Ken wrote:
But there is a difference between keeping one's own secrets and being part of a church that respects no one's privacy. That just becomes endless gossiping. "I saw Beth in the beer section of the grocery last week!" "Did you hear the Smith's went to Atlantic City on vacation last July?" "Did you see Susan at the donut shop? she needs to stay away from sweets, bless her heart" "Did you see the Jones' new car? A little bit too fancy don't you think?" the small town Pennsylvania Mennonite church my mother grew up in was much like that. I know she grew weary of it.
What was it about sin and casting the first stone?
We could have a list of those who slander or gossip, as well.
But that's not gossip. That's sharing your concern for others out of the goodness of your heart!
Ken wrote:
That is how I read it too. I don’t think her point was confusing or ambiguous. She was writing about the homophobic violence that his victims may be subject to in their own communities now that this is becoming public.
She was talking about “God’s people”. I hardly believe that homophobic threats come from “God’s people”.
She's edited her blog to make it clearer for those people who are having trouble understanding.
"However, I am not an advisor for Haiti. So Haiti will need to navigate this criminal mess against one of the largest USA Christian relief work organizations – making the Forbes top 100 Charity list numerous times. It is not an easy thing to enter a legal battle. And it is even worse when you are up against religious people who are lawyered up.
And while they hire lawyers and avoid Haiti law — even while stating publicly they are cooperating with the law — some of the victims in Haiti are receiving death threats (again, as previously stated, not from missionaries). There really is no justice among ‘God’s people’ when this is how they respond."
Trudy also added this on Facebook.
"People are asking who is uttering the death threats. If that was information that was safe to share, I would share it. I have added "not by missionaries" to make it clear. Beyond that I cannot give information."
0 x
No half-heartedness and no worldly fear must turn us aside from following the light unflinchingly. --J.R.R. Tolkien
When you can't run, you crawl, and when you can't crawl - when you can't do that...you find someone to carry you. --Firefly
To Grace: Really? But perhaps you haven't read about the horrific sexual abuse of children that came from "God's people?" Perhaps its better to let actions determine who God's people really are. "Many people will say, Lord...." and God will say, "I never knew you..."
Yes I have read the horrific sexual abuse done to innocent children. And I agree that actions determine who Gods people really are. But do those horrible actions give people the license to purport unverified information? Thankfully Trudy’s blog has been updated even if she still isn’t very clear. I will give her the benefit of the doubt she isn’t accusing people from CAM of the threats.
Aslanhasheard wrote:Trudy also added this on Facebook.
"People are asking who is uttering the death threats. If that was information that was safe to share, I would share it. I have added "not by missionaries" to make it clear. Beyond that I cannot give information."
If parts of the information cannot be given, why give any of it?
Last edited by Grace on Mon Jun 17, 2019 10:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Why is Trudy protecting and covering up people who make death threats? That’s dangerous.
I’m kidding in that I do not believe that is her intent at all. Nor am I proposing that she should disclose who is making threats. I do trust her on that.
But I think it may serve as an example of how people looking on can see what we want to see in things. And possibly she sees things that aren’t really there at times as well.
Aslan:
Trudy also added this on Facebook.
"People are asking who is uttering the death threats. If that was information that was safe to share, I would share it. I have added "not by missionaries" to make it clear. Beyond that I cannot give information."
If parts of the information cannot be given, why give any of it?
i join others suggesting you ask Trudy.
you are sharing your understanding, others understand differently. the only way to know her intent is to ask her.
i am not following her, never heard of her before last week. i’m not jumping to conclusions one way or another.
temporal1 wrote:
i join others suggesting you ask Trudy.
you are sharing your understanding, others understand differently. the only way to know her intent is to ask her.
i am not following her, never heard of her before last week. i’m not jumping to conclusions one way or another.
she seems to be available and willing to discuss.
Although I question unsourced information, Trudy has said on FB that it isn’t the missionaries or CAM making the threats and I will take her word on that.
So if we don't want this watch list, some current developments need to be addressed now. There is a concerted effort at forming a cover-up to intimidate those who are coming forward.
Josh, so what are those developments and how do you suggest addressing them?
They aren’t really things where full details can be aired in public, but basically, certain plain people who are well educated and have been involved in a cover-up before are now involved in advising CAM staff and ministers in Haiti.
You’ll have to just “take my word for it”, but it’s pretty bad. I’m not sure how to address it. Some of the people involved are licenced counselling professionals who know better and are using their skills to facilitate a cover up.
Aslanhasheard wrote:Trudy also added this on Facebook.
"People are asking who is uttering the death threats. If that was information that was safe to share, I would share it. I have added "not by missionaries" to make it clear. Beyond that I cannot give information."
If parts of the information cannot be given, why give any of it?
Grace, your attitude so far is that no information should ever be given. Your approach to these things has led to the disgrace of CAM, massive financial losses form CAM, and to hundreds of victims being abused over the course of decades.
We need as much information as possible, other than naming and shaming victims themselves, and only because that serves no purpose of reconciliation and restoration.
The question needs to be asked why you prefer to keep things in the dark.
Sienna wrote:A list would cross the line from advocating for the abused to being the abuser. Bringing false accusations against someone (and I've had the experience) is abuse and can ruin the lives of innocent individuals--which is why slander is likened to murder. For me (and I suspect many others who are also truly outraged by what is happening) Trudy will lose credibility if she does this, and that would be tragedy.
One major problem is the first thing an abuser does with an outsider like me who reports something is start accusing me of anything and everything. When I brought to light a certain abusers’ behaviour to ministers at our church, he levelled accusations of me preying on basically every girl in the youth group, then every guy, and then moved on to accusing me of adultery with his wife. Eventually he did the same tactics with a respected CMC pastor and to another outsider who joined the same church.
His accusations were not really believed although a few people repeated them in bad faith (not about me but about the CMC pastor). But it overall makes for a very muddy situation. A deranged narcissistic sociopath tends to figure out how to take advantage of a rigid system like an “accusation list”.
Such an environment also makes one that is very hostile towards sharing actual problems and sin areas in your life. During this time, I gave up on the conservative Anabaptist world and instead found a Oneness Pentecostal pastor. That person was a lifeline to me.
