Special Judicial Committees

by JEMIMAH 36 Replies latest jw friends

Eusebius Hieronymus

<The truth is, the whole judicial apparatus is unscriptural. So it cannot succeed because it's man-made.>
The voice of sanity. Thank you, OzP, thank you.
If the apparatus were to be dismantled, all service departments would be decimated.
waiting

Hey Maximus,
This is so interesting and such an enlightened (to me anyway) perspective in dealing with child molesters.
"These situations are not opportunities to become moralistic .... Excessive moralistic 'preaching' often drives the perpetrator into deeper denial, away from accepting responsibility for his or her action and even away from the community in which they can be held accountable."
Psychopaths/sociopaths are differentiated from "recovering" pedophiles, and even this former category is considered to have need to be "in a covenanted relationship with members of the larger community who will help them control their behaviors."
"The community has to make sure that the individual with uncontrollable behaviors (e.g., having sex with children/youth) always has someone with him or her while in the community, and that a significant number of people are able to be consistent in being absolutely honest with the person about his or her behavior. Recovering pedophiles need a 'buddy system' to function appropriately in the community and to enable the community to be comfortable with and accepting of the person." - Christian Handbook
Exactly what is the "community" being spoken of? The Christian community of their church? Society at large?
The above quotes in no way disfellowship a child abuser. It recognizes the severity of the problem, not keeping it a secret, trying to help the offender, and the victim. Interestingly, they're trying to re-establish that recovering pedophile into their community. Another point is that a "significant number of persons" should know about the child molester to make sure that the crime doesn't happen again.
"There is a danger of subtly pressuring the injured person to be reconciled to the offender because it makes everyone feel better. The injured person determines what he or she needs to heal and when she or he is ready for reconciliation. "
I agree - like being forced to *make friends* with your dad after he beats the hell out of you. Hypocritical as all getout.
Sorry, lapsing into southern drawl. s'ok - y'all been down this way.
This quote you put up is even different than the thinking espoused on this forum as to the outcome of child abusers. And that's not even touching the area of psychopaths and sociopaths. Mostly what's I've read is "get them out of the congregation forever."
This quote seems quite liberal.............and from what I've read on this forum - it ain't a good thing to be a liberal.
waiting (closet liberal)
hippikon

Can you elaborate on this a little?
They were secretly taped saying "if it was anyone else, a private (reproof) would have done.
My big question is. Why does God need judicial committees? Often the decisions of the JC are viewed as divine providence (Mat 16:19) I once had an elder tell me that appeals are a waste of time as the original decision is always upheld. At which point I asked why they had them and if they accused had a right to it wasn’t a waste of time. I’m not at all promoting a religion but Jefft’s example makes a lot more sense to me.
I once heard that only 25% of those DFd ever get reinstated. That says a lot for rehabilitation.
In my case after I was DFd, I got reinstated just to prove to myself how stupid the system was. LOL They reinstated an atheist! (It was hard work but I was on a mission)
Just a thought – When things start to look a little rough in the cong do the elders start to look for victims to sacrifice. Field service is down – we have lost Gods spirit – there must be a dirty sinner around here somewhere.
ozziepost

G'day all,
This thread of yours Jem is one of the most interesting of the day. Thanks everyone for your comments which I've found quite thought-provoking.
As you read through it, do you feel rather sad? Sad for the thousands who are subject to such a harsh system. They come into the organisation expecting the love of Christ and yet what do many find instead? The harshness of a legalistic system of justice.
Marvin Shilmer,
Many thanks for your thoughts. I always enjoy reading your posts and this is no exception. I should like to pick up on something you've said
I think we agree there is a scriptural basis for a congregation of Christians to sometimes initiate shunning of “brothers.”
I'm sorry, Marvin, but I don't agree that there is a scriptural basis for shunning at all. If we examine the few texts that speak of how to treat congregation members who are flouting their Christian freedom we cannot see shunning mentioned.
One text that the Society have relied upon is 2 John 9-11 which reads: "Everyone that pushes ahead and does remain in this teaching is the one that has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, never receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him. For he that says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works." This, of course, is speaking about heretics. The taking him into your house is a reference to the housing and feeding of travellling teachers. The instruction does not prohibit greeting or even inviting a person into one's home for conversation. John was warning against providing food and shelter, since this would be an investment in the "wicked work" of false teachers and would give public approval.
The immoral man who Paul wrote about in First Corinthians was to be expelled from the congregation. Recall that in that time congregations met in private homes, not the Kingdom Halls of today. At their gatherings, the Christians would partake of meals together. If the congregation ate a meal with this immoral man, it would appear that the congregation approved of such conduct. So Paul exhorted them not to share meals with him.
Nowhere in the Christian scriptures do we find support for shunning, especially as practiced by Jehovah's Witnesses.
When we hear of the lengths to which individual Witnesses go with the shunning procedure, we are truly sad and perhaps angry that such conduct is perpetrated in God's name. Boozy has let us know how he was not allowed a Kingdom Ministry, even though he was attending the Service Meeting. We know that this is Socity policy and is not an exaggeration on Boozy's part or an isolated case. But what did that achieve? What about Reagan's experience?
When I was DFed and sitting in the hall between my ex-husband an ex-mother-in-law, an unbalanced sister (another one!) leaned over between talks and said to my ex, "Tell Reagan we miss her."
Sound extreme? Yes, it does, but we know it does happen. It's 'par for the course' in the treatment of disfellowshipped ones.
And what of the effect of shunning by those who do it? What harm must it do them? Consider the report of Ustabee
In almost every case of DF'g in my 22 yrs in the JW's, it did more harm than good. The DF'd individual never recovered from the humiliation it caused. And let me tell you, it is the most humiliating thing to have to come into the KH and sit in the back and ignore people you thought were your closest friends, ["Closer even than a brother."] And have them ignore you like you were an invisible ghost. To get reinstated, you have to grovel and whine like a baby to even to get a hearing.
Individuals are forced to deny their own loving personalities, hating someone who they were loving to a short time before, and then at the moment of an announcement of re-instatement, they are loving and caring again. It can't be done, for it twists the emotional responses.
You and I would both know that the Society do not feel concern at the lengths to which the R&F go in their treatment of DF/DA ones. If anything, encouragement to strictly apply the code of shunning would be the Society's only response. When I have taken up this matter with responsible brothers their retort has been along the lines of "Well, they deserved it. They've turned their back on Jehovah." We shouldn't expect any sympathy there!
Jemimah has expressed his concern at the role of Appeal Committees. Here in Oz (and perhaps in your countries too) the Branch's Service Department 'reviews' disfellowshippings. I have known cases where Judicial Committee's decisions have been overturned on the say-so of a Service Department person or its overseer. In reality, then, the elders comprising a judicial committee are bound by the rules in the 'Flock' book and instructions relayed to them by their C.O. There is little room for their own expressions of Christian charity and forgiveness, much less on restoring a wrongdoer. How different is the case relayed by JeffT
This involved a man who was cheating on his wife with multiple partners and simply refused to stop. What was his discipline? Four thousand of us got on our knees (the only time I've seen this done) and prayed for him to see a need to repent. It was the last any of us ever heard of the matter. Either he repented and got counseling, or stopped going to church.
As he says, "What a difference!" Or as Hippikon says: "That says a lot for rehabilitation."
Hippikon also makes a good point with regard to the shunning process. Hippy, old son, I don't think that the elders will set out to look for someone to disfellowship. However, it could be that they be confirmed in their judgment by thinking that here is a reason why the congregation's spirit is low.
Interested persons studying with JWs would likely not even entertain any thoughts about shunning and its effects. But once baptised they become subject to its rule.
Cheers,
Ozzie
"You can know the law by heart, without knowing the heart of it"
Philip Yancey, What's So Amazing About Grace?
waiting

Hey Ozzie,
Thanks for responding on Marvin's quote - it caught my attention too but I didn't know quite how to respond with authority. Thanks for doing it for me, bro.
At a business meeting a couple of years ago with jw friends, one elder's wife was telling another elder's wife (my husband never would bend his neck to be an elder) that she had "not said one word to my son in 5 years. He's finally thinking twice about being disfellowshipped!" She knew this because her daughter had finally spoken to him and he was feeling lonely. She was so proud of her stand and her son finally breaking.
I just sat there dumbfounded. Five years of family had been lost! Of course I would think the poor young man would be lonely, he was 18 when df'd and had to leave home. I couldn't even speak to these women - the other woman was congratulating the shunner for remaining so "strong in her faith." I just left the table, quite shaken.
My daughter was df'd at the same time. I didn't break private association with her, and our family spoke openly with her at the KH. Elders never counseled us otherwise - but some sisters privately came to me congratulating me for speaking openly with my daughter, saying it took courage.
What a strange packet of emotions we jw's were! Courage to speak openly to the ones we love and cherish. Congratulating not speaking for half a decade to the ones we love and cherish.
Btw, the concept of df'ing (at least in the case of my daughter) does not work. She came forward to the elders, was honest, was df'd. My baptized son did not come forward, went away to college (did worse and it is known) visited KH on occasion, and is in good standing. My youngest son never got baptized, in college, lives with woman, and is hugged, etc., when he used to visit KH.
The only child who expressed repentance and honesty was df'd. It crushed her. Even some other elders told her & me that there were "politics" involved with her df'ing. She divorced the son of the City Overseer in a semi-small city who's power and ego is not liked by other elders. She tried to come back, but finally gave up. In retrospect, thankfully.
Disfellowshipping - as practiced by the WTBTS - is cruel. Completely different than the view expressed in the Christian Counseling methods put forward by Maximus. Thanks for bringing the scriptural arguments and background in to the discussion.
waiting
MacHislopp

Hello Jemimah,
a very good post.
As for the " judicial committees" I do agree with Ozziepost:
The truth is, the whole judicial apparatus is unscriptural. So it cannot succeed because it's man-made.
"There is no record in the Bible of a judicial committee.
There is no record in the Bible of an appeal committee.
There is no record in the Bible of a special committee.
There is no record in the Bible of restrictions placed on a re-instated person.
There's just no record!
About all we can say is the matter of disfellowshiping in 1 Corinthians."
Only few days ago in a conversation, I did answered almost
word by word, what Ozziepost wrote!
Furthemore, my personal feelings and thoughts on this
matter are very well expessed by Philo:
"I think the judicial system is inextricably part of the WT hierarchy, from elders up to the Watchtower directors. Without the executive powers of DF, DA, and shunning, the organisation could not maintain 'unity'. So as the organisation has grown, centralised control could only be maintained by intensifying these powers."
When in one organisation, you have to face these "...jud. comm."
simply because you "have openly expressed opinions and facts
that cast ...doubts on the sincerity of the WTS ..."
(personal experience)...well we are not very far from KGB,
Gestapo,Stasi etc.etc.
And finally the other comment by Ozziepost:
"One text that the Society have relied upon is 2 John 9-11 which reads: "Everyone that pushes ahead and does remain in this teaching is the one that has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, never receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him. For he that says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works." This, of course, is speaking about heretics."
Very true, but the WTS applies it to everyone who dare
to expesss his/her thoughts challenging the Biblical
truthfulness of " her " claims, through the immense variety
of publications.
Greetings, J.C.MacHislopp
TRUE,
Marvin Shilmer

Hello, Ozziepost!
I'm sorry, Marvin, but I don't agree that there is a scriptural basis for shunning at all. If we examine the few texts that speak of how to treat congregation members who are flouting their Christian freedom we cannot see shunning mentioned.
[And later…]
Nowhere in the Christian scriptures do we find support for shunning, especially as practiced by Jehovah's Witnesses.
These are odd comments Ozziepost, considering your other conclusions agree that some measure of shunning is scriptural. Look again at what you wrote: “So Paul exhorted [the congregation] not to share meals with him.” And: “John was warning against providing food and shelter [to heretical teachers], since this would be an investment in the ‘wicked work’ of false teachers and would give public approval.” Those acts are acts of shunning.
Since you left off what I believe was a meaningful qualifier here, let me say again “I think there is a scriptural basis for a congregation of Christians to sometimes initiate shunning of “brothers.” This calls for judicial action, though maybe not the same as promoted by the WTS.” Note: both my thinking here nor later supports shunning as taught by the WTS, and your comments were as though I did. What I thought was made clear apparently was not clear.
Shunning can take on many forms. Shunning can range from single acts of shunning to total avoidance, to considering a person as dead. From what shunning you concluded yourself, I don’t see any major differences between us. Any act of shunning requires some act of judicial (=discriminating) review. When I spoke of judicial action I was not speaking of the WTS practices. The intention of my post was specifically to denounce current WTS shunning policies as unfair and wrong. My thinking is WTS shunning policy should be scrapped, and that is what I said.
Thanks for pointing out what appears to have been a misunderstood expression on my part, that I could clear it up.
Seeker

waiting,
You be as liberal as you want to be. Here is what the word means:
a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
Everybody in this forum is liberal by those definitions. Don't let the conservatives fool you. They have spent 20+ years trying to turn 'liberal' into a dirty word, but as you can see from the definitions of the word, there is nothing to be ashamed of.
uriah

What an interesting topic. most of what I thought has been expressed. Long agao I gave up the belife that elders & Ms's were appointed by holy spirit. I have seen such misery caused by these men. It seems to me that most of the time appointments are made throught the old school tie, who you know or how much money you have. The WTBS, to keep control call such men 'glorious ones' in the WT and ascribe to them direct appointment by Jesus, the head of the cong. I doubt this very much. Such men, though it has to be said not all, often have a lack in some department or another and so compensate by lording it in the congregation. On appointment they get the 'piece of paper' which renders them invisible or of such standing that they can transverse the hall without anyone stopping them en-route.I complained to one elder about the total lack of shepherding or people skills. TSSSSsss went my forehead as I was marked as a complainer.
Rex B13

Hi tina,
You can't really nail the fundies on this one. We do NOT disfellowship, we do NOT investigate people's lives, we do NOT keep other sinners like gays/lesbians out for we want to minister to them.
That is how it is done in REAL Christianity.
I can't speak for all but I can speak for the greater number of Southern Baptists. We are some of the worst sinners on the planet.
Just an FYI to show you that there are not that many parallels between JW fundies and we Evangelicals.
Do you know the difference between a Christian and a non-christian?
We're not perfect, just forgiven!
Rex

Special Judicial Committees

Share this