Two Natures of Christ: And the reluctance to believe it.

It is usually answered in circles of logic as:

 what philosophers often call “Leibniz’s Law” (not to be confused with this, which sometimes is also call Leibniz’s Law.) The more proper name for it is “the indiscernibility of identicals”. It says,
For any x and y, they are identical (x=y) only if whatever is true of one is true of the other.
This principle seems obviously true, and it seems to be necessarily true – something which is true, and couldn’t conceivably be false. Moreover, all people implicitly recognize it to true.

• Suppose you just met a new friend, Chelsea. She tells you that her dad used to have an important job, that he likes the ladies, loves McDonalds french fries, and speaks with an Arkansas accent. You say to yourself, “I wonder if her dad is Bill Clinton?” Then, you find out that her Dad is four foot nine, and has never been taller. Well, you can be sure that her dad and Clinton are not identical. Why? It follows from what you know (based on her testimony) plus Leibniz’s Law.
• Again, suppose you’re on a jury, trying to decide whether or not the defendent Joe Blow is really the Boston Strangler. If you’re certain that the Boston Strangler has a size 9 shoe, and that Joe Blow is a size 13, then “if the shoe does not fit, you must acquit”. Why? If j and b differ with respect to anything at all (including, of course, shoe size), then it is false that j=b.

When it is true that a=b, we can say “a is b”. But that can be misleading, as that little word “is” can express many different ideas. (e.g. “Sally is pretty.” “This sculpture is ice.” “New England is Connecticut, Massachussets and a few other small states.”) Sometimes philosophers say “a just is b” to express a=b.
OK – the above is mostly common sense, just spelled out with unusual precision. Of course, everything is itself, and not something else. And of course, nothing can differ from itself. So what is the payoff, when it comes to the issue of the Trinity?
Many Christians go around saying things like “Jesus is God“, “Jesus just is God”, or “Jesus is God himself”, etc. And the Father? “He’s God too, of course.” Now, what is being said here? If they’re saying that j=g, and f=g, then it follows (by Leibniz’s Law, or by the transitivity and symmetricality of =) that f=j and that j=f – that Jesus just is the Father, and vice-versa. But if that is so, then “Jesus”, “God”, and “the Father” are three co-referring names – those “three” entities are in fact identical. And thus, whatever is true of one, will be true of the others as well. So we get:

• The Father was born of Mary, and was later crucified.
• Jesus sent his only Son into the world, to redeem humankind.
• There are three persons within the Father.
• Jesus is a Trinity.

Yikes – looks like some ill theology. Where did we go wrong? Each different developed version of the doctrine of the Trinity has an answer to this question. Some have gone so far as to deny that there’s any such relation as identity. That, however, seems nuts – we all know there’s such a relation, and that it’s ubiquitous. It would seem better understand the truth that “Jesus is God” in some way other than “Jesus is identical to God” (j = g). But how exactly? And will this compromise the claim that Jesus “is fully God”?

Here are some additional reasons I cannot comply to such a two natures approach.


DOCTRINE OF THE TWO NATURES OF CHRIST.

“The Hypothesis of two natures in Christ supposes an infinite nature with all its essential attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence, incapable of change or suffering, was indissolubly united in the person of Jesus Christ, with a finite nature, possessing all its properties, as weakness, imperfect knowledge, liability to sorrow, pain, and death, so that the two natures remain forever distinct, each retaining unaltered all its appropriate attributes.”

The Council of Chalcedon, A. D. 451, which claims the merit of having ascertained and settled the doctrine of the incarnation, describes the doctrine of the Two Natures thus: “Jesus Christ is truly God and man, perfect in both natures, consubstantial with the Father with respect to his divinity, and consubstantial with us with respect to his humanity; the two natures, the divine and human, are indissolubly united in him without confusion or change, each retaining all its former attributes, yet so united as to form one person.”

Dr. Barrow on the subject says, “the two natures, the divine and human, were united without any confusion or commixture.—The same person never ceased to be both God and man; not even then, when our Lord as man did undergo death—the union between God and man persisting, when the union between human body and soul was dissolved.”

The Church of England, like the Catholic church, says:

“The Son—took man's nature—so that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say, the Godhead and manhood were joined together in one person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God and very man.”

Professor Stewart, speaking of Jesus Christ, says, “He must, as it seems to me, be God omniscient and omnipotent, and still a feeble man and of imperfect knowledge.”

Now this doctrine is to be rejected, because, like that of the Trinity, it is essentially incredible. It is not a mystery, but as palpable a contradiction as can be stated. By the nature of any person or being, is always meant his essential qualities. If Christ possess a Divine and Human nature, he must possess the essential qualities of God and the distinctive qualities of man. But these qualities are totally incompatible with one another. The qualities of God are etermity, independence, immutability, exemption from pain, sorrow and death, omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence. But the qualities of MAN are derived existence, dependence, mutability, susceptibility of pain, sorrow and death, comparative weakness and ignorance, and locomotivity. To assert, therefore, that the same mind possesses both a Human and a Divine nature, is to assert that the same mind is both created and uncreated, both finite and infinite, both dependent and independent, both mutable and immutable, both mortal and immortal, both susceptible of pain and unsusceptible of it, both able to do all things and unable, both acquainted with all things and not acquainted with them, both ignorant of some things and possessed of the most intimate knowledge of them, both in all places and only in one place at the same time. Now if this doctrine is not an absurdity, I know not how to conceive of or describe an absurdity. It is a doctrine “which councils and parliaments may decree, but which miracles cannot prove.” It is not pretended that any passage of Scripture expressly asserts the doctrine of the Two Natures. Like that of the Trinity, it is a mere inference from the premises laid down by Trinitarians. I know of no allusion in the Bible to the doctrine of the Two Natures, either with or without modification.

But an objection of a graver character lies against the doctrine of the Two Natures. It implicates the moral character of the Holy Jesus; it impeaches his veracity; and exposes him to the charge of equivocation, duplicity, and falsehood. These are weighty charges; and we cannot endure, for a moment, a hypothesis which throws suspicion of dishonesty upon our blessed Saviour.

Jesus said, “I can of mine own self do nothing.” The Trinitarian says, Jesus can of himself do every thing that God can do. Jesus said, “My Father is greater than I.” The Trinitarian says, Jesus is as great as the Father. To one unacquainted with the use that is made of the doctrine of the Two Natures, these assertions appear to be palpable contradictions. He cannot perceive how the assertions of Jesus, and those of Trinitarians, can both be true. But here comes in the doctrine of the Two Natures to reconcile the apparent contradictions. “Jesus is both God and man,” says the Trinitarian. “And though as man, he can do nothing of himself, yet as God, he can do every thing. Though as man, he is not his Father's equal, yet as God, he is equal with the Father in substance, and power, and glory.” But if he is God, can he say in truth, that he can do nothing of himself ' What, can God do nothing of himself! If he is God, can he say in truth, My Father is greater than I? What, is the Father greater than God! For a man to assert that he eannot do what he is conscious that he can do, is to say what is not true. For what a man can do, in any way, or by any means, he can certainly do. Suppose a man should be required to subscribe his name to a written instrument; and that he should refuse to do it, saying, “I cannot write. I cannot wield the pen. I never learned to write.” Suppose it should be known that this man could write;
that an explanation should be demanded; and that he should say, he only meant that he could not write with his left hand, though he could use the pen with his right hand as well as any man. Would not such a man subject himself to the charge of equivocation, duplicity, and falsehood?

The disciples came to Jesus with these questions: “Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?” After some explanation and caution, Jesus answered thus: “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the FATHER only.” The Trinitarian says, the Son knew perfectly both the day and the hour. Here the doctrine of the Two Natures is again employed to solve the difficulty. “Jesus being God as well as man,” says the Trinitarian, “he must have known the day and hour as God, though he did not know it as man. When he said he did not know the day and hour, he spoke of his human nature only.” But is this satisfactory? The disciples came to Jesus not to inquire into any distinctions in his nature, but to obtain information of a different kind. Now if Jesus had two natures, the one omniscient, and the other “of imperfect knowledge,” would he not consider the questions addressed to the nature that knew, rather than the nature that did not know, the subject about which the disciples came to inquire? Most certainly. Yet Jesus not only said that the Son did not know, but that the Father only knew. All other persons, besides the Father, whether they be persons in the Trinity or out of it, are excluded from the knowledge of the day and hour.

Let us suppose that a murder is committed in the city of Boston, at noon, by some person or persons unknown— that suspicion fastens upon an innocent man, who, at the time of the murder, was in New York — and that he is charged with the crime, apprehended, and brought to trial. The prisoner summons in his defence a witness, who saw him in New York, about noon, the same day the murder was committed in Boston. This witness, being under oath, is asked, “Did you see the prisoner in New York on that day?” The witness answers, “I did not.” This being the only witness for the defendant, he is convicted, and hanged. After the execution, this witness confesses that he did see the man that was hanged, in New York, on the day and hour specified at the trial. Being required to answer for himself, he says, under oath, that his left eye was defective; only his right eye was sound. And when he testified in court that he did not see the prisoner, he meant that he did not see him with his defective eye; but he saw him distinctly with his sound eye. Now, I ask, would not all honest men consider such a witness perjured? The only difference I can see, between the conduct of such a witness, and that which the doctrine of the Two Natures imputes to Jesus, is, that what Jesus said was not said under the solemnity of an oath. Knowledge is the eye of the mind. Jesus is said to have two capacities of knowledge—his divine and his human nature. The one is strong and piercing, knowing all things. The other is weak and defective, being ignorant of many things. As such an one, he says, in regard to the time of a certain event, he does not know the day nor the hour. He makes no exception of one of his capacities of knowledge; but says, absolutely, he does not know the time. No one knows but the Father. Yet the doctrine of the Two Natures supposes that Jesus did know the day and hour; and that when he said he did not know, he spoke only of his capacity of knowledge which is weak and defective.

Another objection to the doctrine of the Two Natures is, that it renders it impossible to understand or believe any thing that Jesus says of himself. The terms I, me, myself, mine own self, always denote one person, an individual; they include the whole person, all that constitutes him a person. In this sense they were unquestionably used by Christ. When he said, I, me, myself, he could not have meant a part of himself. He could not have meant that part of himself which is infinitely less than another part of himself. If it be admitted that Jesus did not mean himself, his whole self, all that constituted his proper personality, there is no assertion he ever made but what may be contradicted. One has only to say, “This he did as man, it is not true of him as God, therefore it is not true; and this he did as God, it is not true of him as man, therefore it is not true.” In this way, every assertion he ever made of himself, may be contradicted. In this way, we may deny his birth, his crucifixion, his death, and his resurrection, because these were true of him only as man, not as God. If, instead of saying, “My Father is greater than I,” he had said, “I am not so great as my Father, I am not equal with the Father, I am not God, I am not equal with God,” we have only to say, “This he spoke as man, hence it is not true,” in order to set his testimony, concerning himself aside. Now can a doctrine be admitted, which renders his plainest sayings unintelligible, and makes it absolutely impossible for him to deny that he is God, if he had a mind to do so?

That Trinitarians see and condemn this kind of sophistry, when employed about other matters, may be seen by the following quotation. “See Dr. Stillingfleet's Sermon on Matt. 10:16, speaking of the equivocations of Popish Priests, whose common answer, when examined about what they know by confession, is, that they know it not; which they think to vindicate from the charge of lying by saying, that in confession, the Priest knows matters as God, not as man, and therefore he denies to know them, meaning as a man. But, says the Doctor, this is absurd; because to say he does not know, is as much as to say he doth not any way know. Now if this be good against the Papists, as no doubt it is, then sure it is so in the present case. Therefore when Christ says he knows not the day of judgment, it is as much as to say he does not any way know it, and consequently, it is a vain shift to say, it was as man only. We must beware lest we bring the Holy Jesus under such a reproach for equivocation, as the Romish Priests lie under; and make the Jesuits themselves think they have a good title to that name, by imitating herein his example, according to this interpretation.”

The doctrine of the Two Natures throws obscurity over the sacred pages, and renders passages which are sufficiently plain, quite unintelligible. Take, for example, Heb. 1:1,2: “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in times past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds.” Admitting that this passage relates to the creation of the natural world, what does the word Son denote according to the doctrine of the Two Natures? Does it denote the divine, or the human nature? Or does it comprehend both natures? Son cannot mean the divine nature, because God cannot be appointed heir of all things, inasmuch as he is the original proprietor and independent owner of all things. Son cannot mean the human nature, because the worlds were created thousands of years before the human nature existed. Son cannot denote both natures, because that would involve both the difficulties just stated; and render the passage more unintelligible and contradictory than either of the other expositions. Thus, by applying the hypothesis of the Two Natures, this perfectly clear and easy text becomes totally unintelligible.

Take another example: St. Paul says, “we shall all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ.”—Rom. 14:10. Then Christ must be God omniscient, says the Trinitarian; and, to support his position, reasons thus: “Is it possible for any being, not omniscient, to judge the universe of intelligent creatures? Can he for thousands of years, be present everywhere, and know what is transacted, and penetrate the recesses of the human heart, and remember the whole character and actions of countless myriads, so diverse in talents, temper, circumstances, and situation, and not be omnipresent and omniscient?—Can omniscience be imparted?”. This argument may be abridged, thus: “He, by whom the world is to be judged, must be omniscient. But omniscience cannot be imparted; therefore Christ must be omniscient. And he who is omniscient is God; therefore Christ is God.” Before a man can reason in this manmer, it seems to me, that he must have closed his eyes upon the account which the Scriptures give of the judgment. Whatever men may imagine, St. Paul assures us that “God will judge the world by a MAN (not a God) whom HE hath APPOINTED.” Jesus assures us that the “FATHER hath committed all judgment unto the SON.” St. Peter assures us that “Jesus Christ was ORDAINED of God to be the judge of quick and dead.” God cannot be judge by appointment, or ordination; neither can all judgment be committed to him. “He (Jesus) does indeed act as judge by delegated authority,” says the Trinitarian, “but to act as judge is one thing, to be qualified for the office is another. Exaltation as mediator constitutes him judge, omnipresence and omniscience only can qualify him for that station.” Jesus explains the subject quite differently. He assures us that God qualified him “for that station,” as well as constituted him judge. After speaking of the office of raising the dead and judging the world, by virtue of his commission received from the Father, Jesus says, “the Father hath given him AUTHORITY to execute judgment also, because he is the SON of MAN"—(not because he is God.) And to make his meaning still plainer, immediately after speaking of the resurrection, he adds, “I can of mine own self do nothing: As I HEAR, I judge.” Now if this account of the judgment be admitted as correct—and it must be, I think, unless the testimony of him who is the faithful and true witness can be impeached—what difficulty does the subject involve to require the hypothesis of the Two Natures? If the judge is guided in all his decisions by the Father, who has given him a commandment what he should say and what he should speak; and if he JUDGES only as he HEARS, where is the necessity of omnipresence and ommiscience, to qualify him for that station? Again, if the judge is God omnipresent and omniscicnt, how can he say, “of mine own self I can do nothing: As I hear, I judge.” Can God do nothing without the Father's assistance? Must God hear, before he can judge Once more: The Father hath COMMITTED all judgment unto the SON. To which nature, I would ask the Trinitarian, is the judgment committed? If the Father hath committed all judgment unto the divine nature, then Jesus, As GOD, is dependent on the Father for his commission. This probably, will not be admitted. If the Father hath committed all judgment unto the human nature, then Jesus exercises the highest functions of judge, As MAN only; and the Cmnipresent, omniscient judge, entirely disappears. This, probably, will hardly be admitted. I see no possibility of freeing the subject from these difficulties, but by abandoming the supposition of the Two Natures. Thus the doctrine of the Two Natures creates difficulties where there were none, and then fails to remove them.

We object to the doctrine of the Two Natures, because it would, if admitted, deprive us of the comforts and advantages arising from the example of Christ's prayers and sufferings. In commenting on the secret morning prayer of Jesus, (Mark 1:35) Dr. Adam Clark, in his great zeal for the doctrine of the Two Natures, says—“Not that he needed any thing, for in him dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily; but that he might be a pattern to us.” If the learned Doctor be correct, Jesus must have asked his heavenly Father for innumerable blessings which he did not need, that he might be a pattern to us. But how can we imitate such a pattern without praying for such things as we do not need? If Jesus is God, he must have prayed to himself. But of what benefit to us can such an example be? What comfort or instruction can be derived from contemplating the prayers of Jesus, if every prayer he offered was addressed to himself, and he was so independent that he needed nothing? “Being in agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.” Was all this only to set us an example? What sympathy can we feel with the sufferer, if he needed nothing he prayed for? Prayer is an expression of dependence and want. If a person who needs nothing prays, is it not mere pretence?—is it not hypocrisy?

Finally, the doctrine of the Two Natures defeats its own end. To illustrate this, let us consider it in connection with the doctrine of the atonement as held by Trinitarians. It is argued that sin is an infinite evil; that it deserves an infinite punishment; and, consequently, the atonement must be infinite, But no finite being can make an infinite atonement. But Jesus, being both God and man, is qualified to make an infinite atonement by the sacrifice of himself upon the cross. But all Trinitarians, so far as my knowledge extends, hold that Jesus died as man, not as God. Nothing bled and died but the human nature. The victim, the offering, the sacrifice, was not the divine, but the human nature of Christ, the mere man. This was presented or offered, not to the human, but to the divine nature of Christ, the Supreme God. Thus the infinite atonement entirely disappears. A mere man endures the cross, sheds his blood, and dies an atoning sacrifice to the infinite God. In relation to the doctrine of the atonement, a belief in the proper Deity of Christ has not the least advantage over a belief in his simple humanity.

 Trinitarians, in the multiplicity of their inventions, have devised the notion that Jesus Christ, although but a single person, subsists in two distinct natures, the one human and the other divine—the one verily man, and the other truly and essentially God. Hence he is frequently denominated the God-man—a word coined in the mint of Trinitarian theology to express the absolute Godhead and real manhood supposed to be combined in Christ.

This distinction is found to be necessary in supporting the contradictory, yet popular notion of a triune God. If, without making such distinction, it is contended that Jesus Christ is the real, substantial, and self-existent Deity; the monstrous absurdity is involved, that God —the omnipotent Jehovah—actually bled and died upon an ignominious cross! This however is so manifestly absurd and shocking that no rational man can, for a moment, believe it. And to cover this glaring absurdity the Trinitarian contends that Christ possesses two distinct natures, human and divine; and that he suffered and died only in his human nature.

The distinction is found also to be very convenient in explaining certain passages of scripture which plainly show the inferiority of Christ, and which, of course, disprove the position that he is the absolute and sovereign God. Jesus, for instance, declares that “the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do.” “I can,” says he, “of mine own self do nothing. (John V, 19, 30.) These assertions the Trinitarian contends are made in reference to his human nature. In his human nature he can do nothing of himself—nothing unless he is assisted by the supreme God who constitutes his divine nature. The same exposition is given of Christs declaration, “My Father is greater than I.” On this Dr. A. Clark remarks—“It certainly requires very little argument and no sophistry to reconcile this saying with the most orthodox notion of the Godhead of Christ; as he is repeatedly speaking of his divine and his human nature. Of the former, he says, “I and my father are one;” and of the latter, he states with the same truth, “My Father is greater than I.” See Com. on John xiv, 28. This, it must be acknowledged, is a very plausible manner of avoiding the difficulties of the Trinitarian system; but before receiving the doctrine it might be well to examine the soundness of the argument.

The argument is founded on the supposition that the “man Christ Jesus” subsists in two different natures. On this then we remark, that the name, Jesus Christ, and the pronouns used to represent that name, are significant of one person—the one distinct perfect identical person of Jesus Christ. This must be admitted by all, by those who do and those who do not, believe in the Triune solecism. Now if the person, Jesus Christ, is constituted of two distinct natures, the union of both must be essential to the perfection of his person, and both therefore are included in the names applied to signify the person. Or if not, if this union is not essential to the person, if the person is complete and entire in one nature, for instance, in the human nature; then the addition of the divine nature would make the person of Christ more than complete. And if his divine nature is a complete person without his human nature, then there must be two Christs; for each nature—the human and divine, constitutes, separately, a distinct perfect person called Christ, and, in the passages already mentioned, he spake of his human nature, then his divine nature is not Christ.— but if the divine and human nature must be combined in order to make one perfect Christ, then both natures are invariably included in the term. Whenever therefore Jesus speaks of himself, or was spoken of by others, he alludes to his double nature; if indeed he possesses such a double nature. When he says, “I can of mine own self do nothing,” and, “My Father is greater than I,” he makes one affirmative concerning both his divine and human nature; and consequently acknowledges the superiority of his Father. And Trinitarians may turn which way they please. If they say that, in these instances, he speaks solely of his human nature, they deny that the divine nature is essential to the identity of his person—they deny indeed that the divine nature forms any part of Jesus Christ. And if they say his divine and human nature are both
referred to, they must admit that he declares himself inferior to his Father. This double nature will hardly admit of being resolved into mystery. Christ is Christ, whether he subsists in one, two, or an hundred natures; and as many natures as it requires to constitute one Christ, are invariably conveyed by the name applied to him. Christ is Christ indeed whereever he is mentioned in the scriptures. One nature, or one half of him, is not spoken of at one time, and the other half at another time; and each half designated by the name that signifies the whole Christ. But whatever, is affirmed or denied of him is affirmed or denied of the real bona fide identical person, Jesus Christ. R. O. W.


The Hypostatic Union - an Enormous Tax on Human Credulity By William Ellery Channing

[Hypostatic union is a technical term in Christian theology employed in mainstream Christology to describe the union of Christ's humanity and divinity in one hypostasis, or individual existence.]~Wikipedia

See also Difficulties with the Trinity Doctrine by Alvin Lamson 1828

We complain of the doctrine of the Trinity, that, not satisfied with making God three beings, it makes Jesus Christ two beings, and thus introduces infinite confusion into our conceptions of his character. This corruption of Christianity, alike repugnant to common sense and to the general strain of Scripture, is a remarkable proof of the power of a false philosophy in disfiguring the simple truth of Jesus.

According to this doctrine, Jesus Christ, instead of being one mind, one conscious intelligent principle, whom we can understand, consists of two souls, two minds; the one divine, the other human; the one weak, the other almighty; the one ignorant, the other omniscient. Now we maintain that this is to make Christ two beings. To denominate him one person, one being, and yet to suppose him made up of two minds infinitely different from each other, is to abuse and confound language, and to throw darkness over all our conceptions of intelligent natures. According to the common doctrine, each of these two minds in Christ has its own consciousness, its own will, its own perceptions. They have, in fact, no common properties. The divine mind feels none of the wants and sorrows of the human, and the human is infinitely removed from the perfection and happiness of the divine. Can you conceive of two beings in the universe more distinct? We have always thought that one person was constituted and distinguished by one consciousness. The doctrine that one and the same person should have two consciousnesses, two wills, two souls, infinitely different from each other, this we think an enormous tax on human credulity.

We say that if a doctrine, so strange, so difficult, so remote from all the previous conceptions of men, be indeed a part, and an essential part, of revelation, it must be taught with great distinctness, and we ask our brethren to point to some plain, direct passage, where Christ is said to be composed of two minds infinitely different, yet constituting one person. We find none. Other Christians, indeed, tell us that this doctrine is necessary to the harmony of the Scriptures, that some texts ascribe to Jesus Christ human, and others divine properties, and that to reconcile these we must suppose two minds, to which these properties may be referred. In other words, for the purpose of reconciling certain difficult passages, which a just criticism can in a great degree, if not wholly, explain, we must invent an hypothesis vastly more difficult, and involving gross absurdity. We are to find our way out of a labyrinth by a clue which conducts us into mazes infinitely more inextricable.

Surely, if Jesus Christ felt that he consisted of two minds, and that this was a leading feature of his religion, his phraseology respecting himself would have been coloured by this peculiarity. The universal language of men is framed upon the idea that one person is one person, is one mind, and one soul; and when the multitude heard this language from the lips of Jesus, they must have taken it in its usual sense, and must have referred to a single soul all which he spoke, unless expressly instructed to interpret it differently. But where do we find this instruction? Where do you meet, in the New Testament, the phraseology which abounds in Trinitarian books, and which necessarily grows from the doctrine of two natures in Jesus? Where does this divine teacher say, "This I speak as God, and this as man; this is true only of my human mind, this only of my divine?"' Where do we find in the Epistles a trace of this strange phraseology? Nowhere. It was not needed in that day. It was demanded by the errors of a later age.

All have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God.

Romans 3.4 says: "Let God be found true, though every man be found a liar.

It is a position I have always advocated, sometimes to my demise. I have seen enough westerns  though, to see that the Witnesses, in positions of responsibility, have the earmarks of a good o'l unjust lynching. I have not though,  completely exonerated  them of not committing any wrong. It is difficult to judge and equate some sort of punishment. The responsibility and accountability is insurmountable. 
But Jehovah holds these men as accountable.  " Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, knowing that we will receive heavier* judgment." James 3.1

“‘If someone* sins because he has heard a public call to testify*+ and he is a witness or has seen or learned about it and he does not report it, then he will answer for his error." Leviticus 5.1

To what degree is this reporting and accountability done?

Accountable, perhaps, of following the letter of the law to closely and not the spirit of that law.
A sort of ' penchant for privacy. After all the Montana law (In a reversal decision) suggested that
much.

On the very bottom of the document ‘Montana Mandatory Reporting Requirements Regarding Children’ is a section labeled “Members of the clergy or priests are not required to report when the following condition is met...if the communication is required to be confidential by cannon law, church doctrine, or established church practice.”

https://www.jw.org/en/news/legal/legal-resources/information/packet-jw-scripturally-based-position-child-protection/

Tom Harley a Jehovah's Witness wrote a rather lengthy summation on his take on some of the child abuse cases. Not to excuse, in some instances to accuse in not going far enough. Even though the Jehovah's Witness Community has gone much farther that any other Organization.


Is It Time For Jehovah's Witnesses to Apologize? Part 1

       

Elizabeth Chuck wrote an article about Jehovah’s Witnesses and I would have preferred she write one instead about the PTA meeting in her town. It is a normal reaction, for it was news of a huge-dollar verdict against a religious organization I hold dear [later reversed. Of course I hate to see it; that’s only natural. When you find yourself on the gallows you do not angle for a selfie with the hangman.
Still, if you must hear bad news, hear it from Ms. Chuck, for her news in this case is straight reporting, not one of the hatchet jobs Jehovah’s Witnesses often get. The topic is the most white-hot topic of all, child sexual abuse, and temptations to whip it into fever pitch are not resisted by all. She does resist it. That’s not to say I might not write it up differently. With every story, it is a matter of which facts you put where. But she doesn’t make any up or deliberately misrepresent them. Having said that, it is not to suggest that even those who do misrepresent do so on purpose. Well—I guess it is to suggest that, but only to suggest. It is not proof positive. When your own people merely say that they “abhor child abuse and strive to protect children,” but otherwise do not comment, what’s a reporter to do?
Here’s what I like about the Elizabeth Chuck story: First of all, it is not like the AP article, picked up by many sources, that expressed seeming bewilderment that “the Jehovah’s Witness cases haven’t received the same national attention” [as the Roman Catholic Church]. Is not the reason a big ‘Duh’? The Montana case abuse under trial was all within a family and church leaders were accused of botching the handling of it, though blameless themselves. It’s a little different than church leaders actually committing the abuse, something which is very rare with Witnesses.
Ms. Chuck correctly (and atypically) makes clear that a “two-witness rule” used by Witnesses “is only for internal modes of discipline and does not prevent a victim from going to the police.” She correctly points out that “there are very strict internal modes of discipline within Jehovah’s Witnesses.” Yes. It is not an anything-goes religion. She correctly observes that being disfellowshipped is often a painful experience and serves as a negative incentive to do what might trigger it. So far so good. It might not be as I would phrase it, but it is certainly acceptable reporting.
She stumbles briefly, though not seriously, when she says: “Jehovah’s Witnesses are a misunderstood and very self-enclosed group, despite counting some celebrities among its ranks—including Venus and Serena Williams.” She is right that they are misunderstood. The only footnote I would add is about her seeming acquiescence to the common wisdom that groups are validated by having celebrities in their camp, some of whom are the most silly people on earth, living fundamentally different lives than anyone else. However, the miscue is minor. And, after all, I have made use of poor Serena Williams, too, in chapter 4.
Ms. Chuck does her homework. She consults experts on religion, such as “Mark Silk, a professor and the director of the Greenberg Center for the Study of Religion in Public Life at Trinity College in Hartford, Conn [who says of Witnesses]: ‘They don’t vote. They don’t celebrate birthdays and holidays. They don’t say the pledge [of allegiance]. They are not just another Christian denomination.’” It is not her fault if she does not know that the guy (likely) has it in for Jehovah’s Witnesses, spinning his facts negatively, and the reason is revealed in his very job title: he is a professor at Trinity College. If you do not accept the Trinity teaching, you are toast in the eyes of many of these people. Nonetheless, what the professor says about voting and not pledging allegiance is true enough. He does not mention that if nobody pledged allegiance to human institutions maybe the national king could not pit them so easily against each other in times of war, but that is beyond the scope of his information request. At least he doesn’t inaccurately charge that Jehovah’s Witnesses are disrespectful to country, for there are few people as scrupulous about “rendering to Caesar what is Caesar’s” (taxes) than they. Reporter Chuck relates the words of another expert: “Whatever belief they have or mode of internal discipline they have, they have a biblical justification for it.” I’ll take it. It’s true. We don’t apologize for it. I prefer it infinitely over church reporters saying we are not Christian because we do not accept the Trinity. The reason we do not accept it is that its scriptural support is based almost entirely upon taking literally certain passages which, if they were read in any other context, would be instantly dismissed as figure of speech.
She relates dutifully the sparse words of the Watchtower organization that they “abhor child abuse and strive to protect children from such acts,” attributing the sparseness to “a penchant for privacy.” She takes it at face value. She does not imply that they are lying through their teeth, like the reporter in the Philadelphia Inquirer, dismissing the words as ‘boiler plate,’ and even ending his article with an anecdote of spying artwork at the JW headquarters captioned “Jehovah loves children,” and using it as a pretext to wink at his readers as though to say: “Yes, I guess we know just how they love them,” before returning to his Witness-hating base on a Reddit thread, where he is hailed as a hero.
However, eclipsing her skill at side-stepping all these potential landmines is that she puts her finger on the real problem in the very first paragraph of her article: Jehovah’s Witnesses are “insular.” She doesn’t even try to spin that into a crime, as do some. Most Witnesses would not agree to the label “insular,” but that is primarily because they are unfamiliar with it and unsure just what attachments might come with it. They will instantly, even proudly, acknowledge two closely related phrases: they are “separate from the world” and “no part of” it. It is a scriptural imperative, they will say, because if you want to lend a helping hand, you must be in a place of safety yourself. Not all will agree that life today is constantly-improving. Some will say the overall picture more closely resembles a ship floundering. Did I not just read that generalized anxiety has replaced depression as the number one mental health malady? Can that be because there is nothing to worry about in life today? I think not. These interplay of two views—that society is ever-improving vs ever-floundering—causes most of the “misunderstanding” that opponents of Witnesses speak about.
Witnesses are “insular,” by design. “Insularity” is biblically mandated, but here is an instance in which that insularity has contributed to a significant tragedy. Witness leaders find themselves in a situation parallel to that of certain vehicles being exempt from normal traffic laws—say, police and fire emergency vehicles. Yet, in making use of that exemption, a terrible accident results and the public outcry is so great that they are convicted even though following the law. Or, to apply it more accurately, public anger is so great that the law is reinterpreted so that it can be established that they did break it.
This writer is not a lawyer. He can step out of his depth. Yet most persons reading the following pertinent section of the Montana child abuse reporting laws would, I suspect, agree that the Witness organization followed the letter of them. They make every effort to do that. The prompt appeal of any Witness judicial committee to their Branch organization legal department is not to see how they can evade child abuse laws, as their opponents often spin it, but how they can be sure their actions are in harmony with them. I can think of no other situation on earth in which consulting one’s own attorney, upon presentation of matters with likely legal ramifications, would be spun as an evil, as this one frequently is.
On the very bottom of the document ‘Montana Mandatory Reporting Requirements Regarding Children’ is a section labeled “Members of the clergy or priests are not required to report when the following condition is met...if the communication is required to be confidential by cannon law, church doctrine, or established church practice.”
Even “established church practice?” It seems extraordinarily loose, and yet there it is. It is a part of a doctrine called “ecclesiastical privilege.” It has long been encapsulated into law, as has the privileged nature of the doctor-patient relationship and the attorney-client relationship, on the recognition that these relationships cannot function without the expectation of confidentiality.
If such is the law, why is the Witness organization found culpable despite stringent efforts to follow it? Because the war today is against child sexual abuse, deemed the most critical crusade of our time, and they were expected to “go beyond the law” so as to facilitate that end. Thus, the law was reinterpreted so as to allow that they did violate it. The child wronged though sexual abuse has proven to be among the most powerful forces on earth, affording ample occasion for other scores to be settled.
The Witness organization finds itself in a situation similar to that of Joe Paterno, the Penn State coach who was universally praised throughout his tenure as an excellent role model but then was excoriated beyond redemption when he merely obeyed the law regarding an unspecific allegation that he heard of child sexual abuse but did not “go beyond it.” He reported the allegation to his superiors. When the allegation turned out to be true, however, it was later deemed in the media to be not enough—he should have “gone beyond the law” to report it directly to police. His career was over, and even his life, for he died two years later.
If it is so crucial to go beyond the law, then make that the law. This is exactly what Geoffrey Jackson of the Witnesses’ Governing Body pleaded for three times before an Australian Royal Commission. Isn’t that the purpose of law: to codify what is right? Make the law clear, unambiguous, and allow for no exceptions. Jehovah’s Witnesses are universally recognized for meticulously following secular law even as they are primarily guided by biblical law. Make universal mandating the law, with no exceptions. Requiring parties to “go beyond the law” only enables Monday-morning quarterbacking to assign motives, invariably bad ones, to unpopular parties that have failed in this regard.
An article in the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle dated November 20th, 2011, observed that “it’s a mistake to think that the failure…to report the abuse is a rarity....Studies over the past two decades nationally have consistently shown that nearly two-thirds of professionals who are required to report all cases of suspected abuse fail to do so....”I think that we fail miserably in mandated reporting,” said Monroe County Assistant District Attorney Kristina Karle...” Is it not haphazard to excoriate those who did their best to follow the law when two thirds of all professionals, for a variety of reasons, do not? Does anyone charge that two thirds of all professionals do not give a hoot about children? Plainly there are other factors at work. Yet when the crusade against child sexual abuse reaches fever pitch, only one factor is deemed to have any significance.

Time to Apologize? Part 2

       

Jehovah’s Witnesses did fail in this regard. Let us admit it. They failed to “go beyond the law.” The stakes are so high that law is thereafter reinterpreted to mean that they did violate it. Why did they fail? Ms. Chuck accurately states that any Witness victim or family of victim was always free to report child sexual abuse and that congregation justice did not preclude outside secular justice. They failed then, she implies, because they were insular, and she may not realize just how firmly she has put her finger on the reason. They were not inclined to air their dirty laundry before the public.
It is not so hard to understand. In some cultures, the concept of  “saving face” is so firmly entrenched that your efforts to communicate are doomed to failure if you ignore it. The very reason there is an expression ‘skeletons in the closet’ is the universal human instinct to keep them there. It is even found in the scriptures that Ms. Chuck acknowledges underlie everything Witnesses do. Decrying the spectacle of early Christians taking one another into court over personal disputes, the apostle Paul writes: “I am speaking to move you to shame. Is there not one wise man among you who is able to judge between his brothers? Instead, brother goes to court against brother, and before unbelievers at that!” If Jehovah’s Witnesses today are “insular,” it is because Christians at that time were “insular.”
In this case, however, insularity, and the failure to “go beyond the law” has resulted in child abusers who did not take their turn in the police lineup, as well as victims thereby deprived of that justice. Whether they would have received justice otherwise is arguable, for no end of persons manage to evade the wrath of the law. But that is not the point. They should have been turned over to police, the argument goes, for the latter to either nail them to the wall or let them slip through their fingers. The victims want justice. Like victims anywhere, they don’t always get it. But don’t get in the way of their quest for it. Since the Witness organization is perceived to have gotten in the way, with law being reinterpreted so as to more damningly point to that conclusion, should they apologize to victims or issue a public statement of regret? You could certainly build a case for it.
When the cop speeds in hot pursuit and a horrific accident results, pointing out that he had permission to speed only goes so far. There are times when only a sincere expression of regret stems the tide of outrage, for who is going to dismiss a run-over pedestrian as ‘just one of those things?’ At such times legal matters become technicalities and you appear tone-deaf if you harp on them. Best to say that, in pursuing one’s mission, even within existing rules, a terrible tragedy has resulted for which there is sincere regret.
Were the Witness organization to ever do that, it would cut them no slack with the Reddit group. They would merely drop down a notch on their list to highlight the next reason they hate their former religion before surfacing briefly to declare the statement of regret insincere. Were the entire Governing Body membership to resign, or even hang themselves, it would not make them happy. They know that their successors would be cut from the same cloth.
No, there will be no placating these folks. But it might very well clear the air for all other persons, who know very well, simply through personal experience, that Jehovah’s Witnesses are very fine people. Even arch-enemy Barbara Anderson concedes this, as she somehow manages to insinuate that this is despite their evil Governing Body, rather than the much more reasonable ‘because of it.’ Not because of it solely, of course, for Witnesses’ decency stems from the God they worship. But in the sense that the Witnesses’ Governing Body keeps them clearly focused on the Bible, their chosen source of instruction, they surely deserve credit, not condemnation. Almost all other faiths have swayed with the changing winds of contemporary culture. Witnesses have not. They merely update now and then, as they have with their procedures of child sexual abuse investigations. Is it intimidating for a victim of child sexual abuse to appear before the three men of an investigatory committee? Well, they never thought of that. Maybe they should have. So now it is that a child’s recorded testimony can serve itself as the witness and he or she does not have to appear personally. If he or she does, it can be with any congregation member of choice, whether male or female. The religion’s fiercest critics say they will never stop opposing until Witnesses fix their child abuse policies. Arguably, they already have been fixed, since the vast majority of cases tried are from many years ago.
Not everyone likes Jehovah’s Witnesses. Probably more do not than do. But people are mostly fair. A statement of regret would go a long way for them to say: “Oh, I see. They did botch it up, but now I can see why. They really do abhor child sexual abuse over there.”  Otherwise, their enemies find it a cakewalk to portray those in leadership positions among Jehovah’s Witnesses as “arrogant,” and in some cases, as willful nurturers those who would commit child abuse. Everyone these days calls those of the other side “arrogant” upon proving unable to sway them, but in this instance, the accusation more readily sticks. They are probably the least arrogant people on earth, but that does not mean they cannot be painted that way.
They do Bible education work. They do it extensively and effectively. In the developing world, a person is stuck with some 200-year old turkey of a Bible translation that he can neither afford nor understand because nobody other than Jehovah’s Witnesses thinks it is inappropriate for Big Business to handle distribution of the Word of God. The Witness Governing Body does think it is inappropriate and they have invented an entirely new production and distribution channel so that the person can obtain a modern Bible at minimal cost, or even free. That accomplishment is not insignificant.
They do not do all of this personally, of course. Detractors routinely spin it that Witnesses are “controlled” by “eight men in New York.” It makes no sense. They are modest persons. Many of them cut their teeth performing their trademark door-to-door ministry in the developing world, carrying out a work more lowly than that of the ones they would ultimately lead. They have a certain knack at administration, as with any effective organization, but other than that, they have little expertise in anything. But they know where to find it when they need it. From a field of eight million members, where there are neither paywalls nor turf wars, they can quickly assemble whatever is deemed necessary.
Their latest offering in the field of Bible education consists of an online, self-guided, and anonymous course of Bible study offered on the front page of their website, JW.org. The Bible offers convincing answers to important questions of life, Jehovah’s Witnesses feel, questions not readily answered anywhere else. Of course, it is free and presented without any mention of money. After each lesson there is the option to 1) go deeper, for the presentation is necessarily simple, 2) attend a group study at the Witnesses’ Kingdom Hall, 3) request a personal instructor, or 4) say ‘none of the above’ and proceed to the next lesson. It is a relatively new feature. I don’t know how it will be incorporated. But with only some exaggeration, I am looking forward to saying: “I don’t want to study the Bible with you. Do it yourself. If you have any questions or want to go a level more, I’ll be around.” With only slightly more exaggeration, the new feature illustrates that, if need be, the main Bible teaching component of the Witnesses’ work could be run out of a server in someone’s dorm room.
They always will be “insular,” or to put it in their terminology, “no part of the world.” Surely, they must be permitted to be, for the alternative is to snuff out the type of Christianity that existed in the first century, the model most true. Snuffing out this model in favor of societally evolved ones might be a very fine outcome in the eyes of today’s anti-cultists. But it will be a defeat for worship of God per the standards of his written word. They must not allow that religion can have a place only so long as it is clearly subservient to contemporary life and leaders, labeling anything not meeting this subservience a “cult” that “brainwashes” people through “mind-control.” Those of that same Western anti-cultist spirit have used exactly that reasoning to fuel the furor that has banned Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia and confiscated all of their property, with many other faiths shaking in their boots that they will be next. It is a result of hate speech—not the investigation of grievances, but the hurling about of the C-word.
Be that as it may, it might well be time to acknowledge that this avenue, this one involving child sexual abuse reporting, is one that became riddled with axle-bending potholes, express sincere remorse, help out to whatever extent is necessary to fill them in, and then get back on track with the overall program.

Time to Apologize? Part 3

       

A former elder quits his faith and posts his reason online: it is the Watchtower’s child abuse policy. He presents himself as a pillar of conscience. He chose to leave and there were “many reasons for his decision,” which he does not go into. Child sexual abuse policy is not his only reason, though at first glance it might appear that way. He could have reported any hint of an abuse allegation the instant he became aware of it—forget the phone call to legal HQ. True, he might have to step down as an elder, because one holding office in anything must carry out the policies of those making them. But it is all volunteer service anyway. He could have taken his place as a regular congregation member and not thrown everything away with regard to his belief system.
Instead, it appears that he did throw it all away in order to become a warrior for a cause. He has thrown in his lot with the ones crusading against this one grievous wrong, who appear, for the moment, to be enjoying greater success in the war. Or are they? They are undeniably good at outing and punishing perpetrators of child sexual abuse, but are they proving any good at stemming the evil itself? Thirty-plus years of all-out war has produced little result; you can still throw a stone in any direction and hit five molesters. In contrast, there is good reason to believe that the Witness organization overall has significant success in prevention.
What of the reasons that he became a Witness in the first place—the clear answer as to why God allows suffering, the knowledge of what happens to people when they die, and even the reason that they die? He has forgotten all about it. What of the Bible principles that have succeeded in producing one group, and practically only one group, that has not been molded by changing tides of morality, sexual and otherwise? Not worth the bother, his course suggests. What of the effort to educate ones the world over in knowledge of God’s purposes and the one true hope that conditions will not always be as they are now? It no longer interests him. What of the work to make known God’s name known and defend it against those who would malign it? None of it seems to be a concern any longer. If he remembers God at all, he will address him as ‘The LORD,’ since the rule elsewhere is to bury God’s name.
He throws it all away to become a foot soldier in a cause. The cause is certainly not nothing, but neither is it everything. Every notion he once had about God taking a separate people for his name appears to have vanished. Christianity should not be separate from the world, in his apparent revised eyes. It should jump in and help fix it, even if most of the tools it offers will be scorned. If the world scorns them perhaps it has a point, he seems to suggest. His new course says it loud and clear: elders should put aside concerns of safeguarding the congregation and should become agents of the state so as to do their part in safeguarding the whole world.
He has bought completely into his new role. It is not enough for him that elders, at present, leave it to parents and victims as a personal matter whether they will seek help from outside counselors. He is upset that they do not order them to. Seemingly he would hold them accountable even if they did order them and the parents or victims yet declined. They did not order them enough, he would maintain. Too, he is concerned that an offender might go door to door as a Witness in search of new victims. Well, nothing is impossible, but it seems an extraordinarily difficult way to go about it. The house to house ministry is a challenge even when done for the right reasons. Witnesses will often fret about how difficult it is to find people home today, at least at the most customary times of calling. How many of them are going to be unsupervised children? How many of those children are going to be trusting of strangers? It’s ridiculous, but the former elder has swallowed it all. Why not simply hang out where children are? Volunteer at a children’s camp. Coach youth sports. Drive a school bus.
He could have just relinquished his office and reported whatever allegations of sexual abuse of which he became aware. Instead, he has flushed everything away to focus on the popular crusade. If he remains religious, he will probably lean right. If he has gone atheist, he will probably lean left. They mostly do. Nor should it be a surprise. If you go atheist, you put your full trust in human self-rule. Obviously, nations have to band together for this to be successful, so any populist movement is viewed as counterproductive. The question reverts right back to that of 1919, when Jehovah’s Witnesses, then known as Bible Students, chose God’s kingdom as the true hope for all mankind, and their opponents, throwing in their lot with human efforts, chose the then-new League of Nations.
All of this said, the former elder prefaces his diatribe by his having seen “the extent that the organization would go to in order to defend their position.” It is a point that merits addressing.
Those brothers most eager to not air dirty laundry in an attempt not to sully God’s name appear to have succeeded in sullying it, albeit unintentionally, more than if outside authorities were called the instant any congregation member so much as hiccupped. In their zeal to present the image that child sexual abuse could never have happened among true followers of Christ, they succeeded in planting the notion with their enemies that their group is the worst of the lot. It is hardly just them. Most organizations have proven equally conscious of reputation, be they schools, Scouts, business, alumni, institutions of any sort, even the U.S. Olympic team. Jehovah’s Witnesses, who preach what they regard as a life enhancing message, have also proven conscious of reputation. They are composed of regular people, and at least they have the atypical quality of their leaders seldom being abusers themselves.
It is not hard to understand how this can happen, yielding to the instinct to not air unflattering news. But it is not useful here, and any hint that one is concerned with reputation as more than an insignificant footnote will incur the wrath of those focused on one and one thing only. They will say: “If you really do abhor child sexual abuse why do you even think for a moment about reputation?” It is a very difficult row to hoe. Anyone who watches popular television today knows that playing to the jury on the jury’s own terms is critical. Does the Watchtower attorney in Montana do that? Or does he give evidence of being “insular,” quoting Bible verse a couple of times when it is not necessary to do so, when omitting them might have better resounded? He is a fine brother, I am sure, with a monumental job, but I suspect the verses hurt more than help with a jury composed of persons who simply do not hold scripture in the same esteem as was once the case. They might even reckon it an attempt to schmaltz them and pull the wool over their eyes. Might his explanation fall flat that the “regular Montana folk” who are Witnesses call “because they love you,” and since “many of you are Bible readers,” they will recognize that Jesus followed just that course? How many people are regular Bible readers these days? He misses completely the political nuances of the expression “fake news” that few of them will miss, and he spins a folksy story of the caught fish that gets bigger with each telling to suggest that abuse victims might unconsciously embellish with the passage of time. He covers all the right points but with a backdrop that will suggest to some that he just doesn’t “get it” as regards the trauma of ones who have suffered abuse. Can child sexual abuse in any way be likened to a fisherman’s tale? Courthouse proceedings are not therapy sessions and one can only be so therapeutic with plaintiffs seeking millions—thereby clearly indicating their chosen means of comfort. But more putting oneself into their shoes can hardly be a bad thing and it is something Witnesses typically try to do in their ministry.
He commits these perceived lapses because he comes from a faith described as insular. Insularity is not a crime (yet) but it does here present obstacles to heart-to-heart communication. His talk would play well indeed to persons on the same page as he, such as he might find in a Kingdom Hall, but to a public conditioned by events to be skeptical as to whether Jehovah’s Witnesses truly do “abhor child abuse,” as they say they do, it shows stress cracks.
The ones overly interested in reputation have been caught in their own righteous trap and it is being played out in plain sight before all the world. The only thing that takes away from their detractors’ efforts to make maximum hay out of this debacle is that there are so many atrocities to compete for attention today, many of which are far worse, that it is a challenge for them to keep the spotlight focused where they want it.
Rather than try to maintain the illusion that ungodly deeds could never have occurred among true Christians, these Witnesses might have let the chips fall wherever they might and trust that a relative scarcity of abuse will be enough in a world where one out of every five children suffers molestation before age 18. Instead, their insularity made them miss the determination and progress of outside authorities to stamp out child sexual abuse, slow to acknowledge the cause when they did come to hear of it, and thus they are readily framed by their detractors to make it seem that they oppose it.
It could have been me. I am not better than these ones. I, too, might have become distressed when the media did not seem to notice the elephant in the room. Will the greater world enjoy success when it embraces every permutation of sexual interaction as fine and good, except for one that will not be tolerated? The world today nurtures the pedophilia with one hand that it seeks to eliminate with the other. Even the New York Times swoons over a child model in a November 22, 2007 article. “His eye makeup is better than yours,” it writes, as it gushes over a ten-year-old boy who has 330,000 Instagram followers. How many of them are pedophiles? Why, the Times does not think to go there.
Meanwhile, the organization that teaches family values from the Bible, that specifically warns about child sexual abuse, that doesn’t settle for merely punishing the wrong, but significantly exerts itself to prevent it—what of that organization? That is the organization on the hot seat, tried by those dubious of it and a few that outright despise it. However ill it plays today, one can understand a reluctance to broadcast shortfalls believed to be comparatively scarce—a lot of them, to be sure, but proportionately less than in the greater world. But that reluctance serves nobody well in this instance.
Are Jehovah’s Witnesses insular? To the extent that they are familiar with this excerpt from Jesus, how could they not be? “If the world hates you, you know that it has hated me before it has hated you. If you were part of the world, the world would be fond of what is its own. Now because you are no part of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, on this account the world hates you.” (John 15: 18-19) Christianity as defined in the Bible is insular. It is not part of the world. It is separate from the world and from that position of safety it attempts to extend a helping hand to individuals therein. If contemporary variations of Christianity are not insular, it is due to having compromised long ago to neutralize that which the overall world finds objectionable—a course that Jehovah’s Witnesses have sought to avoid. One will have to ban the Bible itself to forestall insularity, and there are plenty in an irreligious age who would like to do just that. No longer is it the legal climate of decades ago, when a Watchtower lawyer could cite his Bible and the judge would follow along, nodding thoughtfully. Even Hayden Covington, the Witness attorney of the 1940s known for his ability to sass Supreme Court Justices and get away with it, would be hard pressed today.
In October of 2018, the Australian government issued an apology in the wake of a Royal Commission looking into child sexual abuse, an investigation that had spanned several years. That apology is lauded as the example for everyone to follow, but it is worth noting that the victims did not accept it. Prior to that, victims of child sexual abuse from the Boy Scouts did not accept an apology from that organization. Now, the Boy Scouts take you camping and teach you how to tie knots. Jehovah’s Witnesses show up at your door in suits and wake you when you are sleeping in late. Will they be forgiven when the Australian government and the Boy Scouts were not?
Many of victims of child sexual abuse will never accept any apology. What they will only accept is for their abuse never to have happened—something that surely speaks well as regards prevention being the prime focus.
Detractors are chagrined that Jehovah’s Witnesses are not specifically mentioned in the apology, but it may be because for most institutions investigated, the leaders were the perpetrators. With Jehovah’s Witnesses that was rarely the case. Their ‘wrong’ was to investigate first, and in so doing, fail to coordinate with outside authorities. Seeming frustrated, one Witness opponent tweets: “So sick of Watchtower apologists trying to say that it’s OK to protect pedophiles & for child sexual abuse to go unchecked & unpunished.  I wonder if now they will use the same defenses to support the Catholic Church & its mishandling of child sexual abuse?”
I responded to that one: “They have made their own bed & must lie in it. Unlike JWs, where leaders were seldom the perpetrators, theirs exclusively were. Heaven help us if the members are ever looked at, as with JWs. Still, to the extent faith in God is destroyed, it is a tragedy even greater than that which triggers it.”

https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/children/become-jehovahs-friend/videos/protect-your-children/