The CAM scandal links and assorted other topics thread

[Judas Maccabeus]

Upon reflection, Mr. Atnips words sound jarringly similar to things the leadership of Sovereign Grace repeatedly said from the pulpit to their congregations, all the while the abuse continued, until a website and later the press blew the lid off of it.

While I would encourage Trudy (if she is reading this) not to repeat unverified information, and to check her sources before posting, getting this issue into the open needed to be done. Maybe there is hope after all. SBC just kicked out a church for hiring a registered offender as a pastor. Finally.

J.M.

[TruthSeeker]

Upon reflection, Mr. Atnips words sound jarringly similar to things the leadership of Sovereign Grace repeatedly said from the pulpit to their congregations, all the while the abuse continued, until a website and later the press blew the lid off of it.

While I would encourage Trudy (if she is reading this) not to repeat unverified information, and to check her sources before posting, getting this issue into the open needed to be done. Maybe there is hope after all. SBC just kicked out a church for hiring a registered offender as a pastor. Finally.

J.M.

I, too, am a staunch proponent of dedication to facts, logic, and do not thrive on sensationalism. Questions I would never-the-less raise, ones that have already been presented by some on MN, are these following two:

Who is willing to come forward and do the job in a manner perceived as acceptable?
Who is willing to take the kind of pushback that accompanies addressing sexual abuse in the CA circles?

[Joy]

Them that sin, rebuke before all so that others may fear....

Exactly, and commanded in the context of church leadership.

[Ernie]

Shedding light on sexual abuse allegations and confirmed cases of sexual abuse is not talebearing, gossiping, slandering, being a busybody, character destruction, or whatever else you'd like to call it.

I agree. Shedding light on sexual abuse allegations and confirmed cases in a scriptural way, is different from talebearing, gossiping, slandering, being a busybody, and character destruction. Let's not confuse the two. It is possible to do the first without doing the latter.

If people have neglected the first, they need to repent. If people have done the second, they need to repent.

[KirkDaniel]

Shedding light on sexual abuse allegations and confirmed cases of sexual abuse is not talebearing, gossiping, slandering, being a busybody, character destruction, or whatever else you'd like to call it.

Shedding light on sexual abuse allegations and confirmed cases in a scriptural way, is different from talebearing, gossiping, slandering, being a busybody, and character destruction. Let's not confuse the two. It is possible to do the first without doing the latter.

Ernie, what is the scriptural way?

Because the problem has been that the CA churches have all along thought they were dealing with things scripturally. And we see how that is working out for them.

[temporal1]

Shedding light on sexual abuse allegations and confirmed cases of sexual abuse is not talebearing, gossiping, slandering, being a busybody, character destruction, or whatever else you'd like to call it.

I agree. Shedding light on sexual abuse allegations and confirmed cases in a scriptural way, is different from talebearing, gossiping, slandering, being a busybody, and character destruction. Let's not confuse the two. It is possible to do the first without doing the latter.

If people have neglected the first, they need to repent. If people have done the second, they need to repent.

Only from the outside, not following every thread or post, on forum or off, it doesn’t seem there has been INTENTIONAL talebearing, etc., and, where mistakes were made, corrections followed.
Which isn’t a flawless way ..

but, i think more important, if i suffered social damage in the pursuit of defense of young victims of authentic, unrepentant, serial sexual abuse, i would suffer and have faith Our Father would, in His time, absolve me. i have been wrongly accused at times in my life, sometimes very painfully so.

in comparison to defenseless victims, it was “nothing.” God takes care of all things.
i forgive my accusers. i never wanted them to be harmed. i just didn’t want them to harm me.

God takes care of extreme victims, too.
He allows (and appoints) church leadership, and gov intervention to respond to sins and crimes.

i don’t intend to be critical, Ernie, i trust your heart.
this is just how it looks to me, and how i’ve responded to (similar) in my life.
looking back, i’m ok with it. being slandered, even deliberately, is not the worst thing possible.
God works it out. i don’t believe God “allows”/enables/protects extreme abuse of the defenseless.

[appleman2006]

I suppose it is unlikely that Mike is reading this but if he is here is my advice to him. If he knows of some specific slander or wrong information that has been put out here he should be specifically calling it out. As to potential gossip he should also call that out specifically. If he read the whole thread he will see that some of us do that occasionally. But to make the statement he did is just as bad as what he is calling out. He is colouring everyone with the same brush. And I am afraid it is this very attitude that has allowed this stuff to happen and not be dealt with correctly in the first place.
I do not know Mike A. But I really hope that somewhere he is actually being part of the solution rather than adding to the problem.

[temporal1]

I suppose it is unlikely that Mike is reading this but if he is here is my advice to him. If he knows of some specific slander or wrong information that has been put out here he should be specifically calling it out. As to potential gossip he should also call that out specifically. If he read the whole thread he will see that some of us do that occasionally. But to make the statement he did is just as bad as what he is calling out. He is colouring everyone with the same brush. And I am afraid it is this very attitude that has allowed this stuff to happen and not be dealt with correctly in the first place.
I do not know Mike A. But I really hope that somewhere he is actually being part of the solution rather than adding to the problem.

i don’t know Mike Atnip either.
from my perspective, his words reflected emotional instability, i appreciated Josh’s prayers for him to be released from bondage. later, i wondered if his words are common to others? i hope not.
there is no shame in being emotionally distraught or unstable. but anyone suffering so should not be in leadership of others. it doesn’t help the suffering person or anyone else.

the red flags i saw in his posts were about him, not those of whom he spoke.

i’m hoping my granddaughter is learning to listen to her “instincts,” not deny them, as she grows up. be cautious. time reveals whether our instincts were correct or not.

disclaimer: i do not presume to know anything more than his recent posts.
his username is a little familiar from MD. i recall nothing else about him.

[Ernie]

Ernie, what is the scriptural way?

This article is quite well written I think.
https://bible.org/seriespage/lesson-16- ... ians-51-13
It addresses both sexual sin as well as gossip and slander.
It also outlines a good procedure for dealing with sin.

I believe that before a person (or group of persons) are accused of wrong doing, the one with the accusation should meet personally with the ones purported to be in the wrong or the ones purported to be responsible for the wrong.
The ones doing the accusing AND the ones being accused should be interested in hearing the whole story. If there is a discrepancy in the stories, these discrepancies should be investigated.
Once the truth is established, those in the wrong should repent. If any false accusations were spread before the meeting, these should also be repented of.
Restitution should be made to whatever extent this can be done. If a person or group of persons did not properly vet their employees before hiring them or did not properly interview someone before joining the church, this should be repented of.
If speaking evil of others or false accusations were made, the ones in the wrong should make apologies to all those who heard it.
Those in the wrong should be given sufficient time to make the wrongs right, and sufficient time to make the necessary changes in their lives so that it does not happen again.
If after this process there is not repentance and amendment of life, there may may be room for making these matters public.

In the early church era, there were no newspapers or internet. News traveled by mouth.
Some news at that time did not need to be passed along and some news was not accurate. Jesus and the Apostles addressed both of these sins. (I think that passing information along via newspapers or the internet falls under the same principles that Jesus and the Apostles addressed.)

The NT does tell us to be slow to speak and slow to judge. The NT also tells us to bring hidden sins to light, and tells us the manner in which it should be done.
I do not see any tolerance in the NT for "dumping unverified information or speculations in the public square", (information that could hurt a person's reputation) with the speculation or assumption that the person is guilty until proven innocent.
A simple "correction" a week or month later in the news does not correct the damage that has been done to a person's reputation during the ensuing period of time.
Anyone who is ever on the receiving end of such an injustice can understand very well what I am saying.

[appleman2006]

Ernie, what is the scriptural way?

This article is quite well written I think.
https://bible.org/seriespage/lesson-16- ... ians-51-13
It addresses both sexual sin as well as gossip and slander.
It also outlines a good procedure for dealing with sin.

I believe that before a person (or group of persons) are accused of wrong doing, the one with the accusation should meet personally with the ones purported to be in the wrong or the ones purported to be responsible for the wrong.
The ones doing the accusing AND the ones being accused should be interested in hearing the whole story. If there is a discrepancy in the stories, these discrepancies should be investigated.
Once the truth is established, those in the wrong should repent. If any false accusations were spread before the meeting, these should also be repented of.
Restitution should be made to whatever extent this can be done. If a person or group of persons did not properly vet their employees before hiring them or did not properly interview someone before joining the church, this should be repented of.
If speaking evil of others or false accusations were made, the ones in the wrong should make apologies to all those who heard it.
Those in the wrong should be given sufficient time to make the wrongs right, and sufficient time to make the necessary changes in their lives so that it does not happen again.
If after this process there is not repentance and amendment of life, there may may be room for making these matters public.

In the early church era, there were no newspapers or internet. News traveled by mouth.
Some news at that time did not need to be passed along and some news was not accurate. Jesus and the Apostles addressed both of these sins. (I think that passing information along via newspapers or the internet falls under the same principles that Jesus and the Apostles addressed.)

The NT does tell us to be slow to speak and slow to judge. The NT also tells us to bring hidden sins to light, and tells us the manner in which it should be done.
I do not see any tolerance in the NT for "dumping unverified information or speculations in the public square", (information that could hurt a person's reputation) with the speculation or assumption that the person is guilty until proven innocent.
A simple "correction" a week or month later in the news does not correct the damage that has been done to a person's reputation during the ensuing period of time.
Anyone who is ever on the receiving end of such an injustice can understand very well what I am saying.

Ernie for the most part I agree with what you say here almost entirely. My concern however is that while I think you intentions are good I am not sure this is the right time to be emphasising this.
Blaming the messenger in any way right now will give the appearance of "circling the wagons". For to long things have not been handled correctly when the proper methods were used to report and I think it is partially that frustration that has caused some of the perceived gossip. I like you have spoken up occasionally where I have sensed that the accusations have been to vague. However my take at this point is that the one giving the message is not the primary problem right now. and I am not saying you are saying that. I am simply saying we need to be careful.