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.
Archived Comments
We have moved to the Disqus commenting system. To post a new comment, go to the bottom of this page.
Comment by Chet on 2020-01-26 12:54:50
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, would be for the internal “judicial system” of the JWs to ever have any role whatsoever in proceedings of civil law. While some elders are sincere, very few have any notion whatsoever of how matters are established legally, rules of evidence or the significance such matters have in the outcome of any legal matter. Beyond that, the JW mindset which tends to despise all elements of the current system leaves these people feeling that they are somehow above it all and that their take on justice is superior to civil law. That having been stated, let me proceed.
If you were to call your insurance company to be reimbursed for a stolen car, they would ask for a Police Report. If you told them that you hadn’t called the police, but had instead, called the local elders, they would reject your claim. If a crime happens, one should call the civil authorities, not the elders. If someone suspects that their child has been sexually abused, the proper thing to do is to call the civil authorities. They will act according to the law and if the accusation is credible, the guilt or innocence of the party involved will be determined via the criminal courts.
Sadly, there are Witnesses whom would call the elders before they called the police, were there to be a crime committed against them. Even more sadly, there are plenty of elders whom would accept that and would strive to “handle” the matter themselves. The fact is that the erroneous belief that Christ returned in 1914 and thereafter placed the Bible Students in charge of all hi possessions has led to many JWs thinking that they are the legitimate government powers and the the civil authorities are all but obsolete.
So when someone reports the sexual abuse of a child to the elders, there’s a very good chance that the elders will react by circling the wagons and trying to keep matters quiet. When I was still in my mid teens, I was a key witness in a committee matter which eventually involved the testimony of over 20 witnesses. I had brought the matter to light and a serious problem was addressed. When it was all over, I was called into the library by an elder and, instead of thanking me for my role in bringing this matter to light, I was told that I would be disfellowshipped if I ever breathed a word of what happened. Damage Control was far more important than justice and I have sen this pattern repeated more than once over the years. I have seen cases where someone was the victim of gossip, was forced to defend themselves from these unfounded rumors and then threatened with disfellowshipping if they objected.
In such an environment, there is no reason to expect that a serious charge, such as child molestation, would be handled properly. The first priority would be to keep the name of Jehovah from reproach, but what they really are doing is protecting the name of Jehovah’s Witnesses from negative publicity. Of course in their minds, their Organization essential indistinguishable from Jehovah. The highest priority will be to prevent negative publicity and anyone that stands in the way of that goal will likely end up on the receiving end of congregation discipline.
The answer is simple, but only if one asks the right question, in the first place. If you have reason to believe that your child was molested, who will you call? IMHO, the Police need to handle criminal cases, not the elders. Now, once a matter is established legally/criminally, the elders can look at those results and decide if congregational discipline is required. There are two separate systems operating in parallel. One deals with the law of the land and the other deal with membership in a religious order. These should not cross over into one another; they are two entirely separate realms.
Now, what if an elder, or elders, become aware of such a matter, should they report it to the police? This is a complicated question which goes to the very roots of government. The idea of protected confidentiality is well established in law. One can tell their Attorney that they have committed a crime and the attorney is required to hold this in confidence. The reason for this is that in order for a person to make use of their right to legal defense, they have to be able to speak freely to their lawyer without fear of legal reprisal.
This right has also been granted to ecclesiastical authorities for many years, but these waters are murky. The Watchtower refers to the Council of Trent as precedent, but what really are ecclesiastical authorities? Do such authorities even exist. If the Catholic clergy are considered not to be legitimate by the Witnesses, then why should the JW authorities be justified in claiming ecclesiastical privilege? Really, is there any such thing as ecclesiastical privilege? If so, how do we determine who has the legal right to claim ecclesiastical privilege? If I form a religion to promote the worship of my favorite baseball team, can I accept confessions (from church members) as a spiritual leader and claim the right to keep these confessions confidential?
As I mentioned earlier, the JWs claim Divine appointment based on their chronology (which I hold to be false) and Christ’s choosing of them as the only religion with his backing. From their point of view, they have every right to do as they see fit, because they believe that they are uniquely positioned in the grand scheme of things. But if one does not accept their explanation of matters, then their claims to ecclesiastical privilege are greatly weakened. As I said earlier, the waters are murky, at best.
Now, onto the “two witness rule”. Witnesses state that they will no pass along information to the civil authorities without two witnesses, but is this really sound thinking? If I were to report a crime, would I feel that I needed to have an airtight case before I even called the Police? Why would the elders feel that they have to process a criminal matter within their internal justice system before reporting it to the legal authorities? These two systems operate in parallel, so the results of one should not be contingent upon the results of the others.
I’ve actually seen this very thing happen with regard to lesser matters. I have reported judicial matters to an elder and watched as the wheels turned and they decided, unilaterally, that it could not be proven and therefore should not be considered. If a matter could affect an elder’s political standing within the organization, it’s quite likely that the elder will act to preserve their standing within the organization instead of acting upon the rightness or wrongness of what has happened.
I personally know and elder whom exposed serious wrongdoing which resulted in quite a number of elders being removed. What was his fate? He was also removed, even though he had not been involved in the wrongdoing and was treated as a pariah thereafter. He left the Witnesses shortly after that and would not even consider returning.
If you follow the question of notifying the authorities to its ultimate root, it comes down to whether there should be any organization in this system to facilitate worship. Jesus stated the his kingdom was no part of this world. He never setup an organization, but he did command that his followers preach and make disciples. However, these were to be disciples of Christ, not disciples of some manmade organization.
Ultimately, the issue of reporting child abuse and the “two witness rule” will never be resolved, because the existence of this organization, as all other religious organizations, is without scriptural basis. People will continue to organize as a way of promoting their viewpoint, I don’t think that can be stopped, but Christianity is not reliant upon an organization; it is reliant upon the teachings of Christ Jesus as recorded in the Holy Bible. As long as people place their trust in manmade organizations, they can expect to be disappointed. As I see it, the greatest issue here reduces to that one matter. The problem is faith in humans instead of faith in God.
This is nothing new, the Israelites became uneasy when Moses was in the presence of Jehovah at Mount Sinai and proceeded to build a golden calf in order to worship something visible. I don’t think that things have changed since that time. People still want something visible to worship and there are individuals more than willing to build idols for that purpose, idols in the form of religious organizations.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2020-01-28 18:39:01
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.
Reply by Chet on 2020-01-28 18:56:08
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.
Comment by swaffi on 2020-01-26 20:43:01
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 Geoffrey Jackson part was golden) It's amazing to think that if these 2 JW representatives, on one hand, admitted to the times when there were at least 2 witnesses to the crime and nothing was reported and then, on the other hand, use the 2 witness rule as a defence. Of course, I could be wrong. I would appreciate some input from others on this matter if possible. Thanks
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2020-01-28 18:33:20
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.
Comment by Gogetter on 2020-01-27 05:54:51
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 widespread news media coverage, that unless you are never on the net is hard to miss the growing child abuse scandal among Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Thank you for becoming ever bolder on this and other topics that will help those still in the congregation to have the personal courage to take a look at what all the organization Apostate “buzz” is all about which will help them to ever so slowly pull the curtain back and see what’s really behind the façade of the WBTS.
Hopefully this site will help the ever increasing PIMO group, who while in constant mental agony, will also rise up while still undercover and look for opportunities to help those family and friends who may be “sighing and crying” over things they dare not speak of and to trust in their relationship with Jehovah and Jesus to help them to examine this God dishonoring situation.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2020-01-28 18:31:04
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.
Reply by Leonardo Josephus on 2020-01-29 11:23:36
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 was a disciple of Jesus ? What do you think ?
Sometimes just a casual little "it is all over the Internet" gets some to think. I am not embarrassed to say I have been looking at what is there. They will just have to guess where. To which I will say that I found it on Wikipedia.
Any more questions others have found effective ?
Sorry if that is a bit off the subject Eric.
Greetings and love to all here.Reply by Leonardo Josephus on 2020-01-30 04:10:39
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 fairly safe subject. which can lead to others, if carefully used.
Comment by Sky Blue on 2020-01-27 07:08:58
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.
Reply by Sky Blue on 2020-01-27 07:10:24
Great video BTW. Loved the reasoning and you are absolutely spot on!
Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2020-01-28 18:28:42
Thank you Sky Blue
Comment by Leonardo Josephus on 2020-01-27 11:30:07
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 reasons why it is not a law to report, namely that family members may often be involved, and that could result in terrible consequences for the innocent parties.
On the other hand, failure to report a crime of this nature leaves those who do not report responsible if further abuse takes place.
In financial matters, lawyers, financial advisors, accountants, and similar persons who become aware or even suspicious of money laundering offences, are under obligation to report their suspicions.
So is there an excuse for not reporting child abuse, even when there is no specific law ? That is the question, and it should have nothing to do with some of the reasons the GB have encouraged.Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2020-01-28 18:28:03
Welcome Beroeans Creed and thank you for sharing this information with us.
Comment by Beroeans Creed on 2020-01-27 14:15:27
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 to make known to those with children in the congregation to "watch" certain brothers who have appeared before a judicial committee for child abuse if they are just reproved or have been reinstated for such a crime.
The problem exist when we leave it up to the Elders and even some parents to report this to the authorities, how do I know this? Besides the dismal record of non-reporting that is already established in the organization, this has happened in my congregation and when I confronted the Elders why they didn't report it was made clear that if the parents didn't choose to report, it was not their responsibility even in light of Lev. 5:1, hard to believe you say......not anymore for me!
Note* If you prayerfully decide to report about a case in your congregation, make sure you have the facts from the Elders as to whether or not a case was reported, you can appreciate that not doing so beforehand could put into motion some very serious events that will be out of your hands.
The Childhelp National Child Abuse Hotline 1.800.4.A.Child (1-800-422-44530) All Calls are anonymous.Reply by Chet on 2020-01-28 20:17:51
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 where someone disdainfully started by saying: “in the WORLD ...” and then going on to make a disdainful comment. I left that meeting shortly thereafter, knowing that I could never participate again.
So I see this, certainly, as “circling the wagons”, but beyond that, I see it as a matter of perpetuating the sense of being set apart. It’s not unique to JWs, but I think that many JWs, though certainly not all JWs, see the rest of the world as something very temporary and therefore not of any concern.
Comment by Dan Adams on 2020-01-29 13:55:07
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 verses in Romans too much could inadvertently lead in the same direction of support for the GB. I mean, don’t we all have some sense that certain laws should be disobeyed? Certainly Martin Luther King Jr. made this famous when, quoting Augustine & Thomas Aquinas, he declared that an unjust law is no law at all. Perhaps JWs on average would dismiss this distinction given that MLK’s actions were political in nature. But there are other examples I’m sure all JW’s would agree with, like not forcing a healthcare worker to participate in an abortion, or not turning in your Jewish neighbor because the Nazi government tells you to do so.
The question would then be whether protecting the seal of confession is just or unjust. It certainly seems impossible to imagine that an abuser’s right to privacy is more important than the safety of the child. But even the non-religious assume this to be so when it comes to the privacy between a lawyer and his client. If the attorney-client privilege can be viewed as a fundamental right to ensure the client is free to express himself fully and thus receive the best advice from his attorney, then it can be argued that it’s reasonable to have the right to a similar privilege when it comes to the spiritual relationship of a penitent and his confessor.
Still, many will disagree. After all, we’re talking about innocent children. I’ve got 4 kids myself. I get it. But what if an exception were to be made. What if priests/elders were required to report. Would that help? Would the abuser even continue to confess? Or would he hold this sin back from confessing? And how can anyone be assured that one exception to the privacy of confession wouldn’t spread? Because it does seem to be the rule that making exceptions leads to a slippery slope.
Whatever one thinks of the need for confession, I think it can be argued that if one actually does see a need for it, then having one’s privacy protected goes hand in hand with the ability to seek spiritual counsel and forgiveness in this way. Indeed, there have been priests killed for the very reason that they failed to divulge the contents of a confession when told to do so by their rulers. Perhaps they were told to do so for reasons that would seem obviously unjust in comparison to giving up a child abuser. Yet they were still willing to give their lives rather than obey the current laws of their lands.
These are just some thoughts. Meleti has already provided good reasonings in the other direction.
Comment by The Two Witnesses Rule. When Is it Scriptural to Apply it as a Principle? on 2022-07-29 02:35:10
[…] See also https://beroeans.net/2020/01/26/jehovahs-witnesses-and-child-sexual-abuse-why-is-the-two-witness-rul… […]