What does it mean to "keep Jehovah's organization clean"?
[...] It means that those men will continue to apply with all due vigor whatever policy may be current and they will disfellowship anyone who does not adhere to that policy ... The main concern is to be obedient to Society policy. The feeling is created that 'if the organization tells us to do it we will not be held responsible by God if it is a mistake.' That same mentality has prevailed among men of many lands and in many periods who have excused themselves of guilt in serious injustice by the claim that "they were simply following orders from their superiors." Even the world's courts have rejected such an excuse. How much more should Christians reject it!
The binding, restricting effect that this concern for organizational submission can have on person's minds was illustrated to me by an experience related by Robert Lang, then the assistant Bethel Home Overseer at the international headquarters. He had been transferred to a different congregation in the New York city area and he said that at one of the first meetings he attended there the elders approached him for advice. It seems that a young woman, the sister of one of the ministerial servants, was disfellowshiped and was still attending meetings. She had a small baby and brought it with her to the Kingdom Hall in a baby carriage. The Hall itself was on the second story of a building and the stairs were long and steep. The young woman would back up the stairs, pulling the baby carriage - with the baby in it - up the stairs as she went. The question the elders asked was whether it would be proper for the disfellowshiped woman's brother to assist her in getting up the stairs! Some thought so, others said, no, being disfellowshiped she should be considered as if she were not even there. To his credit, Lang said, "I don't know what the rule is on this, I only know one thing: if I'm around when she starts pulling that carriage up the stairs, I'm going to help her! When I think of what could happen if she were to stumble and lose control of the carriage ....'
The most frightening thing about this is that adult men did not feel they could be guided by their own hearts and minds in a circumstance so obviously calling for human kindness. The pressing concern for them was - not the danger to the infant's life - but WHAT THE ORGANIZATION POLICY ALLOWED in such cases [emphasis: RF]. They gave evidence of having become emasculated men in matters of ethics, of right and wrong.
Franz concludes by stating that Robert Lang was for him "the kind of person he was, not because of the organization, but in spite of the organization."
IN SEARCH OF CHRISTIAN FREEDOM, Ray Franz, pp. 404, 405.