Biblical Mennonite Alliance and credential removal of past abusers

[barnhart]

May the truth come out.

I see you are convinced of a cover up.

[Neto]

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

Do you mean to say that it will never be enough
to prevent abuse in the future?
OR
to satisfy the "abuse advocates"?

[JohnH]

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

Do you mean to say that it will never be enough
to prevent abuse in the future?
OR
to satisfy the "abuse advocates"?

(1), nothing is going to 100% solve the problem of very intelligent, crafty sociopaths and psychopaths who either want to abuse people, or else blackmail other abusers for financial gain and power:

(2), no, abuse advocates can’t be satisfied.

[I Timothy]

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.

I am not sure that BMA has did everything that the advocates would want.

I’ve been to the MTC in NYC and I feel this strange juxtaposition. The MTC is located near the big bad “Corporate America.” In some respects Corporate America is getting this figured out. Corporations understand more that harassment and sexual aggression from the people employees serve is a workplace safety issue. Employers don't just look the other way on these issues.

Corporate America can make every employee sit through training on green light, yellow light and red light behavior. They teach boundaries, inappropriate conduct, reporting, and what to do when a line is crossed.

Why didn't a mission organization that places young people in difficult caregiving situations manage something similar?

This is basic staff training and workplace safety.

BMA had the reports and said everything was fine.

Grace would be a good starting point that BMA is familiar with.

[Jude1]

I Timothy,

I suggest you start your own organisation, raise funds, find volunteers and hire employees, and operate an orphanage. Then get back to us. You seem to have it all figured out.

I operate in a highly regulated environment. We deal with many of the same basic responsibilities: government regulations, staff training, oversight, documentation, incident reporting, employee safety, and accountability. I have managed businesses with 2 comma net income. I understand that running a complex organization is difficult, and I have never suggested that operating an orphanage is easy.

This is not about me or my qualifications.

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.

Sounds like you are eminently qualified to go run one.

Orphanages are not a “highly regulated environment”. I suggest you go spend time volunteering at some and learn how the real world works.

That is the question that it seems 1Timothy is asking. WHY aren't orphanages a highly regulated environment? If LOH would have staff with proper training in caring for mentally handicapped, severely traumatized and emotionally damaged children and young adults then maybe cover ups of abuse would not be the discussion. In the US staff would need training in medi administration, behavioral redirection and safety courses before working in group homes as well as have medical professionals and behavioral specialists heavily involved in their care plans. If something isn't working in this 'real world' you speak of, maybe its time to step back and make some adjustments so vulnerable children and naive young caregivers aren't abused and destroyed.

[Judas Maccabeus]

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

Do you mean to say that it will never be enough
to prevent abuse in the future?
OR
to satisfy the "abuse advocates"?

(1), nothing is going to 100% solve the problem of very intelligent, crafty sociopaths and psychopaths who either want to abuse people, or else blackmail other abusers for financial gain and power:

(2), no, abuse advocates can’t be satisfied.

The only thing that would satisfy them is the disappearance of the conservative Anabaptist movement. There is clearly an ax to grind here.

[JohnH]

That is the question that it seems 1Timothy is asking. WHY aren't orphanages a highly regulated environment? If LOH would have staff with proper training in caring for mentally handicapped, severely traumatized and emotionally damaged children and young adults then maybe cover ups of abuse would not be the discussion. In the US staff would need training in medi administration, behavioral redirection and safety courses before working in group homes as well as have medical professionals and behavioral specialists heavily involved in their care plans. If something isn't working in this 'real world' you speak of, maybe its time to step back and make some adjustments so vulnerable children and naive young caregivers aren't abused and destroyed.

What you’re asking for would drive costs very high, and seems motivated mostly by credentialism. Lots of regulation and credentials haven’t stopped abuse from happening in public schools, which host the most sexual abuse of any institution in America, by the way.

Realistically, asking for endless training, credentials, bureaucracy, and administration makes institutions very expensive to run, and eventually will require so much fundraising or grant raising that organisations who do it become mostly focused on their own self preservation, become quite powerful, and history tells us it makes no difference with abuse anyway.

The end result will be the orphanages simply don’t exist.

I used to be a foster parent in California, which had excessive credentoalism and overly strict requirements for “group homes”. The end effect was there were always kids with nowhere to go and the group homes were always full. No one on their right mind would start a volunteer orphanage unless you had serious political connections to raise a lot of $$$ and hire professional, salaries administrators making six figure salaries.

Consequently, the social workers would have no foster homes except ones who lost their licence because they had a swimming pool or didn’t have outlet covers in electric sockets or something. They would file an emergency petition with family court to place a child in an I unlicenced foster home. These were always approved.

I regularly got calls to place 2 children at a time in my 1 bedroom apartment when I already had a foster baby. The social worker also laughed when I asked if we’d put outlet covers on the right outlets. She told me, “I have 100 homes to review per month, and if I enforced rules on things like that, we’d have no foster homes left.”

[JohnH]

Do you mean to say that it will never be enough
to prevent abuse in the future?
OR
to satisfy the "abuse advocates"?

(1), nothing is going to 100% solve the problem of very intelligent, crafty sociopaths and psychopaths who either want to abuse people, or else blackmail other abusers for financial gain and power:

(2), no, abuse advocates can’t be satisfied.

The only thing that would satisfy them is the disappearance of the conservative Anabaptist movement. There is clearly an ax to grind here.

I Timothy has been on the record before saying exactly that, which is why I find his motivations suspect.

[JoyE]

What you’re asking for would drive costs very high, and seems motivated mostly by credentialism. Lots of regulation and credentials haven’t stopped abuse from happening in public schools, which host the most sexual abuse of any institution in America, by the way.

I've heard that before, but does that refer to the percentage of abuse, or simply the number of cases?

[PeterG]

The only thing that would satisfy them is the disappearance of the conservative Anabaptist movement. There is clearly an ax to grind here.

This is probably true of some of them. It is certainly not true of many of them. The only ax that many of them have to grind is the safety of children and other vulnerable people. False sweeping statements are unhelpful.

I would not call myself an "abuse advocate," but as a committed conservative Anabaptist I have intersected with that world at various points. While I do not necessarily agree with or endorse every statement or action from every abuse advocate, I generally find their concerns valid and their suggestions worthy of our respect and consideration, at the very least. I am absolutely convinced that there is far greater danger in fighting them than in listening to them.