The CAM scandal links and assorted other topics thread

[Aurien]

I’m not done yet.

I think they (CAM) and we are unacceptable. It is mind-boggling to me that we are almost a year into this thing and on the one hand we have people who have an inkling of what happened with no interest in looking into it and on the other hand we have people who think this can be solved with boards, mission statements and policies. With these two reactions, it’s no wonder this issue has hidden underground for so long. Who loses in this shuffle? The abused people, of all people; they are the neglected ones. It’s ludicrous.

We have people who have been abused, are seriously struggling and could be in your church and sitting in the pew beside you. I know there are more people dealing with this trauma than the ones related to this scandal at CAM. What about the abused people?

We can talk until we’re blue in the face about what or if or how CAM will do things, but until this gets dealt with in a healthy way in the churches...

I do think there are people able to keep the pressure on CAM and they should keep doing it. I pray that it makes a difference and am thankful for people who are willing to let us know what is happening or in some cases, let us know what is not happening when something should be happening.

The part I underlined and put in bold reminded me of the second verse in this song
[video][/video]

It also reminded me of the third verse in this song.
[video][/video]

[TruthSeeker]

. . . As it relates to this thread, I believe that Anabaptists (and others) have been too oblivious and careless with sexual abuse, and the vocal minority is making this problem known.

It goes a long way to hear this expressed! Thank you!

[Ernie]

. . . As it relates to this thread, I believe that Anabaptists (and others) have been too oblivious and careless with sexual abuse, and the vocal minority is making this problem known.

It goes a long way to hear this expressed! Thank you!

In spite of me feeling good about some changes CAM is making, I realize that Anabaptists as a whole have a long way to go. I have initiated some conversations in our church about getting some advice as a church and developing some protocol/policy in these matters. There has not been a lot of interest in doing this but at least there is no major resistance so far. I think that in many Plain churches, such an initiative would be met with some resistance.

[Ms. Izzie]

When you say "no responsibility taken" are you referring to little to no public communication?

I am referring to a sort of executive privilege that leadership grants to itself and the people allow by their own reluctance of being responsible for the direction of institutions. When leadership gets pressed for answers, they resort to things like this:

The leadership says, “The people don’t want to know”….or…..”The people don’t need to know”…..”We can’t win, no matter what we do or say.”…….. ”The people_________________. ”…..("Some people can complain all they want, but this is what we are doing.”)

In other words, the people are the problem. It's because of them that we can't be forthright. There are times for leadership to be discreet, but I think there are many times when they are granting themselves executive privilege because it would get pretty uncomfortable if the whole truth was known about how they handled things. The group suffers for this lack of accountability, especially if it involves sexual abuse.

And while it could be public communication about what leadership is doing after it's found out; it is also a lack of repentance and humility as leaders when finding this was happening on their watch. While the leadership at CAM might squirm about this, they, after all, were taking donations from the public and may need to communicate publicly, yes. It bothers me that there are bishops and ministers on staff who don't understand this and worse yet, don't think they need to listen to the vocal minority. If you read Scripture, it was often the vocal minority, otherwise known as prophets, who were right and raised an alarm. Rarely could you count on the majority being right. You better take the minority seriously enough to listen to them.

While this may sound harsh about leaders, Scripture says they must give account. They should be the leaders in repentance and humility because this egregious sin was found in the camp. But at the same time I think the people have put a heavy weight on the leaders by elevating them to precarious positions, and the people are also unwilling to bear responsibility for creating a culture where sexual abuse is underground. They would rather blame the leadership when things go wrong, instead of seeing what they have done to create the culture.

I know I'm mixing leadership at CAM with leadership in churches. But come to find out, they might be one and the same.

[Josh]

I appreciate Ernie’s perspective in his replies here the past several days. A lot of things make more sense now as I think of it from this viewpoint.

CAM is really a reflection of its constituents and it basically operates the way Charity, Old Order, ultra-conservative, and moderate-conservative people do. We aren’t going to be successful it getting it to move in a different direction than those people already are going.

JM raises a good point that evangelical organisations and approaches don’t really change anything either.

I see no solution other than widespread revival. Make no mistake, sexually immoral people will not inherit the kingdom of God, and we have been told not to even eat with such a person who knows God’s grace and falls into such sin. May all of us here find the strength and conviction to begin to live this out, and turn such people over to the accuser for the destruction of their flesh that their soul may be saved.

[Judas Maccabeus]

This does seem rather like a shuffle considering Nolan Byler stepped down as Chairman of the Board of Directors, but is now Vice-Chairman.

An organization that replaces it's entire governing board is like getting into a car with Mr. Magoo. It may not crash, but no one will know where they are going.

Won't even know where the keys are to the executive washroom.

J.M.

Which is why I have never advocated for a total change all at once. And I have no beef with Nolan Byler. In fact I consider him a friend. But having the same chairman for almost 20 years or more especially when the top executive is also the same is a recipe for disaster for any organisation. And for what it is worth I was saying this long before last June.

I was not directing this at you. You seem to have had enough experience with board governance to realize what madness making such a change would be. And I agree, that eternal tenure on a board is a bad idea, particularly one that is likely self perpetuating. Ours had term limits, same people frequently kept showing up, but at least it made for a deeper pool.

Have any idea how they could broaden the base of the board? Oh yes, I am actually somewhat amused that you actually appear to know who Mr. Magoo is.

J.M.

[Judas Maccabeus]

. . . As it relates to this thread, I believe that Anabaptists (and others) have been too oblivious and careless with sexual abuse, and the vocal minority is making this problem known.

It goes a long way to hear this expressed! Thank you!

In spite of me feeling good about some changes CAM is making, I realize that Anabaptists as a whole have a long way to go. I have initiated some conversations in our church about getting some advice as a church and developing some protocol/policy in these matters. There has not been a lot of interest in doing this but at least there is no major resistance so far. I think that in many Plain churches, such an initiative would be met with some resistance.

Have you heard of the efforts that some of the Moderate conservative groups like KMF are making. The distribution pf a prevention policy, mandated teaching on the subject, and the leadership at the bishop level reaching out to the local authorities, police and DSS I feel is a good step in the right direction. It has been made very clear that abuse will be reported, and not tolerated. I have sat through teaching in this area, and helped to formulate our local congregations response to this.

As to "historical" cases, I don't have any light on how to proceed. I suspect sooner or later some sort of non-judicial system will need to happen.

For comparison, I asked my friends who are in leadership of the local SBC church for their local church implantation of the SBC ERLC policy. Sole answer "We got a cop in the congregation that checks people out."

Our effort is far from perfect, but it appears to be a step in the right direction.

J.M.

[TruthSeeker]

. . . If you read Scripture, it was often the vocal minority, otherwise known as prophets, who were right and raised an alarm. Rarely could you count on the majority being right. You better take the minority seriously enough to listen to them.

I was thinking about the office of the prophetic and the tonality with which it comes through at times when I posted the following on "The Crisis of Contempt Thread":

Are Jesus' words in Matthew 23:1 -39 bashing? Was his crucifixion subsequently "the same coming back on his own head?"
Had Jesus spoken "the truth in love," would He have been spared crucifixion?

While it may have come across unintentionally as harsh, I meant to reference the needful place that directness has sometimes in truth-telling--particularly in addressing religious institutions.

[Ernie]

And while it could be public communication about what leadership is doing after it's found out; it is also a lack of repentance and humility as leaders when finding this was happening on their watch. While the leadership at CAM might squirm about this, they, after all, were taking donations from the public and may need to communicate publicly, yes. It bothers me that there are bishops and ministers on staff who don't understand this and worse yet, don't think they need to listen to the vocal minority.

There seems to be an assumption here and earlier that the vocal minority sees things the way things really are. Sometimes they do. Sometimes they don't. So to assume that ministers and bishops are automatically wrong because they do not understand what I understand does not seem reasonable to me.
There is also an assumption that not reading social media means that CAM and bishops and ministers are not listening to the vocal minority. That is not correct. They are still hearing from the vocal minority a lot as they meet with various minority representatives across the country. (I know of different groups they have met with and are meeting with all the time.) They want to meet with people face-to-face rather than let a few voices on social media speak for all the silent ones.

This is what I am hearing the vocal minority say. Am I correct?
"We are not getting the details and information that we want, and therefore we feel that this organization is not trustworthy. We don't know what they are hiding but we assume they are probably hiding something or else they would be sharing more details. Until they share more details we cannot trust them."
This may be the case. But I'm saying that I don't think we can automatically assume this. I don't believe someone is guilty until proven innocent. There may be other reasons for why CAM is not sharing more details. I've tried to describe some of those in previous posts the last couple days.

I know I am treading on thin ice here... but I will try to frame this once more from a different angle.

I don't see how you can read the last two public statements and say that there is not humility and repentance.
https://christianaidministries.org/upda ... stigation/
In addition, Mennonet writers have talked with CAM leadership and sensed humility and repentance.

The vocal minority is asking for more details and they think that it is godly to provide more details about what is going on. (I don't think this is a bad thing to want or desire.)
Others are saying that more details are not necessary. (I don't see a biblical principle that disagrees with this either. The Bible doesn't say how many details need to be shared in order to confess or repent. There are verses that indicate that not all details need to be shared or even should be made public.)
So, I'm struggling to understand how this thing of "more details" can be turned into an ethical divide whenever it feels cultural to me. (These are the kinds of issues that missionaries face all the time on the mission field.)

The secret to good relationships is to relate to people the way they want to be related to. From this perspective CAM could be having better relationships and winning more people's trust if they would relate to people the way they want to be related to. I've been encouraging and urging this. But the same is true vice versa. I'm encouraging and urging all of you to relate to them the way they prefer to be related to.

To me the challenge is learning to understand each other, how to relate to each other, how to work together in harmony, and how to love each other. I think it is loving to relate people the way they want to be related to unless it violates some scriptural principle.

I don't see the amount of information being released as being an ethical matter. Maybe some do.
As long as this is made an ethical matter (black and white) I don't foresee any way to come together in reconciliation. This happens all the time at our church. People can make ethical matters out of the most unique situations in church life. When this happens, it is nearly impossible to have a conversation, until we can agree that maybe this is a "conscience issue" or an "excellence issue" but not necessarily an "ethical issue".

For the record... I do believe that hiding sexual abuse is an ethical matter and I am not pleased when I hear that people are doing this.

[Ms. Izzie]

I get what you are saying, Ernie, about CAM in particular. What I am trying to nail and am having a hard time getting across is that the issues at CAM are present in individual churches. To me, the breakdowns and things in our culture that cause these breakdowns are present throughout the Anabaptist world and aren't necessarily only present at CAM. This situation has put a spotlight on our culture.

And you are correct, the vocal minority isn't always right. In churches, they are our brothers, and should at least be listened to as a brother. I don't automatically assume the minority is right, nor do I assume all ministers and bishops are wrong. In my opinion, it's a mixed bag. Sometimes the minority is wrong. Sometimes the leadership is right.