I was interested by the suggestion in a recent discussion that Rutherford was in some way preferable to Fred Franz, because I’ve not come across this view before. It made me rethink my assumptions and try to work out why I hold the opposite view and prefer Fred Franz to Rutherford. I haven’t done any additional research, so I’m only drawing on what I can remember off the top of my head, but I thought I’d list a few things where I reckon Fred Franz’s approach was preferable to Rutherford.
1. Rutherford stopped songs and music at the meetings. Fred Franz loved music and singing and restored them when Rutherford died. It would be pretty strange to have meetings with no music.
2. Rutherford insisted on the rather forced reading of Romans 13 that the “superior authorities” are not governments but Jesus and Jehovah. That was a pretty incredible claim that Franz had to walk back while maintaining neutrality as a principle that is not dependent on this forced reading of this passage.
3. Rutherford introduced a strange teaching that in modern times God uses only the angels rather than the holly spirit to guide his followers. Again, Franz dropped that.
4. Rutherford introduced militaristic language to describe congregations rather as “companies” as if engaged in warfare (a bit like the Salvation Army). Again, Franz ended that.
5. Rutherford got rid of elders as the means of organising congregations. It is not as clear in this instance that Franz was instrumental in restoring bodies of elders, or if he allowed the change to be made by others, but elders did come back, in a new form.
6. Rutherford engaged in personal attacks in bethel and through the pages of the publications against Johnson and Moyle and others. Whatever his other faults, I don’t think Franz engaged in that, certainly not in the printed literature as Rutherford did.
7. Rutherford was anti-intellectual as well as anti-cleric, anti-business, anti-politics (some would say anti-social - ha!) whereas, whether you agreed with Franz or not, he did attempt to read and engage with academic literature on Bible languages and interpretation, which made for more interesting material.
Those are some things where I think where Franz was preferable to Rutherford. I am probably forgetting and/or missing loads of relevant issues. These don’t get into the personal habits of either which is a whole other, though largely unverifiable area where Rutherford has come in for greater criticism than Franz.