ruling were persons whose normal sexual functions had been seriously impaired by an operation or by an accident. Some of these expressed dismay at the position in which the Governing Body’s decision placed them.
One such person who had become impotent in this way, had, during the years that followed, been able to perform a sexual role through one of the means now condemned by the organization. Before the Governing Body’s ruling he said he had been able to stop feeling like half a man, because he could still please his wife. Now, he wrote saying that he could not see the Scriptural proof for the stand taken in the Watchtower magazine but that his wife felt duty bound to obey, and because
he loved her he acceded. He said he knew that he was the same as before, yet emotionally he was crumbling since he feared their marriage would be seriously affected. He pleaded to be told if there was not some “loophole” in God’s will that would allow him the satisfaction of pleasing his wife.
All of these situations put considerable strain on the conscience of elders called upon to deal with those offending against the Governing Body’s decision. At the conclusion of the earlier-mentioned letter from one elder, that elder states:
I find I can only use what Bible laws and principles I understand with any degree of sincerity and conviction in representing Jehovah and Christ Jesus, and if I have to administer these laws and principles in exercising my responsibility as an elder in the congregation I want to do it not because I have come to take for granted that this is Jehovah’s organization and I’m going to follow it no matter what it says, but do it because I truly believe it to be scripturally proven and correct. I truly want to continue believing as Paul admonished the Thessalonians in the second chapter, verse 13, to accept the word of God, not as of men, but as it truthfully is, as the word of God.
His position is notable. I frankly doubt that many elders today would feel free to express themselves in this manner, declaring their position in such clear, frank terms.
Though I find the sexual practices involved to be definitely contrary to my personal standards, I can honestly say that I did not favor the disfellowshipping decision made by the Body. But that is all that I can say. For when the vote came I conformed to the majority decision. I felt dismayed when the Body assigned me to prepare material in support of the decision, yet I accepted the assignment and wrote it as was desired by the Body, in conformity with its decision. Thus I cannot say that I acted according to the same fine outlook expressed by the elder just quoted. My belief in the organization as God’s only agency on earth caused me to do what I did at that time without particularly great qualms of conscience.