Stereotyping and Overgeneralizing People and Institutions

[JohnH]

I don't know exactly how to respond to these cases, but the principles above seem straightforward to me. Which part of this do you think is morally fuzzy, and why?

It's not at all clear to me that it was evil for people who knew about his early transgressions to keep their knowledge to themselves if they thought he was not a threat to others. I'm not even certain that this was wrong given what they knew.

It is not at all clear to me that it was evil for people to offer his victims money to try to limit the outcry afterwards. Based on reports I have heard, I do think this was wrong, but I do not currently have any reason to think it was evil.

What Jeriah did was evil, but I don't know for a fact that anyone's response was evil.

How are we defining evil?

Apparently, sending a known child molester to run a mission organisation isn’t “evil” in certain circles.

It would obviously be considered evil by such people to openly have a gay relationship, gay marriage, etc but molesting boys is, apparently, not as bad? Provided you lie “I’m sorry and won’t do that again” right before going and doing it again.

[Szdfan]

It's not at all clear to me that it was evil for people who knew about his early transgressions to keep their knowledge to themselves if they thought he was not a threat to others. I'm not even certain that this was wrong given what they knew.

It is not at all clear to me that it was evil for people to offer his victims money to try to limit the outcry afterwards. Based on reports I have heard, I do think this was wrong, but I do not currently have any reason to think it was evil.

What Jeriah did was evil, but I don't know for a fact that anyone's response was evil.

How are we defining evil?

Apparently, sending a known child molester to run a mission organisation isn’t “evil” in certain circles.

It would obviously be considered evil by such people to openly have a gay relationship, gay marriage, etc but molesting boys is, apparently, not as bad? Provided you lie “I’m sorry and won’t do that again” right before going and doing it again.

Again, my issue with the word “evil” is that it’s not precise enough. It may be psychologically satisfying to call it evil, but it doesn’t actually get to the issues and dynamics that caused it to happen.

[ken_sylvania]

It's not at all clear to me that it was evil for people who knew about his early transgressions to keep their knowledge to themselves if they thought he was not a threat to others. I'm not even certain that this was wrong given what they knew.

It is not at all clear to me that it was evil for people to offer his victims money to try to limit the outcry afterwards. Based on reports I have heard, I do think this was wrong, but I do not currently have any reason to think it was evil.

What Jeriah did was evil, but I don't know for a fact that anyone's response was evil.

How are we defining evil?

Apparently, sending a known child molester to run a mission organisation isn’t “evil” in certain circles.

It would obviously be considered evil by such people to openly have a gay relationship, gay marriage, etc but molesting boys is, apparently, not as bad? Provided you lie “I’m sorry and won’t do that again” right before going and doing it again.

Do you think that anybody responsible for sending the man to Haiti actually thought that he was molesting boys there?

[JohnH]

Do you think that anybody responsible for sending the man to Haiti actually thought that he was molesting boys there?

Given their conduct when he got caught, I'd say it's likely, seeing as they:

- Helped him flee the country using significant resources to do so.
- Helped him go on a "tour" in Ohio of his former victims, to try to escape legal consequences of one of them testifying.

I think the excuse of "goodness gracious, none of us had any idea he'd ever do any of this again!" simply doesn't hold water.

[ken_sylvania]

Do you think that anybody responsible for sending the man to Haiti actually thought that he was molesting boys there?

Given their conduct when he got caught, I'd say it's likely, seeing as they:

- Helped him flee the country using significant resources to do so.
- Helped him go on a "tour" in Ohio of his former victims, to try to escape legal consequences of one of them testifying.

I think the excuse of "goodness gracious, none of us had any idea he'd ever do any of this again!" simply doesn't hold water.

You're entitled to your own opinion. I don't know any of those people with enough certainty to feel like it would be right for me to call them evil.

[Ernie]

Do you think that anybody responsible for sending the man to Haiti actually thought that he was molesting boys there?

Given their conduct when he got caught, I'd say it's likely, seeing as they:

- Helped him flee the country using significant resources to do so.
- Helped him go on a "tour" in Ohio of his former victims, to try to escape legal consequences of one of them testifying.

I think the excuse of "goodness gracious, none of us had any idea he'd ever do any of this again!" simply doesn't hold water.

It doesn't hold water in the sense of responsibility. Leaders are responsible for doing due diligence in assessing whether a person is fit for a job.
But sometimes we as leaders can be really naive and not fully wise.

When missionaries do bad things, the historical pattern is to bring them back home to deal with the matters so that they do not continue doing bad things at the mission. The mission is supposed to be a safe place and there is typically not sufficient human resources to continue being a mission while also policing offending staff. I'm not sure if this is the right way to do it, but I am sympathetic to this approach.

Historically, Anabaptist churches have encouraged and even accompanied people to go around making apologies and restitution whenever they have committed sin. At least in the churches I have been in. Are you sure the motive was to escape legal consequences?

[JohnH]

When missionaries do bad things, the historical pattern is to bring them back home to deal with the matters so that they do not continue doing bad things at the mission. The mission is supposed to be a safe place and there is typically not sufficient human resources to continue being a mission while also policing offending staff. I'm not sure if this is the right way to do it, but I am sympathetic to this approach.

That's not what happened, though, unless you're telling me CAM spirited him out of the country.

If someone molests 200 boys in a foreign country, I don't think a mission organisation should conspire to help them become a fugitive and flee justice.

Historically, Anabaptist churches have encouraged and even accompanied people to go around making apologies and restitution whenever they have committed sin. At least in the churches I have been in. Are you sure the motive was to escape legal consequences?

Huh?

The testimony of one of the (American-side) victims is that they were visited by some leader (minister) from Jeriah's Charity type of church or whatever, along with Jeriah himself, and pressured that testifying against him would be displaying unforgiveness and thus would be a sin.

Eventually, one of the victims decided to testify anyway.

How on earth is that "making apologies and restitution"?

There is no excuse for such evil conduct at all. Being "naive" does not explain it, either.

[JoyE]

Here's a sobering example of a lack of leadership in a body of believers. Eli's sons were mishandling the sacrifices of the people. God's response to Eli was to put a curse on him and his sons.

Wherefore kick ye at my sacrifice and at mine offering, which I have commanded in my habitation; and honourest thy sons above me, to make yourselves fat with the chiefest of all the offerings of Israel my people? [1Sam. 2:29]

The next five verses foretell the grievous curse for letting his sons in ministry get away with sin.

[Bootstrap]

Here's a sobering example of a lack of leadership in a body of believers. Eli's sons were mishandling the sacrifices of the people. God's response to Eli was to put a curse on him and his sons.

Wherefore kick ye at my sacrifice and at mine offering, which I have commanded in my habitation; and honourest thy sons above me, to make yourselves fat with the chiefest of all the offerings of Israel my people? [1Sam. 2:29]

The next five verses foretell the grievous curse for letting his sons in ministry get away with sin.

If we take Matthew 23 seriously, then there must be times where we conclude that people who should be caring for children are doing something seriously wrong instead. The image of bad shepherds is a major theme in the Bible, we need to take that seriously too.

Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers and sisters, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.

I think that applies to other leadership roles as well.

[JohnH]

Here's a sobering example of a lack of leadership in a body of believers. Eli's sons were mishandling the sacrifices of the people. God's response to Eli was to put a curse on him and his sons.

Wherefore kick ye at my sacrifice and at mine offering, which I have commanded in my habitation; and honourest thy sons above me, to make yourselves fat with the chiefest of all the offerings of Israel my people? [1Sam. 2:29]

The next five verses foretell the grievous curse for letting his sons in ministry get away with sin.

If we take Matthew 23 seriously, then there must be times where we conclude that people who should be caring for children are doing something seriously wrong instead. The image of bad shepherds is a major theme in the Bible, we need to take that seriously too.

I think that underplays it substantially. Forget language like "should be caring for children".

Every single person who claims to be a Christian shouldn't be molesting young boys, and that extends to that everyon else shouldn't be trying to cover it up and help such a person get into more situations where they can easily re-offend. Frankly it astounds me that this has to be said at all.