"Joe Paterno presents an example for fundamentalists that I hope they won’t ignore"

Thanks, Dave.

I read exactly what JG said. I just disagree. I still think he would be better off in this life because he could endure the abuse with a clean conscience. I guess I still don’t understand the point. Do you think it would be better if the news media had not reported this case so McQuery wouldn’t have to go through what he is going through? If so, I completely disagree. I’m glad this has been brought to light in exactly the way it has so that others will understand their full moral responsibility in a similar situation. If they choose to remain silent so they don’t catch any grief, then they have serious moral problems that cannot be blamed on the media and its coverage.

I’m sorry, I just don’t see any kind of a mob mentality. Again, we disagree…so be it.

Dave, the state of Iowa requires reporting of “reasonable suspicion” of abuse. My prior church merely reflects that language in its policy. And it very carefully spells out in great detail what that suspicion would entail. It is so detailed and graphic, in fact, that I did not read that section out loud when I went through the policy with new children’s workers. I would simply ask them to read it silently to themselves.

It’s another to leave off the key part of the quote, and then to pontificate about the need to do the moral thing, when I had already said he failed morally.

Dave got my point perfectly, and expressed it better than I did:

If people think that they will always be second-guessed after following the rules and/or what they believe to be right, they will almost always make the decision to not get involved.

That is especially true if they know they messed up at first, as McQueary did. For failing to stop the rape, if this went to court, he was likely to be crucified in court and in the newspapers. He still reported it anyway. Everyone is ignoring that in their lust to condemn, condemn, condemn.

So, we’re creating an environment where people are scared not to report, and scared to report as well, if they aren’t exactly sure they are doing it exactly the right way. But living in fear rarely generates well-thought out decisions. And that is my last word, even if someone misquotes me.

[Greg Long] I read exactly what JG said. I just disagree.

Fair enough, but then the quote you used shouldn’t have been pulled out of context. Perhaps I was being generous by calling it reading carefully. I could have said what you did was misquoting. Would that have been more accurate?

Do you think it would be better if the news media had not reported this case so McQuery wouldn’t have to go through what he is going through?

Reported, yes. Give the facts, yes. Call for prosecution, loss of job, etc. without knowing the facts? Absolutely not. Speculate on what might have happened, even when based on accusations? Also should have been out of bounds. That goes way beyond reporting. You may also disagree with my view of the media’s role here, but using opinion and speculation to stir things up against those being accused *does* in fact show a mob mentality.

I’m glad this has been brought to light in exactly the way it has so that others will understand their full moral responsibility in a similar situation.

The bolded section is my emphasis, and it’s where I would disagree with you completely. What people will understand from “in exactly the way it has” is not what their moral responsibility should be. What people will understand is that they should CY[] (you can fill in the last letter — I wish to avoid being crass) and should avoid getting involved.

If they choose to remain silent so they don’t catch any grief, then they have serious moral problems that cannot be blamed on the media and its coverage.

No one can blame his or her own moral problems on the media (though that won’t stop some from trying). However, like it or not, the overblown media reaction will definitely shape people’s actions, and not often in the way that is truly desired. By labeling what has happened “any grief,” I believe you have way understated the consequences to those involved, especially when no one really knows yet what their intent was. Further, as a pastor, you certainly know that people’s moral actions are really only going to be helped for the better by a change in heart, something that a media frenzy will NOT accomplish.

Dave, the state of Iowa requires reporting of “reasonable suspicion” of abuse. My prior church merely reflects that language in its policy. And it very carefully spells out in great detail what that suspicion would entail. It is so detailed and graphic, in fact, that I did not read that section out loud when I went through the policy with new children’s workers. I would simply ask them to read it silently to themselves.

Fair enough. I have seen such terms as “reasonable suspicion” used in a way to be able to avoid careful definition and leave things intentionally vague. I’m glad that wasn’t the case in your church’s (or the State of Iowa’s) policy. But even if that language wasn’t intended to be vague in a church policy, but still was, I would not be able to accept the risk that it could easily (i.e. without enough verification) be used against me.

[JG] It’s another to leave off the key part of the quote, and then to pontificate about the need to do the moral thing, when I had already said he failed morally.

Dave got my point perfectly, and expressed it better than I did:

If people think that they will always be second-guessed after following the rules and/or what they believe to be right, they will almost always make the decision to not get involved.

That is especially true if they know they messed up at first, as McQueary did. For failing to stop the rape, if this went to court, he was likely to be crucified in court and in the newspapers. He still reported it anyway. Everyone is ignoring that in their lust to condemn, condemn, condemn.

So, we’re creating an environment where people are scared not to report, and scared to report as well, if they aren’t exactly sure they are doing it exactly the right way. But living in fear rarely generates well-thought out decisions. And that is my last word, even if someone misquotes me.

I apologize if I misquoted you, JG. I did not intend to.

But even after your correction I still disagree with the main point you are making (that Dave clarified).

[dcbii] If people think that they will always be second-guessed after following the rules and/or what they believe to be right, they will almost always make the decision to not get involved.

That is one possible outcome. I think a more likely scenario is that they that see clearly that McQuery’s failure was wrong and determine to do the right thing if they were ever in such a scenario. And even if they choose not to get involved, that is their own fault and not the fault of the media for reporting what happened.

JG, I don’t have any lust to condemn. I wish you would not use such language, even if you’re not referring to me. And it still hasn’t been specifically pointed out to me where this “mob mentality” or “lust to condemn” is. In fact, the only “mob mentality” I saw was the actual mob of people defending Paterno who scuffled with police and destroyed property.

[Greg Long]
That is one possible outcome. I think a more likely scenario is that they that see clearly that McQuery’s failure was wrong and determine to do the right thing if they were ever in such a scenario.

Greg, I agree that there are people who are determined to do the right thing no matter the consequences. While I might wish they would be in the majority, I rather doubt that is the case. In fact, it’s not usually the case even within professing Christianity, let alone the world at large. As a rule, people do not think that way. As that Cru article even brought out, we should love our neighbor as much as (or more than) we love ourselves. That is the biblical standard, but it doesn’t happen in the majority of cases.

And my quote even mentioned getting second-guessed after doing what they believe to be right. It’s easy to believe that we are doing the right thing, especially when we are following the rules as we know them, and morality as we understand it. Maybe we deceive ourselves, and maybe not. That does not mean we won’t be judged under different standards years later, with the claim we didn’t do the right thing or all we could have. And rarely do we do all we could even when we believe we are doing all we *should* have. Maybe it’s true that those who heard about the incident in question didn’t even do all they should have, let alone all they could have. Until we *know* that as a fact, the rush to judge (and yes, even “lust to condemn”, which is happening even if it doesn’t describe you) is completely out of place. Yes, have all those involved step down and keep them from positions of responsibility until everything is known and comes out in a court of law. That is prudent. Taking it further than that is judging a matter without hearing it. We can expect that from the secular media, but we should know better than to participate in it.

One additional thought…some might say I am being naive about human nature and ignoring total depravity when I suggest that people will be encouraged to do the right thing in the future because of what they’ve seen happen to McQuery.

But let me look at it from another angle. From a purely self-centered, human, pragmatic, “CY*” (as Dave put it) perspective, I would think the average person would observe this situation and think to himself, “Boy, life would be a whole lot easier if I just report a situation like that to the police rather than having to go through everything he went through! In fact, I’d be looked at as a hero if I did so!”

Let me also say to Karl and others that I am very sensitive to the danger of people making false accusations. And it is very possible that that kind of thing will happen as a result of this situation. That’s why in the child protection policy I put together at my previous church I was very careful to emphasize that we only report “reasonable” suspicisions of abuse, not every suspicion of abuse. As I stated in a previous post, we spelled out what a reasonable suspicion would be. I shared with them the statistic that in the State of Iowa in 2007, only 25% of the calls made to the DHS reporting “child abuse” were found to involve actual abuse. I reminded them of the serious harm to a person’s reputation an unfair accusation could do. I even gave an example of someone who put his hands on a boys’ shoulders to calm him down and was accused by that boy of “touching [me] wrong” (thankfully this happened where many people observed the situation, which I used to emphasize the importance of not being alone with a child).

I have no doubt allowed my emotions to influence my perspective on this case, but the more I think about it (and try to do so rationally and biblically) the more I am dumbfounded at the actions (or inactions) of the 5 specific people involved.

Thank you to those of you who have interacted with me and sharpened me on this issue.

The man has had multiple death threats. That’s a lust to condemn.

Your condemnation or not has no impact in this situation. We’re just two guys on the ‘net. It’s the societal feeding frenzy to which I object.

[JG] The man has had multiple death threats. That’s a lust to condemn.

Your condemnation or not has no impact in this situation. We’re just two guys on the ‘net. It’s the societal feeding frenzy to which I object.

Got it. Thanks again, JG.

[Greg Long] I’m sorry, JG, I don’t understand your post. Are you saying he shouldn’t have reported it to his superiors? Or that he isn’t being given proper credit for what he did do?

Now, none of us can say with absolute certainty what we would have done in someone else’s place. But keep in mind that…

1) He failed to intervene while a boy was being raped. Again I ask, what if the boy were being beaten? Would he have intervened?
2) He waited one entire day before taking any action.
3) To his credit, he did take the step of informing his boss. However, he did not call the police. He should have done both. He also did not, to our knowledge, follow up to see if Paterno or anyone else called the police.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45307325/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/#.TsMB…

Penn State assistant says he did go to police about Sandusky incident
‘I … made sure it was stopped when I left that locker room,’ McQueary says of alleged sexual assault of boy

And that’s all I have to say about that.

Interesting. I wonder why he didn’t tell that to the grand jury.

Greg,

That’s a good question. Why didn’t he tell that to the grand jury? But my question is, why would you stop what this monster did (MCQuerry) and report it (Paterno), and then allow this monster to still be around? If he already had a cloud around him, why not tell him to stay away? Paterno may not have had the pull at Penn State, many of us thought he did, but he was powerful enough to keep Sandusky away if he wanted to. That is the part I don’t get about these cases. What goes through a person’s mind? If I knew someone had committed a crime like this, even if the police did not investigate it, I would still have to discipline them in my church. If they were repentant, they would still have to face consequences in the church, reguardless of the Law enforcement refusing to do anything. I honestly don’t get why that happens, whether at Penn State or in local churches. Anyone have an answer to that?

I’m going to say this one more time, and then I will log off and make no further comments on this issue:

WE DO NOT HAVE ALL THE FACTS.

This is a continuing and unfolding criminal case. It is also a continuing and unfolding media event. We have just enough information available to us to allow us to express opinions and judgements that, quite possibly, could turn out to be 180 degrees away from the truth when ALL THE FACTS have been disclosed.

Until then… “Even a fool*, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.” Proverbs 17:28

* Such as me

Karl,

The thread is about us as Fundamentalists. I was using them as more of an example. I should have been more clear. In our world, I know of instances of what I described has happened. A pastor knew a crime happened, reported it, but nothing came of it. The pastor had first hand knowledge the incident was accurate, but let the person stay in his congregation without any discipline and in one case did not remove him from leadership. My question again, what goes on in the thinking of a person who does this? I am trying to figure out how it could be a biblical response. Or, more pointedly, how am I wrong in thinking the pastors who allow this are sinning in that instant?

Hopefully my question is more clear.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/sports/ncaafootball/internet-posting-…

I will say that whatever McQuery did or didn’t do in the past, it is good that he “unburdened himself” to investigators a year ago, giving them a credible eyewitness to move the case forward. Unfortunately, the facts as they have been presented to this point still do not paint a favorable picture of Paterno or the PSU administrators.