Letter to BOE: Adjustment in process for appointing elders and ministerial servants

by pixel 143 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  4thgen

  "DATABASE. In order for the CO to make sure to NOT appoint pedophiles, without sending the info to the branch for them to check, there will certainly HAVE to be a database for him to submit names to. Databases can be hacked. Carry on..."

  In order for the database idea to work, it would have to be a live CRM that would be accessable to all CO's. They they all could update information as it become available... To convert the current pedo data base to a cloud CRM, would be a huge undertaking. Does the WT care enough to do that? I guess only if legal tells them to.

  Or the easiest way, would be as Blondie reminded me; just ask them before appointment if they are child abusers....Oh yeah. They will tell the truth!
• 

  konceptual99

  As I see it there is little change on a day to day basis in most congregations, especially when it comes to recomendations for appointment. The CO will still be looking for some prompting on recommendations from the elders. The CO always had the power to stonewall an appointment. Where it is interesting is on a deletion. The CO could effectively prevent a deletion by not approving it. Now however, one would presume that he can recommand a deletion where the body have not proposed such an action. Hey presto, any people not percieved as company men get the heave ho. The CO can also more easily overrule any situation where he sees the body closing ranks on someone and protecting them.

  I agree with the comments on the further erosion of powers from the local congregation but the real power has always rested outside - this is just a formalisation of what was already the reality.
• 

  DATA-DOG

  " this is just a formalisation of what was already the reality."

  Like the FDS not really existing, except as a theological construct??

  DD
• 

  Quendi

  Maybe this has already been brought up and if so, I apologize. I remember posing this question to a Witness friend that left him completely speechless. I asked, "How could the older men and apostles in distant Jerusalem have been involved in any conceivable way with appointing congregation officers in the first century given the speed (or lack thereof) of communication and travel at that time? It's obvious that local congregations chose their own officers completely independent of the Jerusalem elders isn't it?" And as for Paul, Barnabas, Titus, et al being involved with such appointments, I very much doubt this was done without heavy reliance on the local congregations' input. Furthermore, none of these men consulted with or ask confirmation from Jerusalem in these matters.

  So clearly the WTS isn't following the first century model. The methodology it has used is entirely of human invention. Its roots can be traced back to J.F. Rutherford's ruthless determination to end the autonomy of the local groups of International Bible Students and bring them under his exclusive control. Like all such developments, this was done gradually, beginning with the creation of the office of "Service Director" to be filled by a WTS appointee and progressing to the "theocratic" arrangement as it exists today and which is undergoing yet another refinement. All the same, I expect this newest adjustment to be accepted without demur from the rank-and-file. If anything, it will be hailed as yet further proof of Jehovah's leadership, more's the pity.

  Quendi
• 

  konceptual99

  There will be a WT in November with more info. This will be interesting. l don't think much will change at cong level, this is about the CO not having to send paperwork to the branch to be processed.

  If the WT wraps this up as something that brings them closer to the scriptures then that's stupid. They are then admitting the whole process was essentially unscriptural. Of course they will claim it's just a refinement but hey ho.

  They are better simply saying it's a procedural change since the Branch just ticked the boxes. If they want to maintain some facade that the branch prayed over each appointment and let HS work it's magic then they are bonkers. I think they want to try and put a scriptural case together for the apparent change in where and when HS is active in the appointment. I don't think anyone cares and they are making an issue where for most of the R&F there is none.

  If they are wanting to also build a case that the COs are more like how Paul operated then they are barking up the wrong tree anyway. The reason Paul and so on did what they did is because there was no GB. They acted directly not under some bureaucracy in Jerusalem.
• 

  piztjw

  Or does he just pick any brown-noser that he chooses?

  Yes! The brown-nosers and suck-ups giving the green handshakes will be the ones appointed from now on. Any loving, compassionate, self-sacrificing genuine elder will be deleted faster than one could say GB...IF the CO doesn't care for anything about him. Just watch the turn over as personalities clash with the CO in power every three years.
• 

  Defianttruth

  It may be a legal maneuver, but won't make that much difference in the end. Here's your example.

  A manager at a fast food chain touches a young employee. The CEO responds in court the Corp is not responsible because the district manager hired the store manager. A first year law student would say, "Who appointed the distric manager? You?" Okay so the Corp is at fault. Financially it doesn't make a difference. Civicly one can not be held responsible for others actions. I think this is a information, command flow issue.
• 

  BluesBrother

  I wonder how they will deal with this aspect of the job ?

  Shepherd The Flock 2010 chapter 3

  14. If the branch office does not appoint a recommended
  brother,the elders should endeavor to help
  him qualify. Two elders may speak with the brother
  at an appropriate time and discreetly explain what
  he needs to do to qualify. The elders should neither
  inform him that the body of elders recommended
  him nor read to him from the confidential letter received from the branch
  office that explains why he was not appointed. On
  occasion the branch office will not approve a recommendation
  so as to allow time for the brother to develop
  maturity and experience or to live down past
  conduct. In such cases, there may be no need to discuss
  matters with the brother.
• 

  Oubliette

  BluesBrother: I wonder how they will deal with this aspect of the job ?

  Easy peasy:

  • If the branch office Circuit Overseer does not appoint a recommended brother, the elders should endeavor to help him qualify.

  Out with the old, in with the new.

  Elders are used to making "marginal notes and changes" in their STFOG book.

  Listen, Obey and Be Blessed: It's a cult!
• 

  skeeter1

  I had a good thought, and I'm going to double post (sorry Simon).

  I thought about the change. Here's my take.

  I think it's a move to protect Bethel and the Governing Body from criminal charges for pedophilia occuring within a congegation. Criminal law usually works on specific knowledge of a situation. Allowing it to happen, especially ongoing, would put those who knew either direclty criminally guilty (contributing to the delinquency of a minor) or indirectly criminally guilty (such as conspiracy, collusion, etc). I think the law is moving towards holding all who know of pedophile abuse to be criminally culpable. With this change, the CO could go to jail . . but not Bethel's volunteers or the Governing Body.

  Why do I think Criminal Charges? A few months ago, this happened

  http://www.theglobaldispatch.com/ronald-lawrence-child-molestation-case-reveals-cover-up-by-jehovah-witness-church-77904/

  Quote from article, "The District 18 District Attorney’s Office in the State of Oklahoma filed a motion on Jan. 28, 2014 in the case of accused molester Ronald Lawrence that alleges the top leadership of the Jehovah’s Witness Church knew about claims of child rape and molestation and deliberately concealed them.

  “The actions of the church, their banishment of Lawrence on one or more occasion and the directives of the governing body toward the victims and their family members regarding these crimes were actions of concealment and further actions preventing the victims from reporting the crimes to law enforcement,” the motion states."

  I don't think the appointment change is as much of a move to remove financial culpibility completely. Tort law (suing for money) usually holds the principals/employer 'on the hook' for the errors of its employees & agents such as the case of an elder who abuses, or a CO who negligently hires/promotes/keeps a known pedophile in a position of authority. However, many states require the jury to apportion the monetary award between the parties responsible. In other words, I can see the WTS using this new elder appointment power to their advantage ( and the CO's disadvantage) to get out of the money aspects. For the Overseer, he better be wary. These judgements can last decades against him, and in most states, the CO stands to lose everything he owns and will earn for many years to come. This includes his own house. The CO might be able to obtain bankruptcy, but then the bankrtupcy judge will make the CO pay as much as he can from his assets and then for, most likely, 5 years afterwards.

  Not a good time to be an Overseer. I think Bethel is hoping the CO is a hard-working, doesn't ask questions, and will be proud of his new responsibility. I pity the Overseer. He's going forward in his new role with the confidence that only ignorance can bring.