Testimony of Raymond Franz (Marturii)

Testimony of Raymond Franz

E.mails from Raymond Franz, former member of the Governing Body Of Jehovah's Witnesses

Raymond Franz was a former member of Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Franz

We meet our dear friend and brother Raymond Franz in Romania, at October, 2007.

From that period I have some e.mails from him, and I wish to share it, how they felt and thinked about some things.

We receive this letter before the conference

Letter from Edinet, Republic Of Moldavia

This letter was sent to me by brother Ray. Later we meet brother Yakov Nedbailov Mihail, his son, his wife and his nephew Igor, here in Romania. In this mail are mention about TFJW's, a splinter group of Jehovah's Witnesses from Europe.

Dear Ray,

I have received a lengthy letter for you in Russian (18 pages in MS Word format) from a man who now lives in Moldova. The man's name is Yakov, he was born 25 June 1936 and was a JW in the Soviet Union for most of his life, having faced a lot of communist-inspired persecution. He does not seem to be asking any questions, but mostly expressing gratitude for the books you wrote. Time does not allow me presently to translate the entire letter but I have prepared this gist.

Dear Ray Franz!

Ezekiel 8:17 says: "He said to me, "Do you see this, son of man? Is it too light a thing for the house of Judah to commit the abominations which they have committed here, that they have filled the land with violence and provoked Me repeatedly?" Both Jews in biblical times and pagans today anger God by their idolatry. Jehovah's Witnesses, too, spread a lot of human reasonings and presumptions claiming to be from God. The organization has become for many of them an idol, requiring devotion that only God must rightly require. It so happened that you allowed the masses to see many of the falsehoods happening within the organization. The pain suffered by many does not go away simply, but the truth does have a healing and comforting effect. I appreciate your candor in writing the books and the will to convey this information to people. Allow me to tell you about myself.

I was born on June 25th 1936 in a family of Jehovah's Witnesses in Moldova. In 1937, 1939 and 1941 three of my sisters were born: Rimma, Lydia and Martha. I had an older brother too, Ivan, (born in 1928) from my father's first marriage. When I was very little, I remember how the police came to arrest our family. My parents were separated from us (even from the 7-month old Martha) and taken under arrest; Ivan managed to escape. He would come sneakily into the house at night to look after us, bring us some food, and then would go again in fear that the police could find him in our house. He was caught several times, and beaten severely, but managed to escape several times. We had very little food to eat and suffered hunger, as Ivan was unable to come too often. I learned to milk the cow and we had some milk. Lydia and Martha learned to suck the cow's udder, but the cow would refuse Martha her milk. Our neighbors could not help us much, since the police would beat them if it was known that they helped us the children of Jehovah's Witnesses. It was war time too, which added difficulties. Sometimes it was very cold at night and we did not have enough wood to heat the house. Since the house was also dirty, we had fleas and mites. In august 1943 mother came back, and in the spring of 1944 father came too. Mother had been sentenced to 15 years of prison, and father had a death penalty (later changed to 25-year prison term). But the war changed it all and our parents were able to return home.

(here goes a lengthy report of how Yakov finally say his mother after nearly 2 years of absence) In 1941 the Romanian authorities was accusing my father of sympathizing with the communists (since he did not go to the official church and believed the earthly governments to be of Satan). Now in 1946 the KGB was accusing him of sympathizing with the Fascists. My father decided we needed to flee to Poland, and during the first trip he took me and Ivan there. He then went back to Moldova to pickup the rest of the family but found Martha very ill. Martha died soon after father came to pick them up, and on that very day the KGB caught him and eventually sentenced to 10 years as a political prisoner. Father wrote later from prison that some of the brothers had betrayed him to the KGB. As for us, we had no contact with Moldova and did not know what happened to our father. In the summer of 1948 Ivan decided to go to Moldova to find the family. He found mother, Rimma and Lydia and lived there with them for a while. He decided to marry a girl for the congregation, but the local organization did not recognize them as Witnesses and also disfellowshipped my mother for refusing to shun Ivan. Later Ivan came to Ukraine to pick me up and bring me back to Moldova to the rest of the family. June 6 1948 Mother, Rimma, Lydia and myself were sent to exile to Siberia. Later in 1951 Ivan was send to Siberia as well. In 1956 my father was released from the prison due to extremely poor health (tuberculosis). He told me he had been several times sent to the morgue as if someone dead, but then he would recover and be taken back to prison. Now after his release from prison father had to be hospitalized, and in 1957 he died in the hospital in Kugranskaya oblast. (this is not too far from where I lived -- AZ) I married in 1959, arrested in 1960 and sentenced to 3 years of prison. In 1963, after serving my time I was released from prison, but, because of the prisoner's stigma, could not find any job or a place to live. I had contacted the authorities, but they said they were keeping an eye on me and told me that if I stop my "Jehovah's Witness propaganda", my problems would be solved. In 1964 I was finally able to receive my passport back from the KGB. I remained on the KGB list until 1990, and they could at any time force me to change the place where to live or work. The Witnesses were very divided during all this time in the Soviet Union. There were several factions, all suspicious and distrustful of each other. There were reasons for that too, since the authorities were spreading a lot of disinformation. After the war the Witnesses lost contact with the branches (at that time in Romania and Poland).

In 1949 one Jehovah's Witness, by the name of Tsyba, wrote a letter to Stalin telling him to stop persecuting the Witnesses or else Jehovah would punish him to protect His people. Many of the brothers started copying this letter and mass-mailing their letters to Stalin in Moscow. Eventually the authorities found them all and arrested more than 11000 witnesses, sending them to Siberia for 15-25 years (later many were pardoned and allowed to go back home). In 1957 Tsyba himself was arrested. He told the authorities the names of all the brothers, all the local, circuit and district servants. When other brothers were brought to him face to face, he would advice them to cooperate with the authorities to avoid torture and beatings. So all the servants, including bookstudy conductors, were discovered. Some brothers however, refused to tell the authorities about brothers. One of them, Dmitry Khrinchuk, now 85 years old, after much beatings told the authorities who were beating him: I am dying now as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. But if my interrogators were demanding your names when you were in danger, I would not tell them your names". At that time more than 3000 brothers were arrested. Another prominent brother, Zyatik, was still working in the field, now substituting for Tsyba. By 1960 however he changed his attitude greatly, encouraging brothers to be softer with the authorities, with civil and public life. He advised parents to let the children be more moderate in schools, allowed for them becoming young members of the Party. This was, of course, contrary to all the previous directives. The brothers were divided: some supported Zyatik, some viewed it as apostasy. Eventually those who would not agree with Zyatik were expelled and shunned. Petty rumors were spread about those brothers. On the other hand, many brothers thought that Zyatik and Tsyba were from the very beginning the men of the KGB, and that the organization was now run by the Soviets. About 9000 brothers separated in opposition to the group represented by Zyatik. In 1976 under the pressure from KGB my wife renounced God and left me, as well as our 3 children (12, 10 and 8 years old). Our other daughter (6 y. o.) left with her. Meanwhile, after all these years and after seeing everything that was happening in the Society I came to a firm conclusion that the entire organization, while claiming to be worshipping God Jehovah, was in fact idolatrous, putting various idols above Jehovah: men, "organization", "faithful stave", the Watchtower. In 1977 there was supposed to be a biannual meeting of all servants in the Soviet Union, representatives from all the soviet republics. Prior to that, in December 1976, there were several committee meetings where I directly told the brothers that in my speech I was going to bring the subject of lack of spirituality in the Watchtower organization. Several months later the presiding brother invited me to his house, and I was disfellowshipped. Eventually brothers from other groups started inquiring about what was happening to me. I told them the theme of my intended speech, and eventually it got distributed around many congregations. But I was rejected and shunned even more after that. My mother who was 70 years old at the time was also disfellowshipped for refusing to shun me. However, many other people were greatly disappointed in the organization in the same time period, and were leaving in large numbers.

By 1990 in the Soviet Union there were 3 major groups:

1) Russelites (not very numerous, only about 2000). They view Russell to be the faithful slave, and study his works. They are usually modest, quiet and avoid involvement in worldly life.

2) Rutherfordians. They only recognize literature selectively until 1962. In Romania they are registered as the True Faith Jehovah's Witnesses. They are also relatively small in numbers, about 7000. Usually they are more aggressive and self-willed. They lack trust and peace amongst themselves.

3) Official JWs. They now lead a totally worldly lifestyle. They drink, go to disco-dancings, sing popular songs. When I think about all these things, I feel a lot of pain. Why did we have to go thru so much persecution, humiliation and deprivation, trying our best to be "separate from the world" and willing to sacrifice our own lives for our faith. But now the organization has embraced the ways of this very world and has become just like any other worldly church or organization. They are indeed blind leaders of the blind, and both shall fall into the pit. I have had serious questions about the organization since 1974. "Am I on the right track? Am I doing the right thing?" Your book Crisis of Conscience answered many of my questions, answers to which I was unable to find by myself. After I learnt about you, I went to Ukraine to meet with one brother who is has been very sick for the last 15 years to talk to him and to encourage him. I also met there with the Rutherfordians from Romania and spent several days in discussions with them. But they do not know much about you yet, since they do not have your books in Romanian. I wrote you a long letter and wanted to thank you for your faith decisiveness and will to speak the truth. I am thankful to God that He has allowed for such an awakening in the self-serving witness organisation. For Zion's sake I will not keep silent, And for Jerusalem's sake I will not keep quiet, Until her righteousness goes forth like brightness, And her salvation like a torch that is burning. The nations will see your righteousness, And all kings your glory; And you will be called by a new name Which the mouth of the LORD will designate. (Isa 62:1,2) At present Ivan, Rimma, Lydia and myself live in Moldova, a small republic of about 4.5 million people. We gather at homes, but we are not numerous. "Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Faithful is He who calls you, and He also will bring it to pass. Brethren, pray for us. (1 Thess 5:23-25). Please forgive me if I said something wrong. You may see things differently from your perspective. All the best, Yakov.

---

Raymond Franz's conferences announcement

Arrival in Cluj

----- Original Message ----

From: Commentary Press <info@commentarypress.com>

To: <innoire@yahoo.com>

Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2007 9:32:11 PM

Subject: Re: Greetings

Dear John,

Thank you for your letter. I wrote to Leontina and to ...Eneas about the visit to Cluj and you can get further information from them.

From Prague my plans are to go to the Cluj in Romania, probably arriving on Saturday, October 13 and staying through Monday, October 15. I am still trying to work out transportation arrangements to go from Prague to Cluj in Romania. I would prefer to travel by land (by car or train) if that is possible, rather than fly there. A brotherr from Texas will be traveling with me. Any suggestions you may have will be much appreciated. From Romania I would fly from Cluj to Stuttgart, Germany on October 16. I would spend one day resting before going to Frankfurt for the return flight to Atlanta on October 18

I look forward to seeing you there. My regards to Leontina when you communicate with her.

Sincere regards,

Ray

---

A new conference trip was planned by Raymond Franz, in 2009, in Germany and Ucraine

Brother Raymond asked some assistance to translate a letter from Ukraine, from a certain brother Stanislav Suhanicky, from Lubny gorod, Poltavskaya oblasti. I did.

Possible this brother invited them there. Also he had invitation to Germany.

Unfortunately he died.

Thx. for your time with me my brother and friend!

Subject: Re:

To: innoire@yahoo.com

Date: Monday, November 10, 2008, 4:40 PM

Dear John,

Some time ago I received a letter from the Ukraine written in Ukrainian. Of course I could not read it and have been unable to find anyone to translate it.

I have added it here as an attachment and perhaps you can contact the person who wrote it and inform him that I am unable to reply to a letter written in a language which I do not understand.

Thank you for your assistance.

Ray

---

Raymond Franz about gatherings (Christian association)

--- On Sun, 11/2/08, Commentary Press <info@commentarypress.com> wrote:

From: Commentary Press <info@commentarypress.com>

Subject: Re:

To: innoire@yahoo.com

Date: Sunday, November 2, 2008, 10:19 AM

Dear John,

I am slow in replying due to a large number of letters received. I hope that with cooperation between Mr. Lamb and Arthur Weber it will be possible to complete the Romanian translation of Crisis of Conscience. We hope to have a new Greek translation published soon. A woman in Taiwan just sent this message:

Dear Commentary Press,

I live in Taiwan. Have you any plans to translate some of the articles in your website into Chinese (traditional characters)? I know people here who would appreciate them and benefit from them.

By the way, do you have any contacts here (Taipei city, Taiwan) with ex-witnesses or some house-church? I am an ex-witness drifting from church to church for a Sunday service

Best regards,

Mercedes

I appreciated also your thoughts on Christian association. The text at Hebrews 10:25 is so often applied in a way that the actual thought is lost. Christians were to fellowship and the emphasis was not on when or where or how often but on using the occasions to encourage one another to love and good deeds—in their day-to-day living. To make attendance at some religious service the principal point of one's worship is to miss the point. It is what we do in our daily life that is crucial. Following are some thoughts I have written to persons on the matter of Chriatian fellowship:

Over the years I have had some occasions to attend certain activities in different churches. Frankly, I have not been impressed. Nor would I feel any more comfortable with the existing clergy-laity division and the concept of a single "pastor" for a group than I do with the organizational concepts of the Watch Tower. However, I feel that it is a matter of individual decision and choice.

On congregating, we need to avoid the form of argumentation known as "false dilemma," where one is given a choice limited to two opposing positions, in this case, between joining a denominational church or meeting with Jehovah's Witnesses (who are in reality another denomination), or between meeting in a large group in a special building or being completely alone. The Biblical and historical evidence is that throughout the first century Christians met in relatively small groups and had no buildings ("churches") designated for congregating, meeting instead in homes. The book Paul's Idea of Community presents archeological evidence from New Testament times showing that even larger homes in that time rarely had space for more than a maximum of perhaps 40 persons, and obviously many homes were even more limited.

The issue, however, is really not size of meetings or location but what do we conscientiously feel about the association itself, what does it call for from us, what restrictions or obligations does it place on us? My not attending a denominational church is not due to some fear that the attendance itself, or being in a religious building of itself, would condemn me before God. If I went, it would be to meet people, not to take membership in the denomination—even if I were to limit attendance to one, rather than to various denominations. My reason for not attending is, in part, that I know that my non-aligned position would not be viewed with favor and that pressure would come to become a "member." I believe as well that, while there are certainly exceptions, the message I would hear would generally conform to and be coloured by the particular denominational stance and creed. It would also be affected by the unscriptural clergy-laity policy and structure commonly in effect. It would mean in many areas to place myself in an environment like that I left, perhaps somewhat less authoritarian but in many cases not much so. I know of others who do not find these factors sufficiently major to affect their attendance and in this as in other matters I feel no inclination to argue against their position nor to fail to respect their motivation.

I meet with others and sometimes we are indeed very few. But I find the fellowship ample and feel no spiritual lack. If a few others were added to our gatherings, as sometimes they are, that is fine. If the group grew to any size, I would personally prefer its subdividing so as, on the one hand to allow for meeting in homes with a homelike atmosphere, and also to maintain the benefi†s of a smaller group and †he family atmosphere and closeness this allows. Again, this is my personal feeling and is by no means presented as some type of standard for others. The "picture" of my fellowship may not fit the criteria of some. For myself, I see nothing "wrong" with it and prefer it to other alternatives. The chapter on "A Congregation of Free People" in In Search of Christian Freedom gives reasons and I leave the worth of the information to your judgment. There is not much more I could say on the subject.

As for finding the "ideal" religious organization, I do not know of any. God's Son gave us a way of life which we call Christianity, but he did not set up some type of religious organization or system. He founded a brotherhood, a family or household of God, not a system. (Matthew 23:8; 1 Timothy 5:1,2) My personal feeling is that we should desire to have fellowship and association with others—but on the basis of what they are as persons, not on the basis of membership in some religious movement or denomination. In Paul's day he found it necessary to counsel on the need for care in one's associations even among those then professing Christianity. (2 Timothy 2:19-21) That remains true today.

While recognizing many of these factors, many have some emotional hurdles to overcome. All efforts at making acquaintances and friendships involve the factor of risk. But the effort is certainly worth the risk.

A scholarly work titled Pulpit Commentary – contains this Homiletical comment on 1 John 2:19 by C. Clemance

Both fact and comment teach lessons of permanent value. 1. External Church-membership and vital fellowship with Christ and his people are by no means the same in substance or uniform in extent. The one is a form; the other is the reality of which the form is supposed to be the expression. If there is the reality, the form should follow. But it is quite possible for the form to be adopted without any such reality behind it. Judas. Demas. Achan. 2. There may be much to attract adherents to a visible Church. The first outgushing of brotherly love and community of goods attracted Ananias and Sapphira. Success. "Nothing succeeds like success." When "religion walks in silver slippers" many will be ready to follow. Wealth. Power. Pa tronage. Splendor. Ornate services. All such features in the external framework and environment of Churches will attract numbers of adherents. And if such a phase of —social life should show itself, as for it to be "the thing" to make a profession of religion, thousands will do itt~r the sake of going with the stream. 3. Being in the exter nal Church will not minister life, any more than it will prove its existence. If be longing to God's own Church is a sure means of salvation, these deserters would have been saved by union with it, specially when under the oversight of the Apostle John! But no! No Church on earth can minister spiritual life to any soul, by any or dinances whatever. What a scathing rebuke to "sacramental efficacy," or any such doctrine, is the fact indicated in our text! Note: John had once had to learn that a man might be with Christ, though he did not follow with the apostles. He has now had to learn that a man may follow with apostles, and yet not be with Christ. 4. All such merely external adherents are but dead weights in a Church. They do not and cannot increase its living acting force; they are rather a drag on the body to which they are outwardly attached. When a living Church is encumbered with them it is like a living body tied to so many dead ones. 5. It is even possible that many forms of antichristian evil may exist in such. "Many antichrists . . . they went out from us." A living faith in a living Lord ensures unity in all essential points. But if men are only dead professors, numberless forms of error may take root in them and bear poisonous fruit. If, e.g., it has been fashionable to belong to this or that Church, to repeat a form of sound words, and to accept such and such a creed merely because it is the law of the land, there is scarcely any form of pestiferous error which may not nestle beneath such hollowness as that. Nor can any order of Church life, however free in action, pure in creed, scriptural in government, or becoming in its forms of service, be proof against the intrusion of dead professors. 6. Consequently, any external Church may require weeding to a very considerable extent. In such cases as those we have before us, this weeding process will often have to precede all others. The ground must be cleared of its cumberers, that the plants of grace may thrive the bet ter. 7. If Churches are on the whole loyal and sound, false men will "go out" from them. "They went out," etc. This is an effective yet potent kind of Church discipline, when Church ministration and testimony are so faithful and effective that false ad herents spontaneously quit its ranks. Happy is the Church whose constitution is so sound that foreign substances expel themselves from its body! 8. Where this is no t the case, God will in his providence use another and a sharper remedy. "Judgmentmust begin at the house of God" (cf. Isa. 4:6). It may be: (1) Persecution. (2) Disease and death (1 Cor. 11:32). (3) Fierce blasts of temptation. (4) Keen and searching criti cism. (5) New forms of alien thought. All these may and will have a telling effect on formalists in the Churches in any age. Their defection will save the Church! 9. Let us not be discouraged at the fact that we cannot prevent the intrusion of false mem bers into the Church. Doubtless we should be glad enough of the charism [divinely conferred gift] of "discernment of spirits;" but we see that even in the apostle's life time that was not granted for their convenience. It did not then ensure a Church be.~ ing proof against imposture. But God will not let the Church be fatally injured byaliens within. It may be annoyed; but antichrist shall be exposed, and the living fel lowship saved. 10. Let each reader take home to himself three closely and sternly practical lessons. (1) May a man be in the visible Church and yet be an "antichrist"? Then should not each one ask tremulously, "Lord, is it I?" (2) Is it so? Then let each one of us sympathize with the Church, and not pour scorn upon it. (3) Is it so? Then let us, each of us, say, "The more strenuously the foes of Christ, secretly or openly, fight against him, the more courageously will I fight for him!"

In the past I have attended various gatherings of former Witnesses, largely out of interest in seeing friends and acquaintances. However some of the programs seemed designed for promoting church membership. I accord all persons the right to make choices in that regard. My own viewpoint is spelled out in the book In Search of Christian Freedom.

I have been impressed by the number of scholars of widely different backgrounds have shown their recognition of the adverse effect of institutionalization of religion and the emphasis on the external and visible in contrast with what is genuinely spiritual. There is a tendency to think in terms of what impresses the physical senses, such as sight, sound. Under the Law covenant there were impressive buildings,and physical altar (as well as a larger chorus of singers) The Letter to the Hebrews shows that those elements were a mere "shadow" of the which was to come. Even the Jerusalem temple—under the Law Covenant a place of great sacredness—at Hebrews 9:1 is called "mundane" or "worldly" (Greek kosmikos). Early Christians had no separate buildings designed for religious purposes and met in homes, in a family-like atmosphere. They had an "altar" that was not material but spiritual (Hebrews 13:10-16. Early Christians were a genuine brotherhood with no clergy-laity division.—Matthew 23:1

Worship was not something related to or connected to specific places, or specific times or specific activities. It involved the whole of life, every day and all day long, in every place. (Compare Romans 12:1, 2) "Holy" implies a complete "setting apart" [for God's will and service] People may view someone as leading a holy life because of frequent attendance at some religious building, or frequent acts of praying, singing, etc. Those visible acts are, of themselves, no real assurance of genuine holiness, for it pervades and involves every aspect of daily life. The Pharisees are clear examples of how apparent holiness may fall far short of the genuine thing.

An unusually frank expression is found in an 18th-century work titled the Pulpit Commentary ,C. Clemance in a Homiletical comment on 1 John 2:19 , writes:

From the same 18th-centuryThe Pulpit Commentary, we find these words by D. Thomas:

I shall make use of [Babylon the Great] to illustrate corrupt Christianity; and this includes Protestantism as well as popery. Conventional Christianity is as truly corrupt as papal, and, in some respects, it is even worse. . . . The Christ exhibited in creeds and institutions is as unlike the Christ of the Gospels, as the mechanical force of the manufacturing machine, throwing off commodities for trade, is unlike the vital energy in nature that clothes the landscape with verdure and that fills the earth and the water with countless tribes of life. . . . Christianity corrupted has always been cruelly intolerant, and this, whether it is called Protestant or papal! True, it dos not shed blood as much as of yore, but if it does not take away life it may inflict life annoyances and disabilities in many respects more painful than bloodshedding. The harlot is a "mother," her progeny is numerous and ever multiplyiing. . . . The religious sects which crowd Christendom are all her daughters, and each sect has the intolerant spirit of its mother, each according to its measure is a persecutor, and, as a rule, the smaller the more virulent the spirit. Curs snarl and bark more as a rule than mastiffs. . . Such is corrupt Christianity, which is, alas! the current Christianity. It is very like the "harlot" on account of its political subserviency, worldly proclivity, and religious intolerance."

An internationally known and respected Swiss scholar, Emil Brünner, wrote in his book The Divine Imperative:

Where the Word of God is preached and believed, where two or three meet in the name of Christ, there is the Church. Whatever else may be said about the Church, this is fundamental. This statement has never--not even at the present day--been understood in all its revolutionary power. The meeting of two or three must be recognized to be the Church in however imperfect a form. When a father gathers his household round him to expound the Gospel to them in his humble simple way, or where a layman, out of a full heart, proclaims the word of God to a group of young people, there is the Church. Whoever departs from this rule, whoever thinks that something else has to be added to make this a real Church, has misunderstood the meaning of the very heart of the evangelical Faith.—The Divine Imperative, Emil Brünner (The Westminster Press, Philadelphia, 1937), page 529.

Praying, voicing praise of God in word or song, speaking Biblical expressions, are all things a Christian may do as part of his or her worship of God. But we have no right to invest those things with greater value and superiority as to their relationship to worship of God than other acts of daily life. There is no reason to believe that those things count more with God and Christ than, for example, some simple act of kindness to an ill person, a willingness to listen to and encourage a depressed person, the making of an expression of gratitude and appreciation to someone who has done a service for you, or an effort to add some cheer and pleasantness to the life of persons with whom you have contact, even strangers—anything and everything that a heart motivated by love may produce. ( Hebrew 13:16; compare James 1:26, 27.)

The following is a quotation from a book by a prominent Japanese Christian scholar, Kokichi Kurosaki.

The primary cause of the [denominational] divisions is the institutionalism and organisationalism of the churches, which, without vivifying the life of the believers in them, smothers or drives it out of the ekklesia, and makes [the churches] merely dead institutions. Christians who really have life in Christ cannot exist within such a corpse and will at last have to come out of it. But in almost all cases, those who have come out of dead institutions want to have in their place another institution or other rituals and ceremonies, only repeating the same error. Instead of turning to Christ Himself as their center, they again seek to find fellowship and spiritual security on the very same basis that failed, not realizing that it is the institution that is killing, instead of producing, life in Christ. Even the Bible itself is interpreted and understood in various ways, and so always becomes the center of sectarianism. Just in the same way, dogmas and creeds cannot bring Christian unity, because human minds are not so uniformly created that they can unite in a single dogma or creed. Even our understanding of Christ Himself cannot be the basis of unity, because He is too big to be understood by any one person or group, and therefore our limited understandings do not always coincide. One emphasizes this point about Christ, another that; and this again becomes the cause of divisions. If we will only take our fellowship with Christ as the center of Christian faith, all Christians will realize their oneness... All our fellowship, however varied, is with the same Lord, and the same Saviour is our one Head.—Kokichi Kurosaki (1886-1970), One Body in Christ [1954]

A friend in the state of Washington, sent me this information.

While in Port Townsend, Jerry (Eva Schnell's husband who was never associated with the Witness organization) loaned me a book that he had talked about on another visit. It consists of letters and essays written by Simone Weil (born in Paris on February 3, 1909, to parents who were Jewish but agnostic). She came to believe in Jesus Christ but her experience is mystical, and her life is very unusual (strange, in fact). She died on August 24, 1943, in England, from where she tried to get back into France. What killed her was her refusal to eat any more than the rations allowed her countrymen in the occupied territory.

What I found of interest were her comments as to why she did not want to become a member of the Catholic Church. Two other observations were of note (as far as I am concerned).

"What frightens me is the Church as a social structure. Not only on account of its blemishes, but from the very fact that it is something social....I am aware of very strong gregarious tendencies in myself. My natural disposition is to be very easily influenced, too much influenced, and above all by anything collective. I know that if at this moment I had before me a group of twenty young Germans singing Nazi songs in chorus, a part of my soul would instantly become Nazi...

"I am afraid of the Church patriotism existing in Catholic circles. By patriotism I mean the feeling one has for a terrestrial country. I am afraid of it because I fear to catch it.

"There were some saints who approved of the Crusades or the Inquisition. I cannot help thinking that they were in the wrong. I cannot go against the light of conscience....I must admit that in this matter they were blinded by something very powerful. This something was the Church seen as a social structure. If this social structure did them harm, what harm would it not do me, who am particularly susceptible to social influences and who am almost infinitely more feeble than they were?

"I am well aware that the Church must inevitably be a social structure; otherwise it would not exist. But in so far as it is a social structure, it belongs to the Prince of this World."

Other comments include:

"It is true that we have to love our neighbor, but, in the example that Christ gave as an illustration of this commandment, the neighbor is a being of whom nothing is known, lying naked, bleeding, and unconscious on the road. It is a question of completely anonymous, and for that reason completely universal love."

"The best support for faith is the guarantee that if we ask our Father for bread, he does not give us a stone. Quite apart from explicit religious belief, every time that a human being succeeds in making an effort of attention with the sole idea of increasing his grasp of truth, he acquires a greater aptitude for grasping it, even if his effort produces no visible fruit....If there is a real desire, if the thing desired is really light, the desire for light produces it. There is a real desire when there is an effort of attention. It is really light that is desired if all other incentives are absent. Even if our efforts of attention seem for years to be producing no result, one day a light that is in exact proportion to them will flood the soul. Every effort adds a little gold to a treasure no power on earth can take away."

"Everybody knows that really intimate conversation is only possible between [a small number of persons].. As soon as there are [large numbers], collective language begins to dominate. That is why it is a complete misinterpretation to apply to the Church the words 'Wheresoever two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.' Christ did not say two hundred, or fifty . . . He said two or three."

Again, I leave it to each indiividual to make choices in this area. But I am not in favor of programs designed to cause persons who choose group home Bible studies over "church" attendance to appear as in any way deficient. Our relationship to God and Christ is a personal one, not tied in to some religious institution or its buildings.

There is much more that could be said, but, as stated, the book In Search of Christian Freedom provides more Scriptural evidence on the topic.

I wish you God's help and direction on your efforts to be of help and service to others in your country. Please give my warm regards to Leontina and Ovidiu.

Sincerely,

Ray

---

From brother Raymond Franz

About Memorial

From: Commentary Press <info@commentarypress.com>

Subject: Re: Question about the day of the Lord's dead

To: <innoire@yahoo.com>

Date: Sunday, April 26, 2009, 12:42 AM

Dear John,

Here are some comments on the Memorial (or Lords’ evening meal).

The Memorial, as celebrated by Witnesses, converts an expression of faith (in Christ’s ransom sacrifice on the part of all Christians) into a means primarily for advancing an organization’s teaching and restricting Jesus’ words, “Do this [that is, take of the wine and unleavened bread] in remembrance of me” to a comparatively tiny group of persons.

If one reads John 6:32-59 it seems quite clear that bread and wine are used Biblically to symbolize things in which everyone hoping to gain life must share, that both emblems refer to the ransom sacrifice, God’s provision through Christ for attaining life everlasting made available for all persons. By his later use of these emblems at the final supper, God’s Son established a means for expressing through figurative emblems the faith each of us has in the ransom sacrifice he provided, as well making acknowledgment of the community of brotherhood we hold with all others having that faith.

So, in our discussions we focus on the fact that Christ instituted the occasion as a means for remembering him and for expressing faith in his ransom sacrifice. He said nothing about two classes, one class partaking and the other not. (Compare 1 Corinthians 11:23-26; John 6:47-58) Paul’s words about partaking “unworthily” had to do with the manner and attitude some in Corinth were showing on the occasion and did not in anyway indicate that participation was restricted to a particular “class” of Christians. (1 Corinthians 11:17-22, 27-34) Recognizing that eating the bread and drinking the wine simply represents faith in the ransom sacrifice Christ provided, from which all Christians benefit, almost all in attendance at our gatherings usually partake. It is so much more meaningful than the rather empty ceremony typical of Kingdom Hall celebrations.

In our celebration, we gather in the evening for a regular meal and then follow this with a commemorating of the Lord’s evening meal, which we generally do while still sitting around the dinner table. It is informal but enjoyable and meaningful. I think of the fact that even the Passover was not celebrated at the temple (though each family’s lamb was sacrificed there) but was held in homes, something that was true of early Christian’s commemorating of the Lord’s evening meal. The simplicity, accessibility, and every-day nature of the emblems Christ employed also seem notable. They had nothing of the unusual or exotic or “special,” since they were common items on the daily table, not some kind of special “sabbath” food. Similarly Christ’s ransom sacrifice is open to all, and our partaking of his “body” and “blood” is not something done on Sundays but an everyday, all-day matter, carried out by showing faith in our ordinary, daily affairs of life.

As regards the time for celebrating the Lord’s evening meal, we customarily celebrate the meal on the date of the Jewish passover. Thiis year that was April 8. However, it would seem that the important thing is the celebrating of the meal, not the precise day. We really have no way of knowing what day Jesus would recognize today as the “correct” date corresponding to Passover. It would seem however that the date system the Jewish people have been using for centuries would be the more logical one.

Actually, there really is not much Biblical proof that Christians celebrated it only on a yearly basis. The apostle Paul quotes Jesus as saying, “Keep doing this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” (1 Corinthians 11:25) I used to try to explain away the expression “often” by referring to Hebrews 9:25, where the word “often” appears again in the English New World Translation, used there in connection with the high priest’s entry into the Most Holy, which took place once a year on atonement day. But a person familiar with Greek pointed out to me that in the Greek original two different words are used for the “often” in 1 Corinthians and that at Hebrews 9. The one in Hebrews 9 means essentially “a number of times” but that in 1 Corinthians is much more indefinite (or broader and looser), and has the sense of “whenever.” He also pointed out that it is generally believed that Paul arrived first in Corinth about 50 A.D. and the account in Acts shows he spent a minimum of eighteen months there (Acts 18:11), possibly longer (Acts 18:18), so he left there in late 51 or early 52 A.D. His first letter to Corinthians is believed to have been written about the spring of 55 A.D. In that letter he rebukes them for their conduct in connection with the Lord’s evening meal (chapter 11:17-22), showing that some were viewing it as if it were an ordinary meal and giving no true significance to the emblems. If the celebration of the meal was done only once a year it seems incredible that, after having celebrated it only four or five times at the most (from 50 to 55 A.D.), and perhaps only three times since Paul’s departure, they could possibly slip so quickly into such an attitude. A once-a-year celebration would make the event an unusual, uncommon one. On the other hand if they were celebrating it not on an annual basis but more often, they might have celebrated it dozens or scores of times in those few years. That would more reasonably explain how some had come to take the attitude that Paul rebukes. Some suggest that when Christians had their agapes or gatherings of fellowship that they kept the Lord’s evening meal along with their regular meal. Nothing dogmatic can be stated.

I can see why persons who are gathering together at some other time of the year and who may not be seeing each other for some time (perhaps coming from different, even distant, locations) might wish to celebrate the meal at such occasion. (When I was in Germany two years ago, three brothers were there from Sweden (including Carl Olof Jonsson) and they expressed the wish to share in the Lord’s evening meal with me. We did that in my hotel room.

I do think there is some validity at least to a view expressed that for a time after a major event takes place, the memory of the event itself is vivid. As time goes on, it is the effect of the event that is more enduring. I am sure that in the years following Jesus’ crucifixion and death the celebrating of the Lord’s evening meal had a special poignancy, the memory of what had transpired being yet fresh in their minds, the intense attitudes that produced the execution of their Lord still surrounding them and felt very acutely. Though those basic attitudes exist today, and the gravity of the historical act has never diminished, I think that it is true that today we think more of the effects of what he accomplished by his death. It is true that the Memorial celebration focuses on those effects. But I can see that people back then might feel a greater or more intense motivation for holding that celebration with perhaps some degree of frequency than might be true now. Those are just thoughts, for whatever they are worth.

I hope this will be of some aid to that sister you mention.

Sincere regards,

Ray

From another letter from brother Ray Franz

There really is not much Biblical proof that Christians celebrated it only on a yearly basis. The apostle Paul quotes Jesus as saying, “Keep doing this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” (1 Corinthians 11:25) I used to try to explain away the expression “often” by referring to Hebrews 9:25, where the word “often” appears again in the English New World Translation, used there in connection with the high priest’s entry into the Most Holy, which took place once a year on atonement day. But a person familiar with Greek pointed out to me that in the Greek original two different words are used for the “often” in 1 Corinthians and that at Hebrews 9. The one in Hebrews 9 means essentially “a number of times” but that in 1 Corinthians is much more indefinite (or broader and looser), and has the sense of “whenever.” He also pointed out that it is generally believed that Paul arrived first in Corinth about 50 A.D. and the account in Acts shows he spent a minimum of eighteen months there (Acts 18:11), possibly longer (Acts 18:18), so he left there in late 51 or early 52 A.D. His first letter to Corinthians is believed to have been written about the spring of 55 A.D. In that letter he rebukes them for their conduct in connection with the Lord’s evening meal (chapter 11:17-22), showing that some were viewing it as if it were an ordinary meal and giving no true significance to the emblems. If the celebration of the meal was done only once a year it seems incredible that, after having celebrated it only four or five times at the most (from 50 to 55 A.D.), and perhaps only three times since Paul’s departure, they could possibly slip so quickly into such an attitude. A once-a-year celebration would make the event an unusual, uncommon one. On the other hand if they were celebrating it not on an annual basis but more often, they might have celebrated it dozens or scores of times in those few years. That would more reasonably explain how some had come to take the attitude that Paul rebukes. Some suggest that when Christians had their agapes or gatherings of fellowship that they kept the Lord’s evening meal along with their regular meal. On this point nothing dogmatic can be stated.

I can see why persons who are gathering together at some other time of the year and who may not be seeing each other for some time (perhaps coming from different, even distant, locations) might wish to celebrate the meal at such occasion. In Germany the brothers from Sweden expressed their wish to share with me in the commemoration of the Lord’s evening meal before we separated and we did so in my hotel room.

---

A private e.mail letter of Raymond Franz with his famous statement regarding the popular doctrine of the Trinity.

Dear Friend,

Thank you for your message which was translated for me by a friend in Romania I hope you will be able to read my reply.

I regret that my response is slow. As of May 8 I will be 87 and in the year 2000 I suffered what was diagnosed as a moderate stroke, no paralysis resulted but it left me tired and with a reduced energy level. So I am not able to keep up with correspondence as I would like. Crisis of Conscience is now in 13 languages, which brings in more mail. My wife’s health has undergone some serious problems as well, requiring the giving of time in that direction. Cynthia underwent a heart catheterization process which revealed six blockages in her heart. The doctors wanted to do bypass surgery but she opted not to do so. On September of 2007 I underwent a surgical operation on my left carotid artery (one of the main arteries supplying blood to the brain). It took an hour and a half and I was conscious during the operation since only a local anesthesia was applied. The surgeon made about a 5-inch incision in the neck and then opened the artery and cleared out the blockage in it. My right carotid artery became totally blocked causing the stroke in the year 2000 and thus it was important to keep the left open and free of blockage. I only had to spend one night in the hospital, for which I was grateful. The popular use of the term "golden years" certainly does not describe what older age really brings. Ecclesiastes Chapter 12 gives a realistic picture.

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 and material put out by “ex-JW” sources on the subject are almost entirely negative. A man from England recently wrote:

I'm currently an "active" Witness from England, and I just wanted to say how absolutely relieved I was to read your books ("Crisis of Conscience" and "In Search Of Christian Freedom"). I must confess, reading them was nothing like I expected. My only contact with ex-jw's has been through browsing the net, and to be honest, a lot of what's written doesn't merit much by way of consideration. A lot of sites are so absolutely blinded by bitterness, that even the truth they do provide is soured and unpalatable.

I can sympathize with 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 Watch Tower organization. So many points could be clarified if people were simply to read the same text in a variety of translations. They would then at least see that where translation is concerned, dogmatism is greater evidence of ignorance than of learning. I find this to be the case with many who adopt the Trinity doctrine.

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.

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 and distinctive teachings of the denomination involved.

In a recent letter from Canada a brother writes:

I have started witnessing informally to people who have Bible questions or when I see it is an appropriate time to witness. I offer a free discussion

on the Bible, its theme concerning Jesus and the Kingdom, the main divisions and how to study it to profit personally. No obligations, no church, no

religion, just a Bible discussion. I do not associate with any group and do not feel the need to really. I also do not give personal opinions wherever the

Scriptures are not clear or are a decision of conscience. However, I do feel

the need to let folks know that the Bible's way is the only way to live and

freedom, true freedom, comes through knowing Jesus Christ. On occasion I see myself saying things that must be verified for the correct understanding, but

I at least feel I know the basics to help someone profit from a personal

study of the Bible. It takes a long time to get out of the woods, and I sometimes ask myself if total eradication of WT influence is possible. When it has

been a part of your adult life for so long, you still find yourself thinking a

certain way and then realize it is learned thoughts, not logically thought

out sometimes. There are some things you want to hold on to of course, but their programming gets in the way more often than you would like to believe.

I do not know if you have read the sequel to Crisis of Conscience, the book titled In Search of Christian Freedom. You may find many questions considered there.

I hope that things may go well for you and wish you God’s guidance, comfort and strength as you face up to life's problems.

Sincerely,

Ray

----------------

Faceți căutări pe acest blog

Biblioteca Online Creştinism Clasic

Testimony of Raymond Franz (Marturii)

Comentarii

Trimiteți un comentariu

Postări populare de pe acest blog

CE SE SPUNE DESPRE APOPHIS? (Doc. engl roman)

Din dosarul unei secte (Vestitorii Dimineţii)

Habanii, o ramură pacifistă a anabaptiştilor (ramura huterită)

Etichete

Arhivați