It was towards the end of 1998 that I believe there was a Watchtower article on the prodigal son.
About that time, I handled a number of problematic judicial cases and got to wondering about the rightness of elders judging others. Before each case, elders are instructed to read certain chapters of the Shepherding book, but my opinion was, they would be better re-reading the parable of the prodigal son.
Lets look at some of the points from the parable and compare it with JW justice.
1. The prodigal was never judged and condemned by his father immediately after leaving home. There is no indication that he would have at anytime been shunned by his father and family. True, he had taken his share of the inheritance, perhaps not a wise choice, but nevertheless it was his decision and he was granted it.
2. There is no indication that the family was slighted by the prodigals decision or felt their name had been dragged through the mud.
3. When at his lowest condition, was it repentance or human need that leads to his returning to his family? The answer to this seems fairly obvious, his reasoning was why stay here, I would be better off at home.
4. His father accepted his return unconditionally, and indeed, made the first move to welcome and restore him to his position in the household.
Now compare this with JW justice;
1. Anyone who leaves the spiritual home is regarded as leaven, and a possible source of contamination to the flock. Your son or daughter is slightly rebellious, and you are perceived to have major issue and crisis on your hands.
2. At the first hint of trouble, people are often distanced if not completely shunned. I have seen this time and again, where the excuse is given; we dont want any shame coming on the congregation or Jehovahs name. It is often forgotten that a person is innocent until proved guilty.
3. Only unreserved repentance is acceptable. Mitigating circumstances are rarely acceptable as factors that might have influenced a course of action. For example, suppose a married sister runs of with another brother. Rarely is basic question, why, really answered. Did actual sexual intercourse take place, where and how often? may be the sorts of questions asked in establishing the facts of a matter. But the underlying reasons as to why people are sometimes so desperately unhappy are rarely probed. My experience at least of sexually immorality, is that it is invariably associated with wretched unhappiness. The problem with the narrow view of things is that the question, would you do it all over again, often can only be answered yes, indicating a perceived lack of true repentance.
4. The onus for restoring a relationship with God is placed solely on the individual. The reality is that the Scriptures speak about the shepherd who goes looking for a lost sheep and the woman who turns her house upside down to look for a lost coin. How many times have those of us who were former elders been told to stay out of things because the case was too complex or to notorious? I have seen disfellowshipped ones come along regularly to the Kingdom Hall, in some cases for years, without being allowed back into the congregation. When enquiring as to why, I was told what they did (presumably adultery) caused so many problems, so just stay out of it. The idea that any spiritual sin elicits a fix term punishment, like a criminal might have handed down to him, is not found in the Bible.
Anyway, if you feel up to it, read Luke chapter 15 and then check the internet for the chapters from the shepherding book on handling judicial matters which elders are instructed to read before each case. Which makes more sense to you?
eyeslice