One of our commenters put forward a defense for the position of Jehovah’s Witnesses regarding the mandatory reporting of child abuse cases. Coincidently, a good friend of mine gave me the identical defense. I believe it reflects the standard belief among Jehovah’s Witnesses, and therefore I felt it required more than a reply at the comment level.
Here is the argument for the defense:
The royal commission showed that the WT has been producing material for a long time to educate people on the dangers of child abuse. The JW policy is to do things according to what the Bible says. For them the Bible is above the laws of the land, but they comply where the laws do not contradict or go against Biblical directives.
The two-witness rule is only for taking congregational action, not for taking legal action. It has been up to parents or guardians to take legal action. It seems many parents have not wanted to report such matters to authorities, as they did not want to the hassle. One of the things that the Royal Commission has commented on is that Australia does not have uniform laws about reporting such matters. The JWs in states where it is mandatory would report it even if parents did not want to do it.
It has not been the big problem the papers made it out to be.
I do not wish to single out the commentor, but only his argument.
The Organization has been hiding behind the fact that where there is mandatory reporting, they do comply. This is a red herring. The implication is that if the government doesn’t feel that reporting all cases of child abuse is important enough to make mandatory, it is unfair to come down on us for failing to report. What came out at the Australian Royal Commission hearing was that some states had mandatory reporting and repealed it. The reason was that by making it mandatory, people reported everything for fear of being penalized. The authorities were then swamped with a lot of trivial complaints and spent so much time following them all up that they feared legitimate cases would slip through the cracks. They hoped that by repealing the mandatory reporting law, people would do the right thing and report legitimate cases. Witnesses would likely not expect “worldly” people to do the right thing, but why wouldn’t we do what the authorities expect, given that we hold ourselves to a higher standard?
There are 2 things that we are overlooking in our facile defense of this serious situation. The first is that even if there is a mandatory reporting law, it only applies to allegations of child abuse. That’s allegations not crimes. Mr. Stewart, the lawyer for the commission, made it clear that reporting crime is mandatory. Where there is clear evidence of child abuse – when it has been possible to implement the 2-witness rule – we have a crime and all crimes are to be reported. Yet, even in cases where crime has clearly been committed, we have still failed to report it. We failed to report over 1000 cases! What possible defense could there be for that?
The 2nd point is that a government should not have to make reporting an allegation of such a serious crime mandatory. The conscience of any law-abiding citizen should motivate him to report to the superior authorities any serious crime, especially one that constitutes a clear and present danger to the populace. If the Organization is truly willing to stand by the claim that we do things according to what the Bible says, then why are we disobeying the Bible in regard to showing submission to the superior authorities by trying to handle criminal cases all by ourselves? (Romans 13:1-7)
Why do we deal with this crime differently than we would any other? Why do we say it is only the responsibility of the family?
Let us say that a sister came forward and reported to the elders that she saw an elder leaving a barn with blood on his clothes. She then entered the barn and found the body of a murdered woman. Would the elders first go to the brother, or would they go directly to the police? Based on how we handle child abuse cases, they would go to the brother. Let us say the brother denies even being there. The elders are now dealing with a single witness. Based on how we deal with child abuse cases, the brother would continue to serve as an elder and we would inform the sister that she has the right to go to the police. If she doesn’t, then no one will know unless someone stumbles upon the corpse. Of course, by this time, the brother will have hidden the corpse and cleaned up the crime scene.
If you replace “murdered woman” with “sexually abused child”, you have an accurate scenario of what we have done not only in Australia but around the world, thousands of times.
Now what if the murderer we’ve just excused turns out to be a serial killer and kills again? Who bears the bloodguilt for all the murders he commits from that point forward? Ezekiel was told by God that if he didn’t warn the wicked, the wicked would still die, but Jehovah would hold Ezekiel accountable for their spilled blood. In other words, for failing to report he would bear bloodguilt. (Ezekiel 3:17-21) Would this principle not apply in the case of failing to report a serial killer? Of course! Would the principle not also apply in the case of failing to report a child abuser? Serial killers and child abusers are similar in that they both are compulsive repeat offenders. However, serial killers are quite rare while child abusers, tragically, are common.
We try to absolve ourselves of responsibility by claiming that we are following the Bible. What Bible Scripture is it that tells us we have no obligation to protect those in the congregation and those in the community against a very serious threat to their health and well-being? Is this not one of the reasons we claim authority to knock on people’s doors repeatedly? We do it out of love so as to warn them of something that is very dangerous should they ignore it. That is our claim! By doing this, we believe we are absolving ourselves of bloodguilt, following the model set by Ezekiel. Yet, when the threat is even more imminent, we claim we do not have to report it unless ordered to do so. The fact is, we have been ordered to do so by the highest authority in the universe. The entire law of Moses rested on 2 principles: to love God above all other things, and to love your neighbour as yourself. If you have children, would you not want to know about a potential threat to their well-being? Would you consider that a neighbour who knew of such a threat and failed to warn you was showing you love? If your children were subsequently raped and you learned your neighbor knew of the threat and failed to warn you, would you not hold him accountable?
In our example of a single witness to a murder, there was forensic evidence that the police could have used to potentially establish the guilt or innocence of the brother that was witnessed leaving the scene of the crime. We would surely call in the police in such a case, knowing that they have the means we lack to establish the facts. The same is true in cases of child abuse. That we fail to make use of this tool shows that we are not really interested in others, nor are we interested in the sanctification of God’s name. We cannot sanctify God’s name by disobeying him. We are only interested in protecting the reputation of the Organization.
By failing to put God’s law first, we have brought reproach on ourselves, and because we presume to represent him and bear his name, we bring reproach on him. There will be serious consequences.
There will be serious consequences indeed. No one mocks God and gets away with it. I applaud your methodical reasoning which is a breath of fresh air in light of the horrendous, shameful, and disgusting testimonies of elders, bethel members and even a member of the governing body who claim to be the faithful and discreet slave selected by Jesus and Jehovah themselves. They must’ve made a mistake! They picked cowards!
Ime with you on this countrygirl, I feel the same from a different angle, I feel like Ime rubbing shoulders with people who can’t tell what is really wrong or right unless they are told by the GB.
Is this a form of psychosis on my part?
Are JW like those in nazi Germany who obeyed without question ?
The entire Royal Commission Hearings have left me feeling especially vulnerable, physically weak and confused, which is a common reaction in Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. I also feel exhilarated, exonerated and glad that so much corruption and rottenness was exposed for all the word to see. I felt sick to the pit of my stomach to hear the representatives of the organization in their non-existent defense of their actions, speaking aloud in front of God and everybody. My sister and I were both molested at the same time by the brother who conducted the book study in our home many… Read more »
[…] words and by our actions we show whose reputation we value the most. In light of the recent article The Mandatory Reporting Red Herring, the branch claims to have a high standard regarding the reporting of child abuse. Here is an […]
Yes what exactly constitutes a reportable crime?
How serious must it be to make the grade for reportable?
Where exactly did the “bible trained conscience” go ?
I personally feel that I can no longer trust anyone who trusts the GB and their policies,only because it seems to me that their consciences don’t actually function.
At the recent imitate Jesus convention one of the speakers said that Jesus didn’t micro manage his disciples,this whole business of report/ not report seems to be micro management at its ugly best.
This is the best summarization I have read so far. Thanks, it cuts to the chase. Obey God as ruler rather than men? No, it looks like disobeying both God, and men. And worse, hiding under fallacies to do so.
The brothers need to do the right thing, and report a crime and get the authorities involved, simple. Did not Jehovah expose the sins of many in the bible, including King David. From my understanding thus far. The information is passed around between the elders handling it & possibly elders wives . Then it’s passed to the branch service department then the legal department then it goes back to the service department. Then you have those that have to put the data into into their files etc etc. So how many eyes view this so called confidential information ? So… Read more »
Apart from the tendency to try and protect the image of the organisation the other problem that we have is that many because of the propaganda feel that we are living in a utopian society So when these accusations fly find it difficult to believe that they are true . A friend of mine mentioned this problem to xa long serving elder a while back and apparently he said it was all lies ,only to find out just a few weeks later from the newspapers that there was a case involving a memberof our congregation that had gone to court… Read more »
“By failing to put God’s law first…” Something all Christian religions have done. “…we have brought reproach on ourselves…” Something all Christian religions have also done. “…and because we presume to represent him and bear his name…” Something all Christian religions have claimed. “… we bring reproach on him.” The Watchtower is a gnat on the foot of the world’s Christian elephant. They mean nothing to the Christian world which will keep attempting to honor the Father and Christ with or without the Watchtower religion. The name Jehovah’s Witnesses is a misnomer. The Jews as a people were eyewitnesses to… Read more »
At least Christ actually commanded his followers to be HIS witnesses, not witnesses of his Father – a thing he was perfectly capable of asking of them, if that were his Father’s will on the matter.
Christ’s disciples were eyewitnesses to their Father’s bringing forth of the Messiah.
You are much mistaken!
Deborah
Actually, Anonymous wasn’t suggesting that in his comment, Deborah.
Meleti, Act 2:32 “This Jesus God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses. Act 10:41 not to all the people, but to witnesses who were chosen beforehand by God, that is, to us who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead. 1Co 15:15 Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. Because Jesus did not directly say his disciples would be witnesses of his Father do you actually believe… Read more »
Deborah, are you working on the assumption I don’t agree with you? If so, where did you get that idea?
Your response.
I really don’t see how you got that from my response.
My reference was to Acts 1:8, where Jesus states, “but you will receive power when the holy spirit arrives upon you , and you will be witnesses of me both in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the most distant part of the earth.” There is no comparable statement of Jesus telling us to be witnesses to his Father. That does not mean we should be silent about his Father; far from it. This is a much narrower question: Who did Jesus command his followers to be witnesses of? Himself. By relegating the role of witnessing to… Read more »
I haven’t read or listened to every word from the Royal Commission, partly because it’s so long and also because it’s so depressing. The expression that comes to my mind in describing the actions and attitudes of elders, circuit and district overseers and even GB member Geoffrey Jackson is “morally bankrupt”. It seems clear that their overriding concern is not the safety of children, not adherence to the Bible, and not ‘honoring the sanctity of God’s name’ but rather covering their behinds and avoiding scandals that could impact the growth (and profitability?) of their organization. It’s beyond despicable. So many… Read more »
Great point. I wish I could post a letter to Elders I have from 1992 in this forum. The response to a question about knowing about a person criminal past is disturbing.
Perhaps you could just summarize what it said and give us some references. There are online sources we could use to confirm it, but we’d need to know the date of the letter.
The date of the letter was July 23, 2015 and the reference line was “Re: Canada Branch Renovation Project”. It was to be read out at the first service meeting following receipt.
Sorry, I meant the letter that Scrubmaster was referring to, not yours, Meleti.