What has to happen? Reforming our culture

[Outsider]

I think the answer is for the Church to give the perpetrator- who has been proven to be guilty- a choice between being cloistered away someplace where they wouldn't have to opportunity to act again or to go to prison under the hand of the Lord of this World (1 Corinthians 5:5). Which is what the Popes should have been doing with all those priests that have become headlines for them. I understand the need to accept repentance and forgive, but people like that should NEVER be put in authority of any sort again.

I really think that many people have a personal dislike for "extreme" religious sentiment as expressed and practiced by the Anabaptist communities, the Hasidic Jewish communities, and those with Orthodox Christian values on sin. Many in this world would like to see groups which hold to those values abolished. ( https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2 ... -of-bibles ). Which proves the need to act on such occurrences.

People also have a tendency to become mobs. Media-scares have abounded since the 1980's when the witch-hunt ensnared the McMartin pre-school ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMartin_preschool_trial ). Don't be driven to become a mob.

And "advocacy" mixed with ambition can produce things like this:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 1561737692

[Aurien]

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?

RZehr said, "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 would personally be wary of going to the offender to have a conversation about why I believe going to the police is the thing to do. Offenders are often manipulative and most will likely try to talk you out of going to the police as well as try to convince you that nothing happened or that if something did happen it was misinterpreted or wasn't really that bad. Or they may admit that they did something wrong but say they're really sorry and it won't happen again and there's no need to get the police involved. So if someone wants to talk to an accused abuser I'd just caution them to be very careful and to definitely not do it alone.

[steve-in-kville]

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!

You can add my wife and I to that list. The accuser was not "right in the head." It didn't involve police but the local CPS. Thankfully we were cleared within a day or two as the accuser was known to "cry wolf" at every opportunity she could. Sadly, her husband had to commit her to a three-week stay at a mental health facility. But I had a stain on my record for 18-months after that.

And that's why the accused need to be considered innocent until proven guilty.

[temporal1]

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!

You can add my wife and I to that list. The accuser was not "right in the head." It didn't involve police but the local CPS. Thankfully we were cleared within a day or two as the accuser was known to "cry wolf" at every opportunity she could. Sadly, her husband had to commit her to a three-week stay at a mental health facility. But I had a stain on my record for 18-months after that.

And that's why the accused need to be considered innocent until proven guilty.

There is quite a bit written on scriptural evidence of this principle, this example probably isn’t the best, but, it’s an indicator. Various contemporary countries observe this ancient principle.

Wikipedia / Latin
The presumption of innocence is the legal principle that one is considered innocent unless proven guilty. It was traditionally expressed by the Latin
maxim ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
(“the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies”).

”Presumption of Innocence” /
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APConte ... ticle=5622

.. Apart from the legal system that has characterized American civilization from the beginning, the Bible speaks definitively regarding presumption of innocence. Indeed, the notion of “innocent until proven guilty” is inherent in the nature of God. Giving credence to an accusation without proof is evidence of blind prejudice and irrational human emotion rather than logic and reason. One wonders if those women who are quick to believe an unsubstantiated accusation made against a public official would react the same way if their own teenage sons were the recipients of similar allegations.

The bedrock truth that undergirded God’s law for Israel regarding criminal behavior centered on the presence of multiple witnesses:

Whoever kills a person, the murderer shall be put to death on the testimony of witnesses; but one witness is not sufficient testimony against a person for the death penalty (Numbers 35:30).

Whoever is deserving of death shall be put to death on the testimony of two or three witnesses; he shall not be put to death on the testimony of one witness (Deuteronomy 17:6).

These verses are adamant in their insistence that no one should be convicted on the basis of a single witness. This principle is carried over into church law in the New Testament
(Matthew 18:16; 2 Corinthians 13:1; 1 Timothy 5:19; Hebrews 10:28; Revelation 11:3; Cf. Matthew 26:60; John 5:31; 10:37). .. ..

[Aurien]

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!

You can add my wife and I to that list. The accuser was not "right in the head." It didn't involve police but the local CPS. Thankfully we were cleared within a day or two as the accuser was known to "cry wolf" at every opportunity she could. Sadly, her husband had to commit her to a three-week stay at a mental health facility. But I had a stain on my record for 18-months after that.

And that's why the accused need to be considered innocent until proven guilty.

There is quite a bit written on scriptural evidence of this principle, this example probably isn’t the best, but, it’s an indicator. Various contemporary countries observe this ancient principle.

Wikipedia / Latin
The presumption of innocence is the legal principle that one is considered innocent unless proven guilty. It was traditionally expressed by the Latin
maxim ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
(“the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies”).

”Presumption of Innocence” /
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APConte ... ticle=5622

.. Apart from the legal system that has characterized American civilization from the beginning, the Bible speaks definitively regarding presumption of innocence. Indeed, the notion of “innocent until proven guilty” is inherent in the nature of God. Giving credence to an accusation without proof is evidence of blind prejudice and irrational human emotion rather than logic and reason. One wonders if those women who are quick to believe an unsubstantiated accusation made against a public official would react the same way if their own teenage sons were the recipients of similar allegations.

The bedrock truth that undergirded God’s law for Israel regarding criminal behavior centered on the presence of multiple witnesses:

Whoever kills a person, the murderer shall be put to death on the testimony of witnesses; but one witness is not sufficient testimony against a person for the death penalty (Numbers 35:30).

Whoever is deserving of death shall be put to death on the testimony of two or three witnesses; he shall not be put to death on the testimony of one witness (Deuteronomy 17:6).

These verses are adamant in their insistence that no one should be convicted on the basis of a single witness. This principle is carried over into church law in the New Testament
(Matthew 18:16; 2 Corinthians 13:1; 1 Timothy 5:19; Hebrews 10:28; Revelation 11:3; Cf. Matthew 26:60; John 5:31; 10:37). .. ..

What happens when there's only one victim willing to speak up or it's an abuser's first victim who speaks up?

[temporal1]

Aslan:
What happens when there's only one victim willing to speak up or it's an abuser's first victim who speaks up?

The purpose of my post was simply to reference the ancient nature of the principle, “innocent until proven guilty.” It’s not a new idea, it predates Jesus.

No human law is perfect, there will always be failures and injustices. “It’s not fair!” is part of life on earth, scriptures warn us to be prepared, and counsel us how to endure.

Who has faced more “unfairness” than Jesus Christ?

In U.S. courts of law, legal language does not identically reflect scriptures regarding numbers or the nature of witnesses. Scriptures offer plenty of examples of how Christians are subject to earthly governments, and, today, many Christians are suffering badly under harsh governments.

In the U.S., it would be expected, your case would be heard in court, evidence would be considered. If found guilty, or not guilty, the perpetrator’s record, or lack of record, might affect his/her sentence.

i would hope similar would happen in churches. we need, and the world needs, churches to establish the moral high ground, this is what Jesus modeled. He did not say, “go, and continue in sin.”

Christians are held accountable to both human law and God’s law. When these clash, God’s time and judgment will prevail in eternity.

[Hats Off]

What happens when there's only one victim willing to speak up or it's an abuser's first victim who speaks up?

Then it is not as simple. In my case it was simple but it still dragged out over a number of years and the consequences are still ongoing.

[steve-in-kville]

I wasn't gonna past a whole lot more on the CAM thing as I am close to both mental and emotional burnout on the issue (Its a close subject to me).

The reason I made the statement about believing the alleged victim until proven otherwise, and to consider the alleged abuser innocent until proven otherwise is this:

How many teens do you know that wine & fuss how they grew up in an abusive home... because they were told "no" one too many times? Or their parents scolded them for how they dressed? Or took privileges away for bad behavior? She calls CPS and makes outrageous reports of physical/sexual abuse. They investigate and find nothing. The church investigates and finds the same.

So she goes live with another relative, a older married sister perhaps. And within weeks, the same accusations are made, her sisters home is abusive too because they laid out some ground rules and the "victim" pushed it. Or maybe she took it even further and claims her sister's husband made advances toward her. She calls CPS and makes more outrageous claims. Both the church and CPS rule the same: unfounded.

So she moves in with another family, perhaps a friends close to the family. Guess what? Within a week or two the same accusations are made. And she can't figure out why the local CPS won't take her seriously anymore. Get the picture?

This "victim" is now in a group home because CPS got tired of wasting resources. They have *real* abuse cases to deal with.

This is why I made my original statement. the sword cuts both ways. This is all.

(the above is a true story, BTW)

[Signtist]

It’s interesting to me that 3 CM forum members (in Ontario) posting on this topic, in the past and currently, seem in agreement about prevention and response to carnal sins and crimes. appleman, Hats Off, Signtist. i believe they are members of different fellowships, possibly in the same conference?

To me, they represent cultural adjustments in action.
From what i know, none of the 3 has had to deal with abuses in their fellowships, but they are not defensive or in denial about what has happened in the past, and what continues to show up.
That’s a constructive place to be.

I wish it were so. The odds are much greater that all 3 of us have had to.

[Hats Off]

Sorry to disappoint you T1 but I have to agree with Signtist!