The two-witness rule (see De 17:6; 19:15; Mt 18:16; 1 Tim 5:19) was intended to protect the Israelites from being convicted based on false accusations. It was never intended to shield a criminal rapist from justice. Under the law of Moses, there were provisions to ensure an evildoer didn’t escape punishment by taking advantage of legal loopholes. Under the Christian arrangement, the two-witness rule does not apply to criminal activity. Those accused of crimes are to be handed off to the governmental authorities. Caesar has been appointed by God to ferret out the truth in such cases. Whether or not the congregation chooses to deal with those who rape children becomes secondary, because all such crimes should be reported to the authorities in line with what the Bible says. In this way, no one can accuse us of shielding criminals.
“For the Lord’s sake subject yourselves to every human creation, whether to a king as being superior 14 or to governors as sent by him to punish wrongdoers but to praise those who do good. 15 For it is the will of God that by doing good you may silence the ignorant talk of unreasonable men. 16 Be as free people, using your freedom, not as a cover for doing wrong, but as slaves of God. 17 Honor men of all sorts, have love for the whole association of brothers, be in fear of God, honor the king.” (1Pe 2:13-17)
Sadly, the Organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses chooses to apply the two-witness rule rigidly and often uses it to excuse itself from the Bible mandate ‘to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s’—a principle which goes beyond the mere paying of taxes. Using flawed reasoning and Straw Man arguments, they dismiss sincere efforts to help them to see reason, claiming these are attacks by opposers and apostates. (See this video where they have reaffirmed their position and refuse to change.[i]) The Organization views its stand on this as an example of loyalty to Jehovah. They will not abandon a rule they view as one that ensures fairness and justice. In this, they come across to the rank and file as ministers of righteousness. But is this genuine righteousness, or just a façade? (2 Cor. 11:15)
Wisdom is proved righteous by its works. (Mt 11:19) If their reasoning for sticking to the two-witness rule is to ensure fairness—if fairness and justice is their motivation—then they would never abuse the two-witness rule or take advantage of it for an unscrupulous purpose. On that, surely, we can all agree!
Since the two-witness rule comes into play within the Organization when dealing with judicial matters, we will examine the policy and procedures governing that process to see if it is truly equitable and in keeping with the high standard of fairness that the Organization claims to uphold.
In the not-too-distant past, the Governing Body instituted the appeal process. This allowed someone who had been judged as unrepentant of a disfellowshipping offense to appeal the judicial committee’s decision to disfellowship. The appeal had to be filed within seven days of the original decision.
According to the Shepherd the Flock of God elder’s manual, this arrangement “is a kindness to the wrongdoer to assure him of a complete and fair hearing. (ks par. 4, p. 105)
Is that a true and accurate assessment? Is this appeal process both kind and fair? How is the two-witness rule implemented? We shall see.
A Brief Aside
It should be noted that the entire judicial process practiced by Jehovah’s Witnesses is unscriptural. The appeal process was an attempt to bandage up some flaws in the system, but it amounts to sewing new patches on old cloth. (Mt 9:16) There is no basis in the Bible for three-man committees, meeting in secret, excluding observers, and prescribing punishments which the congregation must mete out without even knowing the facts of the case.
The process that is scriptural is outlined in Matthew 18:15-17. Paul gave us the basis for “reinstatement” at 2 Corinthians 2:6-11. For a more complete treatise on the subject, see Be Modest in Walking with God.
Is the Process Truly Equitable?
Once an appeal is made, the Circuit Overseer is contacted by the chairman of the judicial committee. The C.O. will then follow this direction:
To the extent possible, he will select brothers from a different congregation who are impartial and have no ties or relationship to the accused, the accuser, or the judicial committee. (Shepherd the Flock of God (ks) par. 1 p. 104)
So far, so good. The idea conveyed is that the appeal committee is to be totally impartial. However, how can they maintain impartiality when they are subsequently fed the following instruction:
The elders chosen for the appeal committee should approach the case with modesty and avoid giving the impression that they are judging the judicial committee rather than the accused. (ks par. 4, p. 104 – boldface in original)
Just to make sure that the members of the appeal committee get the message, the ks manual has boldfaced the words that direct them to view the original committee in a favorable light. The appellant’s whole reason for the appeal is that he (or she) feels that the original committee erred in their judgment of the case. In fairness, he expects the appeal committee to judge the original committee’s decision in the light of the evidence. How can they do this if they are directed, in boldface writing no less, not to even give the impression that they are there to judge the original committee?
While the appeal committee should be thorough, they must remember that the appeal process does not indicate a lack of confidence in the judicial committee. Rather, it is a kindness to the wrongdoer to assure him of a complete and fair hearing. (ks par. 4, p. 105 – boldface added)
The elders of the appeal committee should keep in mind that likely the judicial committee has more insight and experience than they do regarding the accused. (ks par. 4, p. 105 – boldface added)
The appeal committee is told to be modest, not give the impression they are judging the original committee and bear in mind that this process does not indicate a lack of confidence in the judicial committee. They are told that their judgment is likely to be inferior to that of the original committee. Why all this direction to pussy-foot around the feelings of the original committee? Why this need to give them special honor? If you were facing the prospect of being totally cut off from your family and friends, would you be comforted to learn about this direction? Would it make you feel that you are really going to get a fair and impartial hearing?
Does Jehovah favor the judges over the little one? Is He overly concerned about their feelings? Does He bend over backwards not to offend their delicate sensibilities? Or does he weigh them with a heavier load?
“Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, knowing that we will receive heavier judgment.” (Jas 3:1)
“He it is who reduces rulers to nothing, Who makes the judges of the earth meaningless.” (Isa 40:23 NASB)
How is the appeal committee directed to view the accused? Up to this point in the ks manual, he or she has been referred to as “the accused”. This is fair. Since this is an appeal, it is only right that they view him as potentially innocent. Thus, we can’t help but wonder if a little bit of unwitting bias has slipped by the editor. While trying to reassure all that the appeal process is “a kindness”, the manual refers to the accused as “the wrongdoer”. Surely such a judgmental term has no place in an appeal hearing, since it will likely prejudice the minds of the appeal committee members.
In a similar way, their viewpoint is bound to be affected when they learn they are to view the accused as a wrongdoer, an unrepentant sinner, even before the meeting gets underway.
Since the judicial committee has already judged him unrepentant, the appeal committee will not pray in his presence but will pray before inviting him into the room. (ks par. 6, p. 105 – italics in original)
The appellant either believes he is innocent, or he acknowledges his sin, but believes he is repentant, and that God has forgiven him. That is why he is making the appeal. So why treat him as an unrepentant sinner in a process which is supposed to be “a kindness to ensure him of a complete and fair hearing”?
The Basis for the Appeal
The appeal committee looks to answer two questions as stated in the Shepherd the Flock of God elders manual, page 106 (Boldface in original):
- Was it established that the accused committed a disfellowshipping offense?
- Did the accused demonstrate repentance commensurate with the gravity of his wrongdoing at the time of the hearing with the judicial committee?
In my forty years as an elder, I have known of only two judicial cases that were overturned on appeal. One, because the original committee disfellowshipped when there was no Bible, nor organizational, basis to do so. They clearly acted improperly. This can happen and so in such cases the appeal process can serve as a check mechanism. In the other case, the elders felt that the accused was truly repentant and that the original committee had acted in bad faith. They were raked over the coals by the Circuit Overseer for overturning the original committee’s decision.
There are times when good men will do the right thing and “damn the consequences”, but they are exceedingly rare in my experience and besides, we are not here to discuss anecdotes. Rather we want to examine whether the policies of the Organization are set up to ensure a truly fair and just process for appeals.
We’ve seen how leaders of the Organization adhere to the two-witness rule. We know that the Bible says that no accusation against an older man should be entertained except at the mouth of two or three witnesses. (1 Tim 5:19) Fair enough. The two-witness rule applies. (Remember, we’re distinguishing sin from crimes.)
So let’s look at the scenario where the accused admits he sinned. He admits he is a wrongdoer, but he contests the decision that he is unrepentant. He believes he is truly repentant.
I have firsthand knowledge of one such case that we can use to illustrate a major hole in the judicial policies of the Organization. Unfortunately, this case is typical.
Four youths from different congregations got together on several occasions to smoke marijuana. Then they all realized what they had done and stopped. Three months went by, but their consciences bothered them. Since JWs are taught to confess all sins, they felt that Jehovah could not truly forgive them unless they repented before men. So each went to his respective body of elders and confessed. Of the four, three were judged repentant and given private reproof; the fourth was judged unrepentant and disfellowshipped. The disfellowshipped youth was the son of the congregation coordinator who, out of fairness, had excluded himself from all the proceedings.
The disfellowshipped one appealed. Remember, he had stopped smoking marijuana on his own three months before and had come to the elders voluntarily to confess.
The appeal committee believed the youth was repentant, but they were not allowed to judge the repentance they witnessed. According to the rule, they had to judge whether he was repentant at the time of the original hearing. Since they were not there, they had to rely on witnesses. The only witnesses were the three elders of the original committee and the young man himself.
Now let’s apply the two-witness rule. For the appeal committee to accept the young man’s word they would have to judge that the older men of the original committee had acted improperly. They would have to accept an accusation against, not one, but three older men on the basis of the testimony of one witness. Even if they believed the youth—which it was later revealed that they did—they could not act. They would actually be acting against clear Bible direction.
Years went by and subsequent events revealed that the chairman of the judicial committee had a long-standing grudge against the coordinator and sought to get at him through his son. This is not said to reflect badly on all Witness elders, but just to provide some context. These things can and do happen in any organization, and that is why policies are in place—to safeguard against abuses. However, the policy in place for judicial and appeal hearings actually helps to ensure that when such abuses occur, they will go unchecked.
We can say this because the process is set up to ensure that the accused will never have the needed witnesses to prove his case:
The witnesses should not hear details and testimony of other witnesses. Observers should not be present for moral support. Recording devices should not be allowed. (ks par. 3, p. 90 – boldface in original)
“Observers should not be present” will ensure no human witnesses to what transpires. Banning recording devices eliminates any other evidence the accused might lay claim to in order to make his case. In short, the appellant has no basis and therefore no hope of winning his appeal.
The policies of the Organization ensure that there will never be two or three witnesses to contradict the testimony of the judicial committee.
Given this policy, writing that “the appeal process…is a kindness to the wrongdoer to assure him of a complete and fair hearing”, is a lie. (ks par. 4, p. 105 – boldface added)
________________________________________________________________
[i] The reasoning behind this JW doctrinal misinterpretation has been debunked. See The Two-Witness Rule under the Microscope
I think many valid points have been made from all of the contributors to this site in connection with the 2 witness rule. I have benefited greatly from considering the various viewpoints. I would also like to add my thoughts on what the organisation states is strong biblical precedent to the 2 witness rule, and for using it as a basis for determining judicial matters today. And provide some criticism on the JW broadcast doubling down on the 2 witness rule as being, non-negotiable and an article of faith for Jehovah’s Witnesses to cling to desperately. I would like firstly… Read more »
You really nailed this one Meleti. Why on earth did the GB decide that a crime punishable by law has to be dealt with by elders? I mean why draw the line with child abuse? Why not do the same with fraud or murder ? Crimes also punishable by law. So clearly , the missapplication of the 2witness rule is intended primarily to protect the reputation of JWorg , keeping the cong clean is a poor second outcome, and protecting the victim is an even poorer third outcome that most times doesn’t even make it. Strangely similar,at the moment there… Read more »
A fine, long time witness heard about me being df’d for having a problem with the rife child abuse in the org, and the fact that I had to ask someone to let me know if an announcement was made or not. The result was that this person stopped going to all meetings and now can see that the jw’s are just another religion. There are many comments in this post about how unjust the disfellowshipping arrangement is. Only, most publishers don’t know what is going on. So why play by the organization’s rules? (Mark 4:22) . . .”For there is nothing… Read more »
You play by the rules if you are one of Jehovah”s Baptized Witnesses, cause if you’re not Baptized you are just an interesed or (concerned) guest, onlooker (partaker). So to put it plainly if you are not baptized and get dis-fellowshiped . In reality you never got in, so how can you get kicked out? They can only dis-allow you from trying to get in. Their language is loaded and pre-formed & performed by the skilled. I would suggest to who ever is concerned to learn every word of it before making the plunge. (Jer 49:7) Jah’s (t) keep trying!!… Read more »
I must say the disfellowshipping arrangement is what started to wake me up. I know of a couple of cases were sisters got disfellowshipped. Two of the sweetest people I’ve met. I didn’t understand it because they went to the elders and confessed. One of them appealed, lost and wrote a letter for 3 years to be reinstated. Her mother would always say “it is Jehovah’s way” and I would say it couldn’t be. Now I know it isn’t!
The transparency of the internet saved my neck from a group of elders who attempted to ruin my life over my occupation. The PDF for Shepard the Flock is a must-have on your phone in 2017 if you’re still attending meetings. We don’t even know these rules and regulations exist, and yet we’re absolutely being subjected to these edicts and how simple men interpret them and wield them. And we go into these meetings ignorant and humble. Lambs to the slaughter. I’ve successfully staved off two judicial meetings just knowing what the rules are. This is the most disgusting practice… Read more »
Unrepentant sinners never tell on themselves. I’ve never understood why bringing your sins before the elders isn’t the first, and foremost act of repentance. But they love details.
Well put, Joseph. A girl i once knew told me she voluntarily confessed a “milder” act of porneia, leading to a hearing with elders and with her father (the P.O.) present; them going after the details. An abuse in itself. Separately, she found porn movies in her parents possession (I.e. the P.O. being one of them). She never confronted him with it to my knowledge, and I guess he never came clean with his pornography habits to the other elders in the congregation. It did not end there. Aledgedly, her younger sibling was/became victim of child abuse committed by one… Read more »
Meleti, I know first hand of an appeal that went as you described. The original JC felt there wasn’t enough repentance shown so DF’d. In the appeal the appeal committee agreed that they felt there was enough repentance now….but that if the amount of repentance shown at the original JC was not enough they couldn’t revoke the decision of the first JC. How on earth does that compute when the goal is ” to gain your brother/sister”? In my limited experience of judicial matters as a mere sister, it seems there is more consideration given to what the congregation will… Read more »
The irony is that JWs condemn the Catholic model of the confessional, and claim that the forgiveness of men is not a requirement and that no man can forgive a sin, but only God. Those are their words, but in practice, they are more like the Catholic model then even the Catholics are.
Yes, very ironic indeed. If it is God who forgives, why do men need to forgive first?
Of course, the whole “business model”, if you will, is really based on the Org (GB) being interjected between the “sinner” and God. Jesus is being pushed right out of the equation. The Elders then “stand-in” to represent the GB.
Loyalty to men once again being put above loyalty to God through Christ…..
The elder training video from 2011 or ‘12 “the ABC for DF’ing a fornicator” is underscoring your point, Martha. The video (available on YouTube) is quite revealing on how the offender is being tested and tricked with words to see if he lives up to the Shepherds book’s defention of repentance, rather than being led and admonished to true repentance.
PS: never having been an elder, I would appreciate if someone could authenticate the video, along with the elder training video for comforting a widowed woman.
Hi JoA,
The video is the real deal, but if memory serves, it was more like 2014 that it was made…..
Thanks, WS. Would you remember what was said as part of this training/between sessions? I am particularly intersted in finding out whether the society actually tries to break up relationships between JWs and non-JWs, even in the situation of pregnancy. As intercourse is considered absolute forgiveness in a situation of adultery (i.e. a kind of “remarrying” a couple), even though scriptural basis for this is lacking, I find it hypocritical at the same time splitting couples (where pregnancy is at hand). in the latter example, Jehovah may consider the two married, but not the first couple, dependent on the heart… Read more »
To answer the first part of your question:
1) When the elders in the video addressed “Robbie” about his “friendship” with the pregnant girl, they were trying to convey the basic JW precept that “bad associations spoil useful habits”. ( 1 Corinthians 15:33)
So yes, if the girl was not a Witness, he would basically be counseled to end the relationship. ( Or until she became a baptized Witness, if studying)
The second part of your question I am having a hard time understanding. Could you please clarify?
Thanks for reply. Problem with videos released on YouTube is that you don’t know what is said orally in the elders school. E.g. a CO might say that what is shown in the movie is not what the society teach. The second part of my comment above is more of a logical consequence than a question. If the society really think it’s right in the eyes of Jehovah, to abandon one’s own unborn child, and not take responsibility for one’s own actions, it cannot simultaneously teach that an adulterer is forgiven just because he managed to seduce his mentally unstable… Read more »
If I recall correctly, there were some videos at that School that gave a contrast. Take 1 might show the “correct” way to handle a matter, and Take 2 might show how not to handle it. The videos are a relatively new feature to the KM Schools. If there WAS a video from the Branch, no deviation would dare be mentioned by the instructors unless they themselves wanted to come under the charge of “apostasy”.
Having said that, different elder bodies can vary in their handling of matters to degree, especially on larger bodies.
(Ho 9:8 KJ or NWT the one here is totally opposite! ) is fitting, tell the elders or Co’s or anyone up the ladder all the way to GB and beyond to “handle” that matter. (pari-mutuel) I’m all in. (Lu 20:35)
Hi John. Just to give you some info…the video was released in 2012. It was prepared with the utmost care by the GB so as to be “perfect” for teaching. In the KM school, it is paused every minute or so, so as to totally dissect it and highlight how good every detail is. There are in fact a few “planned mistakes” in the video that they also analyze so as to show elders what not to do. For example, one planned mistake is that an elder on the body recommends that an elder who is very close to Robbie… Read more »
Thanks, Yehorakam. I deeply appreciate your comment and sharing of your experience. Most useful and clarifying.
Thanks also to the other brothers and sisters who have contributed with their thoughts on the “training videos”.
Joan of Arc – I had a very dear friend who committed fornication and fell pregnant with twins. The elders found that she was repentant of the fornication so placed her under restriction. They told her that if she married the father of the children however, she would be disobedient and would be disfellowshipped as he was an unbeliever.
Thanks for sharing your story, Colette. If a Christian make someone pregnant, I struggle to see how Jehovah could not consider them married, and that a conscientious person would take care of his wife and children (1 Tim 5:8) and the child/children would be sanctified through the Christian parent (1 Chor 7:14 ). Unless anyone can substantiate that the two indeed are not married before God (as a child is conceived, and they have shown through actions and mutual love that they have committed themselves to each other), I would argue that the Society through its rules actively splits up… Read more »
Thanks and agree. I understood you that way above, Ifionlyhadabrain. I also understand your moniker to be ironic: “great minds think alike” 😉
Btw: I am a man. don’t let my moniker fool you.
In Israel, if an unmarried man and woman committed fornication, they were required to marry.
How’s that phrase go in the NWT? “God gave them up to a disapproved mental state.”
I second that demotion. I have never been an elder either, but I would recommend the book of “Ruth” to the widow. I’m not “Ruthless” like the Tower. Jesus says come, “drink life’s water free”. Jehovah provides.
John of Arc,I can verify the other Video Re/the elders visit on a Widow;it was 1 of the last CLAM meetings I attended,wasit 2015? It was presented as an’example’of elders’ effective shepherding: A suicidal situation on it(and the widowed pioneer sister next to me gripped my hand)as we,totally appalled, saw a disconnect from reality played out:’are you an integrity keeper?are you loyal’?while all the hard evidence was there,that the Widow on that video needed emergency(professionallevel)helps!The elders on it were blind to her anguish..cool..had the audacity at the end of the”comforting”call,to remind her of serving them cookies.Yep.Weak clapping(not mine!) afterwards..we were… Read more »
Thanks for verification, Devora. I am boiling inside reading your account. I have comforted my crying wife more than once, after she has received “loving” support from elders. Knowing now how they are trained certainly explain things.
Meleti, I really appreciate how you put your articles together in such a logical, cohesive manner. The ability to do so is truly a blessing, not only for you, but for all who read the words. This particular subject can be a sore one for me at times. Sometimes I wonder how in the world I ever participated in this unscriptural process. From my current vantage point, it seems so clear to me how unloving the JW Judicial System really is. One of the warning signs should have been obvious, but heavy indoctrination can squash it. Coming home late at… Read more »
Do you know what, Warp? I shed a tear reading that. I may be over emotional with this blasted flu bug that I can’t get rid of… Or it may be that your experience took me back to when I was a little girl and my dad was the congregation servant in the days before elders. He suffered so badly with anxiety, loss of sleep,stress over the decisions he had to make. I remember sitting on the platform til 11pm sometimes after a meeting while he and the servant body wrangled over issues that he then couldn’t speak about to… Read more »
Do you recall how we were meant to distinguish between the weak and the wicked ? Sisters used to go into tears, and we often took that as a sign of repentance and weakness. Brothers, on the other hand would fight their corner, or sit there silent. The result would be disfellowshipping. But most of them wanted to serve Jehovah – otherwise why were they there ? Disfellowshipping was like a season’s ban for a foul at football. It was excessive, and not a lot like the way the wrongdoer in Corinth was dealt with. Keeping the congregation clean at… Read more »
‘The days of serving men are over….’ Well put.
Okay well, I know I can get most here to grimace, Frown, dislike, roll your eyes and be disgruntled just to put it politely. But I’m wondering if I can make you chuckle with a little spiritual humor. Here it goes: Our mediator informed me that we have all been diagnosed with all-timers disease but he said not to worry, the no-timers are working on it. (Jb 24:1)
Well I’m not going to dislike, or give you the impression that I’m shunning you Psalmbee. I will reply to your comment honestly. I don’t understand what you said, so I can’t chuckle or grimace except with confusion. I don’t know whether it’s your sense of humour that I don’t get, or the Atlantic divide between our thinking, but for someone who claims to speak clearly and honestly you come across very garbled! Sorry not sorry as the young ones say. Are you deliberately trying to goad people into disagreeing with you? Or, maybe you can explain your spiritual humour… Read more »
Honesty is the best policy Martha and I thank you for it.
When you arrive I’ll be there alone. I’m a one man band, most Witnesses don’t understand. Perhaps you would like to lend a hand. I can play you any song you like to cheer up that life you lead. Look at that rain falling! I must let the show go on. (Col 2:16,17) No Human witnesses required.
Thanks for announcing the comment removal. You didn’t claim you’re other removal of the Horses??
An important subject, Meliti. In my research I noted that no man could be put to death by the Sanhedrin unless there was at least one member to speak up for him. In the case of a Judicial Committee (a) this is behind closed doors (b) it is three against one, and that one is often younger and inexperienced, certainly when it comes to the instructions you have ably outlined and (c) there is no one to act for the defense or advise the accused, a principle which is vital in our courts to ensure both sides of the case… Read more »
The org leadership self-righteously teaches that these policies are designed to ‘keep Jehovah’s org clean’ and with twisted reasoning call it loving discipline. In reality, they continue to cling to these policies as a club to reinforce the pyramadic structure of the org and to solidify their own authority by the use of fear. How unlike Jesus treatment of sinners in Mark 2:15-17, and Johns comments about love vs. fear in 1 John 4:17,18.
Points solidly driven home, Meleti. JW’s judical committees are the quintessential kangaroo courts, both kafkaesque and Orwellian in nature. The biblical reference coming closest to modus operandi being the process Jesus was submitted to. Adding to the injustice is that elders know the system, procedures, process and all appeal venues, providing for two different scales to be used: on for the flock; another for the shepherds. The JW judical procedure, unscriptural and unloving as it is, was one of the first, key factors making me understand that something was structurally rotten in the “kingdom (hall) of Denmark”. Fortunately, the “things… Read more »
This article very ably analyses instances of ‘wrongdoing’ by publishers and the fact that the publisher is set up for failure. What about cases of wrongdoing by elders? We have the example of Nathan who reproved King David, so always understood that we could reprove or report an elder, even as would happen to us. In our own experience though, we have found that wrongdoing by elders is covered up by the elders themselves and circuit overseers. In one instance, where we reported fraud and extortion committed by an elder to his CBE and the circuit overseer, we were put… Read more »