In the Name of “Mission Work” book about CAM/Mast

[just_thinking]

The person who abused these victims is JM. CAM was also a victim of JM. Somehow that perspective gets lost here.

The now-fired former executives at CAM also were derelict in their duty and their negligence allowed JM to steal $100,000s of dollars from CAM.

...

Josh,
Did you do your homework before posting?

Yes.

Could you please provide proof that those executives are now fired? Sure, they no longer work there, but I've researched it, and the only info I could find is that they retired with honors. This was info was published in the "CAMunicator".
That retirement was immediately after approximately a 1.5 year fully paid (of $85,000 - 97,000/year) leave of absence pending an investigation. Which is interesting... I wonder what that investigation actually uncovered? who performed it? What are the chances of that info being made public? Why did they both retire at the same time? If the investigation found that they were innocent, why not bring them back on? If they were culpable, why did the CAMunicator indicate they retired rather than being fired? Why if they were guilty, why did CAM not fire them?

When a board of directors has to get rid of an executive, nobody is found “guilty”. CAM is not a courtroom. The board had significant difficulty getting the execs to even take a leave of absence, they repeatedly kept working when they weren’t supposed to. It took a while for the board to get control of the organisation.

I question much of what you post. For example, you mentioned that CAM is a victim of Jeriah. That in itself is an abuse of the term "victim".

JM stole hundreds of thousands of dollars from CAM. What else do you call that?

Was Joe Paterno a victim of Jerry Sandusky? No, he was an enabler. There is a big difference between the two, just saying. It is both functionally and factually inaccurate to label CAM as a victim in this situation. Google Def - a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action. If CAM would have had the character and culture that would have enabled them to handle the situation well, a person like Jeriah would not have damaged their reputation.

CAM is full of people with excellent character including the board. CAM itself is not a “person” (although it does have “legal personality”) which we can judge specifically for what character it has.

I have been quite critical of CAM including here on MN. I heard of JM’s misbehaviour and told it to someone in CAM, who also heard the same thing, and passed it up the chain of command. The simple fact is JM was a skilled sociopath and manipulator with a home church and family members who helped enable him. The real question is why his home church, its leaders, and his family members have displayed zero accountability.

And by the way, I would fully support his marriage being annulled and his wife remarrying. So there you have it.

Very fascinating logic hopscotch. You know, randal had a very interesting piece back on Dec 24 that raised some serious issues, and the discussion threads that came out of it were on appropriate salary amounts and Anabaptist vacations, but almost no discussion on the real issues randal raised. Is that always the case on this thread.

Josh, you said that CAM is not a person. I believe that statement is quite obvious, and I would also suggest it is equally obvious that you cannot victimize an inanimate object or construct. CAM therefore, based on your own logic, is not, nor cannot, be a victim of anyone. If Jeriah stole hundreds of thousands from CAM, then I would call that theft, due in large part to (at best) willful ignorance or (at worst) extreme pride. Those wounds on CAM were self inflicted. People were calling for 3rd party assessments 20 years ago, and some have stated that if they'd have listened, there's a very good chance this Haiti fiasco would've never happened. How's that for non-resistance and true Anabaptist humility?

I am again signing off. There are so many more issues with your logic, it would take time I don't have, and I wonder... would it really do any good?

[steve-in-kville]

Very fascinating logic hopscotch.

That wasn't very nice

[Josh]

His family, which was also in church leadership at the time this was going on, ought to be revisiting how badly they missed the mark about condoning this marriage. Doubly so that they performed the very rare renewal ceremony. They have certainly been very firm with other people and situations they didn't consider to be worthy of their approval (matters of preference, not sin).

His family seems to be his main enabler.

Her family had a lot of questions. Obviously they weren’t as powerful or influential.

One of the problems with the “Charity” church system (and independent churches in general) is the complete lack of accountability when leaders act this way.

[ABC 123]

His family, which was also in church leadership at the time this was going on, ought to be revisiting how badly they missed the mark about condoning this marriage. Doubly so that they performed the very rare renewal ceremony. They have certainly been very firm with other people and situations they didn't consider to be worthy of their approval (matters of preference, not sin).

I have to disagree a little. Sometime, red flags go up during courtship. Many times, things go south well after the couple says "I do." I personally know of couples where people raved how great it was for two young people to be dating, it was the greatest thing since sliced bread. Only for later on to have the marriage fail.

I also know where people where against a courtship, maybe he or she "could do better" or they where dating "out of their league" so to speak. Only for the marriage to be solid as a rock and go on to thrive.

I'll be honest, I can wax clairvoyant at times and see red flags in a relationship that others may miss. And I've also seen marriages fail when on the outside everything appeared to be kittens and rainbows.

It is one thing to have a vague bad feeling about a relationship. It is another to know the guy sexually abused kids in the family/church and be all like HALLELUJAH he has repented, let's go to a wedding. That shows either profound ignorance to ways of serial pedophiles or willful neglect. I think in this case it is probably ignorance. These same people have been known to sweep house of people who don't tow the line about practical issues. The pedophile stays and the people with the wrong music CDs get booted.

[Josh]

In reference to an independent investigation, CAM isn't worried what they would find regarding the Mast situation. They're worried what else they would find besides that.

Exactly because they know what else they have swept under the rug.

I mean look at Harold Herr and CAM

The Herr situation is unacceptable and inexcusable. But there’s no need for an “independent investigation” to figure that out. It’s not even swept under the rug.

A basic problem is (as you put it) “pedophiles protect other pedophiles” - at some point. CAM and other mission organisations need to accept that sociopaths are attracted to mission work and like to infiltrate them and set up nepotistic power structures.

A lot of plain people simply don’t want to believe this.

[steve-in-kville]

One of the problems with the “Charity” church system (and independent churches in general) is the complete lack of accountability when leaders act this way.

There's one thing we can agree on.

[steve-in-kville]

These same people have been known to sweep house of people who don't tow the line about practical issues.

I'm not familiar with that phrase. Please explain.

[Josh]

Very fascinating logic hopscotch. You know, randal had a very interesting piece back on Dec 24 that raised some serious issues, and the discussion threads that came out of it were on appropriate salary amounts and Anabaptist vacations, but almost no discussion on the real issues randal raised. Is that always the case on this thread.

CAM has a lot of money. People want their money. One of those people is Randal Martin, who wants to build his own organisation. He then tells other people they need to spend lots of money, including on his own organisation. His own track record is very bad - ASAA has been compromised since its founding. Yet Randal still goes around demanding independent investigations, and also soliciting that people pay his organisation for training, etc.

How about this: let’s have an independent investigation into ASAA and Randal Martin. Particularly what went on during its founding.

Josh, you said that CAM is not a person. I believe that statement is quite obvious, and I would also suggest it is equally obvious that you cannot victimize an inanimate object or construct.

Legal entities can be financial victims. I don’t agree with your reasoning.

CAM therefore, based on your own logic, is not, nor cannot, be a victim of anyone. If Jeriah stole hundreds of thousands from CAM, then I would call that theft, due in large part to (at best) willful ignorance or (at worst) extreme pride. Those wounds on CAM were self inflicted. People were calling for 3rd party assessments 20 years ago, and some have stated that if they'd have listened, there's a very good chance this Haiti fiasco would've never happened. How's that for non-resistance and true Anabaptist humility?

I’m fine with an independent investigation.

I do not want to see independent investigation run by people who are simply trying to gain access to CAM’s funds, and particularly don’t want to see the ASAA anywhere near it.

I am again signing off. There are so many more issues with your logic, it would take time I don't have, and I wonder... would it really do any good?

My logic is standard legal reasoning. CAM is an organisation that can indeed be a financial victim. So far, your interactions with me are all quite negative and nasty. You may want to reassess why you are busy shooting your allies on this one. With the way you’ve treated me, you can be assured people who are far more sympathetic to CAM are not going to listen to you. All you seem to want is to destroy CAM.

[Josh]

These same people have been known to sweep house of people who don't tow the line about practical issues.

I'm not familiar with that phrase. Please explain.

There’s a saying, “sweep in your own house”.

Some people are busy sweeping other people’s houses when their own is in need of a deep cleaning.

[ABC 123]

These same people have been known to sweep house of people who don't tow the line about practical issues.

I'm not familiar with that phrase. Please explain.

Kick people out of the church. Ask them to leave. Get rid of the riff raff who spoils your picture perfect image.