Biblical Mennonite Alliance and credential removal of past abusers

[anndet92]

(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.

Perhaps for some abuse advocates. I have had some reservations about Trudy in the past, but this question is not the reason. (I have some misgivings about Steve as well, so I'm not 'choosing sides' regarding the other thread.)

My main reservation is as to whether it is healthy for the advocates themselves, IF they were also a victim. I have never been a victim of this type of abuse, so I have no personal place from which to form an experienced opinion. It's just an empathetic response. (Perhaps a response from my experiences with other types of 'abuse'.)

But a post from Trudy appeared on FaceBook this morning, where she quotes Menno Simons, and asks "What went wrong? - How did 'we' get to where 'we' are now?" I think it's a good question, and one that does not imply that 'anabaptism needs to go away'.

I left the Mennonite church 4 years ago, but I find myself agreeing very much with early anabaptism - which, as Trudy pointed out today, is very different from today’s Anabaptism. My husband read the writings of Menno Simons long before we left the church, and we were both shocked by how far the Anabaptist church of today has fallen from the original movement.

I am not out to demolish Anabaptism. I very much agree with the non-violent teachings, among other things. I would like to see a shift back towards early Anabaptism.

As for the “abuse advocates will never be satisfied” sentiment, you are entitled to your own views.

Personally, the reality that abuse happens in the church does not shake me even half as much as watching churches and organizations who claim to follow Jesus fight exposure of that abuse.

As long as the religious community tries to shut down survivors voices, you do not earn my trust and respect.

Again, I’m speaking for myself.

[PeterG]

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.

Would you please post a link to the statements of I Timothy that you're referring to?

[Jude1]

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.”

It would drive costs. I don't know the answers to all the questions. I understand there isn't a foolproof way to help those in need. But I do know there has to be a better way then how LOH has been managed. When there isn't Transparency, when staff are blindsided upon arrival, when kids and adults are being abused over and over again then something is very very wrong. When those in charge keep turning a blind eye and covering up for each other then something is very very wrong. Checks and balances are so important and training and credidentialing is one tool in that tool chest

[JohnH]

It would drive costs. I don't know the answers to all the questions. I understand there isn't a foolproof way to help those in need. But I do know there has to be a better way then how LOH has been managed. When there isn't Transparency, when staff are blindsided upon arrival, when kids and adults are being abused over and over again then something is very very wrong. When those in charge keep turning a blind eye and covering up for each other then something is very very wrong. Checks and balances are so important and training and credidentialing is one tool in that tool chest

Credentialing does nothing at all when someone has conned their way into leadership who is a perpetrator. Quite the opposite - they're now in a position to use credentialism and other bureaucratic means to keep people out who would put a stop to the abuse.

"Transparency" is partially a good thing, but transparency can't be expected to be extended to an institution's critics, and in an orphanage, there's a limit on how much can really be public.

In any case, BMA already has plenty of credentialled people and bureaucracy. I see the problems as:

- Eicher was able to use credentials to bypass having his background checked more thoroughly.
- Oak Hill has refused to honour BMA's defrocking of Eicher and still has him in leadership. This will probably result in BMA and Oak Hill parting ways, but Eicher will remain in a position of power, and will probably just find a new network to exercise that power in.
- Lack of rotating boards; in my denomination, boards are rotated every 2-3 years, so nobody can really install themselves into a permanent position of power, and that makes it a lot harder to permanently cover something up. Eicher appears to have sat on this board for quite a long time.

Now, with all that said... my little tiny piddly unincorporated association nonprofit has a self-perpetuating board and no requirement to rotate the board, because it's hard to find people to trust to serve on a board, and due to not wanting to lose control of the institution. However, my association's mission is limited to the promotion of books and reading material. If I were running an orphanage, I would be looking for outside control, rotating boards, and either denominational oversight from my own denomination, or if I were in something like BMA, denominational oversight from BMA and like-minded denominations (Keystone, ADC, Lancaster Conference, and whatever other birds are finding themselves of similar feathers).

I have so far not heard any suggestions for what to do when a corrupt person installs himself in leadership - they are really hard to get rid of.

[Neto]

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

Perhaps for some abuse advocates. I have had some reservations about Trudy in the past, but this question is not the reason. (I have some misgivings about Steve as well, so I'm not 'choosing sides' regarding the other thread.)

My main reservation is as to whether it is healthy for the advocates themselves, IF they were also a victim. I have never been a victim of this type of abuse, so I have no personal place from which to form an experienced opinion. It's just an empathetic response. (Perhaps a response from my experiences with other types of 'abuse'.)

But a post from Trudy appeared on FaceBook this morning, where she quotes Menno Simons, and asks "What went wrong? - How did 'we' get to where 'we' are now?" I think it's a good question, and one that does not imply that 'anabaptism needs to go away'.

I left the Mennonite church 4 years ago, but I find myself agreeing very much with early anabaptism - which, as Trudy pointed out today, is very different from today’s Anabaptism. My husband read the writings of Menno Simons long before we left the church, and we were both shocked by how far the Anabaptist church of today has fallen from the original movement.

I am not out to demolish Anabaptism. I very much agree with the non-violent teachings, among other things. I would like to see a shift back towards early Anabaptism.

As for the “abuse advocates will never be satisfied” sentiment, you are entitled to your own views.

Personally, the reality that abuse happens in the church does not shake me even half as much as watching churches and organizations who claim to follow Jesus fight exposure of that abuse.

As long as the religious community tries to shut down survivors voices, you do not earn my trust and respect.

Again, I’m speaking for myself.

I hope that you were referring to some other 'you', because I did not ever say anything like that. I have only questioned whether it is healthy for a former victim to be involved in the advocacy operations. (I'm not talking specifically about helping other victims, but I do wonder about that as well, because of the constant reminder of personal trauma. Again, I also said that this may just be my own empathetic response.)

[Judas Maccabeus]

- Lack of rotating boards; in my denomination, boards are rotated every 2-3 years, so nobody can really install themselves into a permanent position of power, and that makes it a lot harder to permanently cover something up. Eicher appears to have sat on this board for quite a long time.

Term limits? This seems to be really common in the conservative world.

[joshuabgood]

- Lack of rotating boards; in my denomination, boards are rotated every 2-3 years, so nobody can really install themselves into a permanent position of power, and that makes it a lot harder to permanently cover something up. Eicher appears to have sat on this board for quite a long time.

Term limits? This seems to be really common in the conservative world.

Like a lot of things in life...term limits solve some problems but can cause others.

[Judas Maccabeus]

- Lack of rotating boards; in my denomination, boards are rotated every 2-3 years, so nobody can really install themselves into a permanent position of power, and that makes it a lot harder to permanently cover something up. Eicher appears to have sat on this board for quite a long time.

Term limits? This seems to be really common in the conservative world.

Like a lot of things in life...term limits solve some problems but can cause others.

Yes, that is true. I am, in fact, on a board because someone term-limited off. He is probably a better fit than I. But it does avoid other problems. Rotating new people onto a board avoids the problem of entrenched leadership becoming non-responsive to concerns from the constituency.

[Silentreader]

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.

Would you please post a link to the statements of I Timothy that you're referring to?

Whole cloth...diverse fabrics prolly, again.

[GelassenheitBnksi]

Trudy is referring to “100 pages of documentation.” Also frequently references talking with a BMA leader. Is Trudy conducting an investigation on behalf of BMA? It’s interesting that BMA and Trudy and Co appear to be on very amicable terms at the moment. Oh the irony.