Phizzy, you wrote:
Even assuming the two-witness rule makes sense Scripturally, which I dispute, but that is for another Thread, it is concerned with when it is appropriate to exercise Church discipline. Nowhere does a Scripture say that what are considered crimes by the Civil Authorities should be ignored and not reported to those Authorities.
You're absolutely correct. JWs interpretation of the need for two witnesses doesn't make sense scripturally. One former-JW in the UK did considerable research on the matter which I point to after my discussion on the harm of the two-witness belief found at http://watchtowerdocuments.org/bible-based-beliefs-harm-children/
I wrote the article because I noticed that WT spokesmen and also in WT BOE letters, WT writers never say, "two-witness policy" or "two-witness rule." To WT oracles/leaders, it is the two-witness BELIEF. It is noteworthy and that's why I named my article, "Bible-Based Belief Harms Children" and then I explained my position after the article:
I am in no way critical of the use of the Bible requirement for the need of two witnesses when there is an accusation of “sin,” not crime, in a religious setting. However, there is more behind the ways Jehovah’s Witnesses apply their “two-witness rule” than meets the eye. In fact, the scriptures Jehovah’s Witnesses' leaders most frequently cite are misapplied. Examples of this fact can be seen from the research presented on the following website – Jehovah's Witnesses Refined.
-------
For the sake of convenience, I picked out a few of the author's excellent thoughts found on Jehovah's Witnesses Refined on the matter and posted them here:
Examining the Scriptural Position
Here we look at the scriptures that refer to the requirement for two or more witnesses [that are most often quoted by Jehovah's Witnesses].
Deuteronomy 19:16-21
“If a malicious witness takes the stand to accuse a man of a crime, the two men involved in the dispute must stand in the presence of the Lord before the priests and the judges who are in office at the time. The judges must make a thorough investigation, and if the witness proves to be a liar, giving false testimony against his brother, then do to him as he intended to do to his brother. You must purge the evil from among you. The rest of the people will hear of this and be afraid, and never again will such an evil thing be done among you. Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for
It must be remembered that in ancient Israel there were no police or courts. The judges acted in these capacities; hence the requirement for two or more witnesses. This situation does not exist today in the modern Christian congregation.
The Bible states that God has placed the secular authorities as his “ministers” to act in criminal matters (Romans 13).
Romans 13 is clear that the superior authorities stand placed by Jehovah to deal with criminal evil, not the elders.
In the case of one person’s word against another, did the judges in ancient Israel consider that their hands were tied and they could do nothing? No! If there weren’t enough witnesses the king became the judge and had to decide the final outcome.
Deuteronomy 25:1
“When men have a dispute, they are to take it to court and the judges will decide the case, acquitting the innocent and condemning the guilty.”
Notice here that it was the judges, not the priests, who made the “thorough investigation” (19:18). The priests served in a spiritual capacity, not a legal capacity. At this point the priests became observers only and left the investigation to the judges. In the case of one person’s word against another, the matter moved from being a spiritual, priestly matter, to a criminal, legal matter to be investigated by the judiciary arm of the nation, not the priestly.
Matthew 18:15-16
“Moreover, if your brother commits a sin, go lay bare his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take along with you one or two more, in order that at the mouth of two or three witnesses every matter may be established. (New World Translation)”
By using the term “brothers,” Jesus set out a process for resolving disputes between adults, not children. This is clear from the fact that the first step is for the brother sinned against to approach the accused alone. Obviously, Jesus did not intend for a child victim of sexual molestation to have to do such a thing. Jesus is saying that the one sinned against should approach the offending party to reason with them and reach a resolution, and for forgiveness to follow. It is obviously inappropriate to expect a child to do that.
Consider also that if the matter is not resolved privately between the parties, and it remains unresolved after two or more witnesses are brought in, Jesus says the matter should be referred to the whole congregation. Would Jesus intend for a terrible perversion such as child sexual abuse to be adjudicated by the whole congregation? Absolutely not. The congregation does not perform the function of the superior authorities of Romans 13. It is not the police force or a courthouse.
1 Timothy 5:19, 24, 25
“Do not admit an accusation against an older man, except only on the evidence of two or three witnesses. Reprove before all onlookers persons who practice sin, that the rest also may have fear…. The sins of some men are publicly manifest, leading directly to judgment, but as for other men [their sins] also become manifest later. In the same way also the fine works are publicly manifest and those that are otherwise cannot be kept hid.” (New World Translation)
Child abuse, like murder or rape, is a terrible crime, so it becomes a matter that needs to become publicly manifest through the involvement and judgment of the secular legal authorities. It is not just a sin to be handled only within the congregational arrangement. Being a crime requiring police involvement puts it in a different category, in which the standard of evidence is not the Apostle Paul’s congregational standard of two or three witnesses but the public standard of evidence the legal authorities use. The court’s judgment then counts as the public manifestation of the sin that suffices to prove congregational guilt in the absence of two or three witnesses.
It is disgraceful that in a letter to elders following the Conti verdict, the Watchtower Society quotes these verses from 1 Timothy as if to insinuate that if there is only one witness and the elders can do nothing at the time, eventually the paedophile’s sins will “become manifest” after abusing more victims who then might come forward as additional witnesses. This tends to reduce child victims to mere pieces of evidence that must accumulate over time before there is enough evidence for the elders to finally take action. So much for the Watchtower Society’s claim that “one victim of pedophilia is one too many.”
Jesus showed that the Old Testament requirement for two or more witnesses is really the principle of requiring sufficient evidence for proof. Forensic and other scientific methods for solving crimes didn’t exist in ancient times. If sufficient evidence to prove guilt is gathered through such modern methods, with or without two or more human witnesses, the Biblical principle is satisfied. The same standard should also apply at the congregational level for dealing with the crime as a sin, which in turn makes it compulsory that the elders engage the secular authorities on every occasion whether or not mandatory reporting laws apply.
http://jwsrefined.com/2014/07/27/jehovahs-witnesses-child-molestation-and-the-two-witness-rule/
