Why does the whole body of elders in a congregation not serve on a judicial committee?

[Anna]

When a judicial committee is formed, why does it only consist of three elders (usually) but does not involve the whole body of elders? And is there a scripture this is based on?

[Evacuated]

2 hours ago, Anna said:

When a judicial committee is formed, why does it only consist of three elders (usually)

It is not a rule:

km Sep 77:

A judicial committee need not be limited to three members. The Scriptures do not give any specific number of older men who handled cases of wrongdoing in the early Christian congregation. Older men who served in the community during Israel’s history may have heard cases according to their availability at the city gate. For example, Boaz selected ten of the older men of the city to hear the matter he had to present. (Ruth 4:1, 2) However, everyone in the community was under the Law covenant arrangement then, and this added to the number for whom the older men were responsible. Within each congregation today, the number would not be that great in most cases, so three would usually be sufficient to have on a judicial committee. Where the gravity of what is involved warrants having four or even five experienced men to serve, this may be arranged.
 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

I have known MANY elders whose children have "left the Truth", because their fathers paid more attention to congregational matters than their own children.  There is such a thing as "theocratic" burnout.

And that fire has an insatiable hunger.

[Anna]

19 hours ago, Outta Here said:

It is not a rule:

km Sep 77:

A judicial committee need not be limited to three members. The Scriptures do not give any specific number of older men who handled cases of wrongdoing in the early Christian congregation. Older men who served in the community during Israel’s history may have heard cases according to their availability at the city gate. For example, Boaz selected ten of the older men of the city to hear the matter he had to present. (Ruth 4:1, 2) However, everyone in the community was under the Law covenant arrangement then, and this added to the number for whom the older men were responsible. Within each congregation today, the number would not be that great in most cases, so three would usually be sufficient to have on a judicial committee. Where the gravity of what is involved warrants having four or even five experienced men to serve, this may be arranged.
 

Ok, I will rephrase it. Why does a judicial committee not consist of the entire body of elders in a given congregation.

A little bit of background info: This question was raised by someone who was concerned about justice being carried out correctly, especially if a situation involved one elder who was being accused. How does a judicial committee judge one of their "own", especially, if there is a possibility of bias due to obvious friendship above and beyond just a brother in the congregation. So for the purpose of an example, lets say the BOE of a congregation consists of 8 elders, one of whom had been accused of a sin, which if unresolved, could lead to a disfellowshipping, or at least the deletion of his position. So that leaves 7 elders who decide to form a judicial committee (on the grounds that the situation with the accused elder had not been settled). Why can't all 7 elders consist of the committee?

 

[Evacuated]

2 hours ago, Anna said:

Why can't all 7 elders consist of the committee?

THEY CAN!

Lets' put the congregation and the elders' families on hold for commitees to do their work!

Bur really, it isn't necessary, isn't required, they do not want to, you can think of other reasons yourself surely.

There is no rule that says they can't and no rule that says they must. Or were you seeking one that says they must? The body of elders delegate to a commitee and agree on its members. And that commitee doesn't have to be only 3 and nor does it have to consist only of local brothers.

2 hours ago, Anna said:

a possibility of bias due to obvious friendship above and beyond just a brother in the congregation

If this is the case, get elders in that have no friendship bias, and if that didn't happen, there is an appeal process.

Not sure what the problem is here??

I do not think there is any point in getting to anecdotal or hypothetical examples here.

There is no rule on numbers for a judicial commitee other than 3 at least,, and no restriction on who they are, other than qualified. Practical violations of this are a matter for the appeals process.

 

[Anna]

1 hour ago, Outta Here said:

If this is the case, get elders in that have no friendship bias,

Is there an option for a publisher, the one doing the accusing, to say which elders he wants on the committee? I don't think there is. Has the publisher got any say in who should handle the issue if the publisher feels the elders who are handling it are not suitable?

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

Just remember ... in Jesus' time, such trials were held before the whole Christian Congregation, while among the Jews, before Roman  Military Occupation,  such were held in the city gates, where EVERYONE could see, speak up, and judge the judges.... and judge the PROCESS of Justice.

Among the Jews, the "whole body" of Jews involved in adjudication of sin and crimes worked well for several thousand years ... and it worked well in the Early Christian Congregation for about 270 years ... until the rise of the Roman Catholic Church, whose evolution was guided by Roman political concerns, under the lead of that master politician, Emperor Constantine.

.... which is how the system evolved into what we have now.

[Evacuated]

13 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

in Jesus' time, such trials were held before the whole Christian Congregation

There seems to be either an anachronism or a confusion of tense here depending on your position. 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

What does that mean in English?

[Evacuated]

21 hours ago, Anna said:

Has the publisher got any say in who should handle the issue if the publisher feels the elders who are handling it are not suitable?

It is not the perogative of a publisher to choose the elders that deal with a judicial matter that involves a proven offense that could result in a disfellowshipping. However, there could well be a suitability issue that an accuser (if it was that kind of a case) might make known. This might well influence the selection of elders. If elders were unaware of such an issue prior to the forming of a committee, it is still possible that alternative arrangements could be made. The responsibility for determinations in these cases lies with the body of elders though, not the "accuser".

[Evacuated]

8 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

What does that mean in English?

Come on James. What do you mean by "Jesus' time"? 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

27 minutes ago, Outta Here said:

There seems to be either an anachronism or a confusion of tense here depending on your position. 

 

16 minutes ago, Outta Here said:

Come on James. What do you mean by "Jesus' time"? 

Was that your answer?