The CAM scandal links and assorted other topics thread

[ken_sylvania]

The leadership failure here was in not recognizing that sexual deviancy is an addictive behavior - much like drug abuse or alcoholism.

Yes, they didn't realize they were dealing with a pedophile. There are some failures like this one that an organization cannot afford to make.

We've been going around in this circle for a year now. It takes a cultural change, one that will most likely never happen. We don't want it to. We're too comfortable in it and why compromise something that can be swept under a rug somewhere? But then that's a thread for another day....

I doubt that any of the present CAM staff will make a similar failure. Those who are still working for CAM have needed to deal with enough fallout from this crisis that no one wants to go through this again. I know that some of you don't have this confidence, but I am just sharing how it looks from my perspective.

The concerns I have are with all the churches and other organizations who think that this is an isolated mishap that just happened to turn out bad and who believe that most molesters who have a good Christian testimony are not pedophiles and won't be molesting people again.
I was just talking with a bishop the other day who said he and his fellow minister don't like discussing "what if" situations that may never happen. He would rather wait until there is a problem and deal with it then.
This reflects the culture that I have been around most of my life and is probably the aspect of conservative Anabaptist culture that I get the most frustrated with.

I guess what confuses me; is I think from listening to many CA's is that if someone has a drinking problem they would be advised to never go in a bar ever again.
And nearly all (if not all) forms of abuse deep down relate to power over another person. So it seems strange to me that someone would be allowed to enter a position of authority or power in the church or missionary setting after they have committed almost any similar grave abuse?
It's the inconsistency of principle that troubles me and I wonder why this isn't seen? Or am I missing something?

The addictive power of alcohol and drugs is well recognized in CA circles but, like I believe it was Ernie mentioned earlier, we have a tendency not to think of sexual sins and abuse as being addictive in quite the same way. Then another aspect of it is that we can't see any good reason at all to go into a bar, but we do recognize that we have to have people in charge of things if anything productive is to be done. Not that this justifies anything, it's just how things appear to be.

[Ernie]

I guess what confuses me; is I think from listening to many CA's is that if someone has a drinking problem they would be advised to never go in a bar ever again.
And nearly all (if not all) forms of abuse deep down relate to power over another person. So it seems strange to me that someone would be allowed to enter a position of authority or power in the church or missionary setting after they have committed almost any similar grave abuse?
It's the inconsistency of principle that troubles me and I wonder why this isn't seen? Or am I missing something?

I think Ken said it well.
Alcohol and drugs are seen by many CA's as having physiological components as well as spiritual.
Sexual sins are considered spiritual only and something anyone can quit doing once the Spirit of God takes up residence or once there is repentance.
I'm guessing that many CA's are reconsidering this paradigm the last 12 months but there are many others who still wouldn't want to deprive a repentant person of a "new life" and a clean slate.

[Joy]

Child molestation is most definitely addictive.

"Compared to non-sex offenders released from State prisons, released sex offenders were 4 times more likely to be rearrested for a sex crime. The 9,691 released sex offenders included 4,295 men who were in prison for child molesting." https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1136

And that's only counting crimes that were caught. The shame and fear associated with rape or molestation, especially in children, stops them from telling on their abuser.

The pedophile doesn't have the excuse of being hungry, so needs food and steals. Or robbing a bank or his employer because of his unpaid bills. He is addicted to abusing children. He has distortions deeply rooted in his mind that won't go away unless addressed strongly and repented of.

[Wade]

I guess what confuses me; is I think from listening to many CA's is that if someone has a drinking problem they would be advised to never go in a bar ever again.
And nearly all (if not all) forms of abuse deep down relate to power over another person. So it seems strange to me that someone would be allowed to enter a position of authority or power in the church or missionary setting after they have committed almost any similar grave abuse?
It's the inconsistency of principle that troubles me and I wonder why this isn't seen? Or am I missing something?

I think Ken said it well.
Alcohol and drugs are seen by many CA's as having physiological components as well as spiritual.
Sexual sins are considered spiritual only and something anyone can quit doing once the Spirit of God takes up residence or once there is repentance.
I'm guessing that many CA's are reconsidering this paradigm the last 12 months but there are many others who still wouldn't want to deprive a repentant person of a "new life" and a clean slate.

Early on I thought Anabaptists were very much for seeking restitution, accountability, confessing faults - my life; when I started to do all these things was absolutely miserable. Confessing to people I didn't want to hurt how I had lied and done things behind their backs and etc. But I'm sure I would have never found complete freedom in Christ if I had not done this and continue to do this where I have wronged. And where I have avoided accountability I have fallen into sin again.
From a Billboard Evangelism Email recently:

We are terrified that we will be exposed, and we fear disclosure. A prankster once called five men in his community and said, “They know what you have done. Better leave town immediately.” By evening four men had left town.

I think a "clean slate" is what Esau was looking for in avoiding the consequences of his poor choices. If we encourage a "new life" as a pass from earthly consequences I am convinced and fear the eternal consequences will be much greater and will only hinder people.
The original Anabaptist avoided insincere seekers filling their meetings and identifying much with them because being killed wasn't so glamourous. Today if we ask people to die to self and seek restitution, accountability, and to confess our faults one to another and the acceptance of earthly consequences we might find similar results.

[flyingnorm]

Abuse is addictive due to the psychological sense of power it provides to the abuser. The adrenaline rush is similar to the rush caused by narcotics. The mind becomes dependent on the rush.

There are other behaviours that people engage in that produces a similar adrenaline rush they become dependant upon. Leaders can fall into a trap where they get high on misusing their power.

When a heroin addict talks about a meth addict, he will talk about how bad meth is and how he would never take meth, or he will talk about how good he is now because he no longer uses meth, just uses heroin. When the heroin addict and the meth addict talk to each other, they share a strange brotherhood. They might compare trips, tips, sources, etc. They complain to each other about how terrible the effect of their drug habit is. Yet they will steal from each other to feed their personal addiction.

To the sober people, they are both drug addicts that should get sober. To each other, they are not so bad.

Is is possible for a relationship between a sex offender and a leader who misuses power to be similar to the relationship between the meth user and the heroin user?

The heroin and meth user are both misusing a substance to gain a rush they depend on. Neither knows how to do life without the substance that gives them pleasure.

The sex offender and the abusive leader are both misusing power for personal pleasure. They both do not want to give up their power because of the pleasure it provides them at the expense of other people.

In both scenarios, objectivity is gone.

In both scenarios, both people need each other to feel better about themselves.

[steve-in-kville]

Does anyone know if "the powers that be" from CAM are paying any attention to the negativity they are getting? Do they care? I thought I read somewhere they hawked this forum but considered it the "vocal minority."

[Ernie]

Does anyone know if "the powers that be" from CAM are paying any attention to the negativity they are getting? Do they care? I thought I read somewhere they hawked this forum but considered it the "vocal minority."

I first wrote about this here.
http://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.php?p=88429#p88429

I also wrote here.
http://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.php?p=88660#p88660

And page 197 explains more

If you want the whole thing, you can read pages 190-197

[steve-in-kville]

Does anyone know if "the powers that be" from CAM are paying any attention to the negativity they are getting? Do they care? I thought I read somewhere they hawked this forum but considered it the "vocal minority."

I first wrote about this here.
http://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.php?p=88429#p88429

I also wrote here.
http://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.php?p=88660#p88660

And page 197 explains more

If you want the whole thing, you can read pages 190-197

Thank you. I thought it was in this thread somewhere.

[flyingnorm]

Does anyone know if "the powers that be" from CAM are paying any attention to the negativity they are getting? Do they care? I thought I read somewhere they hawked this forum but considered it the "vocal minority."

I want to be perfectly clear. I don’t know any of CAM’s leaders well enough to know if they fit in my previous post. I am not willing to assume it applies to CAM’s situation.

My post is in concerned for all of us. We have an obligation to be on guard lest we fall into a snare of the devil.

[Aurien]

Abuse is addictive due to the psychological sense of power it provides to the abuser. The adrenaline rush is similar to the rush caused by narcotics. The mind becomes dependent on the rush.

There are other behaviours that people engage in that produces a similar adrenaline rush they become dependant upon. Leaders can fall into a trap where they get high on misusing their power.

When a heroin addict talks about a meth addict, he will talk about how bad meth is and how he would never take meth, or he will talk about how good he is now because he no longer uses meth, just uses heroin. When the heroin addict and the meth addict talk to each other, they share a strange brotherhood. They might compare trips, tips, sources, etc. They complain to each other about how terrible the effect of their drug habit is. Yet they will steal from each other to feed their personal addiction.

To the sober people, they are both drug addicts that should get sober. To each other, they are not so bad.

Is is possible for a relationship between a sex offender and a leader who misuses power to be similar to the relationship between the meth user and the heroin user?

The heroin and meth user are both misusing a substance to gain a rush they depend on. Neither knows how to do life without the substance that gives them pleasure.

The sex offender and the abusive leader are both misusing power for personal pleasure. They both do not want to give up their power because of the pleasure it provides them at the expense of other people.

In both scenarios, objectivity is gone.

In both scenarios, both people need each other to feel better about themselves.

Hmm. That's an interesting thought about the leader and offender needing each other.