I appreciate all the feedback on my last thread. And I've got a taste for writing up my opinions now. Ha!
So I intended to write this post contrasting the Watchtower's current financial crisis with its extraordinary past success as a worldwide publishing empire. I thought that if I can successfully contrast the two different phases of their history then it will illuminate Watchtower's current crisis all the more.
But it is getting really long (and late) and I've only started to get to the actual historical comparison. So I'll post this as part 1 of the story/argument only!
...
A main objection to my proposition that Watchtower is in serious financial trouble is that I have been naive. I have taken WT announcements at face value when they said, "there is a lot more money going out than there is coming in", and this has forced them to make severe cutbacks. In reality (so the argument goes) they've pocketed billions of dollars from sales of Brooklyn property and they've probably got enough money to keep them going for decades. The cries of poverty are empty. It's smoke and mirrors.
I don't think so.
Here is why. It's not simply that they have said they're short of money. If that was all the evidence it would not be enough. It's that their actions are consistent with their claim, and have been so over a long period of time. Additionally, the idea that they are short of money is also consistent with the sweep of their history, their social composition, and culture.
I would suggest that when someone 1) says they are short of money 2) act like they are short of money and 3) have circumstances where a shortage of money is a plausible explanation. With all those things combined, you'd need to come up with some pretty compelling reasons to avoid the obvious conclusion: that the person is short of money.
The overlapping finances
They could be an evil genius of course, and it could be part of some greater plot to deceive, connive and plunder. But really, I ask you, where is the evidence of such genius? We've all seen David Splane "explain" the overlapping generation, have we not? These are not stategic geniuses we are talking about here. And I'm not being entirely flippant when I say it's a bit incongruous to assume that a group of people who can't even work out how long a generation lasts, are nevertheless financial whizzkids who are somehow managing Watchtower funds skilfully while, for some unexplained reason, pretending to make a complete hash of it.
Splane's overlapping generation was revealing on so many levels. These are people who fail to use basic logic, lack good sense, and have an apparently unshakable belief in themselves, their ability to convince others, and that the end of the "system" is near no matter what. None of these characteristics are anything that would normally lead us to suspect that they possess financial acumen, the skill and strategic nous to manage the decline of a publishing empire and transform it into a self-sustaining religious body based on... based on what?
It reminds me somehow of people who argue that Trump may look and act like a clown, but in reality he's an evil genius who is playing some sort of three dimensional chess that no one else understands. There's only so much reality that such a belief can withstand before returning to the obvious conclusion. The man is a clown. Some are in danger of similarly attributing fantastic powers of strategy and deception to the Governing Body, instead of drawing the more obvious conclusion.
Two testimonies contrasted
Another highly revealing episode was the Jackson testimony at the Australian Royal Commission. I admit that initially I thought Jackson had done quite well. He came across as reasonable, trying to help, concerned with the scriptures, even self-deprecating. But on reflection, and after viewing the footage a couple of times, it seems to me more and more like a complete disaster on so many fronts. He avoided answering the questions, didn't seems concerned about the testimony of the victims, and kept repeating that policy was “not his field”.
And the most disastrous moment of all was where he stated that “it would be presumptuous” for him to say that the Governing Body is God’s only channel. I can kind of see why he got himself in that position. He wanted to come across as reasonable. And I guess you could argue they have not completely ruled out the idea God can use others, perhaps in some limited sense. I am trying my hardest to find excuses for him here, but it's difficult.
Contrast this episode with the evidence that Fred Franz, Covington, and others gave during the Walsh trial in the 1950s. Those men really believed they were being used by God and were not afraid to say so. “Jehovah is the editor of the Watchtower” and they would tell it straight to anyone who asked. Say whatever else you like about them, but they deserve a certain respect for sticking to their principles. And in the end it was a winning strategy for them, whereas Jackson’s comments will surely go down in Watchtower history as a momentous blunder.
Really what Jackson displayed was a complete lack of nerve. Sure it would have been awkward for Jackson to stand there as say that yes, I am part of the faithful slave, and we believe we are God’s channel on earth. But he should have withstood the embarrassment and stood by his principles. Not only did it display a complete lack of nerve but it demonstrated a few other things as well. It showed that this is a person who is not able to think on his feet, think strategically, or prioritise the long term ramifications of his actions over short term considerations. Because, in order to avoid an awkward moment, acknowledging JW teaching on the faithful slave, instead we have, on public record, and for all time, a Governing Body member all but categorically denying a cornerstone of JW beliefs, not to mention undercutting the very basis of his own authority.
Yet this is the same leadership, some would apparently argue, that has somehow devised a cunning strategy for stewarding Watchtower finances through the demise of their publishing empire, while carrying on a long-term deception designed to convince the membership they are in financial trouble.
Isn't it more reasonable to conclude that people who 1) can't work out how long a generation lasts and 2) can't answer a doctrinal question without turning it into a historic blunder, are in as much trouble financially as they appear to be and as they claim to be?
The Knorr/Franz era contrasted with its heirs
Arguably the greatest challenge JWs currently face is poor leadership, and from this springs all their other problems, including but not confined to their financial crisis. This is especially apparent when we compare and contrast what Knorr and Franz accomplished during the post-war period with those who have dismantled their legacy in recent years.
Albert Schroeder could have chosen many different aspects of Fred Franz’s long and eccentric life to showcase during Franz’s funeral talk in 1992. What he chose to discuss was the extraordinary partnership and collaboration between Franz and Knorr over many decades. This was well judged. These two men possessed qualities that complimented each other and were the driving force behind the global expansion of JWs. It was a long and fruitful partnership. The Knorr/Franz era stretched from around 1931 until around 1992. That is, from around the time that they took the name Jehovah's Witnesses (which had Franz’s fingerprints all over it) until Franz, the second of the duo died, and could no longer act as a restraining force, preserving their legacy.
Franz was in change of doctrine and Knorr was in charge of organisation. And upon Rutherford’s death in 1942 they wasted no time in setting about their agenda for global expansion and Bible exposition. Indeed there are indications they devised strategy before Rutherford had even passed away, so quickly did they get off their marks when they assumed power. In a few short years Knorr transformed organisation into a nimble publishing and missionary empire. Meanwhile Franz worked on Bible translation and revised his Bible chronology pointing to the mid-1970s.
Knorr may have tolerated rather than fully supported Franz’s obsession with chronology. The Watchtower president is famously quoted as saying, “I believe in God, and in Jesus and the Bible. But the teaching about 1914, and so on, I'm not so certain about”. Which you could read as cynicism. Some think Knorr perceived of himself as a high flying business executive, and little more. But I tend to interpret his comment as indicating a core belief in their project, such that could withstand disconfirmation of elements, including the chronology. Plus the tremendous success of their combined leadership probably convinced both Knorr and Franz, more than anything else, that God was blessing them.
And it's worth reviewing just how successful their stewardship of the Watchtower was in so many respects (since this is my point here).
1975 as the pinnacle of Watchtower organisation
...