The CAM scandal links and assorted other topics thread

[DrWojo]

The point being, that when you are working overseas, one bad apple can destroy the reputation of the whole profession and put a lot of lives in danger.

Sounds like maybe this was a case of a bad apple destroying the reputation of the whole basket of peaches....

That some kind of a veiled attempt at racism?

[ken_sylvania]

The point being, that when you are working overseas, one bad apple can destroy the reputation of the whole profession and put a lot of lives in danger.

Sounds like maybe this was a case of a bad apple destroying the reputation of the whole basket of peaches....

That some kind of a veiled attempt at racism?

I'm sure somebody could read racism into it if they wanted to.

[Judas Maccabeus]

White privilege or 'first world privilege"

What happened is that CAM sent a known child molester to Haiti to run a school for orphans, when I seriously doubt they would have hired the same individual to run a school for their own children or grandchildren back in Ohio. Unless you REALLY think that the CAM administrators who "rehabilitated Jeriah Mast would have been fine with hiring him to be the unsupervised director of a school for their on children and grandchildren. Somehow I suspect not.

The point is that CAM's problems have basically nothing at all do with race. Most abuse scandals involve victims of the same race. And unfortunately people with very questionable pasts do get hired as unsupervised directors of schools - just look at the Herr situation.

Bringing up race and "white privilege" has absolutely nothing to do with the problem in question. Would it somehow have been more moral and less repugnant if Mast had perpetrated whatever he did in the Falkland Islands instead of Haiti?

It took me awhile to write this.

I will add to this:

In the late 90's early 00's, a major scandal broke. It seems that houseparents, teachers, and at least one doctor was molesting the children of missionaries at the boarding schools that were set up to care for them. Some mission boards had a mandatory boarding school policy, in that children above the age of 6 were sent to these schools, away from their parents, so the parents would not have the "distraction" of home schooling. The Christian and Missionary Alliance was particularly adamant in this regard.

The result was that a large number of MKs, mostly from the Christian and Missionary Alliance, New Tribes Mission and ABWE were molested, and shamed into silence by these creeps. The children were told if they told anyone, their parents would be sent home. If you knew how hard our children likely saw us working to get there, you would understand how this threat would impact a victim.

We were overseas in the late 90's. We flat refused to send our children to such schools, it was all over our application, and the "promise" was in writing. The only way we likely got away with this is they needed our skills desperately. When we got to the field, one of the first things we got was pressure to send our children to Pakistan to boarding school, needless to say we made sure they had a copy of the letter....

These "Untermenschen" will prey on any race or occupation, including their fellow missionaries. They have no conscience and likely no soul.

J.M.

[I Timothy]

Both of these statements are opinions/perspectives/conclusions. They are not facts.
Everyone is free to draw their own opinions/perspectives/conclusions, but I think it is important to distinguish between opinions/perspectives/conclusions and facts.

Normally I agree with you, Ernie. But this one has me scratching my head a little. Its too easy to blow off things we don't like as "alternative facts."

Had CAM leadership known that Jeriah was still a molester, they would not have sent him to Haiti. They thought he was a former molester. I Corinthians 6:9-11 seems to indicate that it is possible to be a former molester.

Now you might say that they should have known or should have learned that he was still a molester and not a former molester, and that is a valid point. Eli and Paul agree with this. And at this point, I don't know anybody at CAM who would debate this.

Some people who have molested others have stopped doing so for the rest of their life.
Some would say that this is so unlikely that such a person should never be trusted again in missions or with children. I won't debate that point. Some sins have lifelong consequences. If CAM had followed such a policy, the Haiti ordeal would never have happened.

Does this make sense at all?

This absolutely makes no sense to me on any level.

As a healthcare professional, the recidivism rate of sexual abusers is extremely high if not treated. An abuser should not be allowed near its target audience again. CAM was run by a DO, he should make these points valued throughout the organization.

As a businessman this makes no sense. Businesses need to evaluate risk and minimize/reduce risk. This includes firing people who have been caught having integrity issues. There is no second chances for some offenses. I have seen many managers fired for "consensual" sex with subordinates. I do training twice a year covering harassment within a large organization. Making an unwelcome advance is enough for me to be fired. It is called risk management, human resources management, ethics, etc. Allowing executives to make a decision like this is unreal. Didn't our generation go through the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas saga? We should know that there are certain lines that should never be crossed in business, let alone missions.

CAM didn't have to know that he was still molesting to know that it was a bad idea to have JM in Haiti. His past should have been enough to preclude involvement with minors. There are trade journals, case studies and leadership conferences that CAM leaders should be familiar with. Did anyone in leadership ever read in depth what happened in the Catholic church? It has been all over the news for a long time.

Maybe in some twisted way this all makes sense to the CA community though and I can't see it.

[steve-in-kville]

This thread will be a year old on Saturday.

What has been accomplished in that year??

[Ernie]

This absolutely makes no sense to me on any level.

I'm not asking whether CAM did the right thing or whether you agree with what they did. (Neither I nor CAM leadership believe that what they did was the right thing to do.)

I'm asking if it makes sense why I said that it was not factual to say that CAM willingly allowed a molestor to return to Haiti. Emphasis is on the word "willingly".

[Ernie]

This thread will be a year old on Saturday. What has been accomplished in that year??

In addition to the changes that CAM has made that have been detailed earlier in this thread, hundreds if not thousands of churches have reviewed their policies and procedures. Some are learning what needs to be reported to law enforcement. Some individuals have gained a vision for helping the abused.

Unfortunately, many potential abusers have gone underground.
I have had a number of conversations with one of the founders of ASAA. https://www.anabaptistawareness.org/
I asked him whether more abusers and potential abusers are coming forward, and trying to get help, now that they see the damage that one person can do to so many people.
He replied with something like this, "Not anything noticeable. There may be a couple individuals. All the rest are scared of what might happen if they confess their struggles. So they are purposing to 'try harder' on their own. There is no mercy for people with these kinds of struggles in our current environment. I've tried to be open over the years - to be honest about my failures earlier in life to make it easier for others to be more honest and come clean and seek help. But the only reward I and others get for being honest right now (from those caught up in the current environment) is condemnation and judgment and shaming. The current environment doesn't understand how deep change happens. A potential abuser cannot change course unless he can be healed from shame. Our churches need to be safe places for people to confess their struggles. A person should be able stand up in church and say, 'I've been struggling with my sexuality lately. Could you pray for me?' In the current environment, it is not safe to do this."

I've been wanting to start a thread on this but do not have the time to fully engage with it. So if someone else wants to start a thread on this, go for it.

[I Timothy]

This absolutely makes no sense to me on any level.

I'm not asking whether CAM did the right thing or whether you agree with what they did. (Neither I nor CAM leadership believe that what they did was the right thing to do.)

I'm asking if it makes sense why I said that it was not factual to say that CAM willingly allowed a molestor to return to Haiti. Emphasis is on the word "willingly".

"In 2013 Jeriah confessed that he had homosexual involvement with four youth in Haiti several years prior. After his confession and restitution, we met with him to verify his repentance, brokenness, and present walk. We then allowed him to return to Haiti, believing that everything had been resolved. Looking back, we realize we should have asked more questions, gotten more details of what took place, and reported the matter to legal authorities."

CAM executives knew. Are you suggesting that JM forced his way back to Haiti? Are you suggesting CAM executives are passive to their organization and talent selection? Are you suggesting CAM executives are forced to take whoever applies? This is where the willingly part comes in. Read their sentence, "We then allowed him..." CAM had a meeting of the minds and decided this was someone they wanted as part of their organization.

[KirkDaniel]

I'm not asking whether CAM did the right thing or whether you agree with what they did. (Neither I nor CAM leadership believe that what they did was the right thing to do.)

I'm asking if it makes sense why I said that it was not factual to say that CAM willingly allowed a molestor to return to Haiti. Emphasis is on the word "willingly".

If by "willingly" you mean they didn't send him back knowing that he positively would re-offend, then I take your point and allow that this is probably the case. Should they have known better? Yes (to beat a dead horse further into its requisite atoms).

I think what you are dealing with is a misunderstanding in the CA community of the nature of sexual sins and predation. Inasmuch as this conversation has opened the dialogue on that subject, it has been useful. But, to answer Steve's question, a lot of what this convo has accomplished will greatly depend on how it challenges us to change the cultural issues that have beget it. Will we continue to live in denial? Under a false teaching on repentance and restoration? Will we advocate for victims and take a more victim-oriented mindset? Or will we still deny and obfuscate and puff and smoke when the good CA image is tarnished? Will we continue to blame victims for being bitter because they cannot "get over" what happened to them?

The question as to what this thread has accomplished can only be decided by YOU. What will you do with the knowledge you have gained? How will you work to affect change in your community?

God help us all.

[Ernie]

I'm saying that they viewed him as a former molester, not a current molester. In their minds they willingly allowed a former molester to return to Haiti. Now they realize they allowed a molester to return to Haiti. If they thought he was a molester, they would not have allowed him to return to Haiti. This was a huge mistake in judgment, as everyone now understands.