In case you haven't seen the following I post it here. I'm in touch with the author, who has given his permission to post.
FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND THE CARE OF CHILDREN
A report into the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society's policy on child care. December 2002
WITHOUT PREJUDICEA) Defining the Issues.
Freedom of religion and the care of children: could these noble ideals conflict?
Child abuse is pandemic and police are slowly coping with this crime that exists outside religion. But do they have the authority to deal with this crime when it occurs inside religion? Should "ecclesiastical privilege" prevent the police from protecting children from this heinous crime that is inflicted upon them?
Some churches are showing self-regulatory discipline and have published child protection policies in their endeavour to protect the children in their care. They are making an attempt to purge out undesirable elements that could put children at risk. It may seem that there is no need for any police intrusion into responsible religions. However, should this include Watch Tower? An understanding of the structure of Watch Tower and its policies will assist in the answering of that question.
B) The Structure of Watch Tower.
The Watch Tower is a registered charity (Number 1077961). Its official address is Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Britain, IBSA House, The Ridgeway, Mill Hill, London, NW7 1RN. Its followers are called "Jehovah's Witnesses". The Branch Office in Britain is not autonomous but it is subject to the world headquarters in New York, America. Therefore the structure is deemed as follows:
God
Christ Jesus
Governing Body: 11 men residing in New York. 1
Branch Overseers:
in countries of their jurisdictions.District Overseers:
have oversight of 10 circuits (approx.)Circuit Overseers:
have oversight of 20 congregations (approx.)Elders:
appointed by the G.B. to form an elder body in each congregation.Publishers:
baptised congregational members who submit to the "umbrella" organisation.The Governing Body is viewed as anointed
and appointed by God. Therefore this "Theocracy" carries the same awesome weight as if God was ruling on earth through them. This produces a cohesive "power relationship" of great magnitude. Note the comment from the Home Office document "Safe From Harm" Code of Practice 1993 Guideline 3:
"Sadly, it is a common feature of situations where children have been abused that an adult has exploited the power that they have over a child to gain submission or silence. Some of this power derives from the superior physical strength of the adult, but it also stems from the power relationship inherent in the situation." (Italics and bold added)
C) Watch Tower Policies and Practices.
When a child has been sexually abused and subjected to the most heinous of crimes, the most compassionate of care is needed immediately. Please look at this from a child's perspective. The innocent, trusting, WT child instinctively turns to the above "umbrella" organisation for such care. But more and more we see in the media, examples of the opposite treatment. ("Is there no balm in Gilead?") The children are dismissed as "trouble makers" and "slanderers." Clearly, there is a conflict. Watch Tower is protecting their "corporate image" not the traumatised child.
In practice, when a child or parent reports a case of child abuse to an elder, the first thing that the "theocratically" trained elder will ask is, "Do you have two or three credible eye-witnesses?" Consider - if there were eyewitnesses to the abuse and they allowed it to go on, how credible would their testimony be? Is that not a demanding of the impossible? Imagine a surgeon pen in hand, asking an accident victim such legalities when his lifeblood is pouring out! Yet this illustrates Watch Tower policy. Is this demonstrating responsible fiducial duty or irresponsible negligence? Can this lightly be written off and condoned as "religious freedom"?
In a typical Watch Tower scenario, of this kind, what happens to the child, to the abuser, to the elders and to Watch Tower?
The child
is in trauma and in the depth of despair and confusion. This only worsens if, inevitably "two witnesses" are not provided and the victim is not believed. If he speaks out he can be stigmatised and ousted from the congregation; "disfellowshipped" or deemed to have "disassociated" himself. Both terms carry the same sanction. He is ostracised from family and friends. He could even suffer materially, because the organisation promotes interdependency. The child will certainly suffer emotionally because WT has no childcare expertise and, historically, invites no professionals in this field. (Dreadful case histories can be cited)Quasi-judicial elders adjudge the perpetrator innocent where there are not "two eye-witnesses" and no confession. Usually, he is not reported to the police, although his name may be put in the congregation's file. He can then abuse again and again. If he is accused once more, the same process will follow - no eyewitnesses - no police - no guilt - but freedom to abuse again. He relies on fear, silence, "theocratic loyalty" of the victim and the "two witnesses" policy of WT. All the while he is under the Watch Tower "umbrella", he can "cock a snook" at state law. To illustrate: -
In one Australian congregation an adult male congregation member abused a 12-year-old boy member, but the elders did not report this to the police. Consequently, when the boy eventually told them, they reported that the same man had 'abused up to 40 children after the isolated incident'. 2
The same system operates world-wide therefore the same pattern of 'serial' abuse happens here.
The elders maintain a good conscience by conforming to Watch Tower's "theocratic" policy. The Watch Tower has control so the responsibility for policy must be theirs. Please note: -
Chambers Dictionary says on "Policy" "any course of action followed primarily because it is expedient or advantageous in a material sense." Policy can be seen, not so much in what is written but in what is practised (the "course of action.") If what is practised is essentially bad and is endorsed or adopted by those in control, then what is practised is unwritten policy of the group. In a different context one would say, "written on hearts." What powerful motivation! Watch Tower has the power base to generate such motivation. It can severely sanction those that do not conform as we have seen and it can reward a person that does conform to promotion on the "theocratic ziggurat."
D) Recommendations and Final Appeal
As a result of many hours of intensive research and consultation including emotional appeals from some of the victims, may we suggest the following simple measure? That the phone numbers of the NSPCC and Childline be posted in every church and Kingdom Hall just like other government Health and Safety notices? This would reassure the children, give them "informed choices" 3 and direct them to professional care.
The question, "Should government intrude into religious affairs?" begs the equally demanding question, "Should Watch Tower intrude into the province of the executive the judiciary and the legislature?" Should not the rights of children, the protection of children and the care of children take precedence over "ecclesiastical privilege?"
Charles Haddon Spurgeon was a very famous Baptist preacher who founded an orphanage in Stockwell, London. He must rank along with William Wilberforce and other reformers of the past. So this report ends with a simple and respectful appeal. It comes from the title of one of Spurgeon's sermons, a Bible quotation:
"DO NOT SIN AGAINST THE CHILD"`
Glossary
Abuse victims are male and female. For a more fluent text only the masculine pronoun is used.
The words "allege" and "alleged" are not used for the same reason, a smooth text.
The use of the curt phrases, "Watch Tower" and "WT" implies no disrespect but they are used for brevity.
Bibliography
"The Nolan Review" "Final Report of the Independent Review on Child Protection in the
Catholic Church in England and Wales. September 2001.
"Policy on Child Protection" Policy Statement by the House of Bishops, Church of England.
"Safe From Harm" Home Office 1993.
"Complex Child Abuse Investigations: Inter-Agency Issues" Home Office May 2002.
"A Draft of a Legal and Constitutional Account of the Destruction of the Ecclesiastical Immunities of the Benefit of Clergy and the Privilege of Sanctuary". James Kalb Yale Law School January 10 th 1978.
"Protecting the Public" Home Office November 2002.
1 See the list of the current Governing Body.
2 "Silent Witness" TV programme Channel Nine Sydney Australia. Producer Kirstine Lumb.
3 French Report on Cults December 22 nd 1995 under Mr Alain Gest page 5. In that document, "voluntary decisions" are contrasted with "completely induced choices".
The Members of the "Governing Body"
Of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of New York
December 2002
John E. Barr (b. 1913)
Carey W. Barber (b.1905)
Milton G. Henschel (b. 1920)
Samuel Herd (b. 1935)
Theodore Jaracz (b. 1925)
Steve Lett (b. 1949)
Gerrit Losch (b. 1941)
Guy Pierce (b. 1934)
Albert C. Schroeder (b. 1911)
David Splane (b. 1944)
Daniel Sydlik (b. 1919)