Randal Martin on the CAM/Jeriah Debacle

[ohio jones]

You could just redirect your giving to other organizations that are doing the same thing as CAM. However I assume many of CAM's donors don't really know of many other organizations that have similar infrastructure, history, trust, shared values, and portfolio of aid programs.

Here's a thread to identify those organizations.

I would be interested in Randal Martin's recommendations on the subject, if he's still reading.

[Grace]

Grace, I see your point, really I do. Unfortunately, time has proven to me that the only way to a Mennonite's heart is through their wallet. Until the funding dries up, nothing will change. This sounds harsh, but I quite sure its realistic.

I understand where you are coming from. But when hurting their wallet, people are severely hurting the poor, impoverished people CAM provides relief for. The two cannot be separated, one comes with the other. You may respectfully disagree with me, but I do not think we well-fed, rich Americans have the right to say to the people who CAM provides relief for, that they should have that help dried up because we want to hurt CAM's wallets.

So you would rather give money to people who send pedos in the field so that more children can be abused?

We have no proof that CAM would send more pedos to the field in the future. So to say it will happen again is mere speculation and not based on fact. I would hope that the CAM administration learned their lesson and going forward will prevent this type of thing from happening again.

A very small percentage actually goes to the people running CAM, the rest goes to relief for the poor and needy around the world. I don't view giving money to CAM as giving money to people who allowed the horrid actions of Jeriah Mast to happen. But view it as giving money to the poor and needy around the world. As an American who has plenty of food, a warm house, access to clean water and medicine, far be it from me to say to a poor needy person, "I will deny you relief" because I do not agree with the people who are providing that relief. It reminds me of the Biblical account of the rich man and the beggar at his door. The poor and needy are the beggars at our door. Will we allow our disagreement with CAM's handling of a torrid issue, to disregard the beggars at our door?

However that being said, I don't fault anyone for not giving to CAM, as long as they find another organization who provides the same level of relief, to support.

[KrisKramer]

I understand where you are coming from. But when hurting their wallet, people are severely hurting the poor, impoverished people CAM provides relief for. The two cannot be separated, one comes with the other. You may respectfully disagree with me, but I do not think we well-fed, rich Americans have the right to say to the people who CAM provides relief for, that they should have that help dried up because we want to hurt CAM's wallets.

So you would rather give money to people who send pedos in the field so that more children can be abused?

We have no proof that CAM would send more pedos to the field in the future. So to say it will happen again is mere speculation and not based on fact. I would hope that the CAM administration learned their lesson and going forward will prevent this type of thing from happening again.

A very small percentage actually goes to the people running CAM, the rest goes to relief for the poor and needy around the world. I don't view giving money to CAM as giving money to people who allowed the horrid actions of Jeriah Mast to happen. But view it as giving money to the poor and needy around the world. As an American who has plenty of food, a warm house, access to clean water and medicine, far be it from me to say to a poor needy person, "I will deny you relief" because I do not agree with the people who are providing that relief. It reminds me of the Biblical account of the rich man and the beggar at his door. The poor and needy are the beggars at our door. Will we allow our disagreement with CAM's handling of a torrid issue, to disregard the beggars at our door?

However that being said, I don't fault anyone for not giving to CAM, as long as they find another organization who provides the same level of relief, to support.

It hasn't just been Mast though. They sent Harold Herr too who had a long established history of pedophilia and beasiality

[Grace]

It hasn't just been Mast though. They sent Harold Herr too who had a long established history of pedophilia and beasiality

You have been deeply wounded and hurt in your past by someone involved with CAM. And I am so sorry that you have those wounds at no fault of your own. I can understand why you would feel the way you do towards CAM. Which is why I hope that those who cannot support, them find other organizations to donate to, in helping the needy.

[Soloist]

And how, pray tell, would one go about that? We're at this almost two years now...

Well you could start with Scripture... What does Scripture say about addressing someone in sin? it gives basically a three step process.
Do you have enough faith to believe God's word?

[Ernie]

For the record I am one of those that still trusts CAM with some of my giving.

I'm at the same point Mike - I continue to support CAM because I know first hand the good they do, and how they represent my values. That being said, I remain deeply disappointed that they haven't responded with the institutional transparency and third-party accountability that the situation demanded. My trust is not what it once was...I wonder sometimes how many of us disappointed donors like me there are out here.

I wonder too.

I've concluded that "institutional transparency and third-party accountability" is fairly new in Christian history, and that people view this on a spectrum. To many old orders, being willing to acknowledge in their newsletter that something really bad happened on the mission field is more transparency than they ever seen in their circles. And asking Anabaptist people outside of CAM to help them work through the matter is more than what they are familiar with. It is possible that some old orders experienced "healing" when they saw CAM being willing to publicly acknowledge what they did. To some, what CAM did is commendable and courageous. To those of us who have been exposed to a higher level of transparency and accountability, we wish there was more. I've concluded that "institutional transparency and third-party accountability" is something I would push hard for in any organizations where I am in leadership, but I can't say that CAM is ethically wrong for not being more transparent with the public. I think it is more of a wisdom issue. "What is wise for an organization (the size of CAM, with moderate-conservative and progressive conservative supporters) to do in 2021?"

After the RZIM board made their public statement, Randal posted this on his Facebook page...
"This is Jesus...
Ravi Zacharias played a significant role in my journey out of agnosticism and an eventual return to faith. When news of his allegations surfaced it was very disheartening especially because sexual abuse played a direct role in my journey away from faith.
The healing that happened when I read this article was surreal. It was a feeling of being able to breath and the tears were not of grief, but of healing. The ownership and repentance by the organization is life-giving-- I am drawn once again back to Jesus who is the author and finisher of faith, not mere humans.
This is Jesus, represented by humans who have realized just how much they need him. Amen."

While Randall was writing the above, RZIM in the UK decided to break away from RZIM International, the day after the board letter was made public. RZIM UK felt the board did not go far enough. A few weeks later an Anabaptist acquaintance I have been in contact with (who works for RZIM), informed me that he resigned.

I say all this to show the spectrum of trust, transparency, and accountability that various people have and expect from various organizations. An article that brings surreal healing to one person, brings disappointment and distrust to others.

Sometimes knowing the inside story helps employees and supporters have more trust in the organization. On other occasions, knowing the inside story causes employees and supporters to lose trust in the organization.

[Josh]

It hasn't just been Mast though. They sent Harold Herr too who had a long established history of pedophilia and beasiality

You have been deeply wounded and hurt in your past by someone involved with CAM. And I am so sorry that you have those wounds at no fault of your own. I can understand why you would feel the way you do towards CAM. Which is why I hope that those who cannot support, them find other organizations to donate to, in helping the needy.

Grace, he does have a point - they haven't done anything about the Harold Herr situation. Why would one keep giving money to an organisation that isn't fixing things?

There are plenty of other institutions if one wants to funnel money into Haiti.

[Josh]

I've concluded that "institutional transparency and third-party accountability" is fairly new in Christian history, and that people view this on a spectrum. To many old orders, being willing to acknowledge in their newsletter that something really bad happened on the mission field is more transparency than they ever seen in their circles. And asking Anabaptist people outside of CAM to help them work through the matter is more than what they are familiar with.

This seems strange. The Bible speaks a lot about how transparency and accountability are important. Keeping things under the rug, on the other hand, is a hallmark of paganism.

If we are truly Anabaptists, then we would value openness and repentance and confession for sin.

[Grace]

Grace, he does have a point - they haven't done anything about the Harold Herr situation. Why would one keep giving money to an organisation that isn't fixing things?

There are plenty of other institutions if one wants to funnel money into Haiti.

I agree that there are plenty of organizations outside of CAM, who help the poor and needy, not just in Haiti, but around the world. And those who can't in good conscience give to CAM, by all means then they shouldn't give. However our focus is on the poor and needy when we give to CAM, and not on the people who made some horrible mistakes. Hurting the CAM leadership doesn't help the poor and needy. They are still there, like the beggar at the rich man's door. We see the beggar, but if others see only the mistakes made, I will not judge them. And hopefully we will not be judged for focusing on the people who are granted food, clothing and help from the organization.

[Ernie]

I've concluded that "institutional transparency and third-party accountability" is fairly new in Christian history, and that people view this on a spectrum. To many old orders, being willing to acknowledge in their newsletter that something really bad happened on the mission field is more transparency than they ever seen in their circles. And asking Anabaptist people outside of CAM to help them work through the matter is more than what they are familiar with.

This seems strange. The Bible speaks a lot about how transparency and accountability are important. Keeping things under the rug, on the other hand, is a hallmark of paganism.

If we are truly Anabaptists, then we would value openness and repentance and confession for sin.

Yes, the point I was making is that CAM thinks they have done that. Many of their supporters are satisfied.
RZIM USA thinks they have done that and many of their supporters are satisfied.

But there are always some of us who would like more openness, more repentance, and more confession.
I worked at Fresh Start for about two years and even among the staff, there was a variety of opinion about how much is necessary.
We all have expectations for individuals and for organizations and we don't all agree on how much is enough.