Hi, Jemimah!
We seem to peer through the same eyes.
I think we agree 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. It is entirely reasonable for a congregation to set rules and enforce those rules. But this is an internal concern and it should not interfere with external needs that are legitimate ones, like helping protect an entire community from a child abuser.
Your observation that JW judicial committees sometimes act with inappropriate biases is also mine, and I think others here too. These biases are of all types, and, as you say, they end with injustice. I don’t see any change in this among JWs until one of at least two things change. Either the WTS must allow an accused party to have third party observers to witness proceedings or else the entire judicial process must be scrapped and completely revamped—if at all. At least this would minimize biased decisions and make sure decisions are according to internal rules. But then we get to the problem of whether internal rules are fair ones, including making those rules FULLY known to new ones before baptism, the turn-key event—I don’t see this ever happening. This makes me favor scraping and revamping.
I like the idea of additional layers of protection from predators. If an organization provides this protection in addition to secular protections then I see no problem with it as long as it meets the test of reasonable jurisprudence. Some will also want moral discrimination. I see no problem with this either, as long as it does not imposed life threatening results on anyone AND as long as EVERYONE knows the rules in ADVANCE.
Right now the JW system does not always provide additional layers of protection because it does not always encourage reporting of violent crime to other authorities. It encourages reporting of suspected rape and murder, but not suspected sexual molestation of a child. Also the present JW system has led many times to life threatening results—like severe depression and anxiety. These results are sometimes caused by a person’s own convictions of right and wrong, but not always. Often they are caused by harsh chastisement at the hands of would-be-comforters also acting as judges on a judicial committee.
As an elder I have witnessed these things first hand. I too have experience in the arena of appeals and special committees. They all have the same flaws. The controlling system is where the problem is, not its levels of critique.
Dear Silentlambs,
Most people seem to appreciate your work. I certainly do.
It is good you have an opportunity to voice your views. Why should we chastise someone else for doing the same thing? I can see rebuking dishonesty or criminal behavior, but hurling insults without SURE evidence of either is a bit too much for these eyes. If anyone here wants to share more than they have, fine, let them. Do we know the other person’s circumstances better than they do? Maybe they are doing all they can do. If you can do more, fine. Do more.