Let’s talk about the “Two Witness Rule” that the Watchtower Society uses to avoid taking action against Jehovah’s Witnesses who commit child abuse. Honestly, it’s pretty clear that this rule doesn’t hold up biblically and shouldn’t be a way to protect pedophiles.
For a while now, the way Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watchtower Society handle child abuse has raised a lot of eyebrows and concerns among many people.
The Watchtower argues that they can’t act against an abuser if there’s only one witness (the victim) because that would go against Bible principles that say you need two witnesses to prove wrongdoing. They often point to a few key verses to back this up:
“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. If he does not listen to them, speak to the congregation. If he does not listen even to the congregation, let him be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector.” – Matthew 18:15-17
“At the mouth of two witnesses or of three every matter must be established.” – 2 Corinthians 13:1
“Do not admit an accusation against an older man, except only on the evidence of two or three witnesses.” – 1 Timothy 5:19
“No single witness should rise up against a man respecting any error or any sin, in the case of any sin that he may commit. At the mouth of two witnesses or at the mouth of three witnesses the matter should stand good.” – Deuteronomy 19:15
Now, when it comes to child abuse, there’s a big problem here. If an adult is committing a crime against a child, they’re likely going to make sure there are no witnesses around, because having witnesses would probably stop them from doing something so terrible. Sure, there’s a chance that multiple adults could be involved in abusing a child, but that’s not the usual case.
The Watchtower has faced a lot of backlash for this approach, which many see as overly legalistic and biased towards protecting wrongdoers instead of children. Their response? They claim that since they’re dedicated to God and following Bible principles, they can’t just take the word of one abused child because that would go against the verses they cite.
So far, this has led to a bit of a standstill. The Watchtower basically says, “You can disagree with us all you want, but we’re a Bible-based organization, and we’re sticking to our guns. What we’re doing is consistent with Bible laws and principles, and even if you don’t like it, we’ve made our position clear, and you can’t fault us for that.”
Those who oppose the Watchtower, whether because of child abuse issues or other doctrinal disagreements, haven’t had much to counter with, except to expose their policies and apply public pressure, or to push for stricter laws that might force change. The results have been mixed. A jury awarded Alexis Nunez, $35 million against the Watchtower Society. The Candace Conti case was a significant blow to the Watchtower, in which a jury awarded her $28M against the Watchtower Society. But these are just a few of the dozens of cases against the Society.
But here’s the thing: there’s another biblical principle that seems to have been overlooked in this whole debate.
Let’s look at Deuteronomy 22:23-29:
“If a young woman who is a virgin is betrothed to a husband, and a man finds her in the city and lies with her, 24 then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry out in the city, and the man because he humbled his neighbor’s wife; so you shall put away the evil from among you. 25 “But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. 26 But you shall do nothing to the young woman; there is in the young woman no sin deserving of death, for just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him, even so is this matter. 27 For he found her in the countryside, and the betrothed young woman cried out, but there was no one to save her. 28 “If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.”
This law sets a crucial principle that can apply to child abuse. How? Well, both an engaged girl and a child have similar legal protections. The community is legally bound to protect both from sexual contact.
In the case of the engaged girl, her fiancé had rights under the Mosaic Law that were almost as strong as if they were already married. For a child, the law is clear: a child can’t give consent, and any attempt at sexual contact would be statutory rape by the adult. This is different from a girl who isn’t engaged, who doesn’t have the same legal constraints, even though sex in that situation is still frowned upon.
What’s interesting about Deuteronomy 22 is that it distinguishes between incidents happening “in the city” versus “in the field.”
In a city, there are likely witnesses who might have seen or heard what happened. If the girl screamed, it would be considered rape, and someone would hopefully come to help her. If she didn’t scream, it would be seen as her being unfaithful to her fiancé.
But if the assault happens in the field, where no witnesses are around, the man is put to death, and the girl faces no consequences. Since no one saw what happened, the girl’s motives are unclear, but the account suggests it was a violent act. In the city, they were just “found” together, but in the field, the man “grabbed” her, indicating force was involved. This strongly suggests that it wasn’t just any sexual encounter, but rather an assault.
Why does this matter? Because in the case of the engaged girl who was assaulted in the field, there were no witnesses. Yet, the man was still held accountable and punished. His guilt was just as clear as a murderer’s who kills the only witness to their crime.
In murder cases, evidence might take time to surface, but in the girl’s case, authorities would have to rely on her word. What’s the takeaway? The two-witness rule doesn’t protect those guilty of sexual assault.
The modern implication is pretty straightforward. The Watchtower can’t hide behind the two-witness rule to avoid bringing abusers to justice because the principles in Deuteronomy 22 show that such rules don’t provide protection. This means their legalistic stance, claiming to uphold Bible principles, is flawed and misleading. Biblically, they don’t have a solid argument.
It’s crucial for everyone involved in this ongoing debate to grasp this. It’s not about whether the Watchtower is correctly applying Bible principles with the two-witness rule; it’s clear they’re not. What matters now is what actions people will take moving forward.
It’s worth noting that generally, seeking multiple witnesses in disputes is a good principle. It helps prevent troublemakers from making baseless accusations and discourages slander. But these situations involve adult interactions, not crimes committed by adults against innocent children.
Some might worry that a child could fabricate stories about abuse, and that relaxing the two-witness rule could lead to a flood of false accusations. That’s a valid concern and deserves thoughtful consideration. However, as the Awake! magazine pointed out back in October 1993, children typically don’t have the experience to invent detailed claims of abuse. Even skeptical researchers agree that most abuse claims are valid. The book “Sex Abuse Hysteria—Salem Witch Trials Revisited” acknowledges that genuine child sexual abuse is widespread, and most allegations are likely justified (perhaps 95% or more). Children find it incredibly tough to report abuse, and when they do lie, it’s usually to deny something that actually happened.
So, it’s rare for a child to make up a story about being abused on their own. Sure, sometimes a separated or divorced parent might pressure a child into making false accusations against the other parent to gain custody, but that’s much less common than actual abuse.
If the Watchtower were to change their policies, what might happen? Maybe those accused of child abuse by a single victim would lose their congregation privileges and be barred from positions of authority, but they might avoid excommunication. Only time will tell what impact a thorough consideration of these issues might have.
It’s important to note that applying the principles of Deuteronomy 22 won’t solve every question or concern about child abuse. Discussing laws and principles in a calm setting is one thing; dealing with the fear and trauma of being a victim is another. This is a tough issue, and if someone had all the answers, it would have been resolved by now.
That said, it’s time for the Watchtower and everyone else to be completely honest about this problem. Child abuse is both a crime and a sin. People in the Watchtower are just as imperfect and vulnerable to sin as anyone else. No amount of Bible education can eliminate sin. We all make choices, and some people make poor ones. Those opposing the Watchtower shouldn’t assume that Jehovah’s Witnesses are worse than non-Witnesses, and vice versa. They might “ought” to be better, but that’s a different discussion.
The main way the Watchtower has shown itself to be “worse” is through policies that protect and enable wrongdoing. They should have known better, as Ecclesiastes 8:11 reminds them:
“Because sentence against a bad work has not been executed speedily, that is why the heart of the sons of men has become fully set in them to do bad.”
Wrongdoers in the Watchtower, especially elders and those in authority, have become entrenched in their ways because policies that protect abusers, without consequences or scrutiny, give them little reason to change.
One can only wonder how Watchtower leaders will answer for their actions before God. Which sin would be harder to confess? “I let a child be abused and did nothing” or “I upheld the two-witness rule in a judicial hearing”? Claiming that legalities are more important than protecting an innocent child is simply unacceptable, especially given the discussion that shows their legalistic defense of wrongdoers is biblically unjustified.
Lastly, it’s worth noting how clear and straightforward the language in Deuteronomy 22 is. You don’t need to be a theologian to understand it; it’s easily grasped by the general public and those in authority, like police and lawmakers. No one can argue that this passage is vague or obscure.
The typical reaction from non-Witnesses regarding the Watchtower’s stance on this policy is disbelief. They can’t wrap their heads around how an organization could be so heartless about such a serious issue. It “rubs them the wrong way” and weighs on their conscience because, even without delving into the biblical arguments, “it just feels wrong.”
This discussion about Deuteronomy 22 shows that those intuitive feelings of conscience are justified. It “seems wrong” because it is wrong. Now, we have the scriptural basis to explain why it’s wrong, in a way that the Watchtower can’t ignore if they want to be taken seriously as an organization that stands for God and biblical principles.