What they wore

Christian ethics and theology with an Anabaptist perspective
mike

Re: What they wore

Post by mike »

Szdfan wrote: ↑Wed Jul 06, 2022 10:14 am
mike wrote: ↑Wed Jul 06, 2022 10:00 am
Josh wrote: ↑Wed Jul 06, 2022 9:51 am

So, you think obeying the Bible is a “dumb policy”?
There is no biblical command that a reconciliation process must precede the process that the law requires. If an abuser is reported and immediately arrested and imprisoned, there is no reason that "reconciliation" cannot still happen. In an example I am very familiar with, a man's wife and/or his pastor immediately reported him to the police for the abuse as soon as it was discovered, and he was arrested within the hour. This does not mean the church could not have pursued a "reconciliation policy" had it wanted to do so.
The role of the church isn’t investigative. It’s not the church’s role to investigate claims, decide who is guilty and dole out punishment. That’s the role of law enforcement. Churches frequently have no idea what they’re doing and often cause more harm by stepping into law enforcement’s role.

The role of the church is pastoral — to both the survivor and the perpetrator.
Part of pastoral work should be to care about what is true. I agree that the church's role for crime is not to take over law enforcement's job. However, I think there's a place for a church investigating claims. How can you act in a redemptive way when you don't even know what has happened? That's not to say that the church must do all the investigative work. Outside help may well be needed. And it may not always be possible to know all the truth. But I think a church should try. A church must exercise church discipline for instance, and that discipline must be based on a willingness to understand what has actually happened.

All of this is separate and distinct from the proper role of law enforcement, and should not impede the legal process in the case of sexual abuse and other crimes of that nature. (I think there is a place where the church may actually be justified in impeding the legal system, but that's only when there is a conflict between God's laws and the government's laws.)
1 x
Josh

Re: What they wore

Post by Josh »

Upon hearing an accusation, it seems odd to immediately rush to law enforcement. (Will folks like Szdfan do this if abortion is made illegal?) In particular the Bible never says to do this and indeed lays out something different to do.
0 x
mike

Re: What they wore

Post by mike »

Josh wrote: ↑Wed Jul 06, 2022 10:38 am Upon hearing an accusation, it seems odd to immediately rush to law enforcement. (Will folks like Szdfan do this if abortion is made illegal?) In particular the Bible never says to do this and indeed lays out something different to do.
There is such a thing as mandated reporting. In my state, this means (for child abuse):
Mandated reporters are certain adults, who are legally required to report suspected child abuse if they have reasonable cause to suspect that a child is a victim of child abuse. The law requires that the mandated reporter identify themselves and where they can be reached.
That's not the same thing as rushing immediately to law enforcement upon hearing an accusation. It applies when a person has reasonable cause to suspect that a child is a victim of abuse. No, I doubt that law enforcement wants every busybody in town calling them with hearsay accusations.
1 x
Szdfan

Re: What they wore

Post by Szdfan »

mike wrote: ↑Wed Jul 06, 2022 10:25 am
Szdfan wrote: ↑Wed Jul 06, 2022 10:14 am
mike wrote: ↑Wed Jul 06, 2022 10:00 am

There is no biblical command that a reconciliation process must precede the process that the law requires. If an abuser is reported and immediately arrested and imprisoned, there is no reason that "reconciliation" cannot still happen. In an example I am very familiar with, a man's wife and/or his pastor immediately reported him to the police for the abuse as soon as it was discovered, and he was arrested within the hour. This does not mean the church could not have pursued a "reconciliation policy" had it wanted to do so.
The role of the church isn’t investigative. It’s not the church’s role to investigate claims, decide who is guilty and dole out punishment. That’s the role of law enforcement. Churches frequently have no idea what they’re doing and often cause more harm by stepping into law enforcement’s role.

The role of the church is pastoral — to both the survivor and the perpetrator.
Part of pastoral work should be to care about what is true. I agree that the church's role for crime is not to take over law enforcement's job. However, I think there's a place for a church investigating claims. How can you act in a redemptive way when you don't even know what has happened? That's not to say that the church must do all the investigative work. Outside help may well be needed. And it may not always be possible to know all the truth. But I think a church should try. A church must exercise church discipline for instance, and that discipline must be based on a willingness to understand what has actually happened.

All of this is separate and distinct from the proper role of law enforcement, and should not impede the legal process in the case of sexual abuse and other crimes of that nature. (I think there is a place where the church may actually be justified in impeding the legal system, but that's only when there is a conflict between God's laws and the government's laws.)
I agree with all of this. In order to be pastoral, the church needs to understand what happened. The issue is when the church impedes law enforcement.
1 x
ABC 123

Re: What they wore

Post by ABC 123 »

There are situations from long ago I would revisit and report. I was not able to disentangle abuse from discipline. And I didn't fully understand that some behaviors weren't simply swept away with a confession. I thought "the church" understood these things better than what they did.
1 x
Szdfan

Re: What they wore

Post by Szdfan »

Josh wrote: ↑Wed Jul 06, 2022 9:50 am
steve-in-kville wrote: ↑Wed Jul 06, 2022 6:22 am
Sliceitup wrote: ↑Tue Jul 05, 2022 9:43 am
Would most KMF churches also investigate and go through the ‘reconciliation process’ before deciding if reporting is warranted? Or is that just a few churches who partnered with a specific Mid Atlantic church?
Not trying to be a buzz-kill but failing to report abuse comes with legal consequences. The county and the police don't care about whatever "reconciliation process" your church has in place.
God does, and we should obey God rather than men.

We also have religious freedom in this country. Police and counties don’t rule as absolute despots. PA’s law is particularly bad, although also very difficult to enforce.

If I felt I was in PA and someone reported abuse to me, the first person I would contact is a lawyer, not the police. (We still have rights to have a lawyer in America too.)
Any half-decent lawyer is going to tell you that your next call should be police, especially if you are a mandatory reporter. Otherwise, you open yourself up to legal liability and accusations of coverup.

Often when churches attempt to handle abuse themselves without law enforcement, they end up protecting and enabling perpetrators, especially when they are charismatic, well-liked leaders. The consequences of failing to act effectively — both legally and spiritually — can be severe.
2 x
Szdfan

Re: What they wore

Post by Szdfan »

ABC 123 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 06, 2022 12:08 pm There are situations from long ago I would revisit and report. I was not able to disentangle abuse from discipline. And I didn't fully understand that some behaviors weren't simply swept away with a confession. I thought "the church" understood these things better than what they did.
I really appreciate this. For me, learning how badly churches frequently deal with these issues was devastating and prompted a crisis of faith.
0 x
steve-in-kville

Re: What they wore

Post by steve-in-kville »

Szdfan wrote: ↑Wed Jul 06, 2022 12:12 pm
Often when churches attempt to handle abuse themselves without law enforcement, they end up protecting and enabling perpetrators, especially when they are charismatic, well-liked leaders. The consequences of failing to act effectively — both legally and spiritually — can be severe.
To add to that, so often the survivors are made to feel like trash over and over again. Its a messed up system.
0 x
Szdfan

Re: What they wore

Post by Szdfan »

steve-in-kville wrote: ↑Wed Jul 06, 2022 12:36 pm
Szdfan wrote: ↑Wed Jul 06, 2022 12:12 pm
Often when churches attempt to handle abuse themselves without law enforcement, they end up protecting and enabling perpetrators, especially when they are charismatic, well-liked leaders. The consequences of failing to act effectively — both legally and spiritually — can be severe.
To add to that, so often the survivors are made to feel like trash over and over again. Its a messed up system.
It really is. I’ve talked to a number of survivors who have struggle with faith or have completely rejected religion because of their experiences in the church.

Churches handling abuse without any outside involvement is how situations like with the Catholic Church and the Southern Baptist Convention get started.
2 x
Josh

Re: What they wore

Post by Josh »

Szdfan wrote: ↑Wed Jul 06, 2022 12:16 pm
ABC 123 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 06, 2022 12:08 pm There are situations from long ago I would revisit and report. I was not able to disentangle abuse from discipline. And I didn't fully understand that some behaviors weren't simply swept away with a confession. I thought "the church" understood these things better than what they did.
I really appreciate this. For me, learning how badly churches frequently deal with these issues was devastating and prompted a crisis of faith.
Has it ever occurred to you that law enforcement handles such things poorly as much as the church does, or is sometimes indeed part of the coverup?
0 x
Post Reply