On Accusation and Rebuke

If the accusation was outside the scope of their investigation, why did PII bring it up? Did they bring it up only because Cockrell and others had said it, so they felt it needed to be in record that they said it, while saying at the same time that it had nothing to do with their investigation? If so, then the parties with explaining to do are Cockrell and those other three.

Given that Ketcham was basically blind since his youth and had a massive heart attack in 1959 which all but disabled him, let’s just say I share Dr. Bauder’s skepticism about the charges. Any witnesses alive would probably be in their seventies or eighties, really, and his physical condition does not appear to have been such as to support that kind of thing. Plus, I would have expected Ketcham’s detractors to have run with the allegations if they were truly widely known.

But that said, the allegations are in the report precisely because ABWE had been credibly accused of suppressing problems, and people had gotten hurt as a result. Hence the credibility of ABWE really depends on being very open, even about the less demonstrable stuff.

And so I think someone—ABWE, whoever—needs to see what they can do to get to the bottom of this. If there is something to this, they need to say “OK, our culture was more deeply ingrained than we thought”, and if they can’t find evidence to prove it, they need to request a note “the charges were made, but no witnesses could be found.”

And that’s about the best they can do now.

Because this spurious report of misconduct on the part of a great man — Robert Ketcham — comes from second-hand witnesses and even from hearsay, it should be expunged from the PII report that was recently released by ABWE. I am a former ABWE missionary with many years of service with that organization, and the very mention of this matter by those I had grown to respect leaves me with serious doubt concerning their character. If Dr. Ketcham (whom I never knew), could be slandered (slander is unsubstantiated reports) after his death when there is no evidence of misconduct while he was alive, what protections do any of us have? I am calling for Al Cockrell and his associates to come forward with the evidence for this insinuation or with an apology that exonerates Dr. Ketcham. Whatever his son may have done to bring disgrace upon the Lord, upon his family, and upon the ministry should not be considered the fault of his father. And I am expecting that PII admit to this serious error in allowing such hearsay to be included in its report.

The burden is now upon PII to produce credible evidence implicating Robert Ketcham in “long-time sexual addictions.” Barring that, they need to retract the accusation and to eliminate it from the PII document.

I am going to take a risky stance and disagree with Kevin on this. The folk at PII simply did what they were tasked to do, report facts. They accurately reported a claim made by the powers that be at ABWE. They would have been derelict in their duty if they had left this out. The burden is on ABWE, not PII. What was their purpose in making this claim? Left unanswered, we can only conclude that as late as 2013 ABWE was still dodging and blame shifting. What was their point? That Donn Ketcham had a genetic predisposition to sexual sin? That ABWE was simply doing (covering up) what the GARBC had been doing for years? It is ABWE, not PII, that needs to explain this despicable slur, and explain why those who made it are still in charge.

They would have been derelict in their duty if they had left this out.

What part of their duty required them to comment on something they were not hired to comment on? By their own admission, it it was outside the duty they had been given which would indicate that there was no duty to report it. Furthermore, they admitted that they had no evidence to support it. It is, at face value, completely irrelevant to the issue at hand.

This is the kind of stuff that old-school fundamentalism (along with many others including evangelicalism) is known for — repeating accusations from second, third, and fourth hand sources and condemning the accused without any due process. Just a little innuendo here or there, with the qualification that “I was told …” and that makes it okay. As much as some reject second degree, third degree, and fourth degree separation, it seems they should also reject second degree, third degree, and fourth degree accusation. Either investigate it and establish some reasonable position on it, or don’t say it.

[Larry]

They would have been derelict in their duty if they had left this out.

What part of their duty required them to comment on something they were not hired to comment on? By their own admission, it it was outside the duty they had been given which would indicate that there was no duty to report it. Furthermore, they admitted that they had no evidence to support it. It is, at face value, completely irrelevant to the issue at hand.

This is the kind of stuff that old-school fundamentalism (along with many others including evangelicalism) is known for — repeating accusations from second, third, and fourth hand sources and condemning the accused without any due process. Just a little innuendo here or there, with the qualification that “I was told …” and that makes it okay. As much as some reject second degree, third degree, and fourth degree separation, it seems they should also reject second degree, third degree, and fourth degree accusation. Either investigate it and establish some reasonable position on it, or don’t say it.

I agree 100% that old school fundamentalism (along with others) is too often known for reckless accusations. But let’s address what PII was tasked to do; investigate a culture of suppression of claims of sexual abuse. Now if Robert Ketcham did indeed have such a problem, and if indeed it was widely known but ignored, that fits perfectly with what PII was tasked to investigate. no? In this case, either the charges are true, in which case a disregard for truth and sin victimized the (hypothetical) victims of Robert Ketcham, or they are false, in which case a disregard for truth and sin victimized Robert Ketcham via gossip. No matter how you slice it, it shows the very problem ABWE was accused of having.

From ABWE page on the PII report:

What do I do if I have a comment or factual clarification about the final report?

If anyone wishes to submit comments regarding the factual accuracy of Pii’s investigation as reflected in the Final Report, s/he may do so by sending those comments by email to protectingourchildren@abwe.org.

Now if Robert Ketcham did indeed have such a problem, and if indeed it was widely known but ignored, that fits perfectly with what PII was tasked to investigate. no?

PII, who has the contract with ABWE (that we haven’t seen), said it was outside the scope of their investigation. Why not take their word for it?

ABWE needs to either 1) Make a statement providing evidence justifying Cockrell’s accusation, or 2) Make a statement that they are going to investigate Cockrell’s accusation with a future statement to come out as a result. But to say nothing at this point is unacceptable.

Unacceptable to whom and under what standard? Ketcham died in 1978 and had been declining in health since 1959. What would such an investigation consist of and what it might find out from any reliable source? (Those aren’t rhetorical questions.)

[Larry]

ABWE needs to either 1) Make a statement providing evidence justifying Cockrell’s accusation, or 2) Make a statement that they are going to investigate Cockrell’s accusation with a future statement to come out as a result. But to say nothing at this point is unacceptable.

Unacceptable to whom and under what standard? Ketcham died in 1978 and had been declining in health since 1959. What would such an investigation consist of and what it might find out from any reliable source? (Those aren’t rhetorical questions.)

Unacceptable to me, a pastor of a church that supports ABWE by supporting ABWE missionaries. My supposition is that Cockrell could answer this immediately, but I know there is the chance that there may be more to it so that ABWE would want to be sure to do some fact-checking before issuing a response as to why the accusation was made.

[Larry]

Now if Robert Ketcham did indeed have such a problem, and if indeed it was widely known but ignored, that fits perfectly with what PII was tasked to investigate. no?

PII, who has the contract with ABWE (that we haven’t seen), said it was outside the scope of their investigation. Why not take their word for it?

Here’s what was said on page 245 of the report. there are references on page 79 and 100 as well for this.

There may be potential corporate ramifications from revelations from E. Alan Cockrell, Robert Showers and an ABWE Administrator stating to the Pii investigative team that Donn Ketcham’s father Robert T. Ketcham, a significant leader of GARBC, allegedly had “long-time sexual addictions.” The investigation did not address this allegation as it was outside of the scope of work nor was any corroborative evidence peripherally discovered. The statement brings to light the following possibilities: 1) This statement may reflect an ABWE cultural awareness of Robert T. Ketcham’s life choices, 2) This awareness may parallel the lengthy time period in which GARBC was the primary funding source for ABWE, and 3) It is possible, therefore, that ABWE leadership was motivated to disregard Robert T. Ketcham’s behaviors for their own motives, as they would later do with Donn Ketcham. This information should have also provided ABWE with additional context and motivation to investigate Donn Ketcham’s behavior.

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. In other words, it could well be the “smoke shack” I was writing about in the previous thread, a key to the attitudes and hidden factory that really ran ABWE—the hidden factory that explains what happened, and the hidden factory that needs to be addressed (probably removed) so that it doesn’t happen again.