Biblical Mennonite Alliance and credential removal of past abusers

[JohnH]

I understand that many people feel that abuse over clothing is minor or not as bad as full blown rape. But the reality is that the impact is the same on victims in many ways, and I would caution everyone against using this kind of language when describing it.

Also, please keep in mind that Eicher is using minimizing words to describe his actions. “Improper touching” is still abuse. “Rubbing” is still abuse. Him making sure there’s cloth between his hands and the GIRL (again the word “subject” is dehumanizing and objectifying in this context) does not change the fact that this is full blown abuse!

Eicher needs people to minimize what he did in order to retain some respect/reputation. I don’t care how forceful of a speaker he is.

What he did is evil. The girl carry the scars; and I’m not going to sit back while his crimes are minimized on this forum.

I don't see why we can't simply expect someone who is an ordained minister to not touch, grope, fondle, etc. women who aren't his wife, regardless of their age, and regardless of how many layers of clothes are present (or are not present). Indeed, I have heard ministers, teachers, and other speakers give lectures (albeit not in Anabaptist circles, but certainly in Pentecostal, evangelical, non-denominational, Reformed, etc. ones) expounding to young people how they shouldn't sit too closely together, hug, possibly touch each other through even a full suit of clothes, and so on.

Yet it seems some ministers are blissfully unaware of this. Or are they? I strongly suspect many of them are just lying.

In any case, someone who can't figure that out is someone ill-qualified to be a minister; how are they going to be able to counsel a young couple, for example? (Something tells me though that they'd magically know it's wrong if a young couple in love who wasn't married yet touched each other through clothes.)

And it is nonsense for it to be said that someone "isn't forgiving" just because they think it's time for someone to not be a minister anymore. Lots of people aren't ministers. I'm not one. In our circles, women aren't. There are other people who can rise up and answer the call and serve - including lots of men who have figured out how not to rub girls through their clothes in immoral, sinful ways.

[JohnH]

I agree 100%. We need to keep in mind that perpetrators will always downplay the 'levels' of abuse. If eicher says it was only a little improper touch or groping through clothes we can be fairly certain it was quite a bit more than that. I feel so sorry for his poor victims if they happen to read what he says.

A "trick" Trudy uses is to just disclose some of what she knows. For example... "as I understand it, you did ABC with this person DEF."

The perpetrator acknowledges it. "Yes, I did that. That's all."

Then she asks a question such as, "But you never touched DEF in your car?"

"No, I didn't."

Well, it turns out the perp did touch ABC in her car, so the guy technically wasn't lying, but he also wasn't being remotely truthful or forthcoming.

So when he claims to have "come clean", she'll bring forward the next detail. The perp will trickle out a little more truth and claim nothing else happened.

This can go on for along time. It becomes VERY APPARENT the perpetrator has no interest in telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and will only share as much as they've been caught doing. And I, for one, get very exhausted with hearing about how we must accept "repentance" from such a person who is so obviously not repentant.

[Jude1]

I agree 100%. We need to keep in mind that perpetrators will always downplay the 'levels' of abuse. If eicher says it was only a little improper touch or groping through clothes we can be fairly certain it was quite a bit more than that. I feel so sorry for his poor victims if they happen to read what he says.

A "trick" Trudy uses is to just disclose some of what she knows. For example... "as I understand it, you did ABC with this person DEF."

The perpetrator acknowledges it. "Yes, I did that. That's all."

Then she asks a question such as, "But you never touched DEF in your car?"

"No, I didn't."

Well, it turns out the perp did touch ABC in her car, so the guy technically wasn't lying, but he also wasn't being remotely truthful or forthcoming.

So when he claims to have "come clean", she'll bring forward the next detail. The perp will trickle out a little more truth and claim nothing else happened.

This can go on for along time. It becomes VERY APPARENT the perpetrator has no interest in telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and will only share as much as they've been caught doing. And I, for one, get very exhausted with hearing about how we must accept "repentance" from such a person who is so obviously not repentant.

My mind keeps going to the story of Zaccheus. After meeting Jesus and turning from his sin his immediate response was "if I defrauded someone I'll return it 4fold!" I see real repentance in that response. There wasn't half truths, secrecy and a whining to get out of trouble. It was a recognition of wrongs done and it was an immediate declaration of restitution.

[GelassenheitBnksi]

BMAs moderator (president??) did recently resign because of the orphanage situation. This paragraph(sent to me) summarizes his reasons. The resignation was apparently for reasons of conscience which appear to be honorable.

“I cannot continue to function in a setting where I bear ultimate
responsibility for the decisions but have little or no authority for
how they are crafted. Furthermore, I cannot, in good conscience, support the denigration of whistleblowers and the minimization of failures by those in positions of authority.”

The last sentence is very concerning. Whistleblowers being denigrated? Minimization of failures?

[JohnH]

BMAs moderator (president??) did recently resign because of the orphanage situation. This paragraph(sent to me) summarizes his reasons. The resignation was apparently for reasons of conscience which appear to be honorable.

“I cannot continue to function in a setting where I bear ultimate
responsibility for the decisions but have little or no authority for
how they are crafted. Furthermore, I cannot, in good conscience, support the denigration of whistleblowers and the minimization of failures by those in positions of authority.”

The last sentence is very concerning. Whistleblowers being denigrated? Minimization of failures?

Very interesting...

BMA has long presented itself as an alliance (and indeed seems to be legally structured as one, as opposed to an episcopacy or a conference).

The question is if other people have been conveniently acting as if BMA is somehow an organisation like the Vatican who ultimately has responsibility for whatever goes on in a constituent church, ministry, auxiliary, fundraiser, ladies' sewing circle, benefit auction, and so forth. It appears that has also been the case.

If BMA's moderator is reporting there is denigration of whistleblowers and minimisation of failures by those in positions of authority (this seems, to me, to include those who might be sitting on boards of associated institutions), that is a very serious thing. This doesn't seem like an action that is done lightly.

[GelassenheitBnksi]

Can someone please explain BMAs position of Moderator? Is this similar to a board chairman? How is it the same or different?

[Judas Maccabeus]

The question is if other people have been conveniently acting as if BMA is somehow an organisation like the Vatican who ultimately has responsibility for whatever goes on in a constituent church, ministry, auxiliary, fundraiser, ladies' sewing circle, benefit auction, and so forth. It appears that has also been the case.

If BMA's moderator is reporting there is denigration of whistleblowers and minimisation of failures by those in positions of authority (this seems, to me, to include those who might be sitting on boards of associated institutions), that is a very serious thing. This doesn't seem like an action that is done lightly.

The Vatican specifically disclaims responsibility for priests who molest, claim it is the local diocese.

And as I have said before, where is the local board in all of this? They are the ones that should be called to account for this.

[GelassenheitBnksi]

What exactly does it mean to denigrate? I had to look the word up to understand it:

Denigrate means to criticize unfairly or attack the reputation of someone or something; to belittle, disparage, or speak damagingly about.

1 Timothy mentioned another brother resigned as well. What was his title and how does it relate to the moderator to title?

It is also interesting that the resignations appear to have happened before Eicher’s crimes against children were uncovered.

Eicher’s crimes have been reported so what is the likelihood that he’s prosecuted in a similar way to Jeriah Mast? I have heard that the feds are driving for 30 years per count in his case. Obviously, if this goes through Mast is in jail for life.

[ohio jones]

Can someone please explain BMAs position of Moderator? Is this similar to a board chairman? How is it the same or different?

The BMA Moderator leads the Board of Executors, the executive arm of the organization. The Board's role is to see that all aspects of the Alliance are functioning properly, and to plan the annual Convention and the annual Minister’s Enrichment Weekend.

Although the name of the board might suggest otherwise, credential removal is about as severe as they get.

[JohnH]

What exactly does it mean to denigrate? I had to look the word up to understand it:

Denigrate means to criticize unfairly or attack the reputation of someone or something; to belittle, disparage, or speak damagingly about.

1 Timothy mentioned another brother resigned as well. What was his title and how does it relate to the moderator to title?

It is also interesting that the resignations appear to have happened before Eicher’s crimes against children were uncovered.

Eicher’s crimes have been reported so what is the likelihood that he’s prosecuted in a similar way to Jeriah Mast? I have heard that the feds are driving for 30 years per count in his case. Obviously, if this goes through Mast is in jail for life.

Did you mean Eicher is in jail for life? I don’t imagine Mast has any connection to this case?