Fred Franz' Anti-Governing Body Gilead Talk...Help, Please...

by Confession 9 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Confession

  For those of you familiar with the talk mentioned in my title, I'd like a bit of help understanding what Franz was trying to convey. Yes, I know it seems to have been as a result of the ongoing discussions about whether or not to take full control of the WTS away from the President and give it to the Governing Body. But I'm still not sure how he thought his points were doing that. Here's a freeminds link to a transcript of much of that talk: http://www.freeminds.org/history/franzorg1976.htm

  It seems to me that he's making a good case that Jesus Christ is supposed to be telling Christians what to do--not other humans. He talks about disciples being sent here and there, having received instruction from Jesus, God's spirit or the angel of God. But isn't his point that there was only supposed to be one person calling the shots--as opposed to a committee?

  For those of you familiar with this infamous talk, please help me understand your perspective on this. Was Fred Franz doing a great job of teaching that Jesus--and not men--are supposed to be in charge of Christians? Or did he think he was somehow scripturally demonstrating that a single man should be in charge?
• 

  isaacaustin

  He was trying to discredit the concept of governing body and keep the power vested in the presidency.
• 

  Tom Cabeen

  Hey, Con,
  
  Freddy (Franz) gave that famous/infamous talk during the time that the newly-formed governing body were talking about how the Society ought to be governed, prior to the forming of the committees in 1975. Discussions among them were hot and heavy. Most wanted to divide the power of the presidency (N H Knorr) among them, but Knorr and Franz, the pres and vice pres, were dead set against it. In the midst of it all, Freddy gave that talk to prove that in the first century, there was no such thing as a governing body, nor any centralized authority. The apostles did whatever they wanted, wherever they wanted to, moved only by the holy spirit. He was using his "bully pulpit" to present his own idea of how the WTB&TS ought to be governed.
  
  Eventually, the other guys outvoted him, though, and after the governing body committees were formed, articles began to come out in the publications showing how there really was a centralized governing body in the first century (just like the one in Brooklyn, don't ya know) where new doctrines were decided and passed down through written materials to all the congregations.
  
  I was at that Gilead graduation (sometime in 1974, as I recall) when Freddie gave that talk. I was quite impressed by his reasoning. Perhaps that was one factor that eventually made me reject the whole JW "find a proof text to prove this week's new light" approach to understanding Scripture.
  
  Tom
• 

  Confession

  Hi Tom... Good to hear from you.

  In the midst of it all, Freddy gave that talk to prove that in the first century, there was no such thing as a governing body, nor any centralized authority. The apostles did whatever they wanted, wherever they wanted to, moved only by the holy spirit.

  But if his goal was to keep the power with the President, why would he present such ample evidence that there was no such power during the first century? Was he being consistent with his goal?
• 

  Fadeout

  Confession: But if his goal was to keep the power with the President, why would he present such ample evidence that there was no such power during the first century? Was he being consistent with his goal? This is my understanding:

  Franz argued against the concept of a Governing Body, and in favor of individuals being used by God. It was implied, of course, that the individual being used by God at the time was the President. Franz apparently viewed Rutherford as Elijah and Knorr as Elisha. The literature from that period reflects the teaching that the organization was the "Elijah class" in the Rutherford era and became the "Elisha class" in the Knorr era.

  Franz's goal was to keep power vested in the presidency, and out of the hands of the other GB members. However, in so arguing, you are correct that he essentially undermined the "official" teaching at the time that the Governing Body was in charge of the organization.
• 

  M.J.

  Looks like the more sustainable decision was made.
• 

  Tom Cabeen

  Hi Con,
  
  He saw power in the first century, but not vested in a committee-like arrangement. Evidently, Freddie saw himself and NHK as like the apostle Paul (free to do whatever he wanted without getting permission from the other apostles). In the WT scheme of things, the "other apostles" would be the rest of the "remnant". He didn't want to have to run his talks and articles past a board for approval prior to publication, which might happen if the GB committees went through. I doubt that he ever did that, but things did change to some extent for him after the GB committees. NHK died shortly thereafter (1976, as I recall) and that may have seemed to some as a confirmation that the GB changes were just in time.
  
  Tom
• 

  Confession

  Thanks Fadeout and Tom... I guess this is how I'll understand that talk.

  'So you whippersnappers think you're going to tell US how to run things here at the Society? We're going to have to run things by you, are we? Did Philip the Evangelizer need a "governing body" to tell him where to find the eunuch? Did Paul and Barnabas have to "run things by" some ecclesiastical body in Jerusalem? No they most certainly didn't. They were free to go wherever the spirit moved them, and to do what the Lord Jesus Christ inspired them to do.

  [To himself] I hope the flock doesn't get the idea I'm talking about them. This Christian freedom is only for we higher-ups, of course.'
• 

  BONEZZ

  Is there a copy (written) of that talk anywhere on the web? Thanks.

  -BONEZZ
• 

  Confession

  You can find a link to large chunks of it by clicking on the link in my original post--up top.