What has to happen? Reforming our culture

[Hats Off]

One of the problems going on here, Aslanhasheard, is the bald assertion that any victim must be believed, and an accusation is as good as a conviction.

What do you think of the way Steve puts it here?

They (victims) need to be believed until proven otherwise. The alleged abuser needs to be considered innocent until proven otherwise.

Is this the balance that's needed, or is it too contradictory to be workable?

A number of years ago, I was falsely accused of abuse by a disturbed woman. I was subsequently investigated by both the church and police, both very discreetly. Both concluded that the accusation was false. The facts as presented could not have been true. However, my police record shows that I was investigated for abuse and they will not remove that information. This has a direct impact on my ability to volunteer for certain positions.

Church and police did what they had to - and that doesn't bother me. But the blot on my police record does! I do not like to defend myself - if I have to, I must be guilty! We need to carefully check both accuser and accused before going public - there are many examples of serial accusers, not just serial abusers!

[Josh]

If you want to take a position of “report absolutely every possible suspicion to law enforcement”, then a mechanism to clear one’s name from false accusations becomes really important.

And the biggest source of false accusations is abusers themselves.

[Judas Maccabeus]

If you want to take a position of “report absolutely every possible suspicion to law enforcement”, then a mechanism to clear one’s name from false accusations becomes really important.

And the biggest source of false accusations is abusers themselves.

Not to mention misguided counselors

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMarti ... hool_trial

J.M.

[temporal1]

One of the problems going on here, Aslanhasheard, is the bald assertion that any victim must be believed, and an accusation is as good as a conviction.

What do you think of the way Steve puts it here?

They (victims) need to be believed until proven otherwise. The alleged abuser needs to be considered innocent until proven otherwise.

Is this the balance that's needed, or is it too contradictory to be workable?

A number of years ago, I was falsely accused of abuse by a disturbed woman. I was subsequently investigated by both the church and police, both very discreetly. Both concluded that the accusation was false. The facts as presented could not have been true. However, my police record shows that I was investigated for abuse and they will not remove that information. This has a direct impact on my ability to volunteer for certain positions.

Church and police did what they had to - and that doesn't bother me. But the blot on my police record does! I do not like to defend myself - if I have to, I must be guilty! We need to carefully check both accuser and accused before going public - there are many examples of serial accusers, not just serial abusers!

My goodness, similar happened to me! - falsely accused, quickly vindicated, but, i was told “a record’ of the investigation would be active, on my name, for 5 YEARS!
i was disgusted. like you, not because of the investigation, because of the record, after being cleared, with no other history of any description.
i did not check to see what it consisted of, i have not checked to be sure it was removed.

The reality of IMPERFECT government intervention “should be” sufficient motivation for church leaders to do all possible to prevent abuses and to effectively respond.

Gov should depend on Christians to hold the moral high ground, not vice versa!

[Judas Maccabeus]

So all accusers should be believed?

Proving the negative is neigh impossible.

J.M.

[RZehr]

I'm trying to tease out an articulable rationale for which crimes should actually be reported. I really don't think paulyoder really believes that ALL crimes should be reported.
It is very easy for us to say "JMast's crime horrible, it hurt other people, and it was disgusting, so any decent Christian should have reported him to law enforcement." What is difficult is knowing where the line is between a crime that need not be reported(public intoxication, for instance) and one that should be reported (child abuse). I think you made a good start in laying out your basic rationale - a crime that is actively causing major hurt to others.

To further complicate matters, some of us sincerely believe that it is God's will for his children to not be involved in policing the world about us. In the first World War, there were many well meaning people who believed that Christians needed to support the war 100% in order to bring peace to the world. I believe these people were misguided, and that the correct Biblical response was to refuse to participate in the armed forces in any way. To many, such a position made no logical sense, but we are called to live by faith, not by sight.

Similarly, as a part of the two-kingdom concept, we are not comfortable being co-opted to serve as investigative officers for the state. We have a history of refusing to serve as police, refusing to serve in government offices, and refuse to serve as jurors. While we have perhaps grudgingly accepted that some particularly serious crimes may require reporting, we have difficulty squaring that with the aloofness from government that is a part of our faith. Most of the arguments in favor of reporting do not, in my opinion, provide any rational guidance for why some crimes should be reported but other should not. Maybe I am stupid or dense, but calling me that to my face isn't likely to help me change my opinion. If I hold a position on a topic, I want to be able to explain why.

It isn't easy, much to everyones dismay. I don't really feel that obligated to play law enforcement officer. For you who are so keen on simply turning the matter over to the police, what are you going to do when the police do nothing? We cannot depend on the law for dealing with these things either. If they do nothing, we still have to decide what we are going to do to protect our children. And there is a massive tendency to bellow vehemently and righteously when you know society and the law has your back.
But heres the thing. If I hear that the neighbor is having her 4th abortion, what should I do about it? It's legal. What is more abusive to a child than viciously cutting pieces off of it until it is dead? Should I report that? To whom? Where are the calls decrying homosexuality and abortion? They aren't there, because so much of our society simply uses the law of the land as their morality benchmark. There is no outrage, because society and the law have decided it isn't outrageous. Conservative Mennonites know that when society lowers the legal age of consent, that is where the outrage will reset. And so looking to the law for guidance is just not enough. The church is not given the job of enforcing the law.

And who says the government with its judges and laws are going to do the right thing about the problem? Are we going to criticize them if they decide on a punishment that is to heavy or light in our opinion? Would you be happy if the sentenced JMast to death? How about only one year probation and a $100 fine? Who ultimately decides? Do you want to judge all of these cases? Do you want to just accept them as final authority? It is not given to us to be experts in these things. Why would we even want to be?

I find it interesting that the people most against "legalism", are the quickest to use the law as the deciding factor. And apparently the conservative "legalistic" Mennonites, are accused as not utilizing the law fast our often enough.

[temporal1]

So all accusers should be believed?
Proving the negative is neigh impossible.
J.M.

believed, to begin. not, “once believed, always believed.”
if not, victims become terrified to step forward. even without this awful fear, speaking up is no easy matter for the majority of victims.

[mercysfree]

Just a quick observation—

Judas and Aslanhasheard (like basically everybody here) are speaking honestly out of their experiences. I know several people from Judas's congregation, and everything I know about it suggests that it represents the very best of conservative Anabaptism. If every congregation were like Judas's, most of the things people criticize conservative Anabaptists for would be non-issues.

I've also been around enough to know that Aslanhasheard isn't freaking out over nothing. Some conservative Anabaptist communities are real nightmares. It seems like maybe Aslanhasheard has seen a little more of the bad than many of us have, but overall I find AHH's perspective to be pretty well balanced.

Anyway, FWIW and all that.

This brings up some points everyone needs to consider. We have been talking about all kinds and levels of abuse here, which is kind of apples and oranges. No, we can't quantify the problem, how many, where, how old, whose fault, etc. That is beside the point I want to make, anyway.

Where molestation happens within a family or in a congregation, and has not been dealt with adequately, it probably gets worse--sometimes with tragic consequences. This is the pattern of any sin. This is what I have seen in the early years I was with CAs. Perhaps where all sexual sin is dealt with biblically, sex crimes against children do not happen much at all. I do think it takes a special kind of evil to destroy a child that way.

I don't think anyone here is deliberately misleading others, although there are probably experts with agendas somewhere. We here are simply describing the different parts of an elephant that each can see/feel. I am telling you, I have seen some gangrene. Let's *do something* before it spreads to the still-healthy parts!

Regarding whom to believe, with children it is not as hard. The serial accusers I know of have been older teens or adults. If children have specific knowledge of sexual things they shouldn't, then something is badly wrong somewhere! I would *always* believe a minor who discloses abuse needs *help.* If the blame has been shifted from the guilty party to another person, that will probably come out later. Also, false accusations do not, so far as I am aware, ever cause pregnancy. And I have seen that, too.

For innocent people who feel they should not be tarred with the same brush as those who are truly guilty, I will point out--again--my own view: You are my people. Your God is my God. I hate His name being dragged through the filth this way. Just saying "but it isn't my fault; I don't think it happens in my family/group" is not a right response. In the Bible, people take on mourning for the sins of their people even when they are not personally guilty. I think the proper response is repentance and mourning and doing whatever God shows us we can to stop the scourge. Part of that for me now is just trying to explain it to those of you who are so unaware.

Next poster: How would you help *your* young daughter deal with it if her friend disclosed terrible things? She (now a mother of 6) recently talked to a friend who says "it doesn't happen where she lives," and "can you believe the accusers"...my daughter referenced an situation that they both knew about in their youth, and asked her the above question. The friend just *changed the subject!* Head-in-the- sand syndrome.

[RZehr]

Next poster: How would you help *your* young daughter deal with it if her friend disclosed terrible things? She (now a mother of 6) recently talked to a friend who says "it doesn't happen where she lives," and "can you believe the accusers"...my daughter referenced an situation that they both knew about in their youth, and asked her the above question. The friend just *changed the subject!* Head-in-the- sand syndrome.

I would probably believe my daughter is not telling a lie. I would try to learn anything she knows, and make sure that my precious daughter (makes me almost angry inside right now at the thought of my precious daughters being endangered or harmed) is safe and has not been harmed or threatened. From there, I guess it depends who her friend is. If it is someone I know (which I expect it would be), I'd ask them about it. It would be hard for me to go to the police. Not necessarily because I think it is wrong to turn them in, but just because I hate to get involved in these things, and because I never did such a thing before, calling the police on someone I know. I'd probably let the person know that I am going to call the police before I actually did, and have a conversation as to why I believe it is the thing to do.
I have convinced a certain man to turn himself in to the police for something else, and I drove him to the court house and watched him get handcuffed and arrested and put in jail. Maybe I could stay with the perpetrator until the police came, or maybe I could drive him to the station.
I can certainly see how once you've turned someone in, or have experience in these things, it would become easy.

[mercysfree]

Edited for clarity: It was two friends of my daughter: the victim, who chose my daughter to confide in-- both were in their early teens when this happened; and the present-day friend, who knew the people and the fallout that happened after, but she never had to deal with it in any personal way.

I sure wish I had had your advice then! Perhaps a lot more sin and pain could have been avoided.

I am so glad for one straight response, though. Is this what others think they would do?