JW Take on Matt 18 and Reporting "Sin" to "Elders"

by Frank75 14 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Frank75

  I was wondering what your impressions are of the recent convo I had with a JW Elder who thought he would call up his old "Apostate" buddy and try to sell him some software. I agreed to the meeting thinking this would be great. My own mother won't talk to me but this guy feels this "business" would allow him to fraternise.

  He quickly gets on the JW topic by mentioning a recent funeral of a mutual acquaintance in the "Tooth" and why I wasn't there. I asked him "why would I be there, I'm not welcome there at the KH?" That was followed by a disingenuous "Oh that's right....yur Disfellowshipped"

  I corrected him by saying, "actually my wife and I left JW's and after 3 years they finally noticed we were gone and someone said, 'you can't quit, we fire you'" So the DF'ing was quite perfunctory!

  So we started the typical go around and we bounced from topic to topic. Eventually he said something about Matt 18:15 (for any not aware what that is about read on) applying to all sins and the JW's have the option of applying that even if a spouse committed "Adultery", child committed "pornea". He said most go to elders because they are not in a position to deal with such matters themselves (as if it is an option)

  I asked if this was new and he said, "no it was always his understanding"..........Believe it or not!

  I told him it wasn't true and he made the silly condescending elder laugh, and "oh but it is!" He went so far as to say that a number of elders he knows who's wives committed adultery, they were repentant and therefore no need to go to a JC or any further than the family."

  I said to him, "well the fact that you know about it is proof that it isn't true, but I digress, that though it may have happened (and I know people who have kept things private) it was done against the Societies interpretation of Matt 18, clear rules about reporting "Sin" and direction on the matter."

  He said I was mistaken and tried to move the conversation along, which I allowed as I couldn't wait to hear what other lies he could tell me. Looking back I should have asked him what he was going to do now that Book Study was cancelled....LOL

  So later when I got home, I prepared an email that would give him an opportunity to clarify what he had said, provide quotations from the WT on "Matt 18" and "Reporting" and see what he would do.

  I wasn't very hopeful, but thought I would try.
• 

  Frank75

  Here is our email conversation for any who would like to read it. (First, he had said something about Greg Stafford and so I sent him a few lines from Greg's webpage - long story but I gave him that and the link and told him his info on Greg was not accurate) He wrote me back dismissively and passively insulted me - see below

  Dear X:
  I do not know exactly how to take your comment that you "delightedly remain with the Christian congregation". Are you implying that I am not a member of Christ's congregation? Because I do not support the Watchtower Corporation or the JW religion I am not following Jesus somehow? To remain a member of the Jehovah Witness organization is one thing, but to assert it is "the Christian congregation" would be a bold statement.

  Perhaps you were not aware that such a comment could come across as quite an insult to someone outside of your religion. Especially to someone who could ably argue that sects such as JW's are in fact Anti-Christian but wouldn't do so knowing it would be unkind to alienate persons who are actively involved and not ready yet to acknowledge it. But alas we are all imperfect, even still.

  This is my diatribe on Matt 18 (I leave out some for clarity)

  I wish to just comment on something said by me that you corrected. My experience in these types of discussions has rarely been fruitful with active witnesses who tend to say what is convenient at the moment only to run and hide when contradictory proof is offered to them using published statements of their own religions teachings. Or simply saying, "I did not say that" etc. I am hopeful that you are not like that.

  It was in regards to Matt 18:
  1. I said, "according to the WT this passage refers only to minor yet serious sins such as fraud, slander and theft". You said that I was wrong about that and that it does apply to all sin.
  2. And that you yourself would even handle your own wife's adultery in private, not taking it to the elders if her repentance appeared sincere. You also said this is done quite often and some of these situations never see a Judicial Committee

  1. The OM book clearly argues on page 142-144 that at Math 18 "Jesus outlined some specific procedures for resolving problems of serious wrongdoing, such as fraud or slander that may arise between fellow Christians"

  Also the KS book on page 107, 108 : "At Matthew 18:15-17 Jesus gave counsel on handling serious wrongs that might be settled on a personal basis. (w81 9/15 pp. 17-20; om pp. 142-5)

  Jesus' counsel concerns serious sins committed against one personally, such as fraud or slander sins serious enough to lead to a person's being expelled from the congregation. The person who believes he has been wronged takes the first step toward resolving the matter; elders may encourage him to do this."....(***Of course no one wants to admit that if elders are already involved at this point the advice from Jesus hasn't been followed at all) .... Other cases of serious wrongdoing require special attention by the elders in order to determine what is needed to help the repentant wrongdoer and to preserve the spiritual health of all in the congregation. These include such sins as adultery, fornication, apostasy, and drunkenness. (See Unit 5 (a) pages 92-6.)

  The 2nd paragraph after that in OM book page 143, attempts to argue what I said to you. That Jesus said if the results were positive it would not need to go further i.e. the "congregation" (which is code for the "elder body"). This is only asserted because WT teaches that "Gross Sin" MUST be handled by JW elders, thereby limiting the scope of what Jesus said somehow. They write "THIS fact shows that although serious, the offenses here were limited in nature to such as could be settled between the individuals involved. This would not include such offenses as fornication, adultery, homosexuality, blasphemy, apostacy, idolatry ... that should be reported to the elders and handled by them."

  So although you personally may disagree with that, and even asserted the WT doesn't teach the above, there you have in a nutshell the Watchtowers stated position.

  The OM book quote is and has always been the position of the Watchtower on Matt 18 at least as far as I can recall. I believe you are aware of that too since we both share the same experience of growing up in the religion roughly along the same time line. You may personally believe otherwise, but as I have shown there it is.

  I then included all reference material in the current WT CD Library

  You can also look up the following: w99 10/15 p. 19 par. 7; w94 7/15 22-3; w91 9/1 23; gt 63; w89 11/15 19; w88 2/15 9; it-1 499, 519, 1160

  It is also beyond denial that even as outlined, the direction in Matt 18 is rarely applied by JW's, even in financial matters. Public opinion is a far more effective tool in the hands of someone who is upset or disgruntled with his "brother" whatever the reason, and a tight knit community that is all too willing to listen to and accept one sided gossip is behind much of the discord that we personally witnessed over the years.

  Below is the second point dealing with what he maintained about reporting "Sin" to the elders!

  2.The fact that you would overlook a so called "adulterous mate" who confessed to you and demonstrated "sincere repentance" is also quite a departure from what is normally done and arguably mandated/required by the Watchtower Society. Don't get me wrong, It is refreshing to hear you say that you would follow the example of Joseph, whom the bible calls a righteous man, because he conscientiously chose to save Mary from the scandal that her pregnancy would have caused her. It is quite clear from the account that while he did not believe Mary got pregnant "miraculously" his love for her was such that he sought to save her the usual treatment and shunning typical of the Jews in such a situation.
  However the reality is that this topic of "Reporting to Elders" is regularly dealt with in Watchtower articles and letters to the Body of Elders over the years. I think you know that and your assertion to the contrary were even a little disingenuous in my opinion. Refer back to your own KS book page 108.

  *** w94 7/15 p. 23 How Do You Settle Differences? *** Other sins cannot be settled simply between two Christians. Under the Mosaic Law, serious sins were to be reported. (Leviticus 5:1; Proverbs 29:24) Similarly, gross sins involving the purity of the congregation have to be reported to Christian elders.

  *** w92 6/1 p. 18 par. 13 Make Wise Use of Your Christian Freedom *** An important area of cooperation is in the maintaining of the moral and spiritual cleanness of the congregation, both by our own conduct and by reporting cases of serious sin that come to our attention.

  *** w96 4/15 p. 29 Questions From Readers *** There are serious sins that congregation elders have to handle, such as stealing, lying, or gross immorality.

  KS manual page 97 and 108 also states:
  If a person has definite knowledge of wrongdoing that could contaminate the congregation, he is obligated to report the matter in order to keep the congregation clean. (Lev. 5:1; Num. 15:32-34; Prov. 29:24)

  Other cases of serious wrongdoing require special attention by the elders in order to determine what is needed to help the repentant wrongdoer and to preserve the spiritual health of all in the congregation. These include such sins as adultery, fornication, apostasy, and drunkenness. (See Unit 5 (a) pages 92-6.)

  There are several "internal" letters dealing with reporting wrongdoing that use much stronger words than "should" or "obligated" to come forward and report "Gross Sin" (KS page 108 says "require"). If you are not aware of them, then seek out your secretary and take his binder home for the weekend and enlighten yourself.

  As I said above, I applaud your taking such a stand, as such a position in light of your organizations stated guidelines and requirements just goes to prove that you find the process of judicial action against one of your own less than appealing. At the same time I can't help but shed a tear for the more obedient JW's (all of whom are God's sheep) who naively do as they are told, and are less able to withstand the stress of a predatory nocturnal tribunal or being shunned by their community.

  Although I got several responses from him, he never once acknowledged the points he made or the proof I provided. As I expected he stuck to trying to sell me his software.

  I am not naive to think that he would have responded at all, especially given that I was asking him to put his response in writing.

  However if he really believed as he did stated, that the JW religion was as warm and comfy as he was expressing, then what could possibly be his fear? (initially he said Greg Stafford spoke against the Society and "nothing happened to him"....BS)

  I will gladly post this guys responses if there is any interest. Otherwise I am curious if anyone has had similar discussions etc.

  Frank75
• 

  minimus

  The WT. states somewhere that if a person does indeed commit adultery or fornication they are OBLIGATED to report this to the elders and a JC would be formed to deal with the sin to see if "true repentance" was manifest. Doing otherwise could "hinder the free flow of Jehovah's Holy Spirit".
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  Your quotes with the yellow highlighted portion and Minimus are correct.

  Adultery or fornication (or smoking [loud gasp] or drunkeness or heavy petting which is
  loose conduct or taking blood or even apostasy and a number of other things) are
  considered serious sins that must be reported.

  Matt. 18:15 is narrowly applied to personal problems between members especially
  concerning slander or fraud.

  Now, the elders extend their own privilege in the case of minor sins to themselves.
  If they commit the sin of viewing pornography or lying or slander or fraud or something
  they can overlook, they often do overlook it. If they can somehow claim that the sins
  of one of their family members is minor and could be handled by two members instead
  of a committee, some elders abuse their authority even more and handle it that way.
  I know of some that have done so. As far as adultery or fornication goes, they are never
  supposed to overlook it. Not for themselves or their family. But humans are humans
  and humans will abuse their power.

  It is really a monster that WTS created. They don't want to lose their elders, so they
  give them backdoors on all the rules. The elders learn to expand the backdoor and abuse
  it. This is not common. Most BOE would allow the JC for their own members or for their
  family members, but there are always some who would do the thing you describe.
• 

  undercover

  I'm an example of someone who told the elders of personal wrongdoing that normally would lead to a JC meeting. The two elders I talked to decided on the spot that since I was obviously repentant and came to them, then it wasn't necessary to form a JC and the matter was dropped to never be brought up again. I never really figured out how I got out of that one. I was fully expecting to be removed as an MS, to be publicy reproved (at the least privately reproved) and to suffer some shame amongst my family.
• 

  minimus

  What did you do Undercover??

  For a short period of time, late 70s, early 80s, that judgment was allowed but then ditched for harsher treatment.
• 

  Frank75

  Thanks for weighing in.

  I agree that it happens. I remember my BIL who was the PO in his hall said he would never submit his wife, or 2 kids to the process.

  I also knew another elder who lamented aver a 1/2 dozen beers about how two of the elders who sent a bad letter of introduction with him and his family, he had hidden (or overlooked) their sexual indiscretions. (actually he said they both "committed adultery") I told him that it is a wonder the bad letter is all they did!

  Stating human nature to abuse power is a given as well, as corruption obviously exists and the JW's even admit it does. They say after all that they are "imperfect" (although I have never heard that expression applied to people like myself LOL)

  The point I was trying to hit upon was the blatant denial that clearly stated guidelines exist.

  For a rank and file dub there is much confusion as to what is and isn't officially taught.It is more than cognitive dissonance for a so-called elder. It is deliberate deception coming from an elder.They will say just about anything to make themselves appear good as most of us know.

  Monty Python comes to mind, the skit about Dinzdale and Luigi Vicotti "The Extortion Racket Skit". When Eric Idle is asked by the interviewer if it is true that Dinzdale had repeatedly nailed his pelvis to the wall, his reply is "Ol Dinzy would never do somfink like that"...."He's more like a brover to me" Then they show his wife who clearly has a coffee table nailed to her head and they ask "Did Dinzdale do that?" and the wife screams, "No" But Eric Idle says, "well yeah, he did do that"

  Frank75
• 

  ozziepost

  I'm an example of someone who told the elders of personal wrongdoing that normally would lead to a JC meeting. The two elders I talked to decided on the spot that since I was obviously repentant and came to them, then it wasn't necessary to form a JC and the matter was dropped to never be brought up again. I never really figured out how I got out of that one. I was fully expecting to be removed as an MS, to be publicy reproved (at the least privately reproved) and to suffer some shame amongst my family.

  I can recall an instance where I partook in such action. It was exactly as you describe and the P.O. and i met with the man who had confessed. The P.O. at the time was a bethel colleague from Service Department and we agreed that it would be pointless taking it to a JC for it had happened some years prior and that the man was clearly repentant in making known something which was unlikely to have otherwise been made known.

  I suspect it happens more than we imagine - there are (a few) right-minded individuals serving as elders.

  BTW undercover, you're not downunder are you?
• 

  Frank75

  I knew of situations as well were 2 elders talked to a person and covered it over, no JC and matter closed. I know that happens and I could argue that the KS actually allows for that or could be narrowly interpreted to that end by a decent fair minded person. At the end of the day it is usually 2 or 3 elders who run the show in most congregations so who would challenge. Go to the service desk and raise a stink, you make yourself look bad and they will tell you to go with the majority flow anyway.

  I actually think it happens a lot, there are still good people in the JW religion. Especially in minority language congregations who strain to hold on to every member possible.

  What buddy said is that it was ok to deal with it himself, alone. Albeit he is a dub "elder". But he said anyone could do it, they just "usually" come forward because they are "not qualified". Remember he is still arguing from the standpoint that it is a "loving arrangement" so it is no big deal either way.

  I only called the nut-job on the table because he wanted to sell me something. I told him I needed to know he would be honest with me and hate using his religious beliefs, but he brought it up.

  Frank75
• 

  Bring_the_Light

  My head is spinning. So glad I made my dash as a relative youngster and didn't have to pretend any of this is adult behavior.

  This whole idea of strangers being this involved is "Judicating" someone's holiness is like a new level of awe at the insanity of this religion. I pretty much just experienced the "torment the kids" part of it. I assumed all the crazy shit was only done to kids.