I haven’t been able to identify any static approach when it comes congregation judicial action where a J-dub’s been arrested for a crime.
I’ve seen cases where a member of the congregation is publicly reproved after an arrest with the explanation that “since the community knows it has to be public reproof.” Which would make total sense, except I’ve also seen cases where a well-respected J-dub is arrested for a serious violent crime, and in the months/years of pre-trial, no announcement is made to the cong about any judicial action.
The reasons given by an elder in the cong?:
“You don’t know, maybe the elders have dealt with it privately.”
“But his arrest and arraignment were all over the news. Everyone knows, so should any reproof be announced to the cong?”
“Usually yes, but they may be waiting until he’s found guilty or innocent in court.”
“So you’re saying judicial action by the elders will hinge upon whether a ‘worldly’ court finds him innocent or guilty first?”
“Well no, of course not.”
“So you’re saying if a jury finds him innocent of the charges, he won’t get DF’d?”
“Probably.”
“So HOW is it that the cong’s judicial process isn’t being influenced by a ‘worldly’ court?”
