Selecting Judicial Committees

by TMS 6 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  TMS

  Several threads on this board have contained comments about elders with axes to grind "volunteering" to serve on judicial committees.

  The Society's intructions have ALWAYS indicated that only the best qualified brothers should be used. Skill, years of service and familiarity with the type of problem at hand would be factors in the selection.

  Close friendship or indications of animosity might disqualify one if other qualified ones were available.

  The elder body was entrusted to name the best trio of brothers for the particular situation.

  In actual practice, it usually worked this way. Brother A becomes "aware of a situation" and reports to the body.(Since usually elders are "out of the loop", so to speak, his information likely came from his wife or children.) The elders decide that Brother A, along with Brother B should investigate the situation. A and B report back to the body and the body agrees that this is a possible disfellowshipping offense.

  The body decides that since Brothers A and B are already familiar with many of the facts of the case, it would be best to send them along with Brother C to act as a judicial committee. Brother A is selected as chairman.

  The problem with this is that Brothers A, B and C MAY NOT be the best qualified to handle this matter. After all, Brother A's primary qualifications were that he heard the gossip first.

  Turning this scenario around. A brother or sister wants to confess a sin and goes to the elder he feels will give him the best shake. Through a similar turn of events, THAT elder finds himself committee chairman.

  The expeditious way of using the individuals initially aware of a matter to follow through on it prejudices the committee in either scenario.

  Your thoughts?

  TMS
• 

  Amazing

  Hi TMS: IN theory, what you said about the procedure is the way it should work, or at least was thought to work. The scenario you suggested as to Brother A learning the gossip, being assigned to investigate with Brother B, and then the Elders asking Brothe C to join in to form a JC is one way it has worked.

  Other factors are that the experienced Elders will select a newer Elder as a thrid member to give him experience. He has to start somewhere is the philoisophy. [Although, at one time the WTS permitted experienced MS's to sit in as an 'observer' so he could learn from watching the Elders. This would be an MS who is seriously being considered for appointment to Elder. But that policy was never really followed.]

  Availability is the main reason. If you have 5 Elders, and they each may already be on two or more JCs at any time. In the congregations I served it was not uncommon to have several JCs ongoing at the same time. So, if an Elder was less burdened, he might be asked to take on some JC activity.

  Sometimes, Elder PO who ius chairing a couple of JCs will be planning a vacation or have a part in an Assembly, and will ask another Elder to fill in, and take over his spot on a JC.

  In one JC where I was Chairman, I recused myself after several meetings because I became too emotionally distraught. I did not want to DF the brother who was in the 'hot' seat. And because I felt too emotional, I decided that my objectivity was clouded.

  Another Elder who did not like the brother in the 'hot'; seat asked to relieve me, because he felt that his experience with the accused brother gave him 'certain; insight into the problem. He wanted the brother DF'd and it was made so eventually.

  Often, some Elders are just burnt out with JCs and other things, including the normal pressures of life, and will ask if another Elder will help. And an Elder who has not has too much JC experience might feel compelled to volunteer.

  I can never recall any time where we discussed who the best, most objective, most qualified and most experienced Elders were to take a specific JC assignment. Any mention of experience was always done according to how well the Elder felt he knew and understood the accused. And, this often meant that he had 'concerns', in other words had an ax to grind. But one thing that Elders learn real fast in the JW world is how to play politics and make their ax look like a finely tuned surgical knife meant to heal, when in fact as the velvet cover was removed, the precision knife turned into a spiritual Colt 45. - Amazing
• 

  BoozeRunner

  Hi TMS...interesting post.
  But what about a scenario where Elder D is good frinds with 2 people on opposing sides of a Judicial matter?

  Elders A B C are assigned to investigate JW#1 and Elders D E F are assigned to investigate JW#2.

  In this scenario, there are 9 Elders in the congregation.

  Is this fair?

  Boozy
• 

  BoozeRunner

  addendum to last post....

  The outcome was that JW#1 was DF'd, but JW#2 was let off scott free for the same offenses.

  Boozy
• 

  ozziepost

  Not quite right, Boozy.

  Was it the same offence? No, because they are two different individuals having two different hearts. Or to put it another way, JW#2 is repentant and JW#1 isn't. OK, so you may not believe it, but that will be the stock line given out by any Branch office.

  Cheers,
  Ozzie

  Freedom is not having to wear a tie.
• 

  buffalosrfree

  In my stint as a MS, I was shocked to learn about all of the politics taking place in the elder body, I had three very good friends who were elders and to hear thier comments about things when they were taling to themselvers was eyeopening, I first hand experienced the deceit and ax grinding that takes place, this among other things was the straw that eventually led to my open disbelief about all of the bulloney coming from them. I had frank words with two people, just myself and them no witnesses where i offered to settle our differences of opinion by kicking thier ass, they while more than ready to hide behind a committee were not willing to accuse or say anthing detriemnental to thier health. It was boyish I know but when reason won't do it a good right hand might. The three friends who were elders eventuallyh saw the error of thier ways and now all are exjdubs so good things do happen. When once again offered the post of being a MS i couldn't keep from laughing my ass off at them, and told them in no way, not now, not ever again. Buff
• 

  BoozeRunner

  Ozzie, ty for your input.
  Yes, I know the "stock line".
  Here are a few more details....
  Jw#1 was an active witness, JW#2 was inactive.
  JW#1 continued to attend meetings as the JC's considered the issues, JW#2 did not.
  So, who had the works befitting repentance?
  But my main point is this-their mutual friend Elder D should have left off BOTH JC's.

  Boozy

  p.s.JW#1 went on to appeal the decision. Even tho the Appeal Committee recommended less severe dicipline, the JC disagreed, wrote the WTS, and their decision was upheld. JW#1 continued attending for about a year or so, became demoralized, then gave up.
  JW#2 was never seen at the meetings again.