Hello, I’m Meleti Vivlon.
Those who protest the horrendous mishandling of child sexual abuse among the leadership of Jehovah’s Witnesses frequently harp on the two-witness rule. They want it gone.
So why am I calling the two-witness rule, a red herring? Am I defending the Organization’s position? Absolutely not! Do I have a better alternative? Yes, I think so.
Let me start out by saying that I have to really admire those dedicated individuals who spend their time and money in such a worthy cause. I really want those people to succeed because so many have suffered and are still suffering, because of the organization’s self-centred policies on handling this crime in their midst. Yet, it seems the harder they protest, the more intransigent the leadership of Jehovah’s Witnesses becomes.
First, we must acknowledge the fact that if we’re going to reach the rank and file, we only have a few seconds to do so. They have been programmed to shut down the moment they hear any contrary talk. It’s like there are steel doors in the mind that clank down the moment their eyes fall on something that might contradict the teachings of their leaders.
Consider the Watchtower study from just two weeks ago:
“Satan, “the father of the lie,” uses those under his control to spread lies about Jehovah and about our brothers and sisters. (John 8:44) For instance, apostates publish lies and distort facts about Jehovah’s organization on websites and through television and other media. Those lies are among Satan’s “burning arrows.” (Eph. 6:16) How should we respond if someone confronts us with such lies? We reject them! Why? Because we have faith in Jehovah and we trust our brothers. In fact, we avoid all contact with apostates. We do not allow anyone or anything, including curiosity, to draw us into arguing with them.” (w19/11 Study Article 46, par. 8)
So, anyone who protests any policy of the Governing Body is under the control of Satan. Everything they say is a lie. What are Witnesses to do when faced with the “burning arrows” these opposers and apostates hurl? Reject them! Because Witnesses trust their brothers. Witnesses are taught to ‘trust their princes and the sons of men for their salvation’. So they will not even chat with someone who disagrees with the organization.
If you have had the opportunity to speak with Jehovah’s Witnesses when they knock on your door, you will know this to be true. Even if you are careful not to preach to them or promote your own beliefs, but only to ask questions based on Scripture and require them to prove from the Bible whatever they may be teaching at the time, you will soon hear what has become a JW maxim: “We are not here to debate you.” or, “We don’t want to argue.”
They base this reasoning on a misapplication of Paul’s words to Timothy at 2 Timothy 2:23.
“Further, turn down foolish and ignorant questionings, knowing they produce fights.” (2 Timothy 2:23)
So, any reasonable scriptural discussion gets stamped as a “foolish and ignorant questioning”. They think that by this, they are obeying a command of God.
And this, I believe, is the real problem with focusing on the two-witness rule. It empowers them. It gives them a reason—albeit a false one—for believing they are doing the will of God. To illustrate, watch this video:
Now there’s something that the apostates are talking about and trying to put forward. The media has picked it up, others have also picked it up; and that is our scriptural position of having two witnesses—a requirement for judicial action if there’s no confession. The scriptures are very clear. Before a judicial committee can be convened, there has to be a confession or two witnesses. So, we will never change our scriptural position on that subject.
Jehovah’s given us the ability to reason things out; to think it through. So, let’s do our part and not allow our faith to be quickly shaken. Then, we can have the confidence that Paul spoke of in 2 Thessalonians 2 verse 5 when he said: “May the Lord continue to guide your hearts successfully to the love of God and to the endurance for the Christ.”
Can you see the point? Gary is stating the position of the Governing Body, and indeed a position all Jehovah’s Witnesses would agree with. He is saying that these opposers and apostates are trying to get Jehovah’s Witnesses to compromise their integrity, to break God’s sacred law. So, standing firm in the face of such protests looks to Jehovah’s Witnesses as a test of their faith. By not giving in, they think they are getting God’s approval.
I know their application of the two-witness rule is incorrect, but we’re not going to win them over by engaging in a theological argument based on their interpretation versus ours. Besides, we will never get the chance to discuss it. They’ll see the sign that is being held up, they’ll hear the words that are being shouted, and they’ll shut down, thinking, “I am not to going disobey a clearly stated law in the Bible.”
What we need on the sign is something that shows they are disobeying God’s law. If we can get them to see that they’re disobeying Jehovah, then maybe they’ll start to think.
How can we do this?
Here’s the fact of the matter. By not reporting criminals and criminal behavior, Jehovah’s Witnesses are not paying back to Caesar, the things that are Caesar’s. That’s from Jesus’ own words at Matthew 22:21. By not reporting crimes, they are not obeying the superior authorities. By not reporting crimes they are engaging in civil disobedience.
Let’s read Romans 13:1-7 because this is the crux of the matter.
“Let every person be in subjection to the superior authorities, for there is no authority except by God; the existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God. Therefore, whoever opposes the authority has taken a stand against the arrangement of God; those who have taken a stand against it will bring judgment against themselves. For those rulers are an object of fear, not to the good deed, but to the bad. Do you want to be free of fear of the authority? Keep doing good, and you will have praise from it; for it is God’s minister to you for your good. But if you are doing what is bad, be in fear, for it is not without purpose that it bears the sword. It is God’s minister, an avenger to express wrath against the one practicing what is bad. There is therefore compelling reason for you to be in subjection, not only on account of that wrath but also on account of your conscience. That is why you are also paying taxes; for they are God’s public servants constantly serving this very purpose. Render to all their dues: to the one who calls for the tax, the tax; to the one who calls for the tribute, the tribute; to the one who calls for fear, such fear; to the one who calls for honor, such honor.” (Ro 13:1-7)
Witness leadership from the Governing Body, on through the branch offices and circuit overseers, all the way down to the local bodies of elders are not complying with these words. Let me illustrate:
What did we learn from the Australia Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse?
There were 1,006 cases of this crime in the Australia branch files. Over 1,800 victims were involved. That means there were many cases with multiple victims, multiple witnesses. There were many cases where the elders had two or more witnesses. They admitted this under oath. There were also cases where they had a confession. They disfellowshipped some abusers and rebuked others publicly or privately. But they never—never—reported these crimes to the superior authorities, to God’s minister, the “avenger to express wrath against the one practicing what is bad.”
So, you see, the two-witness rule is a red herring. Even if they dropped it, it wouldn’t change anything, because even when they have two witnesses or a confession, they still don’t report these crimes to the authorities. But call for the removal of that rule, and they mount their high horse of moral indignation proclaiming we will never disobey a law of God.
The belief they are doing God’s will is their Achilles’ heel. Show them they are actually disobeying God, and you can knock them off their high horse. You can pull the moral carpet out from under their feet. (Sorry for mixing metaphors.)
Let’s call this what it is. It is not a simple policy oversight. This is a sin.
Why can we call this a sin?
Going back to Paul’s words to the Romans, he wrote, “Let every person be in subjection to the superior authorities”. That’s a command from God. He also wrote, “whoever opposes the authority has taken a stand against the arrangement of God; those who have taken a stand against it will bring judgment against themselves.” Taking a stand against the arrangement of God. Isn’t that what apostates do? Don’t they stand in opposition to God? Finally, Paul warned us by writing that the governments of the world are “God’s minister, an avenger to express wrath against the one practicing what is bad.”
Their job is to protect society from criminals. Hiding criminals from them make the organization and the individual elders accomplices after the fact. They become complicit in the crime.
Therefore, this is both a sin because it goes against God’s arrangement and a crime because it hinders the work of the superior authorities.
The organization has systematically disobeyed Jehovah God. They are now standing in opposition to the arrangement God has put in place to protect society from criminals. When one is a true apostate—when one stands in opposition to God—does one think there will be no consequences? When the writer of Hebrews wrote, “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God”, was he just joking around?
A true Christian is known by the quality of love. A true Christian loves God and so obeys God, and loves his neighbor which means caring for him and protecting him from harm.
Paul concludes by writing, “There is therefore compelling reason for you to be in subjection, not only on account of that wrath but also on account of your conscience.”
“Compelling reason…on account of your conscience.” Why does the Governing Body not feel compelled to submit? Their collective consciences should be moved by love, first to obey God’s command and second to protect their neighbors from dangerous predators. Yet, all we seem to see is concern for themselves.
Seriously, how can anyone justify not reporting a pedophile to the authorities? How can we allow a predator to go unrestrained and still preserve a clean conscience?
The fact is there is nothing in the Bible that prohibits the reporting of crime. Quite the opposite. Christians are supposed to be model citizens who support the law of the land. So even if God’s Minister doesn’t mandate that crimes be reported, loving one’s neighbor as oneself will move the Christian to protect his fellow citizens when he knows there is a sexual predator on the loose. Yet they never did this, not even once, in Australia, and we know from experience that Australia is just the tip of the iceberg.
When Jesus condemned the religious leaders of his day, one word was used over and over: hypocrites.
We can show the hypocrisy of the organization in two ways:
First, in inconsistent policies.
Elders are told to report each and every sin they are informed of to the Coordinator of the Body of Elders. The Coordinator or COBE becomes the repository for all sins in the congregation. The reason for this policy is that, if a sin is reported from a single witness, the body cannot act; but if later a different elder reports the same sin from a different witness, the COBE or Coordinator will know of both and so the body can act.
So, we do they not extend this policy to God’s Minister? True, the elders in one congregation may have only one witness to an act of sexual abuse, but by reporting even this single incident, they treat the superior authorities as they do the COBE. For all they know, theirs will be the second witness. There may well have been a different incident reported to the authorities.
It is hypocritical to enforce this policy internally and not also externally.
However, a greater hypocrisy has recently been revealed.
To save themselves from a 35-million-dollar judgment in a Montana case, they appealed to the supreme court claiming clerical privilege and the right of the confessional. They claimed that they had the right to keep confession of crimes confidential and private. They won, because the court didn’t want to pass a precedent that would affect all churches. Here we see what is important to the organization. Rather than pay the penalty for not reporting crimes, they chose money over integrity and publicly allied themselves with the Catholic Church and adopted one of its more heinous doctrines.
From The Watchtower:
“The Council of Trent in 1551 decreed “that sacramental confession is of divine origin and necessary for salvation by divine law. . . . The Council emphasized the justification and necessity of auricular [told in the ear, private] confession as practiced in the Church ‘from the beginning.’”—New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, p. 132.” (g74 11/8 pp. 27-28 Should We Confess?—If So, to Whom?)
The Catholic Church violated Romans 13:1-7 and transformed itself into a secular authority to rival the superior authorities established by God. They became their own nation with their own government and hold themselves to be above the laws of the nations of the world. Its power became so great that it imposed its own laws onto the governments of the world, God’s Minister. This very much reflects the attitude of Jehovah’s Witnesses. They consider themselves to be a “mighty nation”, and the rules of the Governing Body, even if they conflict with the rules of the nations of the world, must be obeyed even in the absence of any Scriptural basis.
The sacrament of the confessional is such a usurping of secular authority. It is not Biblical. Only Jesus has been appointed to forgive sins and provide salvation. Men cannot do this. There is no right nor obligation to protect sinners who have committed crimes from their just due before the government. Additionally, the organization has long claimed to have no clergy class.
Again from The Watchtower:
“A congregation of brothers precludes having a proud clergy class that honors itself with high-sounding titles and elevates itself above a laity.” (w01 6/1 p. 14 par. 11)
Hypocrites! To protect their wealth, they have found a way to get around submission to the superior authorities established by God as his minister by adopting an unscriptural practice of the Catholic Church. They claim the Catholic Church is the foremost part of the great harlot, Babylon the Great, and the smaller churches are her daughters. Well, they have now publicly accepted adoption into that family by adopting before a court of the land a doctrine they have long criticized as part of false religion.
So, if you want to protest their policies and their conduct, in my humble opinion, you should forget about the two-witness rule and focus on how Witnesses violate God’s law. Stick that on your sign and show it.
How about:
Governing Body claims right
of Catholic Confessional
Or perhaps:
Governing Body disobeys God.
See Romans 13:1-7
That might have Witnesses scrambling for their Bibles.
Or maybe:
Witnesses disobey superior authorities
hide pedophiles from God’s Minister
(Romans 13:1-7)
You’d need a big sign for that one.
Likewise, if you get on a talk show or a news reporter puts a camera in your face and asks you why you’re protesting, say something like: “The Bible at Romans 13 tells Christians to obey the Government and that means we must report horrendous crimes like murder, rape, and child sexual abuse. Witnesses say they follow the Bible, but they consistently disobey this simple, direct command of Jehovah God.”
Now there’s a sound bite I’d love to hear on the six o’clock news.
Thank you for your time.
[…] See also https://beroeans.net/2020/01/26/jehovahs-witnesses-and-child-sexual-abuse-why-is-the-two-witness-rul… […]
I came across the article about the Montana JW “confessional” ruling a week or so ago and found it rather interesting. Being Catholic, I appreciate the seal & confidentiality of the confessional, yet given what I’d read previously on this site, I too found it disturbing that so many abusers would continue to be shielded by this rule of secrecy. I love the signs proposed in this article. Especially “Governing Body claims right of Catholic Confessional”. That would surely get one to think instead of shutting down in defense of the two-witnesses rule. But getting someone to think about the… Read more »
Greetings Brothers and Sisters, Really whether the law requires it or not, common sense says that accusations or reports of child abuse should be reported immediately to the appropriate authorities for very obvious reasons! Turning it over to those who are experienced and for the most part highly trained in these very difficult situations is not just the Christian thing to do but, the basic human action to take in behalf of victims! The new policy in the congregation has really afforded those awake (PIMO) an avenue to report anonymously those cases that have gone unreported. Elders are now instructed… Read more »
The problem is, many JWs feel completely apart from the world around them and, essentially don’t care all that much about what is good common sense. If one walks about believing that their neighbors are essentially doomed, why would they care one way or another? I’ve seen this attitude firsthand, pretty much all my life. Even from my earliest years, I felt that “we” (Witnesses) we’re setting apart and disdain for non-Witness neighbors was rampant in the congregations. At one of the very last meetings I attended, perhaps the absolute last meeting I attended, I recall a Watchtower study comment… Read more »
One of the problems is that the law itself is not helpful. This is what I read under the heading “Reporting a crime”:- If you witness a crime you still have a vital role to play in bringing the criminals to justice. There is no legal obligation to contact the police, but the information you give could bring the criminal to justice. At the ARC Jws hid behind the fact that there is no legal obligation (except where it exists) to report, while completely ignoring the “good citizen” guide, namely to help by bringing criminals to justice. There are some… Read more »
Welcome Beroeans Creed and thank you for sharing this information with us.
Adding the police and their investigation to any individual’s accusation could easily satisfy their requirement for 2 witnesses. The fact that they don’t consider that as an option tells us everything we need to know regarding their true motives.
Great video BTW. Loved the reasoning and you are absolutely spot on!
Thank you Sky Blue
Excellent video and reasoning Eric! We will not wake the brothers and sisters up by arguing doctrine as you pointed out, they have been conditioned not to even glance at anything negative much less engage in a Bible based discussion of the organization’s teachings as instructed to do at 1 Peter 3:15 The organization through propaganda, Apostate fear mongering and the constant threat of being accused of disloyalty to Jehovah, has kept the rank and file from even inquiring what it is that the Apostates are talking about! This has successfully kept the blinders on the majority even with the… Read more »
Thanks Leonardo. I sure hope this site and the YouTube channel helps the PIMO community to become more vocal. The more voices are raised, the more impossible it becomes for the Organization to silence them.
I agree, Eric. While we are stuck as PIMOs, we can definitely say things that will get people to think. A simple “I have often wondered about” seems effective. Here are some that have not got me threatened. How do you think the Kangaroos, Wallabies, Platypus ducks, got over to Australia after the flood ? When Jesus said “Keep doing this in remembrance of me”, at Luke 22:19, it is pretty obvious from the verses that follow Judas was still present, Have you ever thought that by taking the emblems this it would be an annual identification that a person… Read more »
That’s about where my thinking is going on the flood, JA. Jehovah was going to wipe men off the surface off the earth. It is awkward when Moses writes “everything on the earth will expire”. However, I was not asking the question, but it does get the R & F talking and expressing their opinions. Its amazing how defensive others become to the idea of a total WW flood. Of course, they will point to the existence of similar legends all over the world, but this is easily explained as everyone is a descendent of Noah. However it is a… Read more »
Great video Eric. Please forgive me if I’m wrong but did you say that the elders at the Australian Royal Commission actually admitted that there were times when there were at least 2 witnesses forwarded on to the elders or COBE? Among the 1800 or so victims? If so, I’ll have to go back and watch the Royal Australian commission videos on youtube once more. I remember when the 2 representatives and the commissioner (I think that’s what he was) were discussing the 2 witness rule and how he said that shunning is a terrible thing. (I also thought the… Read more »
Not in so many words, but some of the cases being reviewed indicated that multiple witnesses were involved. Since this all came out in a court setting, the evidence that some of those cases passed the two-witness rule test is irrefutable, yet still the elders had to admit that no cases were reported by them or the branch.
Fertile soil to till. Let me start by stating my opinion that the J/W Organization is rife with gossip, slander, unfounded accusations and a medieval witch hunt mentality. I have personally witnessed occasions where wrongdoers got off Scot free while plaintiffs were told to clam up or be disfellowshipped. I have also heard rumors accusing people of serious misdeeds which were based only upon Witness gossip. Observing such things was one of the motivating factors in my no longer being active as a JW. With that in mind, I would state that the very last thing I would ever want,… Read more »
Sound reasoning Chet. I have a friend, a former elder, who knew of a child abuse case and dutifully called the Canada Branch. He talked with one of the lawyers there who told him to wait for further instructions. However, he didn’t but as soon as he hung up the phone, he called the police. Needless to say, the branch lawyer was upset, but there wasn’t anything he could do about it.
That was the perfect way to handle it. What can they do; DF him for following the law? That would have been a publicity nightmare.