Hi Cold Steel,
"I suspect that if a town court prosecuted the JWs, and sought to deny them representation, that they would vigorously appeal it as both illegal and unfair."
The most recent case Jehovah's Witnesses fought in regards to their preaching work was: Watchtower Society v. Village of Stratton [Ohio].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchtower_Society_v._Village_of_Stratton
You may be interested to know the Mormons filed an Amicus brief in support of the Witnesses in this case. This case helped refine freedom of speech, in particular freedom to anonymous free speech. Which can be pretty important even here on the forum. The Village of Stratton required folks to register and obtain a permit before they made door to door visits. Even though the ordinance was free and did not specify that Witnesses were disallowed, the idea that the government can be involved in such visits like this was deemed a violation of the first amendment freedom of speech.
Although Jehovah's Witnesses seek such protection it does not at all mean they believe in the principal itself. In fact just the opposite. When Barbara Anderson used her freedom of speech rights to speak out against Watchtower policies on handling child abuse, she was disfellowshipped for causing divisions (Titus 3:10).
Another interesting aspect of all this legal wrangling is what happens when action is taken against individual Witnesses. Letters to Elders have made it clear that if an individual Witness is sued for trespassing they are on their own and should not expect legal help from either the congregation or the Watchtower Society. I suspect there may be exceptions to this, if it was felt larger issues were at stake.
"How, then, can they deny that the courts are the prosecutors? The scripture states that in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established. Often the courts include the witnesses themselves and, if not, the elders many times are unduly influenced by the witnesses."
Legally, Witnesses would not refer to their internal discipline as a "court", but instead a "religious tribunal." They do in fact try to apply the two witness (Deuteronomy 17:6) rule, which has been widely noted breaks down profoundly in cases of child abuse, where the abuser denies the charge. However, as noted all the hard lessons of how courts work and sometimes fail that has refined how secular courts work is lost on the Witnesses. How interesting the Satan's old system works better than Jehovah's spiritual paradise!
"This allows for many ways in which the pooch is screwed."
Absolutely!
"First, what happens if one doesn’t confess, but simply repents?"
Technically without a confession and no other evidence, a judicial committee should not act. Interestingly if a sin is committed, say a mild form of sexaul sins, like mutual masturbation, but the "sinner" does not confess at first, lets years go by, then at a certain point confesses. Believe it or not, direction has been given that their post-sin record could indicate that Jehovah has forgiven them and they should not be barred from priviledges or censured in anyway, beyond given private counsel at the point of confession.
"Armageddon comes and what happens? This good person who has repented gets blasted into oblivion? Not if their God is just, merciful and loving. If the person has a heavenly hope, does he get demoted to one of the great crowd?"
The imagined Armageddon (Rev 16:16) event is of course genocide on an unimaginable scale. The dead scattered from one end of the earth to the other (Jer 25:33). Most of the time modern Witnesses don't think about this. I would also say it is no longer stressed in vivid detail the way it was in the past. To make all this more palatable, most Witnesses rely on Jehovah being a wise, merciful and perfect judge (Deut 32:4) and will only destroy the incorrigible wicked. I have never seen any mention of the idea of demotion from the heavenly hope. Generally I think the Witnesses would want to stress one is not better than the other. Only in terms of the Governing Body power structure does one seen an emphasis that those with the heavenly hope are more connected to God. Bible is a letter written to them, etc.
"Also, here’s a hypothetical."
Jim is hauled into the church court and accused of committing certain indiscretions (because, after all, slaves have to be discreet). Although he denies the charges, the court has witnesses, and 1) because he has denied them and, 2) because he fails to confess and repent of them, he’s disfellowshiped. His friends and employer skunk him and though he manages to keep his job, his reputation is ruined. And, a year later, when he seeks to be reinstated so he can get married, he’s asked if he’s repented. So he confesses and is reinstated.
Now Jim, who was out, is now back in. Two weeks after his marriage, he makes an appointment with the judicial committee to confess about another transgression. The elders and overseer are agitated, but they agree to a meeting. Jim shows up and, when given the floor, admits to having willfully borne false witness to the previous court. He lied, he admits, when he confessed to having committed the offenses he was charged with. He also lied when he said he repented of them because he never actually had anything to repent of.
So what happens?
The point in all this is it is hard to say. Does Jim break down and cry during his last confession? Does it look like he has been "cut to the heart?" Or is he arrogant, perhaps even mocking? Do one or more of the elder have a strong dislike for Jim? Or the opposite, are some of the elders his close friends?
Thus is goes, all three outcomes are possible, (a) private reproof, (b) public reproof or (c) disfellowshipping.
Cheers,
-Randy
