by Sirona 18 Replies latest jw friends
Hi
Jehovahs Witnesses over on another board are telling me that Elders can reprove someone (who sinned and is repentant) privately and that that person does not lose their priveledges.
Is that right? Has anyone here been reproved and kept all their congregation duties? If so, what does "reproof" actually mean?
Sirona
Hi Sirona,
Private Reproofth...is when the elders meet with the accused in a private judicial committee, usually with three elders, discuss the allegations and if they deem the accused to be "truly repentant" then they pat them on the back, read some scriptures, yadda yadda yadda and there is no announcement made over the platform. Public Reproofth is when they do the same thing but an announcement is made over the platform saying so-and-so has been Publically Reprovedth.
Yes, Lin. BUT if you are privately reproved you will still have your congregation priveledges removed. No?
I just found this in the elders manual:
If the wrongdoer is an elder, a ministerial servant, or a
pioneer, he should be removed. (w77 11/15 pp. 697-8)
It is important that the judicial committee monitor the
spiritual progress of a person who has been judicially
restricted; appropriate counsel and spiritual encourage-
ment should he given periodically. (w81 9/1 p. 27; km
3/75 p. 4)
Restrictions should he removed in due course as warranted
by the individual's observed spiritual recovery.
If a brother who has recently been judicially reproved
moves to another congregation, it is necessary to inform
the elders of that congregation about any restrictions that
may be in effect.
This will enable the elders in his new congregation to
continue supervising the restoration of his privileges
and help him toward full spiritual recovery.
No announcement of such previous judicial reproof is
made in the new congregation. (km 3/75 p. 4)
Please define "privileges."
If any appointed brother (elder, MS, regular or auxiliary pioneer) has committed a DF'ing offense but is 1) repentant according to the BOE and 2) the offense is not known in the congregation and/or community, he will be privately reproved. He must lose the above privileges. He can also be put on restriction which can include not praying at a meeting, public reading at a meeting, participating in the school, taking the group out in field service. (Of course, since this is done in-house and only that individual and the elders are aware, they can do whatever they want to and conceal it.)
*** w77 11/15 697 Genuine Repentance-How Is It Identified? ***
Since elders have such weighty responsibility in the Christian congregation, their conduct should certainly be exemplary. Therefore, if an elder commits a grave wrong, he is morally obligated to inform the body of elders respecting this, even though he may have repented of his error. Why? Because, having ceased to be irreprehensible, he is now disqualified from continuing to serve as an overseer. (1 Tim. 3:2) For men with serious spiritual blemishes to serve as elders would not conform to Gods standard of holiness.1 Pet. 1:15, 16; compare the law at Leviticus 21:17-23, which prohibited men of Aarons house from carrying out priestly duties if they had a physical defect.
On the other hand, if there is a valid accusation against an elder or if he confesses to gross sin, the other elders should assume full responsibility for relieving him of his eldership and should reprove him as needed, imposing whatever restrictions are advisable. Or, where an unrepentant attitude on his part makes it necessary, they should take disfellowshiping action.
*** km 6/73 3 What Should Be Done? ***
Hi Blondie,
Priveledges - as in participating in the meetings by making comments....or if a brother they would not be able to perform congregation "duties" such as lead in field service or do any public prayers or read at the book study or watchtower study. Neither men or women would be allowed to do talks.
I thought that these things were put on restriction in any instance of reproof. Or am I wrong?
SIrona
Sirona,
Why don't you send what you have found to the dub site......if you haven't already.
Public or private it is the same, it is only public when publishers are or are going to be aware of the sin. Priveliges are taken and it is up to the elders which restrictions (prayer, talks, comments) are imposed and this has to be specified on the report the committe makes. By the way is it ALWAYS three or more on a judicial committee..
Edited by - fulano on 26 November 2002 9:13:38
Hi Sirona, as fulano said, the restrictions are up to the judicial committee. I have heard it announced "So-and-so is on full restrictions." That indicates there are "partial restrictions" at the discretion of the brothers.
Blondie
I would think that depending on the individual and the offense that was committed, there are varying degrees of restrictions.
For example, a brother who isn't an elder or MS - he can't have "those" particular privileges removed, right?
Someone recently disclosed that the "restriction" that was imposed on Vicki Boer's dad after he molested her for several years was the dreaded and most embarrassing not being allowed to do the mikes during the WT study anymore. That just goes to show how seriously they regard this crime, doesn't it? But he was still allowed to lead the congregation in prayer, and go door-to-door (maybe to scout for other children to molest?).
I recall one instance of a married middle-aged elder being stripped of his privileges - he had been a pioneer, elder, book study conductor. The announcement was made on the same night that another sister (a married pioneer) was DFd. Her husband divorced her and later remarried with the congregation's blessing, so we figured that she had done the nasty with the elder that had his privileges removed. Both of them punished one breath after the other. Then I remembered seeing a few days prior the now ex-elder coming out of the back room wiping tears from his eyes, and the now DF'd sister's face red with humiliation as she came out a few minutes later. He must have shed enough tears for the JC to take pity on him, and either she shed too many tears, or refused to go into the gory details of what happened between them. That's how he ended up not getting DF'd while she did get DF'd for the same crime.
Love, Scully
Fulano, I've personally been involved and have witnesses two-elder judicial hearings, that's why I said "usually three elders".
