CAM Molestation Issue

[Josh]

That is where we differ. I've seen substantial shifts happen in the past whenever there was negligence or naivete.

Ernie,

Take it from some of us who've had enough hands-on experience with these things: negligence or naivete aren't "bad faith", and are problems that can be corrected.

There's something different about habitual sexual offenders. It's not like what you are used to dealing with. You are dealing with a sub-set of people who are very good at saying the right things on the outside, appearing outwardly righteous, but whilst covering up very grievous sins. And they are skilled at getting others to cover-up for them. Once a cover-up has happened, it's like dealing with the Mafia... nobody can come forward and come clean because they will be shown as guilty of the cover-ups for so long.

Perhaps we need some good training and education about dealing with this. I feel like it's not enough to just try to "fix CAM", but overall this problem needs dealt with thoroughly in our circles.

[steve-in-kville]

Thank you, Josh for the reply. I'm just trying to week through three days or new info.

[Ernie]

Ernie,
How do any of us take this to CAM?
Who there will meet with us?
What accountability and assurances can be provided that what we say will be taken seriously?

With the amount of energy this situation is consuming, (in addition to the full time work these men were already doing) it may be awhile until you could meet with someone. I think it would be considerate to give them some space.

You could write a letter to CAM asking to meet with a couple board members and executive committee members as soon as they have time to meet with you. You could take some church leaders along with you.

In the meantime, you could write a up a polite statement like Dan Z wrote, send it to CAM by mail, fax, or email; ask that it be delivered to the Board and/or Exec. Committee, and ask for a confirmation that they received it.

[joshuabgood]

And I say this with all kindness and love, but your position as an employee of CAM of course, and there is nothing wrong with it it just is what it is, perhaps influences your discernment.

It is possible.
But I have had my own disappointments with some aspects of CAM and I have not shied away from acknowledging them publicly.
On another occasion I asked for a hearing. The overseers listened well and made changes accordingly.
I can only talk from my experience. I can't speak for others.

The problem here wasn't the screening. That's a non-issue. Leaders at CAM knew. The problem was the burying and non-reporting of the issue. And in so doing endangering the welfare of some of the most vulnerable children on earth.

That is what boggles the minds of some of us 900. In our departments, this would not have happened.

I am curious, what would it take to make you consider dropping your support?

If there are no new policies, no new accountability procedures, no new layers of review, and no help for the victims. (as a result of this ordeal)

Light drives out darkness. I have very little confidence that absent public exposure, any substantial shifts would be forthcoming.

That is where we differ. I've seen substantial shifts happen in the past whenever there was negligence or naivete.

Fair enough. I think my doubt is driven by the public statement that was released. And I've already pointed out the serious issues I have with that document. As I've noted I've had a deep respect for CAM for a long time...which makes the responses up to this point so disappointing.

I am good with your list regarding what needs to happen to maintain support of CAM...with a few notes. There needs to be resignations from those who knew. And there really should be an outside investigation. And a public apology to the victims and constituents. As I've mentioned I've called for these directly from CAM through the avenues available to me. And I am advocating for others, especially those with influence, whose opinions CAM would take seriously, to do the same. With the end result, hopefully being complete restoration for CAM.

[Josh]

Let’s remember this was a crime and a sin committed against CAM, itself, and against the church, herself.

The question now is wresting control of CAM back from those who cooperate with the works of darkness instead of exposing them. Unfortunately, my current best information is that this is still going on. And it’s obvious nobody from CAM will meet with me (or Metzger, or other people who have spoken up) about this.

[steve-in-kville]

Let’s remember this was a crime and a sin committed against CAM, itself, and against the church, herself.

The question now is wresting control of CAM back from those who cooperate with the works of darkness instead of exposing them. Unfortunately, my current best information is that this is still going on. And it’s obvious nobody from CAM will meet with me (or Metzger, or other people who have spoken up) about this.

One thing I thought of, and possibly its already been suggested, is CAM needs to appoint a Public Information Officer (PIO). That way all questions are directed to that PIO and all official statements concerning this come from that PIO.

[Wade]

And I say this with all kindness and love, but your position as an employee of CAM of course, and there is nothing wrong with it it just is what it is, perhaps influences your discernment.

It is possible.
But I have had my own disappointments with some aspects of CAM and I have not shied away from acknowledging them publicly.
On another occasion I asked for a hearing. The overseers listened well and made changes accordingly.
I can only talk from my experience. I can't speak for others.

The problem here wasn't the screening. That's a non-issue. Leaders at CAM knew. The problem was the burying and non-reporting of the issue. And in so doing endangering the welfare of some of the most vulnerable children on earth.

That is what boggles the minds of some of us 900. In our departments, this would not have happened.

I am curious, what would it take to make you consider dropping your support?

If there are no new policies, no new accountability procedures, no new layers of review, and no help for the victims. (as a result of this ordeal)

Light drives out darkness. I have very little confidence that absent public exposure, any substantial shifts would be forthcoming.

That is where we differ. I've seen substantial shifts happen in the past whenever there was negligence or naivete.

Are your saying negligence or naivete can turn into positive shifts where darkness leaves?

[Ernie]

Are your saying negligence or naivete can turn into positive shifts where darkness leaves?

I'm saying that there have been times when CAM employees neglected to do their job, were not aware of what their job was, or were not competent in their job, and changes were implemented to correct these problems. I have seen these changes as positive. I expect more to come as a result of this ordeal. Some changes will happen overnight. Others will take time to implement. As this happens, darkness will leave.

[Wade]

As expected, I have seen more than a few detractors of Anabaptism criticizing “plain” churches and suggesting that this sort of thing is, of course, widespread among these “Pharisees”. But isn’t Shining Light” a Charity type church, precisely the type of church that converts people out of “plain” churches which they consider Pharisaical? Is it possible that the perpetrator, having a testimony of being “born again” and accepting the feeble concept of “repentance” as merely being sorry for what you have done (which is common in Evangelicalism) might have contributed to pulling the wool over the eyes of the Plain Church leaders who oversee CAM?

What I am curious about is: In Plain churches if "moral failings" happen is it common that all that is said to the congregation is that the person had a moral failure? with the excuse to keep details out? Or is the congregation actually told this person sexually abused children?

[Aurien]

As expected, I have seen more than a few detractors of Anabaptism criticizing “plain” churches and suggesting that this sort of thing is, of course, widespread among these “Pharisees”. But isn’t Shining Light” a Charity type church, precisely the type of church that converts people out of “plain” churches which they consider Pharisaical? Is it possible that the perpetrator, having a testimony of being “born again” and accepting the feeble concept of “repentance” as merely being sorry for what you have done (which is common in Evangelicalism) might have contributed to pulling the wool over the eyes of the Plain Church leaders who oversee CAM?

What I am curious about is: In Plain churches if "moral failings" happen is it common that all that is said to the congregation is that the person had a moral failure? with the excuse to keep details out? Or is the congregation actually told this person sexually abused children?

In my experience the congregation is not told what actually happened. "Moral failure." "Indiscretions." Those seem to be buzzwords used when a person sexually molests someone.