New Republic Picks Up Donn Ketcham Story
One objection I’ve got to the new child protection policy is in section 3.6, page 2, is that the specific punishment for violation the policy is at the discretion of ABWE. Really, that’s the exact same thing that got them into this hole to begin with, and when you’re taking people 10,000 miles away from their relatives, friends, and other support structures in Bangladesh, you’ve got to be a little bit stricter on the rules because the ordinary fear one will have in such a situation will be magnified—and it’s going to lead to hiding things, downplaying them, etc.. I’ve recently taken part in writing a child protection policy here, and there are simply some things where I’ve insisted on “shall” instead of “may” for this very reason.
And really, if we consider any missionary effectively an elder, then we’re really at the same point we ought to be regarding divorced pastors; erring on the side of protection of the sheep.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
One objection I’ve got to the new child protection policy(link is external) is in section 3.6, page 2, is that the specific punishment for violation the policy is at the discretion of ABWE.
As opposed to what? Who else would handle the punishment for violation of the policy?
It’s not that ABWE is doing it at all. It’s that they describe the consequences as “at their discretion.” In other words, they might decide to handle the case of a doctor caught in adultery differently from the summer missionary he was caught sleeping with.
This is exactly what got them into this problem! You’ve got to have some things for which there is automatic expulsion.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
You’ve got to have some things for which there is automatic expulsion.
Wow, how much a few weeks changes things. But I digress …
There is, in this document, a long laundry list of violations. Not all of them would be handled the same. Thus, the discretion is employed. An employee who buys a hamburger for a child not their own will be handled differently that one who sexually abuses a child. Yet both are violations of this policy. And there may be a good reason to handle the doctor different than the summer missionary. I think the point is that not all violations are the same and thus they cannot all be handled the same.
It’s just that a missionary is an elder, a great difference between that and a high school student. His first offenses were adulterous in a place where he was taking advantage of people 10,000 miles from home and lonely and scared. If that’s not reason for expulsion, what is?
Good quality systems in this case leave a lot less room for negotiation. ABWE is setting the stage for the next problems.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
For all the world it looks like a change. I suppose grace only goes so far. I don’t think all missionaries are necessarily elders and I don’t think that really matters in this case. I think Ketcham should have been expelled and prosecuted. But the point is that a document like this is not the place to lay out the disciplinary scheme. And in many cases, it is unwise to have a “one size fits all” consequence scheme simply because not all violations are sins, not all violations or sins are the same, and not all participants are the same. It is often better to have some flexibility in some of these areas. Again, someone who buys dinner for a child of another family and someone who molests a child have both violated this policy. It would be wrong to treat them the same. That’s where discretion comes in.
Larry, what I’m saying is that since ABWE staffers have, over a period of four decades and two continents at least, swept clear indications of adultery and child molestation under the rug, the policy needs to state clearly that they have NO DISCRETION in how to deal with it. You expel both participants for adultery, anyone caught in any degree of sexual assault, and report any sexual assaults to authorities—and anyone caught sweeping it under the rug will suffer the same fate.
It’s not saying that you treat molestation the same as a “grooming factor”, but look at the document again. It simply grants discretion to ABWE staffers that we already know has been abused. DUMB, DUMB, DUMB. They are at a point where they clearly need to spell these things out for the more serious offenses.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[mmartin]I know we Christians are not supposed to sue other Christians, but if there ever was a case for a multi-million dollar suit against an organization and its leadership (i.e. the list Tyler posted above), even a Christian one, it is this case.
Excuse me while I go take a long shower.
How can they be called Christians when they allowed this kind of harm to children? I hope they do get sued.
Bert, People who are involved in sexual immorality are fired or expelled from the mission.
The document is a different kind of document and serves a different purpose. it deals with much more than adultery or assault. It deals with things like excessive hugging of children, frontal hugs, and buying food for children not your own, carpools, sleepovers, etc. Those things require discretion. It would be unwise and impractical, if not impossible, to lay out a “one size fits all” consequence policy.
The document also requires all criminal activity to be reported to law enforcement. So the discretion is not where you say it is. It is highly doubtful that ABWE crafted this document in such as way as to allow them to keep the next Donn Ketcham and to claim “discretion” in doing so, particularly when ABWE clearly states that people involved in sexual immorality cannot continue with the mission.
There is, in this document, a long laundry list of violations. Not all of them would be handled the same. Thus, the discretion is employed. An employee who buys a hamburger for a child not their own will be handled differently that one who sexually abuses a child. Yet both are violations of this policy. And there may be a good reason to handle the doctor different than the summer missionary. I think the point is that not all violations are the same and thus they cannot all be handled the same.
Larry is right on this one. You can’t possibly build out rules that deal with every situation or permutation of one. There are times when someone should receive a harsher penalty than someone else. It’s just the way things are, and I believe that God does the same thing on occasion in the New Testament - surely other people have lied to the Holy Spirit, but Ananias and Sapphira were killed for that.
I just have no faith that ABWE will avoid the errors (to put it mildly) of the past.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[Jay]There is, in this document, a long laundry list of violations. Not all of them would be handled the same. Thus, the discretion is employed. An employee who buys a hamburger for a child not their own will be handled differently that one who sexually abuses a child. Yet both are violations of this policy. And there may be a good reason to handle the doctor different than the summer missionary. I think the point is that not all violations are the same and thus they cannot all be handled the same.
Larry is right on this one. You can’t possibly build out rules that deal with every situation or permutation of one. There are times when someone should receive a harsher penalty than someone else. It’s just the way things are, and I believe that God does the same thing on occasion in the New Testament - surely other people have lied to the Holy Spirit, but Ananias and Sapphira were killed for that.
I just have no faith that ABWE will avoid the errors (to put it mildly) of the past.
Look at the last comment; this is why I am saying that there should be no discretion for matters of physical adultery and criminal activity. If you don’t trust someone to use discretion wisely, you don’t give them that discretion, period. This is why many states and the federal government put in sentencing guidelines in the 1980s—they were tired of judges using their “discretion” to give serious criminals light sentences. It’s also why many factories require managers to sign off on critical measurements—they’ve learned through hard experience that when people can cheat on things, they will. It’s why military contracting has huge, long checklists—people will cheat when they can, and quite frankly it can kill when they do.
So if you’ve got a case where dozens/hundreds of people on two continents over four decades failed to remove an adulterous pederast from his position, you go forward by removing their discretion in such cases. ABWE has given us a very clear picture of their corporate culture, and that pictures says that if any “discretion” is perceived in this kind of thing in the future, somebody is going to make the exact same mistake again—but with the caveat that plaintiff’s lawyers already have the historical exhibits ready.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
ABWE is not necessary to the cause of the Gospel. In fact they are detrimental. Pull a sheet over it and direct its missionaries to other agencies.
Get off my lawn!
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
Look at the last comment; this is why I am saying that there should be no discretion for matters of physical adultery and criminal activity.
ABWE agrees with you.
Larry if you read the PI report ABWE dragged their feet on reporting the new ones to Authorities.
That’s old news. But I am not sure what your point is to me. My comment had nothing to do with that.
So if you’ve got a case where dozens/hundreds of people on two continents over four decades failed to remove an adulterous pederast from his position, you go forward by removing their discretion in such cases.
And who makes those calls? And what right does that person have to adjudicate ABWE’s behavior, outside of God Himself?
I don’t like this situation either, but I loathe the idea of setting up some outside party to decide that ABWE is doing the right thing or not. Better to pull a sheet over it, like Ron Bean said, and shut it down than impose some Pope-like figure to decide whether or not things are being done correctly. After all, it was the people who were watching over ABWE that allowed this to happen.
The God of all the Earth shall judge rightly…much more rightly than any man or panel or committee ever could.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Discussion