Is It Scriptural To Accuse Your Bishops?

Monks of Jordanville and others of the Eastern Orthodox Church, pay attention. 

It is the responsibility of the people to accuse a bishop who is in sin. The idea that to do so is sinful and that bishops or priests are to be shielded from such accountability is cultish. Here is the scriptural mandate: 

"Do not accept an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses." 1 Tim 5:19 

The wording of this Scripture is akin to, "Do not drive a car except with a license." Does this statement suggest you cannot drive a car? No, it suggests the proper way to do it. Likewise, does 1 Tim 5:19 suggest you cannot accuse an elder? No, it suggests the proper way to do it.

This passage from 1 Timothy 5:19 emphasizes the importance of fairness and accountability in leadership within the Church. The requirement of two or three witnesses aligns with Jewish legal traditions, ensuring that accusations are not based on hearsay or personal vendettas but on credible testimony.

The interpretation suggests that the verse is not about merely hearing accusations but about establishing their (the accusations) validity. This protects both the accused and the integrity of the Church, preventing unjust claims from causing division. At the same time, it does not allow wrongdoing to persist unchecked. Leaders are expected to be reasonable and maintain a good reputation among the people. If multiple credible accusations arise, reason dictates that the leader should be held accountable.

"Except on the basis of two or three witnesses..." 

"It was standard practice in Jewish law that there had to be two witnesses to any act before it could be conclusively adjudicated (Num. 35:30; Deut. 17:6; 19:15; Matt. 18:16; 2 Cor. 13:1; Heb. 10:28). This is to prevent malicious accusers from tearing the Church apart. If an elder does something offensive, the individual wronged is to go to the person and work out the problem. If there is no solution, he or she is to take others (Matthew 18:15-17). At that point, there would be witnesses. This is to be a general practice. It is not to be a law that allows for unrighteousness to continue. 

The Bible is not against common sense, and one of the requirements of leaders is that they are to be “reasonable,” and we write in the commentary on 1 Timothy 3:3 above: “The concepts of “moderation, forbearance, gentleness, sweet reasonableness” all touch a side of the full meaning of this word. The meaning is yielding, not insisting on one’s legal rights to the end that the legal rights become moral wrongs.”

If a leader had case after case where usually credible people said that they were spoken or acted against one on one by a certain individual in leadership, but that the leader had denied what he had done when the wronged person went to him to rectify the situation, and again when the individual went back to the leader with witnesses about both the original problem and the denial, then “reason” would dictate that the accused leader must be doing something wrong, or so many people would not witness to the same fault in his life. 

Leaders are to have a good report among the people, and when that ceases to be the case, the leader will cease to be effective and should step out of leadership, or be removed by others."  From REV Commentary

"However, do not be afraid of them, because there is nothing concealed that will not be revealed, and nothing hidden that will not be made known. What I tell you in the darkness, speak in the light; and what you hear whispered in your ear, proclaim on the rooftops. And do not be afraid of those who kill the body but are not able to kill the soul. But rather fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna...But whoever denies me before people, I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven." Matthew 10: 26-28,33