Biblical Mennonite Alliance and credential removal of past abusers

[AnthonyMartin]

Would a bot remember sitting at SMBI in the 1990s and having a classroom discussion about whether a girl should run away from unwanted male advances? This discussion isn't about me, there are real victims who need support and resources.

Probably not a bot, but I would. 93, and 94 terms…

Whoa...

I forget the term numbers but I believe it was fall of ‘93 and winter of ‘94-95

[barnhart]

Let's talk hypothetically.

Things like a young female caregiver who is sexually groped by a resident. She asks leadership for permission to establish some basic physical boundaries. Her request is denied by management.

Maybe Gothard would appreciate the caregivers submission to authority while being groped? Maybe Stutzman would say this was demonic activity and not worthy of staff training?

These are questions about whether the orphanage was being run safely. And there are a lot of questions like this.

From my limited knowledge I would say it has not been run properly in a way to protect both staff and residents. Since you inserted this into a discussion about removing ministry credentials, may I assume you feel there is a cover-up unless credentials are revoked?

[Ernie]

In the context of this discussion, firsthand information concerning suspected child abuse, sexual assault, neglect, exploitation, or other serious criminal conduct involving children or employees that has not already been reported to the appropriate authorities. There could be ministers, Sunday School teachers, friends, etc reading this forum who know people involved in this situation. This is an encouragement for those with information to report it and for those who know people to encourage reporting.

I am not suggesting you call the police every time someone exceeds the speed limit or does something you don't like. I assumed the context of a discussion about the safety of children in an orphanage made that distinction reasonably clear. This is a plea for primary witnesses and not people with second hand knowledge.

What biblical principles do we have for reporting "possible criminal conduct" to civil authorities?

I can understand reporting criminal conduct.

Open your mouth for the mute, for the rights of all who are destitute. Open your mouth, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy. Provers 31:8-9.

I see biblical injunctions for reporting abuse and neglect as in the one you mentioned.
I don't see this for possible abuse and neglect. (not saying I would never report for possible abuse and neglect but I don't see a moral responsibility to report all possible abuse or neglect.)

[Judas Maccabeus]

It wasn't BMA, but when I was doing some work with a Keystone-affiliated org, they incorporated this into their training materials including the right procedures to follow. We also were given carte blanche to use our own discretion to decide if felt something needed reported to law enforcement and to also educate ourselves on what any state requirements may be, and to keep abreast of changes. A handbook was distributed with a summary of PA law at the time.

I am familiar with what you speak of. Mid-Atlantic and Eastern use the same training, with minor differences. It had to be modified for Maryland, as the law is different. That was done with the help of Washington-Franklin people. They are serious too. Everyone in the organization in which I work has a supervisor, director, and if all else fails, they know the board. The training makes clear you have the absolute right to call the authorities directly if you are unsatisfied with the action taken. Those numbers are in the handbook and posted.

I am quite sure, with what I have heard of the Church of God in Christ (Mennonite) they would have little tolerance for that as well.

I am headed for retraining in October. Need to do that periodically.

Look, most of us are serious about preventing abuse and will report if appropriate. What input any of us would have on a situation in another conference, in an organization that I am not a part of, in another country kinnda boggels my mind.

This is where the discussion about training become much more meaningful. I do quarterly compliance trainings concerning some of the issues presented, although at a much less depth than an orphanage would require.

My understanding is that many of the staff received roughly 6 weeks of Spanish instruction and a short course dealing with restraints (per old LOH FB postings) From what I am told, there was no meaningful trauma-informed care or broader training for working with children with behavioral issues.

At the same time, caregivers were reportedly being repeatedly assaulted and abused by children, and there were also incidents of children assaulting other children.

This is not a case of volunteers encountering an occasional difficult child. LOH was employing people to care for children with known histories of trauma and serious behavioral problems, while assaults on both staff and other children are occurring, what training and safety systems were in place?

What were employees supposed to do after an assault?

Who evaluated whether a child presented a continuing danger to staff or other children?

Who determined appropriate staffing levels?

Could an employee bypass management if management's response was inadequate? I appreciate the training JudasM receives.

Were incidents formally documented and reviewed so that repeated assaults involving the same child or circumstances could be identified?

What responsibility did BMA as the employer have toward its own employees/volunteers that were repeatedly being assaulted at LOH?

JudasH described training, procedures, escalation routes, and permission to go outside the chain of command. I can appreciate programs like this.

Six weeks of Spanish and a short restraint course are not substitutes for a child-safeguarding and employee-safety program.

I see 2 groups of vulnerable people here who shouldn't get lost in an argument about organizational structure. We have children who need competent, trauma-informed care and protection from each another. We also have caregivers who need training and protection from workplace violence.

It is also doesn't get lost on me that Trudy made a post today about a horrendous situation. What happened in Mexico would fit what she wrote. It also is not lost on me that QuietlyListening earlier in this thread said that others came in and messed things up. The path to fixing this does not involve calling out others who bring up concerns.

Once again, training and policy are the purview of the local board. That is where you should be focusing. Trying to shame a random group that has limited knowledge and no authority is simply making noise in the air. It accomplishes nothing.

[I Timothy]

Let's talk hypothetically.

Things like a young female caregiver who is sexually groped by a resident. She asks leadership for permission to establish some basic physical boundaries. Her request is denied by management.

Maybe Gothard would appreciate the caregivers submission to authority while being groped? Maybe Stutzman would say this was demonic activity and not worthy of staff training?

These are questions about whether the orphanage was being run safely. And there are a lot of questions like this.

From my limited knowledge I would say it has not been run properly in a way to protect both staff and residents. Since you inserted this into a discussion about removing ministry credentials, may I assume you feel there is a cover-up unless credentials are revoked?

It is too early to say there was a cover-up. More facts need to come out, there should be an independent investigation. Those involved need to step aside. BMA already had 1 significant resignation over this.

There are serious questions. We now know an abuser was involved around LOH. How does someone with that history end up involved in any capacity around another orphanage? I understand BMA only recently learned the full story, but there appear to have been red flags for years.

BMA also conducted a review last year that essentially cleared LOH of the concerns being raised. Those concerns are now in the public domain, this is something someone with experience needs to unravel.

How did last year's review miss so much?

Trudy posted about this today, expect more to come out.

[I Timothy]

From what

Once again, training and policy are the purview of the local board. That is where you should be focusing. Trying to shame a random group that has limited knowledge and no authority is simply making noise in the air. It accomplishes nothing.

The BOE may not have managed LOH's daily operations, BMA's own governance structure gave it administrative and oversight responsibilities. It therefore cannot fairly be characterized as a random group with no responsibility.

This also makes the earlier BMA investigation very relevant. If the BOE commissioned or received an investigative report concerning LOH, what it knew, when it knew it, and what it did with that information are governance questions. Allegation are that warnings from caregivers, supervisors, and board members date back to 2021.

It also doesn't help that BMA recruited and employed from other conferences/fellowships (up to 9?). Ministers from other organizations did not have a reporting process that they could follow.

DIF mercifully removed the children on March 9, 2026 following interviews with the children. Instead of arguing over who had the narrowest possible responsibility, I want to know how things ever reached that point.

Maybe there was a cover-up and maybe there wasn't. Let an independent investigation establish that. Attacking caregivers and whistleblowers while insisting the people above them had “no authority” is not an adequate answer. BMA rearranged their speakers at conference this summer to punish certain people.

May the truth come out.

[JohnH]

Who, exactly, is going to run an “independent investigation”?

[Judas Maccabeus]

This also makes the earlier BMA investigation very relevant. If the BOE commissioned or received an investigative report concerning LOH, what it knew, when it knew it, and what it did with that information are governance questions. Allegation are that warnings from caregivers, supervisors, and board members date back to 2021.

Board members? They collectively have the authority to shut the whole operation down, fire workers, and report to the civil authorities.

If the BMA got in the way, they have the ability to resign en masse.

Once again, a board failure.

[ohio jones]

Who, exactly, is going to run an “independent investigation”?

Are you available?

GRACE, the organization founded and until recently led by Boz Tchividjian, is one that is frequently mentioned in these situations. They do have experience in BMA circles.

[JohnH]

Who, exactly, is going to run an “independent investigation”?

Are you available?

GRACE, the organization founded and until recently led by Boz Tchividjian, is one that is frequently mentioned in these situations. They do have experience in BMA circles.

It would be entirely reasonable for those responsible for certain organisations to reject calls from people who have otherwise expressed hostility to that organisation and its stated purpose to submit to "independent organisations" from something such people are endorsing.

I also question if it can actually do any good. An obvious problem is how trustworthy these "independent organisations" even are, although I have no particular animus against GRACE.

BMA has been doing, and is doing, everything that "abuse advocates" claim they want, but it's clear that it will never be enough.