The CAM scandal links and assorted other topics thread

[Hats Off]

One of the deeper questions that CAM is hopefully asking is, what is it about our institutional (supporting Church?) culture that brought about this closed-door response in the first place? And furthermore, was it the same thing that led Eli W and Paul W to believe they knew enough to safely place Jeriah back on the mission-field, while at the same time keeping what they knew to themselves? And, for that matter, was it the same thing that allowed Jeriah's home church leadership to think they could manage and understand his wrongdoing and repentance quietly by themselves? Plus, was it the same thing that allowed those Mennonite mission leaders who first new about Jeriah's crimes in Haiti to release the situation once they had reported Jeriah's abuse to CAM leaders? And at the basest level, might it be the same thing that somehow contributes to the context where abuse occurs in our circles in the first place between those in authority and those without?

The situation is complex, but I think there might a common cultural thread here - I'd call it an "unchecked patriarchy."

It is a sincere belief among Conservative Mennonites, on the parts of both leaders and followers, men and women, that leadership authority for church and home and mission is God-ordained (and community confirmed) - and thus must be trusted implicitly and obeyed willingly. Because of this belief we CMs tend to place our leaders unfairly on a pedestal, give them unchecked authority, and expect that they will have the godly wisdom and humility they need to lead uprightly, discretely, and without question make the right call. Thus, we also tend to believe that transparency and accountability somehow betrays that trust and shows a lack of faith and glassenheit.

We are expected to honour and trust our leadership, unquestioningly!! Questioning anything is seen as questioning their authority! This is a major problem that continues to widen the gap between leaders and those they are ordained to shepherd. There is a reason why Ezekiel 34 vs 18 & 19 are quoted by the sheep. There is a loss of confidence and respect on one hand while on the other there is unchecked patriarchy. This is a recipe for more trouble.

[Wade]

One of the deeper questions that CAM is hopefully asking is, what is it about our institutional (supporting Church?) culture that brought about this closed-door response in the first place? And furthermore, was it the same thing that led Eli W and Paul W to believe they knew enough to safely place Jeriah back on the mission-field, while at the same time keeping what they knew to themselves? And, for that matter, was it the same thing that allowed Jeriah's home church leadership to think they could manage and understand his wrongdoing and repentance quietly by themselves? Plus, was it the same thing that allowed those Mennonite mission leaders who first new about Jeriah's crimes in Haiti to release the situation once they had reported Jeriah's abuse to CAM leaders? And at the basest level, might it be the same thing that somehow contributes to the context where abuse occurs in our circles in the first place between those in authority and those without?

The situation is complex, but I think there might a common cultural thread here - I'd call it an "unchecked patriarchy."

It is a sincere belief among Conservative Mennonites, on the parts of both leaders and followers, men and women, that leadership authority for church and home and mission is God-ordained (and community confirmed) - and thus must be trusted implicitly and obeyed willingly. Because of this belief we CMs tend to place our leaders unfairly on a pedestal, give them unchecked authority, and expect that they will have the godly wisdom and humility they need to lead uprightly, discretely, and without question make the right call. Thus, we also tend to believe that transparency and accountability somehow betrays that trust and shows a lack of faith and glassenheit.

I wish people would omit the word and idea that the situation is complex! Difficult and complex are two very different things that you are confusing.

All I hear when people say it is complex is that we are trying to minimize the damage in the situation by applying at least some situational ethics and compromising at least some principle.

Dan Z, you have fair words but then slip in some down right aweful ideas among your nice words.

[ragpicker]

Is there any risk of the sentence being challenged because the judge considered a separate case for which Mast has not been indicted or charged for?

Is there any risk to the success of future prosecution because the judge did this?

What is the legal reasoning for the judge to have done this?

Separate question, is it appropriate for the judge to have done that? (I readily admit, that the judge may have been portrayed incorrectly. It’s the news media, after all.)

I admit, this bothers me a bit. This isn’t the first time I’ve been uneasy with this judge. It almost sounds like he’s using emotion in his making of rulings. That’s a really bad idea, if he is.

I’m not questioning the sentence. If you want to make it about that, let me remind you that you might be happy this judge did what he did, but the same principle applies to rulings influenced towards leniency because of emotion. Either emotion influenced rulings are ok and you have to accept them no matter where they fall, or they’re not ok. I’m not saying this judge allowed emotion to affect his ruling. I’m only saying I’ve been given cause to wonder.

One more thing... this is a matter of justice and effectiveness in stopping this scourge. Don’t twist what I’m saying into me supporting Mast or trying to tamp anything down.

[Wade]

One of the deeper questions that CAM is hopefully asking is, what is it about our institutional (supporting Church?) culture that brought about this closed-door response in the first place? And furthermore, was it the same thing that led Eli W and Paul W to believe they knew enough to safely place Jeriah back on the mission-field, while at the same time keeping what they knew to themselves? And, for that matter, was it the same thing that allowed Jeriah's home church leadership to think they could manage and understand his wrongdoing and repentance quietly by themselves? Plus, was it the same thing that allowed those Mennonite mission leaders who first new about Jeriah's crimes in Haiti to release the situation once they had reported Jeriah's abuse to CAM leaders? And at the basest level, might it be the same thing that somehow contributes to the context where abuse occurs in our circles in the first place between those in authority and those without?

The situation is complex, but I think there might a common cultural thread here - I'd call it an "unchecked patriarchy."

It is a sincere belief among Conservative Mennonites, on the parts of both leaders and followers, men and women, that leadership authority for church and home and mission is God-ordained (and community confirmed) - and thus must be trusted implicitly and obeyed willingly. Because of this belief we CMs tend to place our leaders unfairly on a pedestal, give them unchecked authority, and expect that they will have the godly wisdom and humility they need to lead uprightly, discretely, and without question make the right call. Thus, we also tend to believe that transparency and accountability somehow betrays that trust and shows a lack of faith and glassenheit.

I'll further say your use of the word "complex" only further influences the issue you are in fact calling out...

[Ken]

Is there any risk of the sentence being challenged because the judge considered a separate case for which Mast has not been indicted or charged for?

Is there any risk to the success of future prosecution because the judge did this?

What is the legal reasoning for the judge to have done this?

Separate question, is it appropriate for the judge to have done that? (I readily admit, that the judge may have been portrayed incorrectly. It’s the news media, after all.)

I admit, this bothers me a bit. This isn’t the first time I’ve been uneasy with this judge. It almost sounds like he’s using emotion in his making of rulings. That’s a really bad idea, if he is.

I’m not questioning the sentence. If you want to make it about that, let me remind you that you might be happy this judge did what he did, but the same principle applies to rulings influenced towards leniency because of emotion. Either emotion influenced rulings are ok and you have to accept them no matter where they fall, or they’re not ok. I’m not saying this judge allowed emotion to affect his ruling. I’m only saying I’ve been given cause to wonder.

One more thing... this is a matter of justice and effectiveness in stopping this scourge. Don’t twist what I’m saying into me supporting Mast or trying to tamp anything down.

You are confusing the trial process with the sentencing process.

During the trial they can only consider evidence related to the cases at hand. It would have been considered prejudicial, for example, for the prosecution to bring up the Haiti cases as evidence of his guilt in the Ohio cases and would have perhaps created a mistrial.

The sentencing phase is completely different. Judges can and do look at all manner of both mitigating and aggravating factors such as past history when determining the appropriate sentence. A pattern or history of similar offenses is the most common aggravating factor used in sentencing. Here is a description of the process and a relevant quote from the article: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia ... g-faq.html

If the judge has discretion to determine the sentence, the defense may bring to a judge's attention an infinite number of factual circumstances that may move the judge to impose a lighter sentence. The following are examples of such circumstances (called "mitigating" factors):

The offender has little or no history of criminal conduct.
The offender was an accessory to the crime (helped the main offender) but was not the main actor.
The offender committed the crime when under great personal stress; for example, he or she had lost a job, was late on rent, and had just been in a car wreck.
No one was hurt, and the crime was committed in a manner that was unlikely to have hurt anyone.

Just as mitigating circumstances can sway a judge to lessen a sentence, "aggravating" circumstances can compel a judge to "throw the book at" an offender. A previous record of the same type of offense is the most common aggravating factor. Other aggravating circumstances grow out of the way a crime was committed, as when an offender is particularly cruel to a victim. Sometimes, laws themselves specify aggravating factors, such as the use of a weapon.

[appleman2006]

Is there any risk of the sentence being challenged because the judge considered a separate case for which Mast has not been indicted or charged for?

Is there any risk to the success of future prosecution because the judge did this?

What is the legal reasoning for the judge to have done this?

Separate question, is it appropriate for the judge to have done that? (I readily admit, that the judge may have been portrayed incorrectly. It’s the news media, after all.)

I admit, this bothers me a bit. This isn’t the first time I’ve been uneasy with this judge. It almost sounds like he’s using emotion in his making of rulings. That’s a really bad idea, if he is.

I’m not questioning the sentence. If you want to make it about that, let me remind you that you might be happy this judge did what he did, but the same principle applies to rulings influenced towards leniency because of emotion. Either emotion influenced rulings are ok and you have to accept them no matter where they fall, or they’re not ok. I’m not saying this judge allowed emotion to affect his ruling. I’m only saying I’ve been given cause to wonder.

One more thing... this is a matter of justice and effectiveness in stopping this scourge. Don’t twist what I’m saying into me supporting Mast or trying to tamp anything down.

Ragpicker, You make a good point here and were this the average case I think there is a very good chance it would be challenged on appeal based on that very issue. However were the lawyer in this case to convince Jeriah to appeal I would hope that his church that claims they will keep him accountable would show how that bad looks.

Mind you based on this church's record, who knows? I am trying to give his church the benefit of the doubt and hope they were not aware of the statements Jeriah just made here during the plea bargain in regards to the fact he claimed it was consensual and that he could not help himself because of the conditions. But really I am appalled and it does kind of negate the things Ernie said earlier as well. I have simply lost all confidence in anyone related to that church being of any help to him if these are proper accounts of what was said.

The whole thing continues to make me sick.

[appleman2006]

That’s good news hillperson - can you tell us what was said?

What I heard was that they regret not being more open about what was happening at CAM early on. They acted with good intentions but now looking back the realize they didn’t always handle things correctly.

They talked about the sin of one of their associates (meaning Jeriah) and the far reaching damage that was done.

They are working on educating and putting policy in place to prevent this abuse from happening again.

Also they apologized to their donors and Thanked those that stuck with them and extended grace and understanding to those who could no longer support CAM.

I was impressed with David Troyer’s openness and humility.

Does that answer your question?

Thank you hillperson. This was helpful.

Organizational crises, like personal crises, are painful but can bring about growth and strength if they are handled correctly. David was right to apologize for CAM's initial "circle-the-wagons" closed-door instincts (despite advice to the contrary), and humility and openness will be needed going forward. My prayer for CAM is that they emerge from this a wiser and stronger organization to continue to ably do good behalf of Jesus.

One other question I have of hillperson. Was anything said about Eli and Paul being permanently being removed from any responsibility? I understand that they have not been attending any meetings and are for all intents and purposes removed but I really think it should be publicly stated in light of the fact that the initial response was announced as temporary for the time being.

[appleman2006]

If going through the motions without having your heart in it is a dangerous sign, then Mennonites better wake up to the possibility that their churches are full of people doing this.

It is easy to look down on Jeriah's church, but we have to remember that this is only one tragedy. We have been hearing rumblings of abuse being widespread among Mennonites. How are the churches that you know of doing?

Have they put any effort into making sure this couldn't happen under their watch, do you have confidence that abuse will be taken care of instead of being swept under the rug, are people encouraged to go through the motions no matter how they feel about what they are doing?

I, for one, do not think his is the only church where this could happen, nor do I think this is an isolated happening among the Mennonite churches.

I understand your concern and actually agree with it. However I also want to go on record as saying that if I were not 100 percent confident that processes have been put in place in the church I am presently attending that would at least greatly lessen the chance of this type of thing happening there I would be looking for a new church.

[Dan Z]

One of the deeper questions that CAM is hopefully asking is, what is it about our institutional (supporting Church?) culture that brought about this closed-door response in the first place? And furthermore, was it the same thing that led Eli W and Paul W to believe they knew enough to safely place Jeriah back on the mission-field, while at the same time keeping what they knew to themselves? And, for that matter, was it the same thing that allowed Jeriah's home church leadership to think they could manage and understand his wrongdoing and repentance quietly by themselves? Plus, was it the same thing that allowed those Mennonite mission leaders who first new about Jeriah's crimes in Haiti to release the situation once they had reported Jeriah's abuse to CAM leaders? And at the basest level, might it be the same thing that somehow contributes to the context where abuse occurs in our circles in the first place between those in authority and those without?

The situation is complex, but I think there might a common cultural thread here - I'd call it an "unchecked patriarchy."

It is a sincere belief among Conservative Mennonites, on the parts of both leaders and followers, men and women, that leadership authority for church and home and mission is God-ordained (and community confirmed) - and thus must be trusted implicitly and obeyed willingly. Because of this belief we CMs tend to place our leaders unfairly on a pedestal, give them unchecked authority, and expect that they will have the godly wisdom and humility they need to lead uprightly, discretely, and without question make the right call. Thus, we also tend to believe that transparency and accountability somehow betrays that trust and shows a lack of faith and glassenheit.

I wish people would omit the word and idea that the situation is complex! Difficult and complex are two very different things that you are confusing.

All I hear when people say it is complex is that we are trying to minimize the damage in the situation by applying at least some situational ethics and compromising at least some principle.

Dan Z, you have fair words but then slip in some down right aweful ideas among your nice words.

I'll further say your use of the word "complex" only further influences the issue you are in fact calling out...

Hi Wade.

You reacted strongly to my choice of the word "complex" to describe the whole Jeriah/CAM tragedy. I was mostly just recognizing that something like this has a lot of parts (organizational, parental, church, mission context, etc), and shouldn't be overly simplified. Help me understand what it is about the idea of complexity that you find so distasteful?

[joshuabgood]

One of the deeper questions that CAM is hopefully asking is, what is it about our institutional (supporting Church?) culture that brought about this closed-door response in the first place? And furthermore, was it the same thing that led Eli W and Paul W to believe they knew enough to safely place Jeriah back on the mission-field, while at the same time keeping what they knew to themselves? And, for that matter, was it the same thing that allowed Jeriah's home church leadership to think they could manage and understand his wrongdoing and repentance quietly by themselves? Plus, was it the same thing that allowed those Mennonite mission leaders who first new about Jeriah's crimes in Haiti to release the situation once they had reported Jeriah's abuse to CAM leaders? And at the basest level, might it be the same thing that somehow contributes to the context where abuse occurs in our circles in the first place between those in authority and those without?

The situation is complex, but I think there might a common cultural thread here - I'd call it an "unchecked patriarchy."

It is a sincere belief among Conservative Mennonites, on the parts of both leaders and followers, men and women, that because leadership authority for church and home and mission is God-ordained (and community confirmed), it must be trusted implicitly and obeyed willingly. Because of this belief we CMs tend to place our leaders unfairly on a pedestal, give them unchecked authority, and expect that they will have the godly wisdom and humility they need to lead uprightly, discretely, and without question make the right call. Thus, we also tend to believe that transparency and accountability somehow betrays that trust and shows a lack of faith and glassenheit.

I agree with what was written regarding patriarchy. Take the following with a grain of salt as it is a bit of a rant...still perhaps it is worth something.

In my opinion, we (speaking broadly and personally as one who specifically identifies as a conservative Anabaptist and has been one for all of my adult life including now) have to guard against a serious underlying problem with arrogance as a people group. This blinds us into group think. We think our way is the best...we think ourselves the best at pretty much everything...including our theology, our better church discipline practices, our better counseling methods, our better style of dress, our better ministries, our better schools, our better economic approach and work ethic, our holier hobbies, our more righteous music, our holy judgement of other cultures, how we righteously deal with crises, and on and on. We are the perfect judges who decide who is good enough to take communion, how modest is the right amount, who is good enough to speak in our pulpits, good enough to lead our schools, good enough to serve on our boards, we understand what the "real race problems" are in this country, we know what tax policy will be the best for everyone...and we worry a lot about what other people, like us, think and how we are perceived. We build long policies seeking to codify our "best" ways. We unwittingly, at best, alienate entire cultures and groups of people with our "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" arrogance. We look with skepticism at those outside our ethnic enclaves.

Bottom line, we really believe we know best! What we don't see, as often as we should, is that too often we are poor, blind, miserable, and wretched. Having a form of godliness but denying the power there of. We relish our comfort and leisure time and our entertainment. We enjoy the good life. And we believe we have earned and deserve it all. (Sorry I know that is strong language...and it applies to me also).

This belief, that we know best, and are the best judges, protects us from questioning our judgments. And from inviting and hearing outside advice into our institutions and judgments. We are effectively our own echo chamber.