The CAM scandal links and assorted other topics thread

[Josh]

I’m hoping the example I gave shows why looking more into people’s backgrounds is a good idea.

I am not interested in rehashing old mistakes but I am interested in cultural transformation. I hope certain people are listening to what Ernie is saying.

Particularly, forgiveness and trust doesn’t mean we never look into anyone’s background. I am a church member in good standing, but one of my ministers asked me to open my finances to one of the deacons. In retrospect I can understand why - some things about my lifestyle didn’t quite add up. I was trying to live a simpler, plainer life, but from the outside, I looked excessively frugal and the question existed of just what I was doing with my money. I’m glad to know we look into each other’s backgrounds.

A huge help would be to start trusting other churches and asking them about “Can you tell me about so and so who just moved here?” I belong to a big church group that doesn’t do transfers with other groups, but for those that do, these kind of conversations could be very helpful. Not just for bad things, but also for good things.

[queserasera_2]

I don't need or want Paul or Eli to apologize any more. I just think they need to not work there in any capacity and certainly not receive money. I agree that it was a mistake not a willful sin. But some mistakes have very terrible consequences that must be borne.

[Dan Z]

MODERATOR NOTE: A few days ago information was posted in this thread concerning alleged salacious and inappropriate activities of an individual whose name has previously shown up as a topic of discussion in this and other threads. Later the poster of this information informed moderators that they learned that some of the information was erroneous. Thus, at the request of the poster, the original accusation (along with posts related to it) has been removed by board moderators.

This should be a reminder to all to please guard carefully what you post and respond to, particularly as it relates to accusations and situations related to individual people. The intent of MennoNet is that it be a place where Mennonites and others can gather to discuss ideas, faith, events and topics of interest. Thank everyone!

[Ms. Izzie]

When we forgive somebody it doesn't necessarily change the consequences for the other person. We shouldn't demand apologies. We can forgive people without them ever apologizing.

Having said that, I do think that we should take seriously the idea of when church leaders make a mistake of this magnitude in the organization (which is working in the name of Jesus); if the consequence is that they should no longer work at the organization, then they probably should no longer be church leaders either. I think they could be using the same criterion in the church as they used in the organization. If the organization wouldn't be working "in Jesus' name", then a simple resignation from the organization might be appropriate. Take out "in the name of Jesus" and that would change things a bit. To me, it is an issue of doing harm to Jesus.

I also asked this question (about them still being church leaders) of the person from CAM on a call last year. Same answer, "I don't know." My guess is that somebody who is reading this knows the answer to this question.

Does anybody else care about this? Am I missing something?

[steve-in-kville]

When we forgive somebody it doesn't necessarily change the consequences for the other person. We shouldn't demand apologies. We can forgive people without them ever apologizing.

I remember other threads on the subject, but I believe its entirely possible to forgive someone, yet not trust them again, or at least not right away. Forgiveness doesn't release a person from responsibility. I've seen that concept twisted in conservative circles, usually to fit an agenda.

[Ernie]

I believe its entirely possible to forgive someone, yet not trust them again, or at least not right away. Forgiveness doesn't release a person from responsibility.

I agree!

I think that forgiveness is taking the emotional pain on one's self and not demanding that the offending party pay for the pain they have caused. I don't think it means giving the other person a clean slate with no responsibility.

[Dan Z]

I believe its entirely possible to forgive someone, yet not trust them again, or at least not right away. Forgiveness doesn't release a person from responsibility.

I agree!

I think that forgiveness is taking the emotional pain on one's self and not demanding that the offending party pay for the pain they have caused. I don't think it means giving the other person a clean slate with no responsibility.

Wayne In Maine used to say "forgiveness" is not the same as "forgetness."

[Josh]

When we forgive somebody it doesn't necessarily change the consequences for the other person. We shouldn't demand apologies. We can forgive people without them ever apologizing.

Having said that, I do think that we should take seriously the idea of when church leaders make a mistake of this magnitude in the organization (which is working in the name of Jesus); if the consequence is that they should no longer work at the organization, then they probably should no longer be church leaders either. I think they could be using the same criterion in the church as they used in the organization. If the organization wouldn't be working "in Jesus' name", then a simple resignation from the organization might be appropriate. Take out "in the name of Jesus" and that would change things a bit. To me, it is an issue of doing harm to Jesus.

I also asked this question (about them still being church leaders) of the person from CAM on a call last year. Same answer, "I don't know." My guess is that somebody who is reading this knows the answer to this question.

Does anybody else care about this? Am I missing something?

Whether or not someone is a church leader should be easily shared information. CAM should definitely keep files on this for active employees or recently terminated ones.

A qualification of a minister is to be of a good reputation of “those who are without”. I think we all know some things the world wouldn’t approve of that the Bible doesn’t approve of either.

[KirkDaniel]

I think that forgiveness is taking the emotional pain on one's self and not demanding that the offending party pay for the pain they have caused.

I dunno, Ernie. As a survivor of sexual abuse, I can tell you that one doesn't have to take on themselves the emotional pain. That is foisted upon them by the perpetrator. They don't have a choice to feel it. It's there.

Perhaps the second part of your equation is true by not demanding they pay for the pain.

But the first betrays a misunderstanding of the magnitude of harm done to a sexual abuse victim. It is certainly not the language anyone should employ in dealing with victims on the subject, as it again lays the responsibility for the consequences squarely on the lap of the abused.

They have taken enough upon themselves already.

[flyingnorm]

I think that forgiveness is taking the emotional pain on one's self and not demanding that the offending party pay for the pain they have caused. I don't think it means giving the other person a clean slate with no responsibility.

A significant step in healing from sexual violence is recognizing that the pain caused by the offender is the responsibility of the offender. Forgiveness is an option once the pain caused is adequately recognized and responsibility is accurately attributed to the offender.

A major confusion issue for many people who encounter sexual violence is the issue of responsibility. Often the victim is confused by the role they perceive they played. Abusers usually first emotionally and relationally disarm their victims through manipulative tactics. The abuser gets the victim thinking that they would enjoy or benefit from the sexual encounter. The victim gives some form of consent because they see no other option or their curiosity is wrongfully activated instead of protected. Abuse victims often face the confusion of their own pleasure and curiosity in the act of sexual violence. The whole story of abuse usually is much bigger than an event where two individuals sexually encountered each other. It includes the perverted form of seduction and mixed up decision making process.

Power is the big thing in an abuse event, whether the abuser or the victim recognizes the power dynamic or not. Sexual violence is similar to physical violence in that a more powerful individual takes advantage of a less powerful individual. Though the sexual act is physical, the emotional scars usually are the longest lasting. and Sexual violence is unique in the mix of pain, pleasure, shame, and power associated with it. These dynamics are very different than violence like an armed robbery or mugging.

To simply “forgive and get over it” leaves a victim vulnerable to new encounters with either the same abuser or others. To take the emotional pain as the victim leaves the victim responsible for the wrong things as the victim’s sense of responsibility, identity, pain, pleasure, right and wrong, have been put in a blender of violence. The grace of God and mentoring by stable individuals can be a solution for those that avail themselves to those resources. Healing is a real option.

In my experience, healing starts with understanding who is responsible for what, then if the victim chooses to forgive, they can truly do so by choosing to acknowledge the wrong done and choosing to release the abuser, seeking his good instead of his destruction. A significant key to recovery is for the victim to make choices. Once the victim is choosing their response to the abuser and the abuse event, its a good sign that things are headed in a healthy direction. Reclaiming choice is a healthy balance of power that had been upset in the act of grooming and abuse. A further step in the process is to live freely with humility and kindness as a choice rather than to live powerlessly as a trapped victim.