re: Taking a balanced view of the allegations?

by Visionary Man 37 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

silentlambs

What is the "balanced" view of the allegation that the Society discourages brothers to turn fellow brothers over to the courts for justice?
*** w73 11/15 703-4 Questions from Readers *** QuestionsfromReaders
Do Pauls words at 1Corinthians 6:1-7 mean that under no circumstances should a Christian take to court a case involving a fellowbeliever? U.S.A.
The apostle Pauls inspired admonition is: Does anyone of you that has a case against the other dare to go to court before unrighteous men, and not before the holy ones? Or do you not know that the holy ones will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you unfit to try very trivial matters? Do you not know that we shall judge angels? Why, then, not matters of this life? If, then, you do have matters of this life to be tried, is it the men looked down upon in the congregation that you put in as judges? I am speaking to move you to shame. Is it true that there is not one wise man among you that will be able to judge between his brothers, but brother goes to court with brother, and that before unbelievers? Really, then, it means altogether a defeat for you that you are having lawsuits with one another. Why do you not rather let yourselves be wronged? Why do you not rather let yourselves be defrauded?1 Cor. 6:1-7.

Here Paul was showing the Corinthian Christians the inconsistency of taking disputes between Christians before secular tribunals. The judges would be men who were not governed by the lofty principles of Gods law and whose consciences were not trained through a study of his Word. As many of the judges at that time were corrupt and accepted bribes, Christians had little reason to believe that their judgment would be just. Paul referred to them as unrighteous men. Were Christians to take their disputes before such men, they would be putting in as judges men whom the congregation looked down upon as lacking integrity.

Then, too, in taking matters before unbelievers for judgment, they would, in effect, be saying that no one in the congregation had the wisdom to judge matters of this life among Christians. This was wholly inconsistent with the fact that spirit-anointed Christians as heavenly associate rulers of the Lord Jesus Christ would be judging, not only men, but also angels. And by dragging fellow believers before pagan judges, they would bring great reproach upon Gods name. As outsiders would be led to believe that Christians were no different from other people in being unable to settle differences, the interests of true worship would be injured. It would have been far better for individual Christians to take personal loss rather than to injure the entire congregation by bringing their disputes to public notice.

In view of the foregoing, would dedicated Christians today go before secular courts if that were to injure the advancement of true worship or misrepresent it in the eyes of outsiders? No. Of course, as all other people, true Christians are still imperfect humans. They make mistakes, and problems arise in connection with business matters and the like. But differences of this nature ought to be settled within the congregation, for Gods Word provides the needed guidelines and there are men in the congregation who are well grounded in the Bible.

However, if a Christian refuses to correct a serious wrong when it is made clear to him by elders serving in judicial capacity in the congregation, such a one would be expelled. This is in line with Jesus words: If he does not listen even to the congregation, let him be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector. (Matt. 18:17) Thus, for example, one who defrauded his Christian brother or who failed to provide materially for his wife and children would find himself outside the congregation if he did not repent.1 Tim. 5:8.

The injured party could thereafter decide whether legal action should be ta in an attempt to force the guilty one, now disfellowshiped, to rectify matters. Of course, the injured party would want to take into consideration whether it would be worth the time and expense as well as whether the congregation could still come into disrepute by bringing to public attention the actions of one of its former members. If the wronged Christian conscientiously felt that Gods name would not be reproached and legal action was definitely needed, he would not necessarily be acting contrary to the spirit of Pauls counsel if he were to take to court one who was no longer a part of the Christian congregation. Jehovah God has permitted secular authority to serve as his instrument in bringing lawbreakers to justice, and in this case the one wronged would be availing himself of legal help after exhausting the intracongregational means to have the wrong corrected.Rom. 13:3, 4.

There may even be times when Christian brothers conscientiously feel that they could go to court with fellow believers. This might be to obtain compensation from an insurance company. In some countries the law may specify that certain matters have to be handled in a court, such as wills that may have to be probated by courts. But this does not create adverse publicity or bring reproach upon the congregation. In handling such legal matters that would not affect the congregation adversely, Christians can be governed by what they consider to be best under the circumstances.

However, if any member of the Christian congregation, without regard for the effect of his action on the good name of the congregation, ignores the counsel from Gods Word on this matter, such one would not be free from accusation as a Christian. He would not be one who has a fine testimony from people on the outside of the congregation. (Titus 1:6; 1 Tim. 3:7) He surely would not be an example for others to imitate, so this would affect the privileges that he might have in the congregation.

I rest my case your Honor.....

silentlambs
Edited by - silentlambs on 17 July 2002 17:57:49
ItsJustlittleoldme

Hi Visionary,
In reply to ItsJustlittleoldme I must just say that I kinda know I'm setting myself up here for a bashing but here we go.
Visionary, I'm sorry if you feel I was bashing you in any way, that was not my intent, nor will I do that.. You have answered my questions honestly, and frankly, for that you have earned my respect.. Only when someone plays "Theocratic warfare" with me (to me that is Satan's tool, the lie, even if it's only 1/2 lie, or just misleading, it's a lie)...
Thank you for your answers, I guess the reason I was asking is because I have a very hard time understanding how someone can see that the organiztation is NOT directed by god (Not inspired), yet hang on and follow every word the GB says, even if it means their life or the life of their child (blood issue, for example).. I've never understood that, and for my own personal information, I'd just like to understand it..
"1.) Does Jehovah work through Holy spirit?"
Personally this is an issue which I believe again has a wooly answer from the society. However this isn't relavent to this post.
"2.) The society clearly (as you even admit with their 'bible based' pedophile policy) has misinterpreted bible scripture before (Example: At one time, getting an organ transplant was cannibalism -- now it's not; another example - their bible based interpretation of Generation has recently changed) so how can you claim that the organization is needed in obtaining the 'neccesary information about Christ'? -- More over, if you think for yourself, is there anything else you disagree with on the organization? Do you agree with all their doctrines and policies? Some of them are wrong, you know.. After all, they do not have 'all the light'.. Can you give me just one doctrine that the organization has that they have stated there is no need for new light on? (I.E. Absolute truth about Christ)?"
I've heard these issues slogged to death. No the witnesses don't have everything right. But then to insinuate that someone can't be wrong while they learn what is right is hyper-critical.
I agree, do they give this same lattitude to other religions, like the Catholics? If not, isn't that not only being hyper-critical of them, but also hypocritical?
"3.) As stated in my point above, if you teach someone something, are you in essence taking the 'lead' and then become responsible for that person? (As they state the elders are responsible for the rest of the flock?).. Teaching elevates you to the position of a responsible person, and by bringing others into the flock elevates you to being responsible for them."
If a teacher educates an individual nuclear science, he can either use the knowledge to make a bomb or power millions of homes. The student's choices will always be their own.
Different scenario.. If you KNOW that something is wrong, but you teach it anyway, you are responsible for the wrong teaching.. If I taught you how to make an atom bomb, and you decided to go out and kill someone, yeah, I'd feel guilty.. However, if I knew that you were going to use it to kill someone, I would feel responsible if I taught it to you...
If I teach you that commiting murder is ok, even though I personally do not believe it is ok, then not only have I committed a gross sin against god for teaching you to murder, but I've also committed a gross sin against god for going against my own conscience!
"4.) "Do not look to other humans as an exclusive means to this end and never accept or lay down on man made policies."
A.) Do you mean OTHER humans besides the organization?"
ANY Human.
I agree with you, yet I get the impression that many JW's do not agree with this statement.. They follow the F&DS blindly! I'm sure there has been at least one thing that the F&DS has stated that you do not completely agree with. In that case, did you 'lay down' and follow the man made policy, or did you just ignore it? And did you teach it?
"B.) What is so special about the humans that run the organization? They have made mistakes, they are not perfect, so what differentiates them from the rest of the world?"
Nothing potentialy. We should try to be different from the world though when "the world" is used in the context of opposition to God.
" C.) Does the organization have any man-made policies themselves? Or do their policies originate with Jehovah?
a.) If they originate from man, why are you following them (Pharisee)?
b.) If they origianate from Jehovah, does that mean that Jehovah has directly told them these policies?
1a.) If Jehovah has told them these policies directly, why have they needed to adjust them -- Did Jehovah NOT tell them an accurate policy?
1b.) If Jehovah did not tell them directly, what is your proof that Jehovah did indeed send them to the organization?
2b.) Once you show 'proof' of Jehovah's sending them the policies, answer questin 1a please."
I certainly don't believe that the society is divinely inspired if that's what you mean. They aren't like the Kings of Israel, the Prophets or the Apostles.
Great!
Do you believe that the organization is god' s sole channel of communication here on Earth as they claim to be?
Visionary Man

ItsJustlittleoldme,
"I agree, do they give this same lattitude to other religions, like the Catholics? If not, isn't that not only being hyper-critical of them, but also hypocritical?"
The catholics are critisized for their interference in gonverment affairs and their responsibility for numerous wars, as are man other religious institutes. Jehovah's Witnesses do not get involved in these things and *do* remain neutral. I certainly wouldn't penalise an individual in any organisation for believing the doctrines of their religion whether those doctrines are misguided or not. Remember that the people at the top are individuals too and so their interpretation of scripture is as much their own as the person at the bottom.
"Different scenario.. If you KNOW that something is wrong, but you teach it anyway, you are responsible for the wrong teaching.. If I taught you how to make an atom bomb, and you decided to go out and kill someone, yeah, I'd feel guilty.. However, if I knew that you were going to use it to kill someone, I would feel responsible if I taught it to you...
If I teach you that commiting murder is ok, even though I personally do not believe it is ok, then not only have I committed a gross sin against god for teaching you to murder, but I've also committed a gross sin against god for going against my own conscience! "
Why do you believe that the GB KNOW that what they are saying is wrong when they teach it? Jehovah's witnesses don't kill people either. They *do* try to promote a higher moral sense. Just because someone is limited in their perception, doesn't mean that they have malcious intent. Neither do I believe that Jehovah God would hold the GB responsible for teaching something wrong. He would only hold them responsible for directing them away from God... which I certainly don't think they do.
"I agree with you, yet I get the impression that many JW's do not agree with this statement.. They follow the F&DS blindly! I'm sure there has been at least one thing that the F&DS has stated that you do not completely agree with. In that case, did you 'lay down' and follow the man made policy, or did you just ignore it? And did you teach it?"
(what does F&DS stand for?) I've never followed man made policy unless it fitted in with my own scriptural knowledge. My own knowledge expands and my agreement with policies and other perceptions changes with study. I again don't believe anyone should aggrevate someone for following a policy which they believe to be true. What should be identified as wrong though is whether or not we ourselves are studying enough to ensure that the ideas we follow are correct.
"Thank you for your answers, I guess the reason I was asking is because I have a very hard time understanding how someone can see that the organiztation is NOT directed by god (Not inspired), yet hang on and follow every word the GB says, even if it means their life or the life of their child (blood issue, for example).. "
I do not hang on every word the GB says. I think that has been made evident so far. The blood issue, to me, is quite clear however. I do not follow the GB on that, I follow the bible.
"Do you believe that the organization is god' s sole channel of communication here on Earth as they claim to be? "
I believe the *bible* is the sole channel of communication by God. Anything thoughts beyond that would depend on whether or not I percieve those as being in harmony with God's spirit.
Which brings me to my second point.
What is Holy Spirit?
It is the opposite of the spirit of the world. It is the essence of Jehovah's personality manifested by the direction of his will. If something is done in God's spirit then it is something he would agree with. Jesus is a perfect reflection of God's spirit in that he never did anything which God would see as unfit. His thoughts we're in total harmony with God's thoughts. Today we can manifest a godly spirit or obtain Holy Spirit by imitating christ.
I do not believe that spirit is synonomous with Power. Nor do I believe it to be a mystical "wind" which nobody can quite put their finger on as to what that actually is.
In summary and in answer to ugg and searchforthetruth the elders are spirit appointed only as far as those who offer them a position of oversight have done so in imitation of christ and looked for the christ like qualities within that individual. If the elders or the GB appoint a peaodophile as an overseer, then they have either failed to apply God's Spirit or they are evidenceing their lack of telepathic ability.
They are only human after all.
Visionary Man
Windchaser

They are only human after all.
And the Bible tells us in Psalm 146, "do not put your trust in the son of man, to whom no salvation belongs." Religions concocted by humans are untrustworthy, as evidenced by those who claim to have the one true religion. Some of these elders may speak words of wisdom, but act worse than the people that they condemn. Yes, they have "failed to apply God's Spirit" and you feel you have to make excuses for them.
Visionary Man

"Some of these elders may speak words of wisdom, but act worse than the people that they condemn"
Some do yes. But this is not a majority as the Panorama program or certain individuals would have us think.
Additionaly I certainly do not make excuses for those who do not adhere to the wisdom of the bible. I do not even make excuses for myself who, incidently, is neither perfect. Nor do I necessarily live up to some of the advice I have given others.
It is not my business to excuse anyone. That is Jehovah's perogative. If I am *personally* chastised by anyone, then it is my business to excuse that person and a christ like attitude do just that. However even the society admits that in the event of some gross sins that forgiveness can be impossible. I do not have personal experience of anything like that being perpetrated to myself, but I think that the case of child abuse is one of those situations.
We should all worry, in the first instance, about our own relationship with God. Jehovah knows the problem. Do you trust in him to put things right at Armageddon?
Visionary Man
Balanced

Just wanted to add my comments.
What is the policy of JW to child abuse?
[1] Protect the person from further abuse.
[2] Counsel person/family on how to report the crime to the proper authorities.
Question: How do you protect the person/child? Take them away from the environment/home/family? On whose authority?
If the CRIME is reported to the police then social services may take the child away from the environment until the investigation is over and proof is found or acquittal because of no proof.
How do the authorities establish proof? Victim statement, confession, DNA testing, other eyewitness account?
Elders in the congregations can only deal with sin not crime. But by way of example:
"My friend comes to me and tells me that she has been guilty of adultery. What do I do? I tell her to go to the elders and confess her sin to them. Why? So that she can get the help and support she needs to repent and make changes. I also tell her that if she has not reported this within say 2 or 3 days then I will have to go to the elders myself as I do not want to be a 'sharer' in her sin."
The same should be true of any allegation of child abuse. If the person will not report it, or the family, I should be responsible for reporting this to the police. Why? Because a crime has allegedly been committed. Does that make sense?
However we must also remember 'no human organisation is perfect'. That includes the police and justice system. Just look at the miscarriages of justice that have occured in Britain over the past few years. Does that mean that we lose our faith in the justice system? No! Because on the whole it does its best for society. Mistakes are made, people get hurt, that is very sad.
Would you question the motives of the judges and juries that sit in judgement on alleged crimminals?
Why then do you question the motives of JW's in general? Surely they are sincere in their caring for society. Some do make mistakes in their handling of child abuse cases. That is to be regretted but these ones are removed from their positions of responsibility as were those in Birmingham, UK [see Panorama transcript]. Are you suggesting that over 6 million JW's are in favour of child abuse and want to cover the crime over?
I think that the bias of people who have once been JW's and may have been disfellowshipped shines through in this discussion. But remember that JW's do not hate people who have been disfellowshipped only the action they have taken and the lack of repentence towards Jehovah and his standards.
hawkaw

Balanced was not so balanced in his/her statement.
The "facts" are that victims and the POLICE have shown a completely different side to this story than you have presented. The "facts" are the lastest elder who has gone to prison is still an elder and a JW in good standing. Fitzwater, Berry and Erica's rapist are ALL still in good standing. Pandello was df'ed twice but is now a JW in good standing.
The reporters have given the Watchtower every opportunity to provide examples of how their policy is working. Yet even with Dateline, who waited 6 months, not a single "JW" abuser was presented.
One final point - under absolutely NO circumstances should any elder INVESTIGATE a crime even for "sin" reasons until the poeple with expertise such as special units in the police/children Aid investigate the crime.
Only a complete idiots would spoil evidence and put a little 6 year old in front of an accused who is a large adult male.
One major point - you blabed about "no human organization is perfect". Well the "fact" is that the WTS has stated they have NOT MADE ANY MISTAKES and that THEY HAVE A VERY STRONG BIBLE BASED POLICY.
The facts are they have covered for child rapists whether you like it or not and your "bias" and "arguement" shifting shines though.
hawk
Windchaser

Do you trust in him to put things right at Armageddon?
Yes, I do.

re: Taking a balanced view of the allegations?

Share this