Infallible Elders?

Comment by apollos0falexandria on 2013-01-27 09:34:59

Yes, it would have been better to acknowledge that this is the scriptural way of dealing with matters and Jehovah therefore approves of decisions made in accord with his Word, which is what the elders endeavour to do. Saying that it reflects his point of view in every case is making an unsupportable claim.
Nevertheless I will say that the study article was very good overall. It is articles like this that I see as being a real differentiator between the teaching available to us and to Christendom in general. Like first century Christianity it reflects that we belong to "The Way", which is far more apt than a claim to possess "The Truth" in an absolute sense.
Apollos

Comment by Urbanus on 2013-01-27 13:28:09

The statement in question concludes a three paragraph discussion in the context of forgiveness, including that mercy extended to a wrong-doer in judicial matters, including re-instatement to the congregation. The in-paragraph context is that the elders have "harmonized" with God's Word and the guidance of holy spirit. Their decision is made after "seeking Jehovah's help in prayer" and therefore, their forgiveness by recognition of repentance reflects Jehovah's point of view. (May it ever be true that it actually happens that way.)
Leaving aside whether it is correct to speak or think of Jehovah as having "a point of view" as opposed to being all-knowing, the truth is that judicial committees have not had a consistent standard to follow.
An incomplete list of standards for expulsion from the congregation includes smoking, sexual practices, understanding broader "porneia" as a grounds for scriptural divorce and re-marriage, civil service as an acceptable alternate to military service, and loose-conduct. Likewise, standards have changed for judicial appeal, paying of fines, suing brothers to collect insurance proceeds, acceptance of blood fractions and more.

Comment by Alec Holmes on 2013-01-27 20:54:09

Thank you for the article Meleti. I heartily agree with Apollos that it is baseless to say everything the elders decide 'reflects Jehovah's point of view'. Urbanus made a very good point when he said Jehovah knows all things as opposed to 'having a point of view' on them.
An elder once told me that Jehovah may bless even a wrong decision a body of elders make. He was talking about decisions relating to changes that affect the congregation, not about judicial committees to be precise. If this elder was right then that means they are fallible and they may make decisions that may later be proven to not have been totally right.
Well, to say their decisions reflect Jehovah's point of view is to say that they can't make mistakes. This contradicts the Bible.
It seems like the Corinthian congregation Paul wrote to, for example, were not totally in harmony with Jehovah's mind in not removing the wicked man from among them, hence the exhortation he gave them. (1 Co 5:11-13) It also seems they still needed to align themselves with Jehovah's will later to welcome him back into the congregation once he had repented. (2 Co 2:6-8) The fact that it took them some time to catch up with Jehovah shows they were not infallible.

Comment by iclone on 2013-01-28 14:50:16

I was truly offended by this statement. As someone who at one time served as an elder, I can tell for a certainty that I made mistakes. I also have served on appeal committees where the mistakes or favoritism of other elders was clearly manifest. I think many people would have respected a more honest and noble comment. For example they could have stated that "the elders are not perfect and when judging others they have a disadvantage over Jehovah as they CANNOT read the hearts of their fellow man. They endeavor to reflect Jehovah's perfect wisdom by referring to scripture and praying for his Holy Spirit on these weighty matters. Despite their best efforts; these brothers are not infallible and at times, will make an error in judgment. What is attitude if this is the way we feel. Will we crucify the elders or will we show honor and respect for Jehovah's theocratic arrangement?" Something along these lines would have been much more palatable, however it appears that the new G.B. is totally lacking in humility. This is the undertone of their message over the past few years and pious statements like these will result in even more dissenters like myself.

Comment by hezekiah1 on 2013-01-29 15:58:27

Thanks very much Meleti for this article. I have to agree with all the comments here. We cannot read hearts, so at best we do our level best with the written instruction and Bible direction. No doubt the vast majority of elders do a fine job of this and are aware of the heavy responsilibilty we bear. However, there are mistakes made. I have seen them made. I have made some. We are imperfect. At best, the statement in the WT could have said that “Hence, what [the judicial committee] decide in such matters after seeking Jehovah’s help in prayer will reflect his point of view.” most of the time.

Comment by jomaix on 2013-01-30 12:19:48

My brother has been disfellowshiped, and it will be anounce tomorrow at the meeting. He appealed to the decision because one of the elders were obviously able to disfellowship him since the begining, even without listen to him. My brother ask not to be in his judicial cometee a specific brother, and the elders called that same very elder. This elder (the one who my brother ask not to be in the cometee) was screaming and making an special effort to disfellowship him (my dad was an elder a few years ago, before his resignation. By some reasons brothers in the congregation always love my dad and had a lot of confidence in him. This elder always tried to ridicule my dad, but never got it. We guess that that is the reason of his attitude toward our entire family), even when my brother confess his sin without any presure and went to ask the so called "spiritual help". They tell him that he would be disfelloshiped without quoting any scripture to point the reason (obviously, we know that he commited a sin, but we never saw an attempt to help him to recover his relationship with Jehovah).
When my brother told them that he considered make an appeal, the chairman (a japanse) said: "This is not a decision of a Japanese. This is Jehovah's desicion. But if you consider that this comitee is useless you can appeal."
I helped my brother (editing his letter, because he is not a really good writer) to make his appeal letter, and we tried to expose mildly the reasons why he considered that the judgment was unfair. During the second comitee the three elders of the original comitee were present and acted gently toward my brother. The decision was "pending" for more than one month. We learned that the two comitees met at least three times to consider the case. Monday was the last meeting, but there weren't the members of the appeal comitee, just the three members of the original one. According to my brother, he felt the same "spirit" than in the first comitee. The elders called him to come in, and told him: "We're here to tell you that the decision is the same. Now you can go away."
It was surprising to us that, again, they didn't gave scriptural reasons of their decision. Also, was rare the fact that there weren't the members of the appeal comitee. My brother told them that he is truly repentant, and asked them about the reestablishment letter, and the elder (the one whom my brother asked no to be present) told him: "The Elders book say that you must be out at least one year!" My brother said: "Ok? Why, then, in the case of (and mention the names of two brother), they were out less than one year?" He didn't receive an answer. Then he asked, "why you say that I must be out of the congregation all that time, if I'm repentant and I'm not practicing the sin?" and the brother said: "Beacause you have to feel the weight of discipline."
Obviously, this decision is sad, and we will accept it, because we haven't another option. Yesterday one of the elders who serve in the appeal comitee told my brother: "We gave a favorable decision for you", so, the appeal comitee weren't able to disfellowship. The original comitee told my brother that this wasn't their decision, but Branch's decision, something false, according to appeal comitee's brothers.
Now, we are told that the decision was based, not on sin, but on my "brother's attitude", just because he refered to the elders of the first comitee as "Mr. Perez" and not as "Brother Perez" when he talked with another elder.
We will accept decision as Jehovah's will for us, but we are tired of abuse of authority, and the claim that it's Jehovah's spirit decision and that we must accept it as from Jehovah, and so, we haven't the right to make questions.
This month has been very bad for our family. We're sad and confused. We will thank your prayers for us. We really need to be strong, and we need, as never before, Jehovah's spirit to help us to keep our joy.

• Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2013-01-30 15:59:01

  I'm so sorry to hear this. It's bizarre that they wouldn't give him a reason. The branch won't accept a disfellowshipping if no valid, scriptural basis exists. He has the option of appealing to the branch.
  The issue of a minimum one-year term is not to be found in the ks book, but sadly, this does seem to be a de facto standard. The fact is that when elders reinstate in less than a year, the branch will question the reinstatement based solely on the shortened time period. I know this to be the case in at least two countries, leading me to conclude it is a common practice. Now if there is no fixed minimum time period, but elders learn that if they reinstate in less than a year, they will have to justify their decision to the branch, then the time period is implied and becomes the standard by tradition.
  GIven what the Corinthian man did and that Paul urged his reinstatement after a period of only months, this modern-day standard seems hard to justify. It is too close to the worldly view of "you do the crime, you do the time" and is based on the erroneous idea that if the punishment is not severe enough, more will practice sin.

  • Reply by jomaix on 2013-01-30 20:30:47

    Thanks for answering and clarifying the idea of the "one year" period.
    One of the elders of the appeal comitee said that he, personally, will talk with the Circuit Overseer to explain how the case was. This brother told my brother: "I know that one of the elders wants to harm you", so, the other comitee is aware of the real situation. He told my brother that he will help him to return to the congregation before one year, but, of course, my brother need to strengthen his spiritual condition. Let's see what will happen in this case. We're not that sad about the annoucement of tommorrow, surely, Jehovah is helping us to have a right attitude, and he will help us to endure 'till this process ends :)
    Cheers from Guatemala brother.

Comment by Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing « Beroean Pickets on 2013-01-30 20:52:36

[...] comment got me thinking about the pain that elders can cause when they abuse their power.  I don’t [...]