GaryK wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2026 11:37 am
I am struggling to understand your views on this case compared to the Jeriah Mast case. I'm not aware that Jeriah or anyone else involved in the case had been criminally charged or convicted before the recent ones (last 5 years) yet you seem to not have any problem talking about how everything was wrongfully handled by the church/CAM leading up to the criminal charges and convictions. But, in this case, you seem to be siding with BMA and giving them the benefit of the doubt.
What I have said is that the
individuals involved needed to stop trying to cover up sin. CAM is merely an organisation, and as we saw, organisations are not very good at policing themselves (and outside investigations usually don't accomplish much either).
I don't think "BMA" as an institution is blameless or not. It's just an organisation. People who are BMA church members or ordained men may have indeed done wrong things, although it seems most have done good things. If individual people knew someone was a rank sinner (which appears it may be the case) and tolerated sending him off to the mission field anyway, that's not good. If individual people were doing wrong things at the orphanage, that's bad too.
I generally don't subscribe anymore to the idea that we can blame problems on organisations and institutions. Instead, each of us needs to do the right thing to follow Jesus each day. If we do that, we will make the organisations and institutions we are around better.
JohnH wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2026 9:56 am
In Anabaptist church circles I expect members to confess their sins and be open to reproof, repentance, and eventual reconciliation.
Is it possible Jeriah did this before being sent to Haiti? This question should not be taken as an endorsement of how they handled things. I'm just trying to understand the differences in how you are responding to these two cases.
It is possible, but considering his "relapse", it seems his repentance was not very thorough, nor was there much accountability. I suppose we could share the blame with church leaders.
In our circles, we would expect someone in a gay relationship to separate from their partner and not do things like keeping going to gay bars etc. Likewise, a divorce and remarried couple would be expected to separate and not live together anymore. Somehow, there is no trouble with being "naive" about such things.
Yet if someone repeatedly abuses boys, somehow it still happens that he gets sent into a position where he can take advantage of many more. I don't understand the disconnect between the two.
(And getting back to BMA... clearly Eicher should not have been put in leadership or been in an ordained position, but BMA has already removed his credentials and it appears that BMA as an organisation was defrauded/lied to by Eicher. So I have trouble blaming BMA here - other than saying their process for credentialing should have been better... but they improved it a number of years ago; they don't just accept someone transferring in from another denomination without checking up on their background first now.)
Legally speaking, BMA may have exposed themselves by operating institutions, orphanages, etc. in a manner that does not befit their legal status as merely an association of churches. That's up to their accountants, legal counsel, etc. to figure out, and could also expose them to lawsuits. I generally think that church organisations should be careful before setting up agencies: they should be set up to have their own boards (even if entirely controlled by the parent church), have separate legal personality, and make sure policies and procedures are in place for handling problems and also for shutting down an out-of-control agency.
