The CAM scandal links and assorted other topics thread

[joshuabgood]

From Trudy's blog

It does not change the fact that he (Stanley Fox) knew. Why would a troubled young man approach a pastor about Jeriah, if it was consensual relationship? Why would that not alert a pastor to find out what is going on?

I wonder what Stanley Fox’s side of the story would be? There are always two sides to a story, (sometimes three sides). Were there other circumstances, incidents, claims made, that possibly would have made Stanley not take the accusations more seriously? I can imagine missionaries have to be very discerning when accusations are made as people can say anything or make any accusations. Was there not enough evidence to back up the accusations?

Granted, Stanley made a big mistake, which he acknowledges and is deeply regretful and sorry about. Are we seeing a Godly Servant being pronounced "guilty", based on a weak “he said, she said” premise? If so, that is extremely sad.

As you said, Stanley has willingly, (he actually wanted to), acknowledged his mistake. He carries deep sorrow about this. He has not taken a position of defensiveness. And he feels deeply for the victims. Trudy's question is fair, and that's the point. Stanley has acknowledged his mistake in this instance, as has been pointed out. He has willingly offered, publicly to resign. I think, after being confronted in a very public fashion, Stanley has evidenced how a follower of Jesus should respond when confronted. He confessed his mistake. And he makes no defense for his position. I respect him. He is so far the only one to actually apologize publicly, even though he is clearly the least culpable of the people that knew, and had the least information.

*Full disclosure...Stanley is my uncle.

[Aurien]

From Trudy's blog

It does not change the fact that he (Stanley Fox) knew. Why would a troubled young man approach a pastor about Jeriah, if it was consensual relationship? Why would that not alert a pastor to find out what is going on?

I wonder what Stanley Fox’s side of the story would be? There are always two sides to a story, (sometimes three sides). Were there other circumstances, incidents, claims made, that possibly would have made Stanley not take the accusations more seriously? I can imagine missionaries have to be very discerning when accusations are made as people can say anything or make any accusations. Was there not enough evidence to back up the accusations?

Granted, Stanley made a big mistake, which he acknowledges and is deeply regretful and sorry about. Are we seeing a Godly Servant being pronounced "guilty", based on a weak “he said, she said” premise? If so, that is extremely sad.

As you said, Stanley has willingly, (he actually wanted to), acknowledged his mistake. He carries deep sorrow about this. He has not taken a position of defensiveness. And he feels deeply for the victims. Trudy's question is fair, and that's the point. Stanley has acknowledged his mistake in this instance, as has been pointed out. He has willingly offered, publicly to resign. I think, after being confronted in a very public fashion, Stanley has evidenced how a follower of Jesus should respond when confronted. He confessed his mistake. And he makes no defense for his position. I respect him. He is so far the only one to actually apologize publicly, even though he is clearly the least culpable of the people that knew, and had the least information.

*Full disclosure...Stanley is my uncle.

It's good that at least one person is acknowledging that they messed up. I wish Paul Weaver and Eli Weaver would do the same.

[Grace]

From Trudy's blog

It does not change the fact that he (Stanley Fox) knew. Why would a troubled young man approach a pastor about Jeriah, if it was consensual relationship? Why would that not alert a pastor to find out what is going on?

I wonder what Stanley Fox’s side of the story would be? There are always two sides to a story, (sometimes three sides). Were there other circumstances, incidents, claims made, that possibly would have made Stanley not take the accusations more seriously? I can imagine missionaries have to be very discerning when accusations are made as people can say anything or make any accusations. Was there not enough evidence to back up the accusations?

Granted, Stanley made a big mistake, which he acknowledges and is deeply regretful and sorry about. Are we seeing a Godly Servant being pronounced "guilty", based on a weak “he said, she said” premise? If so, that is extremely sad.

As you said, Stanley has willingly, (he actually wanted to), acknowledged his mistake. He carries deep sorrow about this. He has not taken a position of defensiveness. And he feels deeply for the victims. Trudy's question is fair, and that's the point. Stanley has acknowledged his mistake in this instance, as has been pointed out. He has willingly offered, publicly to resign. I think, after being confronted in a very public fashion, Stanley has evidenced how a follower of Jesus should respond when confronted. He confessed his mistake. And he makes no defense for his position. I respecterr him. He is so far the only one to actually apologize publicly, even though he is clearly the least culpable of the people that knew, and had the least information.

*Full disclosure...Stanley is my uncle.

I was referring to Trudy asking “why The accusation didn’t alert the pastor?” . I respectfully disagree that, that is a fair question, as she doesn’t know his side of the story.

Yes, I know he is your uncle, and he needs our prayers, support, and love.

[Aurien]

From Trudy's blog


I wonder what Stanley Fox’s side of the story would be? There are always two sides to a story, (sometimes three sides). Were there other circumstances, incidents, claims made, that possibly would have made Stanley not take the accusations more seriously? I can imagine missionaries have to be very discerning when accusations are made as people can say anything or make any accusations. Was there not enough evidence to back up the accusations?

Granted, Stanley made a big mistake, which he acknowledges and is deeply regretful and sorry about. Are we seeing a Godly Servant being pronounced "guilty", based on a weak “he said, she said” premise? If so, that is extremely sad.

As you said, Stanley has willingly, (he actually wanted to), acknowledged his mistake. He carries deep sorrow about this. He has not taken a position of defensiveness. And he feels deeply for the victims. Trudy's question is fair, and that's the point. Stanley has acknowledged his mistake in this instance, as has been pointed out. He has willingly offered, publicly to resign. I think, after being confronted in a very public fashion, Stanley has evidenced how a follower of Jesus should respond when confronted. He confessed his mistake. And he makes no defense for his position. I respecterr him. He is so far the only one to actually apologize publicly, even though he is clearly the least culpable of the people that knew, and had the least information.

*Full disclosure...Stanley is my uncle.

I was referring to Trudy asking “why The accusation didn’t alert the pastor?” . I respectfully disagree that, that is a fair question, as she doesn’t know his side of the story.

Yes, I know he is your uncle, and he needs our prayers, support, and love.

Wasn't that statement his side of the story?

[joshuabgood]

I was referring to Trudy asking “why The accusation didn’t alert the pastor?” . I respectfully disagree that, that is a fair question, as she doesn’t know his side of the story.

Yes, I know he is your uncle, and he needs our prayers, support, and love

Grace, thanks for your comments. I think I would draw a distinction between thinking something is a fair question and saying that there is "cause for complaint." I think the question Trudy articulated, is likely one others (particularly others that may have been sent home from CAM for other reasons) would have as well. (I didn't intend to pass judgement). In this case the underlying point Trudy was making, that folks at CAM, including Stanley, should have followed up on it, is a valid in my view. And Stanley agrees with it.

If you know Stanley is my uncle perhaps we know each other IRL. If that is the case please PM me and introduce yourself. (Beyond that, I would encourage you, like Dan Z, Ernie Eby, Appleman, and others (including myself), to identify yourself on the board. Generally my feeling is it raises the level of the discussion =).

And lastly, FWIW, I did get a chance to meet personally with Stanley on a couple of occasions (discussing his statement etc) this past week and lay hands on him and pray for him. I love him and respect him. He is a man, that while not perfect, is somebody I identify with and admire.

[Dan Z]

Joshuabgood - I too will give testimony to your uncle's character. I've know him for about 25 years now, mostly in the context of Haiti ministry. I have deep respect for him as a man of high moral character and deep love for the Haitian people. I think he has done the right thing in his statement, and has been truthful about what he knew and when.

[Grace]

Grace, thanks for your comments. I think I would draw a distinction between thinking something is a fair question and saying that there is "cause for complaint." I think the question Trudy articulated, is likely one others (particularly others that may have been sent home from CAM for other reasons) would have as well. (I didn't intend to pass judgement). In this case the underlying point Trudy was making, that folks at CAM, including Stanley, should have followed up on it, is a valid in my view. And Stanley agrees with it.

If you know Stanley is my uncle perhaps we know each other IRL. If that is the case please PM me and introduce yourself. (Beyond that, I would encourage you, like Dan Z, Ernie Eby, Appleman, and others (including myself), to identify yourself on the board. Generally my feeling is it raises the level of the discussion =).

And lastly, FWIW, I did get a chance to meet personally with Stanley on a couple of occasions (discussing his statement etc) this past week and lay hands on him and pray for him. I love him and respect him. He is a man, that while not perfect, is somebody I identify with and admire.

Thanks for you thoughtful response. I have sat under Stanley’s sermons numerous times, even though we are of a different conference. And I see him responding to this tragedy just the way I know him, a Godly humble servant of The Lord. I have no doubt he is greatly grieved by how this all transpired.

From what you have described, he is broken, extremely sorry and has made a clear concise statement on the matter. Who hasn't looked back on our lives and realized we made some serious mistakes?

So what is the point, in continuing asking questions or continuing in pointing out they should have followed up on this? Stanley and the others, already are very well aware of what they should have done. What is the purpose of bringing it up again? It sounds like rubbing salt in his wounds in not accepting his humble contrition and moving on to caring for the victims.

[Josh]

Grace,

It’s pretty important to (a) understand how this happened and went on for a decade, and (b) change things so that it does not happen again.

[Grace]

Grace,

It’s pretty important to (a) understand how this happened and went on for a decade, and (b) change things so that it does not happen again.

I agree it is important to be aware of the mistakes made as a preventative measure against repeating them. But to continue naming and pointing out the specific men who made the mistakes, especially those like Stanley, who are deeply remorseful, crosses the line and serves no purpose.

[Aurien]

Grace,

It’s pretty important to (a) understand how this happened and went on for a decade, and (b) change things so that it does not happen again.

I agree it is important to be aware of the mistakes made as a preventative measure against repeating them. But to continue pointing out the men who made the mistakes, especially those like Stanley, who are deeply remorseful, and have expressed that, crosses the line and serves no purpose.

In order to be aware of the mistakes made it's necessary to point out which mistakes these men made. How are you going to be aware of the mistakes if they're not pointed out?