On Accusation and Rebuke

Unacceptable to me, a pastor of a church that supports ABWE by supporting ABWE missionaries

Fair enough. Out of curiosity, what would you do with the missionaries you support? Would you drop them over this? Would it be good to drop a missionary over an admittedly unsupported allegation that is at least thirty years old and perhaps fifty years old?

So the reason you need to investigate, and not just take PII’s word for it, is that PII is more or less saying that the handling of the younger parallels the handling of the older.

They are suggesting that as a reason with absolutely no evidence and no argumentation. And they don’t offer any competing explanations, such as rumors that aren’t true, or the unreliability of 2nd and 3rd hand information, or political justifications, or what have you.

Why even suggest it? It seems nothing but gratuitous (and I have no connection with ABWE and never had; we support no ABWE missionaries and I don’t think I could even name an ABWE missionary).

There is a biblical process and principle for handling things like this. PII, ABWE, Cockrell, and others did not follow this. Why is that? And what should be the biblical response?

Remember, Ketcham died in 1978, so if this continued to the day of his death at 89 years old, it would still be almost thirty years old. Remember, Ketcham had been ill since 1959 and apparently steadily declining, which would make the accusations and any witnesses well past middle-aged. How would an admittedly unsupported accusation that is at least thirty and perhaps more than fifty years old change anything about the current situation?

Larry, I agree that the allegations against Robert Ketcham are vague, and for that matter that they are hard to believe in light of Ketcham’s life-long disabilities. But Biblically speaking, PII does have two named witnesses and one unnamed one making this claim. Hence it’s worth investigating.

Really, let’s look at the choices here. If Ketcham was innocent of the charges, failing to investigate prevents his exoneration and enables a vile slander. If he was guilty, failing to investigate prevents us from learning why his behavior—and that of his son—was ignored. And really, to get started, ABWE is talking about two phone calls to the named witnesses and a look at HR records from the sixties and seventies. We’re not talking about another multi-million dollar investigation unless we find a huge, widespread problem—in which case the character of Christ would require us to do that big investigation anyways.

PII does have two named witnesses and one unnamed one making this claim.

In what sense are these witnesses? What did they actually witness? And what will over thirty years and perhaps more than fifty years due to the reliability of anything that they did witness? “Witnesses” can’t be second or third hand. That’s hearsay in legal terms. They should have firsthand knowledge.

Maybe ABWE should address in some sense now that it has been said, but it was an irresponsible and unethical charge for PII to make absent any actual evidence for it. To admit that they have no evidence and to say it anyway is a major issue.

Dr. Bauder says that in viewing thousands of documents from the GARBC regarding Ketcham from friend and enemy alike, never was there “ever mentioned anything resembling sexual misconduct” from Ketcham. That does seem odd that only three people know this, doesn’t it? And it only comes up thirty years after Ketcham’s death.

How would you exonerate Ketcham from this claim? What would an investigation prove? You could talk to a bunch of people who don’t know anything and never heard it. But then what?

Again, I have no defense of ABWE or Ketcham for that matter. Cockrell seems to be part of the problem, based on skimming sections of the report. I am not saying Cockrell or the others are intentionally slandering Ketcham (and it may be true, though it’s odd that it never comes up as Bauder says). But Cockrell likely would have become an adult after Ketcham’s heart attack in 1959. How would he have any firsthand knowledge of this?

Larry, it’s really simple. The cat is out of the bag. ABWE and the GARBC have two choices; they can make some phone calls to investigate with an almost certain chance they can learn something they didn’t know about their organizations, or they can let the matter fester and let Robert Ketcham have his name sullied for a good long time.

And how can he be exonerated? You track where the evidence leads. I would agree that both named accusers were unlikely to have first hand evidence, and so you give them a call first (along with the unnamed accuser if he/she will consent to talk), find out what was said, follow the evidence trail back, rinse and repeat. I’ll grant that a lot of the witnesses to whatever happened are likely dead, but you might get somewhere.

Witnesses of the claims are not really needed. We know the claims have been made. We need witnesses to the events who can verify the truthfulness of the event or action itself.

Unfortunately, the cat is out of the bag, but surely we can agree that it was unethical and inappropriate for it to get out of the bag. Now, anyone can say anything and it gets repeated and now we have to take it seriously.

I think that is a bad way to go about things. It amounts to gossip and rumormongering. And PII admitted it wasn’t what they were supposed to investigate; they admitted they didn’t investigate it; and they admitted it was totally baseless so far as they knew. Therefore, it should not have been said.

The fact that ABWE permitted a report on a case of child abuse and other acts of immorality of one of its missionaries to be published while it contained unfounded accusations against a person who had nothing to do, as far as is known, with the case being investigated and judged, is absolutely incredible. Any person on the ABWE staff who contributed to this act of slander should himself/herself be terminated AT ONCE. The very idea that a person who is dead can be accused without any opportunity to defend himself and his reputation is as vile an act as can be imagined. We are better than that as Christians and as Americans. As a retired ABWE missionary of many years service, I am ashamed to be associated with such persons. And to go further, The organization Pii, that permitted such unsubstantiated information to be a part of their report, shows itself to be incompetent. It puts the rest of their so-called investigation into question. The least they can do now is produce another official report, saying that the first was flawed and in what manner. I did not know the old Dr. Ketcham, but in the interest of protecting the reputation of all of us who will soon be where he is, I speak up in protest.

ABWE needs to explain the accusation, not explain it away. The powers that be at ABWE made the accusation as a part of the PII investigation of Donn Ketcham. ABWE made it a part of the investigation, not PII. PII faithfully reported the fact that ABWE made the accusation. It was ABWE that thought it was germane, not PII.

Keep in mind that if we describe the accusations made by three ABWE staffers as “unfounded,” we have just as certainly slandered them as they may have slandered Robert Ketcham, no? It might be a slightly less nasty accusation—lying and gossip instead of sexual abuse—but it would still be a stain on their reputations.

Moreover, the ugly reality here is that PII and ABWE were collaborating on an effort to bring such accusations out into the public and NOT hide them anymore—had ABWE not done this, they could well have been facing their demise as a missions agency. All you need is one MK who was fondled by Donn Ketcham to decide that she just figured out how much she was injured, and to see in the PII report how ABWE hid the problems, and you are pretty much handing the keys to HQ to her lawyer. It is that simple. The decision to keep Donn Ketcham in ministry was made in the U.S., hence U.S. courts can be accesed here.

(even now, they’re really not out of the woods, but this at least shows good faith effort)

And regarding the specific accusations, I could grant every claim that people are making about how the claims are unfair, un-Biblical, and unfounded, and I would come to the exact same conclusion; it’s time to give the accusers a call and get to the bottom of this. The allegations are out there and they are not going away until someone confirms, explains, or refutes them.

ABWE needs to explain the accusation, not explain it away. The powers that be at ABWE made the accusation as a part of the PII investigation of Donn Ketcham. ABWE made it a part of the investigation, not PII. PII faithfully reported the fact that ABWE made the accusation. It was ABWE that thought it was germane, not PII.

How do they explain an accusation that has no evidence other than to say what has already seen said, namely, that there is no known evidence for the chrage? Pii said that they had no evidence for it. ABWE has said there is no evidence for it. Kevin Bauder who has researched the GARBC with access to thousands of documents has said there is no evidence for it. So what is there to explain?

The burden of proof should be on Pii to explain why they said something that was outside their investigation and for which they had no evidence. How is that not unethical?

Pii said, in effect, “This is not our job to investigate and we have no reason to think it is true. But we will say it anyway.” That, to me, is egregious.

[Bert Perry]

Keep in mind that if we describe the accusations made by three ABWE staffers as “unfounded,” we have just as certainly slandered them as they may have slandered Robert Ketcham, no? It might be a slightly less nasty accusation—lying and gossip instead of sexual abuse—but it would still be a stain on their reputations.

Moreover, the ugly reality here is that PII and ABWE were collaborating on an effort to bring such accusations out into the public and NOT hide them anymore—had ABWE not done this, they could well have been facing their demise as a missions agency. All you need is one MK who was fondled by Donn Ketcham to decide that she just figured out how much she was injured, and to see in the PII report how ABWE hid the problems, and you are pretty much handing the keys to HQ to her lawyer. It is that simple. The decision to keep Donn Ketcham in ministry was made in the U.S., hence U.S. courts can be accesed here.

(even now, they’re really not out of the woods, but this at least shows good faith effort)

And regarding the specific accusations, I could grant every claim that people are making about how the claims are unfair, un-Biblical, and unfounded, and I would come to the exact same conclusion; it’s time to give the accusers a call and get to the bottom of this. The allegations are out there and they are not going away until someone confirms, explains, or refutes them.

Anything said during the investigation that could not be shown to be relevant should not have been included. Hearsay about Dr. Robert Ketcham (whom I never knew) is not relevant to what his son did that was criminal unless Pii was trying to establish causality. And that was not shown. Now, if the “investigation” was a trial and witnesses were under oath, then their words would have to be included in the report. My understanding is that it was an “investigation” and not a “trial.” Doubtless, during the investigation comments were made that did not get into the written record because someone deemed them irrelevant. All I’m saying is that this standard should have been applied to any innuendo about Dr. Robert Ketcham. To have done so cast doubt on the accuracy and propriety of the whole report.

Jim, Larry, do you REALLY think that PII can put this cat bag in the bag? Really? Sorry, it’s in the press, and they don’t care that the allegations aren’t in a nice little Bible box like you want. For that matter—and I speak from experience here—most accusations that are made don’t fit into a nice little Bible box because people are ashamed, can’t quite understand what went on, and moreover they were generally “groomed” to keep things quiet.

You insist on that nice little Bible box, and Donn Ketcham is still molesting girls in Bangladesh, fellas. “Oh, that’s irrelevant to what we’re trying to find out today!” What you’re endorsing is not the solution; it’s a big part of the problem.

What we have here, despite PII’s protestations to the contrary, is something that is ENTIRELY relevant to what went on with Donn Ketcham. Specifically, it’s another case where people sat on allegations for 40 years before bringing them to light because for whatever reason, they didn’t feel it was “their right” or “important enough” or whatever. To use my smoke shack analogy, ABWE just got offered a cancer stick, and if they know what’s good for them, they’re going to sit down and listen.

do you REALLY think that PII can put this cat bag in the bag? Really?

No, Pii should have never let it out of the bag.

You insist on that nice little Bible box,

I don’t know what a “nice little Bible box” is, and I haven’t insisted on anything. But in any court, this would be disallowed as hearsay evidence, I would imagine. How would this be investigated? And what would the outcome be?

and Donn Ketcham is still molesting girls in Bangladesh, fellas.

No, he’s not. He was fired from ABWE in 1989. And Robert Ketcham never worked for ABWE. Donn Ketcham was the one that worked for ABWE until he was fired in 1989.

“Oh, that’s irrelevant to what we’re trying to find out today!” What you’re endorsing is not the solution; it’s a big part of the problem.

What’s the relevance of an unsubstantiated claim that has nothing to do with the investigation or the organization being investigated? Remember, Pii said it was outside the scope of the investigation. That’s not coming from me.

Given your view of allowing and repeated unsubstantiated gossip and accusations, where would it stop? Is there anything off limits? Or can people say whatever they want?

Larry, you are completely missing the point. ​ You can argue that it was outside the scope of the investigation, that it’s not legally admissible, and the whole nine yards, but at the end of the day, the gossip we’re talking about was not deemed significant enough for anyone to act.

That’s exactly how Donn Ketcham stayed molesting girls in Bangladesh. We need to, as a fundagelical subculture, come to grips with the fact that just because something is not Biblically or legally admissible in a trial/church discipline does not mean it’s not grounds for starting to investigate—detectives get warrants on this kind of evidence all the time, really.

And where does it stop? If you investigate properly, it’s self correcting, really. In a case like this, you’re going to find out rather quickly if those with firsthand information are alive or dead, and what other evidence they might have, and you’re going to be able to figure out why they didn’t speak up when they thought they knew something. You confront the gossip, change the way things work to discourage it, publish what you found.

Notice that if you deal with these things properly—I’d add Biblically—you actually reduce the likelihood of future events because you have directed information to people who can act on it. So it’s not one of those “where does it end?”, but rather “this is the way you end it.”