“There is … a time to be silent and a time to speak.”—Ecclesiastes 3:1,7
[From ws 03/20 p.18 May 18 – May 24]
A time to speak
“Why is it so important that we have the courage to speak up when necessary? Consider two contrasting examples: In one case, a man needed to correct his sons, and in the other, a woman had to confront a future king.” (para.4).
It then continues “5High Priest Eli had two sons for whom he had deep affection. Those sons, however, had no respect for Jehovah. They held important positions as priests serving at the tabernacle. But they abused their authority, showed gross disrespect for the offerings given to Jehovah, and brazenly committed sexual immorality. (1 Samuel 2:12-17, 22) According to the Mosaic Law, Eli’s sons deserved to die, but permissive Eli merely reproved them mildly and allowed them to continue serving at the tabernacle. (Deut. 21:18-21) How did Jehovah view the way that Eli handled matters? He said to Eli: “Why do you keep honoring your sons more than me?” Jehovah then determined to put those two wicked men to death. 1 Samuel 2:29, 34.
6 We learn an important lesson from Eli. If we find out that a friend or a relative has broken God’s law, we must speak up, reminding him of Jehovah’s standards. Then we must make sure that he gets the help he needs from Jehovah’s representatives. (James 5:14) Never would we want to be like Eli, honoring a friend or a relative more than we honor Jehovah. It takes courage to confront someone who needs to be corrected, but it is worth the effort.”. The Watchtower article then immediately moves on to examine the example of Abigail.
This is all very helpful, but did you spot what is missing?
Consider the situation.
- The nation of Israel was under rule by God with the High Priest being God’s representative. The authorities were the priests, there was no King at that time.
- Fast-forwarding to today, whether we are Jehovah’s Witnesses or not, we all live under governments with governmental authorities that have laws.
Regarding these very governmental authorities the Apostle Paul wrote in Romans 13:1 “Let every soul be in subjection to the superior authorities, for there is no authority except by [the allowance of] God; the existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God”. That is why Paul went on to say “Therefore he who opposed the authority has taken a stand against the arrangement of God; … for it is God’s minister to you for your good. … for it is God’s minister, an avenger to express wrath upon the one practicing what is bad. There is therefore compelling reason for you people to be in subjection, not only on account of that wrath but also on account of your conscience” Romans 13:2-5.
Therefore, in the light of these paragraphs in the Watchtower article and Roman 13:1-5, how should Jehovah’s Witnesses act in the case of an accusation of a minor against an adult of child sexual abuse?
What principles should guide one who finds themselves in the unfortunate position of either being a victim or hearing of the accusation?
Adults have authority over children, especially if they are the parent of the child. Even non-parents have a measure of responsibility because the non-parent is an adult and the child is rightly deemed of not always being capable of behaving responsibly.
- So, what was the problem with Eli’s two sons? They had no respect for the superior authority, in this case it was Jehovah. Today, the superior authority would be the secular authority.
- Secondly, Eli’s sons abused their authority. Today, an adult who sexually abuses a child also abuses his or her authority over that child. This is especially even more so if the abuser is appointed to a position of trust in the congregation as an elder.
- Thirdly, just as Eli’s son committed sexual immorality, today an adult who sexually abuses a child rapes that child, and commits an act sexual immorality with that child, as the adult cannot be legally married to that child. The child, being a minor cannot be found guilty of consent or leading the adult on into wrongdoing, as by definition the adult is considered responsible enough to know better what they are doing and a child is by definition not capable of understanding the full implications of its actions.
- Fourthly, did Eli report the illegal behavior of his sons to the priests who administered the law? No, he covered it up. Hence the article says “We learn an important lesson from Eli. If we find out that a friend or a relative has broken God’s law, we must speak up, reminding him of Jehovah’s standards. Then we must make sure that he gets the help he needs from Jehovah’s representatives”. What, therefore, today, should the important lesson be? Surely it is that “if we find out that a friend or relative or marriage mate has broken the superior authorities law, and clearly that law does not contravene God’s law, then we have a duty to speak up, reminding him of the government’s standards, and make sure that he or she gets the help they need from the authorities representatives, the police authorities. These authorities are best placed to help him or her cease offending or judge whether a crime was committed. What we do not do, is keep the actions quiet like Eli did, maybe because we mistakenly love the reputation of an organization we are part of, more than justice. Remember, Eli loved his own reputation more than that of justice and was condemned for it.
Just as Jehovah viewed this cover-up by Eli as showing a lack of respect for the authority of Jehovah, likewise the governmental authorities would rightly view it as a lack of respect for their God allowed authority, if today we were to cover up such crimes or allegations of such crimes.
Now this may not be easy, after all as the article says, “It takes courage to confront someone who needs to be corrected, but it is worth the effort”. In what ways? It stops the abuser from hurting others. It also puts them in the position where possibly they can be helped.
But, should the abused one be expected to confront the abuser personally? The simple answer is, Would you as an adult confront someone you saw murder someone else? Of course not. You would reasonably likely feel intimidated and afraid. So reason dictates that in most circumstances we would not expect a child to confront an adult abuser.
We also have to ask the question, why did the Organization not take the opportunity to make these very points?
Double Standards
Paragraph 7 & 8 contain another case of double standards on the part of the Organization. It covers the events surrounding David’s request for succor from Nabal. It says “When Abigail met David, she spoke courageously, respectfully, and persuasively. Even though Abigail was not to blame for the bad situation, she apologized to David. She appealed to his good qualities and relied on Jehovah to help her. (1 Sam. 25:24, 26, 28, 33, 34) Like Abigail, we need to have the courage to speak up if we see someone heading down a dangerous path. (Ps. 141:5) We must be respectful, but we must also be bold. When we lovingly offer a person necessary counsel, we prove that we are a true friend. Proverbs 27:17”.
Here the Organization promotes the example of a married woman giving counsel to a man she is not married to, and to a man already anointed as Israel’s future King by Jehovah via prophet Samuel. Now, if today a sister in the congregation were to attempt to counsel publicly an elder, the sister and if married, her husband, would receive strong counsel about her keeping her proper place in the congregation, by allowing Jehovah to deal with the elder, rather the elder humbly accepting and applying the counsel.
Paragraph 13 tells us “Those who are appointed to a position of trust in the congregation cannot be “double-tongued,” or deceitful”. Herein lies another issue. Here the Watchtower claims the elders are appointed to a position of trust in the congregation. However, when these elders abuse that trust, then the Organization turns round and claims in court that they are not responsible for brothers and sisters viewing the elders as men to be trusted.
In addition, the Organization claims that it is the responsibility of the individual witnesses, not the elders, even when problems are covered-up, due to a misplaced view of confidentiality.
No silence when it is time to be silent
In most if not all congregations there is too much use of “confidentiality” as a get-out clause. It enables slander of the good name of many Witnesses to go on behind closed doors amongst bodies of elders. As a result we can identify one of the most commonly broken principles of the Organization, that of the wives of elders not knowing what is going on in the secrecy of elders meetings. Instead of being silent, both elders and elder’s wives contribute to the insidious slander that spreads to the congregation in general, with no redress for the slandered one.
Keep silent or speak out?
Finally, there is one more very important occasion when we should speak up. We here on this site will, therefore, speak up and continue to do so here on this site.
Galatians 6:1 states “Brothers, even though a man takes some false step before he is aware of it, you who have spiritual qualifications try to readjust such a man in a spirit of mildness, as you each keep an eye on yourself for fear you also may be tempted”.
Firstly, even this verse is incorrectly translated. A review of an interlinear translation reveals that the word “qualifications” is an inserted word and incorrect in the context and changes the meaning of the verse. Please see this online interlinear translation.
“Brothers” is referring to fellow Christians, not men-only and not as the NWT implies, elders only, those it views as the only ones having the “spiritual qualifications”. “a man” is also referring in the generic sense to someone of mankind or humankind as we would more correctly say today. This verse should, therefore, read “Fellow Christians, even though someone should be overcome in some trespass [take a wrong step], you who are spiritual [as opposed to earthly, sinful] restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness considering yourself lest you also be tempted [because you also could take the same false step, and how would you like to be treated in that case?]”.
This means that anyone who sees another taking a wrong step, perhaps teaching something from the Bible that contradicts something else in the Bible should accept correction.
How does this apply today?
This means even if the Governing Body were appointed by Christ (for which they have no proof unlike the first-century apostles), they would still not be above correction. But how do they react if criticized or provided evidence that some of their teachings are wrong in a serious way, such as their chronology of 607BC to 1914AD, for example[i]? Do they accept the counsel in the spirit of gentleness with which it was given? Or do they rather seek to silence those with dissenting voices by branding them as apostates and throwing them out of the congregation?
Is it not disturbing that the apostle Peter (appointed by Christ) was humble enough to accept counsel from the apostle Paul, (also appointed by Christ), also his fellow brother, yet the Governing Body (with no evidence of appointment by Christ) refuse to accept counsel from anyone else?
In the light of this we publish the following open appeal to the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses:
Dear Governing Body
Please kindly accept this counsel and criticism in the spirit with which it is given, which is in love and kindness with a desire to help, not to destroy. This counsel is given to help you and those that blindly follow you, not to punish you. Your current intransigent attitude is causing thousands of Witnesses to lose their faith, not only in the Organization but more seriously in Jehovah, Jesus Christ, and their wonderful promises.
Please avoid the thousands of congregations of containing a large number of right-hearted Christians from being taught falsehoods and teaching others falsehoods about the Bible. It is thereby causing them to become spiritually sick, because as Proverbs 13:12 says “Expectation postponed is making the heart sick”.
Please do not put a millstone around your own necks and those who blindly follow you, rather be humble correct your errors and cease being a cause for stumbling to those who love God and Christ. (Luke 17:1-2)
Your brother in Christ
Tadua
[i] See the series “A Journey of Discovery through Time” on this site for an in-depth examination on the truth of 607BC as the date for the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians and hence the derivation of 1914AD as the start of Jesus Kingdom. Also, the series on “The Messianic Prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27”, and the series of Youtube videos on Matthew 24 amongst many article and videos.
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 2020-05-17 13:34:58
Translation: Snitch on one another to the elders, but if someone on the outside asks for damning information, clam up and deny everything.
Comment by Jerome Aiken on 2020-05-17 23:06:58
“‘If someone sins because he has heard a public call to testify and he is a witness or has seen or learned about it and he does not report it, then he will answer for his error. Leviticus 5:1
Elders use this scripture to encourage congregation members to become informants and report infractions to the elders. But when it comes to child sexual abuse they hypocritically appeal to a confidentiality clause which is a legal loophole found nowhere in the Bible. Why? Clearly the reputation of the organization, their good name in the community is more important than the safety of children. But they will answer for their error.
But whoever stumbles one of these little ones who have faith in me, it would be better for him to have hung around his neck a millstone that is turned by a donkey and to be sunk in the open sea. Matthew 18:6Reply by Leonardo Josephus on 2020-05-18 10:30:58
Well done, JA, for highlighting this verse, as I was about to do so, and then found you had already commented. To my mind, this verse is not really properly translated anyway. It is not about reporting someone else, it is more about coming forward, and telling what you know, when a call for witnesses to some crime has been made. Until the 2013 NWT came out even the part about a public call to testify was absent, as the expression "public cursing" was used instead. That expression can easily mislead a person in trying to understand what was meant, whereas it seems from the various commentaries that what was being discussed was either a call to come forward if a person knew about a crime, or that a witness was not to withold evidence as when appearing in in a court case.
Sadly, the idea of snitching is still present, as the pre baptism questions on page 200 (number 16) of the Organisation book ask specifically "If you know that a fellow Christian has committed a serious sin, what should you do ?" No line is included of approaching that one first, as Matthew 18 would suggest.
Yet, where is this scripture discussed in the study ? Answer : Nowhere. I wonder why ? The way it has been used, it deserved correction from the pre 2013 view *, but then again, if the Org went into depth, they might have to explain why they have used the word "report".
Reply by Chet on 2020-05-18 13:51:39
One problem is, that in the warped thinking of some within the Watchtower Organization, their organization is indistinguishable from Jehovah. They seek to protect Jehovah’s good name by protecting their name. Some of these people apparently have been drinking the Kool-Aid for so long that they actually have lost track of the facts.
The Creator has always been. We can’t besmirch His name. All we possibly can do is prove by our actions that we are not worthy to represent Him in any way. The sickened minds of Watchtower leadership seem to actually believe that their relatively insignificant organization is equated with the name Jehovah in the minds of virtually everyone on earth. This is delusional thinking and bespeaks institutional paranoia, on their part, and quite likely delusional paranoia on the part of at least some of the individuals at the top.
I would submit, at least semi-seriously, that paranoia is contagious. Associate with paranoid individuals and you are likely to become paranoid. Paranoia is not simply believing that someone is out to get you, it can, and often does, manifest itself as believing that one has some special revelation, hidden from most of humanity, but revealed to one person, or a select few. Sound familiar?
One common symptom of delusional paranoia is the belief that God has revealed who to cure a certain disease to the individual suffering from delusional paranoia. Such persons may send long treatises to prominent physicians and when they do not receive enthusiastic replies, they assume that the physician in question never received the treatise, because persons working for that physician have intercepted this information instead of passing it along.
The JW Organization seems to have a somewhat similar model of behavior. For years, they published all sorts of literature and were very aggressive about getting it out to as many people as possible. They demonized the clergy, claiming that they were actively subverting them. They even went to the point of claiming that one of the resolutions passed at a long forgotten convention in Cedar Point, Ohio, was in fact one of the plagues of Revelation. From their point of view, the clergy of Christendom never saw the Bible Students/JWs as a major threat, when in fact, most of them saw the Witnesses as little more than a curiosity or a mild annoyance.
The moral decay of society in general is the ultimate source of the child abuse problem that plagues many religions. Unfortunately, we have seen many cases of religious organizations seeking to cover these matters up. It surprises me not at all that the JWs have done this, because their reflex has been to circle the wagons every time there was any sort of trouble. I have heard elders whom believed that a divorce in the congregation was a smear on the name of Jehovah, but the actions of the elders in almost any problem is not to address the problem, but to practice damage control and to issue gag orders, quite possibly under threat of disfellowshipping. While still in my teens, I exposed a matter which could have progressed into something quite serious, but of which I had no part. After testifying, instead of being thanked for my loyalty and for doing the right thing (according to the Organization), I was sternly counseled not to ever speak of the matter under threat of judicial sanction, up to and including disfellowshipping.
This was a relatively minor matter, involving a degree of mutual fascination between a teen aged boy and a young married sister in the congregation (go ahead and DF me, if it makes you happy, elders) but it never reached the level of fornication. However, the most obvious motive on the part of the elders was to keep it hushed up. Apparently they actually believed that the very Name of God Himself would be sullied if this ever leaked out.
So it’s no wonder that even the hint of child abuse would be covered up. In the case of snitching on one another within the congregation, power and control are the motive and snitches work in their favor. In the case of events that are truly scandalous, they will work to suppress any information from reaching outside the Organization. They claim it’s for Jehovah’s name, but it’s really their name which they are seeking to protect.
Comment by Menrov on 2020-05-18 10:47:09
as we all know, if there is one thing the leaders in the organisation do not appreciate is that the R&F speak out, ask questions about doctrines and challenge the view and statements from the governing body members. IF you do, you are muted. Jesus allowed Satan to argue with him. God allowed Abraham to challenge him. I guess the gb members believe they are superior to Jesus and at least equal to their god.
Comment by Zazza on 2020-05-22 08:28:40
Interesting reasoning..
A question remains: If a brother or a sister didn't sign the consent form about the personal data regulation in 2018, how can a n organizational procedure , to pressuring the publishers to go to the elders, when someone has seen or witnessing a wrongdoing, be balanced , with the fact that the local elders can't use the personal data of such a brother or sister,anymore, or sharing private informations , and with the legal procedure: respect for the privacy and life in this specific contexts? Is it time to speak, or to remain silent?
This Watch Tower study seems to remain silent of such specific contexts.