Ray Franz Comments on the Memorial as Celebrated by Jehovah's Witnesses...

by LUKEWARM 17 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  LUKEWARM

  .
  
  Thought this will be of interest at this time of year....
  
  
  Dear Daniel,I appreciated your latest letter. As you have found, 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 have customarily celebrated the meal on the date of the Jewish passover, but not as viewing that as a require date. 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.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) As a Witness, 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 have made 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 am sure you appreciate the need for patience during a time of transition. I feel that there is no experience that cannot bring some benefit, if we're willing to work to that end. Some of those experiences we characterize as negative and unpleasant can often teach more than those we view as pleasurable. At the same time that does not excuse from responsibility those who contributed to our making decisions that we would probably not have made had we not been misinformed. It was probably the rather cavalier, insensitive spirit so often manifest in Governing Body discussions that most disturbed me.Life inevitably has its negative aspects, but we can deal with these as they require and then put them behind us. The past may be beyond our changing, but the present and the future are things we can work with, focus on. If we let resentment or bitterness control us then we are, as one scholar put it, "prisoners of the past." When we find the power to put the past to rest, we set a prisoner free-and we have been that prisoner. To do otherwise is to live with frustration and reminds one of Paul's statement about "beating the air." (1 Corinthians 9:26) There is a great source of happiness and peace in putting our focus on positive matters. As the apostle puts it: Whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is pleasing, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence and if there is anything worthy or praise, think about these things.-Phillipians 4:8.
  
  Life has its seasons and each difficult season that we weather strengthens us for the future. Life is also a journey and we cannot make progress in it if our focus is mainly on where we have been; that could lead to emotional inertia or even entropy. What is done is done. The journey inevitably contains challenge, but we can find encouragement in knowing that we are moving on, making at least some progress, and can feel confident that what is ahead can be fulfilling.Hope that things may go well for you.Best wishes,RaySource: http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/195919/1/Ray-Franz-Emails-Part-3-Final
• 

  Mary

  Excellent summary. As Ray pointed out, there is absolutely nothing in the scriptures that indicate that partaking of the bread and wine is limited to 'annointed' ones. This was the brainchild of Rutherfraud when he decided that most Christians were not in the 'new covenant' and were viewed as second class citizens and therefore, unworthy to participate in a Christian ritual that was open to all Christians for the last 2,000 years.

  I remember Unclebruce telling me a few years ago that there's some religious groups that worship Satan who pass around the bread and wine and purposely do not partake of it (as a slap in the face to Jesus). While the motives might be different, I think it's pretty bad that Jehovah's Witnesses "celebration of the Lord's Evening Meal" has more in common with devil worshipers, than Christianity.
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  I am so glad Ray came over from the dark side. He is clearly able to write the way they (WTS) would have us going along with their doctrines. He reveals such and, although he is just as persuasive writing against WTS's practices, I can tell that this writing is from the non-cult personality and full of honesty. (Example: We really have no way of knowing what day Jesus would recognize today as the "correct" date corresponding to Passover.)
• 

  Broken Promises
• 

  Quendi

  Thank you ever so much, LUKEWARM, for sharing this letter. I am passing it along to others I know because I believe it will benefit them and many others. Ray Franz has presented his thinking in a warm and loving way, and I have more respect for him than ever. The letter recalled my one meeting with him back in 1980 in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. I came away deeply impressed, and this letter confirms that initial feeling.

  The letter has also strengthened my resolve to boycott the Memorial "celebration" at the Kingdom Hall. For the first time since 1975, I will not be in attendance. My presence at the event isn't wanted anyway since I am now disfellowshipped. In the past, my treatment ranged from cold hostility to studied indifference, and that is another reason for me to stay away. Regardless of what Witnesses say about Christ's ransom sacrifice, they clearly do not believe it covers me, so why should I be part of their observance of the Lord's Supper? It makes no sense for me to be there.

  But what I most appreciate about the letter is that it has made me rethink my belief on who should partake of the emblems. I do not have the hope of life in heaven. But that does not mean that I am not part of the body of Christ; or that the new covenant does not apply to me; or that I should not "partake" of the bread and wine. For the first time in many years, I will be glad to miss the Witnesses' empty "celebration". This letter has helped me immeasurably, and has made my spiritual journey that much more interesting.

  Quendi
• 

  Larsinger58

  Thanks for sharing this letter. I have a letter from Ray as well.

  It is he whom the Scriptures prophesied about:

  “A certain man was rich and he had a steward, and this one was accused to him as handling his goods wastefully. 2 So he called him and said to him, ‘What is this I hear about you? Hand in the account of your stewardship, for you can no longer manage the house.’ 3 Then the steward said to himself, ‘What am I to do, seeing that my master will take the stewardship away from me? I am not strong enough to dig, I am ashamed to beg. 4 Ah! I know what I shall do, so that, when I am put out of the stewardship, people will receive me into their homes.’ 5 And calling to him each one of the debtors of his master he proceeded to say to the first, ‘How much are you owing my master?’ 6 He said, ‘A hundred bath measures of olive oil.’ He said to him, ‘Take your written agreement back and sit down and quickly write fifty.’ 7 Next, he said to another one, ‘Now you, how much are you owing?’ He said, ‘A hundred cor measures of wheat.’ He said to him, ‘Take your written agreement back and write eighty.’ 8 And his master commended the steward, though unrighteous, because he acted with practical wisdom; for the sons of this system of things are wiser in a practical way toward their own generation than the sons of the light are."

  Ray Franz was a member of the govening body and thus a steward in God's house. By his own admission he tried to water down evidence about ancient chronology, etc. He got thrown out of God's house. But then he did something. He wrote two books and wrote personal letters as this one that helped others in the organization break away. This lower their "debt" to the master. That is, while in the organization, worshipping the GB as a god, they had much "debt" in the way of sin. Ray Franz helped them lower that debt by helping them to break away from their worship of the GB. So in that sense, he redeemed himself and is counted among the anointed.

  Okay. That being said, with a point being well taken about how often they remembered Christ's sacrifice, there are two things to keep in mind:

  1) Christ did initiate this on Passover.

  2) It was only to be kept until he returned.

  Thanks, again, for this letter. Ray is fondly remembered by many of us who had the privilege of interacting with him.
• 

  willyloman

  Thanks for posting this passage. It reminded me once again that the WTS met its Waterloo in the late 1970's and self-destructed in about 1980-81, when it ran people like Ray Franz out of the organization. At that time, the Society by these actions delivered a strong message that there wasn't going to be any reform.
  
  I remember as a faithful dub in the late 1970's feeling a flow of fresh air coming from New York and believing that the Society was going through some beneficial changes that would resolve a lot of the doubts/issues/questions many of us had. In the wake of the 1975 debacle, which embarrassed so many of us, there was a collective feeling that out of this could come change and reform, a kinder, gentler Watchtower.

  It was during this period that at a social gathering, the visiting CO and several elders were sitting around talking. The CO told us that Bethel was conducting an audit of all our teachings and that there were going to be significant changes ahead. These were going to be enlightening and would lead to the abandonment of some of our more incredulous teachings, and it was his opinion that this was all good. Ironically, no one debated the need for reform. We all felt the change in the air and welcomed it. Within a couple of years of that conversation, they had kicked out all the reformers and reclaimed the castle. A hard line mentality descended on dubdom. Some of the more visbile manifestations: The Commentary on the Letter of James was tossed out, along with the Aid book.

  Ray's humble tone in the above passage was exactly the demeanor the Society needed to adopt after 1975. By then the dubs had attracted millions of new adherents, many of whom were good people longing for justice and righteousness and appalled at a system of things that appeared to be coming apart at the seams.

  Imagine what might have been if they had channeled that energy and zeal for social justice 30 years ago. Instead, they went back to the wreckage of the past, sifting for treasure in the trash heap. They're still looking.
• 

  LUKEWARM

  Mary - Well said. Traditions of men being palmed off as "truth" without basis in the scriptures

  OnTheWayOut - yes the humility and honesty really stand out in the way he writes

  Quendi - glad you found this article useful on your journey!

  willyloman - thank you for posting that info. I agree - what an opportunity was missed to reform and change the organization into something worthwhile when they kicked him out!
  
  
  To any lurkers out there, Ray Franz was a governing body member for over nine years. He was a very sincere and humble man as well as a devout Christian until he passed away last year. Do yourselves a favour and read his two outstanding books:
  
  (1) Crisis of Conscience, and
  (2) In Search of Christian Freedom
  
  Both can be purchased in book form or downloaded as PDF's (for privacy) here:

  http://www.commentarypress.com/Publication/English.html

  His insights are simply invaluable for anybody wanting to examine the JW religion in an honest and complete light.
  
  .
• 

  clarity

  Seemed appropriate to run this again Ray Franz thoughts

  on the memorial.
• 

  Scott77

  Iam surprised, Ray was a good writer and analyical thinker.

  Scott77