 |
Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Message |
Author |
 Receive not an accusation against an elder without 2 or 3 witnesses |
bonnie knox |
I'm going to start a separate thread on this topic. I have been asked several times how I would feel if I were falsely accused. Just in case no one would figured it out, I would be mad, hurt, betrayed. Would I want to be convicted for a crime or put out of a church for false accusations against me? No.
Have I ever been falsely accused? Not for anything that had an eventual big impact on my life, but small things, certainly. Yes, even the small false accusations can be exasperating and typically get played back in my mind as to the ways I should have gone about clearing myself. I hope that clears that up.
In addition, someone I love dearly has been falsely accused, and it did impact a few relationships. It makes me sad, and I continually pray that the truth will come out, though this may be one of those thorns in the flesh that never is removed. So, I am sympathetic to victims of false accusation.
With that said, when we speak of hypothetical scenarios in which a victim is abused by a 'reprehensible creep,' the premise that we are talking about an abuse victim necessarily precludes the possibility that the 'reprehensible creep' is being falsely accused. Now that is a totally separate scenario from the case where a person is accused of sexual assault, and we don't know if the accusation is true.
Okay, now on to the topic at hand. What does "before 2 or 3 witnesses" mean in this verse? What are the practical applications? On the practical applications, I would like to propose a scenario. I am going to set parameters to my scenario. If you want to change parameters, make your own scenario, but do not try to change my scenario.
I am going to say a 43-year-old male pastor forcibly raped a 12 year-old-girl. There were no witnesses. She tells no one. Three months later, when her mother chastises her for being rude to the pastor, she breaks down and tells her mother what happens. 1 Timothy 5:19 "Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses."
Last edited by bonnie knox on 1/26/17 1:16 pm; edited 1 time in total |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
3/14/16 10:20 am
|
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
| |
Nature Boy Florida |
Isn't that referring to the number of witnesses to the "accusation" - not the attack?
A one on one attack by its nature will only have two folks involved - and one probably doesn't want the truth to come out.
_________________
Whether you like it or not, learn to love it, because its the best thing going today! |
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 16646
3/14/16 10:26 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
UncleJD |
| Nature Boy Florida wrote: | | Isn't that referring to the number of witnesses to the "accusation" - not the attack?. |
Agreed, I've always taken that to be the number of witnesses to the accusation. |
Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere
Posts: 3147
3/14/16 10:40 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Quiet Wyatt |
Paul was in this passage giving the same basic protection from untrue accusation as was afforded everyone under the Law of Moses. We must not just accept an accusation as true without it being reasonably and fairly proven.
In the hypothetical scenario described in this thread, it would seem that the only way forward would be to allow the police to conduct a thorough investigation, and let the legal system prove what is true, if at all possible. If evidence sufficient to convict of this crime were forthcoming, that should be enough for the church to rule on the matter as well.
In the biblical times in which Paul and Moses wrote, modern forensic methods of determining the guilt or innocence of the accused were not even conceived of by man as yet, but that by no means would require us to view such methods as somehow inherently inconsistent with the law of God. If the case can be legally proven true, then by all means let the full weight of the law (both of man and of God) be laid upon such a one. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12817
3/14/16 10:55 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
NBF, that is indeed the way some interpret that since Matthew 18 suggests that you take 2 or 3 witnesses with you to confront someone who would not listen to you by yourself.
In other words, Timothy, in whatever authoritative position he was in, was not to make a binding judgment against a church elder without at least a couple of witnesses in council when the accusation was made.
| Nature Boy Florida wrote: | Isn't that referring to the number of witnesses to the "accusation" - not the attack?
A one on one attack by its nature will only have two folks involved - and one probably doesn't want the truth to come out. |
|
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
3/14/16 11:21 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Quiet Wyatt |
The College Press NIV Commentary has the following on this verse:
| Quote: | | Paul provides Timothy with two basic guidelines: (1) do not accept any charges against an elder which are not certain; (2) when an elder is found to be guilty he must be reprimanded in public. The call for “an accusation” to be supported by “two or three witnesses” follows the OT procedure for verifying a sin or crime (Deut 19:15). Paul is here simply calling for Timothy to protect the reputation of an elder as one should anyone (2 Cor 13:1). It is very easy for elders, or for that matter anyone in a leadership position, to be the recipient of unfair and untrue accusations. |
All the numerous other commentaries I looked at said essentially the same thing about this verse. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12817
3/14/16 11:39 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
I don't believe modern forensics replaces Biblical commands to use two or three witnesses. But I also believe two or three witnesses could testify to different things, like reprehensible creep using child porn, reprehensible creep raping the 12-year-old, reprehensible creep touching someone else inappropriately. This is my opinion, but if what you are trying to prove is that someone is unfit for a certain ministry role, I don't see why there would have to be two witnesses for a particular event. If, like in an OT scenario, they were trying to prove someone committed adultery to have them stoned, then no on was to be put to death except on the testimony of two or three witnesses. It makes sense to have witnesses to an individual crime in this case.
If the secular authorities cart the creep off in handcuffs and imprison him, then he's not going to be around to bother the 12-year-olds in the church.
As far as forensics goes, I remember seeing a movie about a young woman who becomes obsessed with her father's tenant. She sneaks in, gets some DNA loaded material out of a condom in his trash can, reports an assault, and gets him arrested. There was enough DNA evidence to get him arrested, but of course at the end of the movie, he tricked her into a confession when she didn't realize anyone else was around. There weren't two or three witnesses to the alleged crime in the movie either.
I know, it's just a movie, but the reprehensible creep is a hypothetical scenario, too.
In real life, most of us are never in a position to be the 'omniscient narrator.' We ask questions like, if there is a pastor who secretly goes around raping people in the bathroom but wears a mask and no one knows who he is, should his credentials be taken from him. We can say 'yes.' But in real life, if no one knows who he is, there has to be some method of arriving at the facts if he is accused.
When I hear stories like this, I think of stories I heard about through missionaries in Indonesia. One of the missionaries was working with an unreached people group where most people were very much opposed to the Gospel. Some people opposed to his work accused him of some kind of nasty sexual impropriety and had him locked up in jail. That's one of the tactics used against evangelists and church planters over there. Accusing Christian leaders of having illegal firearms and fighting is another tactic. There was a Roman Catholic put to death for having firearms. I suspect his claim that he didn't have any and that the Is|amic types opposing him on that island had them was likely to be true.
Right before I left Indonesia, there were reports of a 7 or 8-year-old Christian girl who'd started praying for people and they started getting healed. There was a tent city where people of different religious backgrounds would come to get prayed for. I went to a large Prayer Network meeting and one of the men there had seen a blind man healed while he was there.
I had a chance to talk with the pastor who was mentoring the little girl in the greenroom. CBN had interviewed him for the piece they ran on the healing that was going on there, where the Mus|ims had been killing Christians. This pastor, a Charismatic and head of a Reformed denomination there, had been imprisoned for weapons charges. He said he didn't have any weapons. That sort of thing happens.
I also asked a pastor about some rumors I'd heard that he'd left a mission field with some matters left unsettled. He said when he was in the Ukraine, he planted a church. They had a lot of people on staff and he let two young women go because they weren't doing their job well. Suddenly, he was ejected with no trial or meeting or anything. The girls had accused him of some kind of immorality, and he lost his visa and got kicked out of the country without facing any accusers or anything. He even overheard guards talking about him on the train as he was being expelled, talking about doing bodily harm to him, coming to their country, treating their women like that, though he hadn't done it. That was his side of the story.
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
3/14/16 1:04 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| missing the point |
Ed Brewer |
I don't mean to seem like the secular noob in this discussion, but there is a LEGAL requirement in almost every state for a counselor to report such an accusation immediately - it's called an AFFIRMATIVE DUTY TO PROTECT, and leaves the counselor/pastor open to criminal prosecution, possibly even for collusion -- send your jail ministry to hold his hand, but makes sure that hand is on the other side of some very sturdy bars.
_________________
....from Barney Creek to Bountyland through every open door |
Friendly Face
Posts: 312
3/14/16 2:54 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| ...also |
Ed Brewer |
....I've found that Matthew 18 lays the groundwork for the principles Paul was reflecting on - just cover the bases, be fair, and move methodically -- making a good faith effort at equity goes a long way. In strictly spiritual matters, the pattern of the gospel is a perfect template
_________________
....from Barney Creek to Bountyland through every open door |
Friendly Face
Posts: 312
3/14/16 2:57 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: missing the point |
bonnie knox |
I'm glad you brought this up. It should go without saying, but unfortunately not everyone knows it.
The background for this thread was that a woman who wrote a book about being abused by her husband who was a pastor. The following comments were made in that thread.
| Quote: |
I haven't read her book. Just as a general rule, when someone is accused of something, especially a believer, and especially a minister of the gospel, I try to keep in mind that accusations may not always be true or accurate, and may be a bit skewed coming from the perception of one individual. You've probably seen me make other comments like that in other contexts other than abuse. I think you've even commented on it.
The Bible says not to accept a charge against an elder except from two or three witnesses. There are even supposed to be two or three witnesses when a 'brother' is accused of something before the church in Matthew 18. You talk about a book- an accusation made by one witness against a preacher.
...
I haven't read the book, so I can't say that I believe her or not. But if the issue is whether her ex-husband was guilty or not, I shouldn't even make a determination until I've examined the testimony of two or three witnesses, anyway. |
I had also recently read a blog comment that alleged a certain church or churches would not render justice for a young woman if she suffers sexual abuse at the hands of an elder because there are not 2 or 3 witnesses. It boggles the mind.
I also recently read a blog post which suggested the 'before 2 or 3 witnesses' meant, exactly as NBF said, the witnesses are there to witness the accusation and that doesn't mean they had to witness the event which resulted in the accusation.
The whole discussion was detracting from the other discussion underway, so I decided to bring it to a separate thread.
| Ed Brewer wrote: | | I don't mean to seem like the secular noob in this discussion, but there is a LEGAL requirement in almost every state for a counselor to report such an accusation immediately - it's called an AFFIRMATIVE DUTY TO PROTECT, and leaves the counselor/pastor open to criminal prosecution, possibly even for collusion -- send your jail ministry to hold his hand, but makes sure that hand is on the other side of some very sturdy bars. |
|
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
3/14/16 5:44 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Cojak |
I am reading this as 'character' witnesses.
It has always scared me with the Islamic requirement of 2-3 witnesses to the of the rape itself. Or the woman is stoned or raped in public to shame her. That is scary.
My feelings is it must be 'witness to the accusation'. And of course what Ed said takes precedence, and it is a good law BUT DANGEROUS in the respect or possibility of revenge.. 
_________________
Some facts but mostly just my opinion!
jacsher@aol.com
http://shipslog-jack.blogspot.com/ |
01000001 01100011 01110100 01110011
Posts: 24285
3/15/16 11:22 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| ANYBODY can accuse ANYBODY of ANYTHING at ANY TIME |
doyle |
Being ACCUSED is not the same thing as being found guilty. In cases where emotion is running high, it is sometimes very difficult for people to stay calm enough to sort things out before passing judgement.
Sadly, it happens a lot to pastors. ALL IT TAKES is for someone to make a negative statement or accusation. With the way social media works now, within moments, that accusation zooms around the world and even if the pastor is proven as not guilty, he or she will never fully have their good name restored. Some will believe the accusation without even making the smallest attempt to check out the facts.
Even more sad, preachers do this to other preachers too. Is it always intentional? I don't think so, but when an accusation is passed along and is repeated, the repeating of it seems to give it verification.
What to do? When an accusation is made, for guilt to be declared, there must be "two or three witnesses" and NONE of us should believe an accusation until guilt is proven.
We Christians owe it to each other NOT to form judgements based on rumor. In a case of someone being accused of molesting a child (as cited in the top post of this thread), emotions will be running so high until it will be virtually impossible to slow down and do an investigation before passing judgement.
Consider thyself: How would you feel if someone made an accusation against you? Before passing along negative personal information about others, first, do some research in an attempt to find out the truth. Sometimes, things are not as they seem. Sometimes they are not as has been accused, and sometimes, it takes the truth time to be revealed.
So, when unconfirmed rumors come our way, all of us should use caution in forming opinions until the facts are known. That's my opinion. What's yours?
Doyle
_________________
The largest room in the world is the room for improvement. |
Acts-celerate Owner
Posts: 6957
3/16/16 1:09 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
bonnie knox |
| Quote: | | What to do? When an accusation is made, for guilt to be declared, there must be "two or three witnesses" and NONE of us should believe an accusation until guilt is proven. |
In practical terms, what does it mean to have two or three witnesses in the case where a clergy has sexual molested a child? |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
3/16/16 7:59 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Old Time Country Preacher |
| bonnie knox wrote: | | Quote: | | What to do? When an accusation is made, for guilt to be declared, there must be "two or three witnesses" and NONE of us should believe an accusation until guilt is proven. |
In practical terms, what does it mean to have two or three witnesses in the case where a clergy has sexual molested a child? |
In a case where a clergyman has "sexually molested" a child, no need to call the elders. Don't call the DO. Don't call the SO. Don't call Cleveland. Don't call the cops. Make shore it really happened. Then make double shore it really happened, cause you don't wanna make no mistakes.
Then, fill the clip of a Glock Model 21, .45, hollow point shells. Take the reverend to a secluded place, then travel ten miles further. Give the reverend 5 minutes to repent. The clip holds 13 shells. Put one in each knee first. Then one in each hip. Then one in each wrist. Then one in each elbow. Then one in each shoulder. Then take each ear off, right at the skin. Wait 5 minutes and record the yelling/screaming. Then strategically place at last hollow point right tween the eyebrows.
Now, call the cops, DO, SO, Cleveland, etc., tellem bout the abuse, but nobody can't find the perpetrator. Then, take the recording of his last five minutes a yelling/screaming and make it mandatory curriculum for all MIP classes, so all aspiring preachers will know the penalty of molestation. |
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 15570
3/16/16 12:11 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Carolyn Smith |
| Old Time Country Preacher wrote: | | bonnie knox wrote: | | Quote: | | What to do? When an accusation is made, for guilt to be declared, there must be "two or three witnesses" and NONE of us should believe an accusation until guilt is proven. |
In practical terms, what does it mean to have two or three witnesses in the case where a clergy has sexual molested a child? |
In a case where a clergyman has "sexually molested" a child, no need to call the elders. Don't call the DO. Don't call the SO. Don't call Cleveland. Don't call the cops. Make shore it really happened. Then make double shore it really happened, cause you don't wanna make no mistakes.
Then, fill the clip of a Glock Model 21, .45, hollow point shells. Take the reverend to a secluded place, then travel ten miles further. Give the reverend 5 minutes to repent. The clip holds 13 shells. Put one in each knee first. Then one in each hip. Then one in each wrist. Then one in each elbow. Then one in each shoulder. Then take each ear off, right at the skin. Wait 5 minutes and record the yelling/screaming. Then strategically place at last hollow point right tween the eyebrows.
Now, call the cops, DO, SO, Cleveland, etc., tellem bout the abuse, but nobody can't find the perpetrator. Then, take the recording of his last five minutes a yelling/screaming and make it mandatory curriculum for all MIP classes, so all aspiring preachers will know the penalty of molestation. |
I'm assuming you have a scripture to back this up, OTCP.
_________________
"More of Him...less of me."
http://twitter.com/camiracle77
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=691241499&ref=name |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5923
3/16/16 9:00 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Old Time Country Preacher |
| Carolyn Smith wrote: | | Old Time Country Preacher wrote: | | bonnie knox wrote: | | Quote: | | What to do? When an accusation is made, for guilt to be declared, there must be "two or three witnesses" and NONE of us should believe an accusation until guilt is proven. |
In practical terms, what does it mean to have two or three witnesses in the case where a clergy has sexual molested a child? |
In a case where a clergyman has "sexually molested" a child, no need to call the elders. Don't call the DO. Don't call the SO. Don't call Cleveland. Don't call the cops. Make shore it really happened. Then make double shore it really happened, cause you don't wanna make no mistakes.
Then, fill the clip of a Glock Model 21, .45, hollow point shells. Take the reverend to a secluded place, then travel ten miles further. Give the reverend 5 minutes to repent. The clip holds 13 shells. Put one in each knee first. Then one in each hip. Then one in each wrist. Then one in each elbow. Then one in each shoulder. Then take each ear off, right at the skin. Wait 5 minutes and record the yelling/screaming. Then strategically place at last hollow point right tween the eyebrows.
Now, call the cops, DO, SO, Cleveland, etc., tellem bout the abuse, but nobody can't find the perpetrator. Then, take the recording of his last five minutes a yelling/screaming and make it mandatory curriculum for all MIP classes, so all aspiring preachers will know the penalty of molestation. |
I'm assuming you have a scripture to back this up, OTCP. |
As much scripture as Hinn, Bakker, Copeland an ilk have fer their doctrines.  |
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 15570
3/16/16 9:28 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Carolyn Smith |
|
|
| |
|
| |
Old Time Country Preacher |
| Carolyn Smith wrote: | | Old Time Country Preacher wrote: |
As much scripture as Hinn, Bakker, Copeland an ilk have fer their doctrines. |
You are supporting a false doctrine? I am aghast. |
You know the ole timer is just joshin in at post. |
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 15570
3/16/16 10:15 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Carolyn Smith |
I know that I missed most of this conversation, but I wanted to bring up another facet of this discussion, in case Bonnie is interested.
I always think that OT background is fascinating in understanding the NT. So if you go back to the scripture in Deuteronomy that talks about two or three witnesses, I think it gives interesting insight.
Deut 17:2-5 talks about putting someone to death for idolatry. He is only to be stoned on the testimony of 2-3 witnesses, and not on the testimony of 1 witness. Vs 7 tells us that the first witness against the sinner does not only speak against him, but he also throws the first stone. I have read that in some instances this was not just a rock but rather a huge stone (more like a boulder) that could cause death, but I can't verify this, because I don't know where I read it.
So the person testifying was not just speaking against the person, he had to be willing to put his money where his mouth was and participate in the execution. Further, Deut 19:14-21 tells us that if a person testified falsely against another and it was proven, the false witness would receive the same penalty the one falsely accused would have received. So if you testified falsely against someone else and they were stoned, you would be stoned if your witness was false. The purpose of all of this was to put away sin & act as a deterrent against sin and against false testimony.
I would also like to point out that the woman in the book that Bonnie referred to in the other thread DID have two witnesses from what I have read about it. She waited until her son was 13 so that he could testify against his father's abuse as well. So there was her testimony and her son's that abuse occurred...probably not of the rape but apparently there were also beatings.
False accusations happen. But it does not take away from the fact that abuse happens too...probably far too often in church and pastoral settings than any of us want to admit. It is always wrong, and women submitting will not fix it.
_________________
"More of Him...less of me."
http://twitter.com/camiracle77
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=691241499&ref=name |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5923
3/25/16 12:24 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
