On Accusation and Rebuke

It sounds to me like you are justifying the mention of Robert Ketcham, the father of Don Ketcham, in this investigation, where some have implied a hearsay activity of the father just might carry some explanation for the son’s nefarious activity with little girls is justified. No, gossip and hearsay areN EVER to be justified. Quite often, it can never be corrected. It is not self-correcting in many cases. Reputations are ruined, and the truth may never be known. It’s not good to imply that gossip and innuendo will always be corrected by some Biblical approach after it is turned loose in the minds of the public. The investigative team should have recognized at the outset that, unless some fault in Robert Ketcham could provably be attributed to the failing of his son Don Ketcham, no suggestion or conjection should have appeared in their report. Period!

Jim, I agree 100% that gossip is never justified, and that’s exactly why ABWE needs to investigate what their native gossips told PII. For whatever reason, some of their employees decided not to bring allegations forward in a Biblical way, but rather chose to talk quietly about it—in the same way that the PII report details how ABWE attempted for a long time to hide allegations against Donn Ketcham.

So the reality of gossip is exactly why ABWE needs to act on this and make those calls. Perfect chance of resolving this particular offense? Nope. But it’s a lot better chance than if they don’t make the calls, where the likelihood of recovering Robert Ketcham’s reputation is zero.

And again, what you’re arguing for is more or less to squelch the accusations. That’s exactly how ABWE got into this position in the first place—isn’t it long past time to wake up and start to resolve these sins?

I agree that it was personnel or someone at ABWE that started the rumor/gossip, and only they can refute it by admitting that it was gossip and not fact. If it was fact, it would be followed up, and since it appears to be gossip, ABWE needs to clear it up and exonerate Dr. Robert Ketcham of any suggessted wrongdoing, given that no proof was cited. It would have been better if PII had just refused to include something in the report that was not germane to the case under investigation. This could not have been considered a “coverup” since nothing of importance to the case was being omitted. Unless PII has released a full transcript of every word spoken, it can then be alleged that they were careless in what they reported.

t would have been better if PII had just refused to include something in the report that was not germane to the case under investigation.

I disagree emphatically. First of all, it’s precisely the same kind of sexual sin coverup that hid Donn Ketcham’s sins for 15 years. Think the accusers might be able to shed light on why things were done on the hush-hush? I sure do.

Second, there are all kinds of people in jail today because of “throwaway” comments by witnesses that were “not germane to the case”—smart detectives know to investigate them.

Third—and this is related to the second—revelations of sexual sin tend to be “throwaway” because people are ashamed of what happened and don’t know what to make of it. Someone they respected and trusted took advantage of them, and they were generally young and vulnerable to start with. So again, if you discard this kind of thing, you are in effect keeping Donn Ketcham on the job in Bangladesh because you will miss the signs that something is happening.

Fourth, assuming that it’s found that it was just misinterpreted signs that made it into the gossip mill, it offers the chance to look at how it operates and figure out how to stop it.

You say, “It’s precisely the same kind of sexual sin coverup that hid Donn Ketham’s sins for 15 years.’” Bert, you are referring to an accusation that is a unauthenticated rumor as though it were an actual sin. You seem to be saying that the rumor and hearsay should be treated as an actual sin. Neither you or anyone else know if a sin took place, yet you are treating it as though it did. You just don’t know. But you are willing to treat it as though it actually existed. How many times do others on this thread have to repeat that hearsay is not admitted in court, and it should not have been admitted in this report either.

Now you suggest that Dr. Robert Ketcham should perhaps be in jail for some throwaway comment and a report that is not authenticated, a report that even the one’s reporting it apparently do not want to say for sure that they have any evidence other than hearsay, that report should be given credence so that a full-fledged investigation should take place.

You fail to explain how discarding a hearsay statement about Dr. Robert Ketcham can contribute to “keepng Don Ketcham, the son, on the job in Bangladesh.”

Good luck with stopping a rumor based upon hearsay that begins to circulate. Rather, they should have prevented any hearsay about Dr. Robert Ketcham by not permitting it to appear in their report. Now look what has taken place; we are all debating it and conjecturing about whether it did or did not take place. You seem to think that refusing to report hearsay would be tantamount to covering up something. All I can say is that we are all lucky that any rumor about us did not appear in this report.

You ask the person what his sources are, and whether he’s handling whatever information he might have in a God-honoring way.

You fail to do so, you create a culture of gossip that will, say, hear about a doctor fondling patients, but will do nothing about it. this is not that complicated, Jim. When you are confronted with nasty gossip, you can either confront it or just shout “go away” like you’re more or less suggesting. Hint; the second option only makes it go away from YOU.

They didn’t make it go away, as you say, but they let it be perpetuated in a report that was released to the general public. In case you didn’t get it, that’s why all the fuss.

The reason PII didn’t do it is the same reason that ISO auditors don’t do the corrective action plans for companies with ISO findings (bad reports). It’s not their job. PII was there to report on what went wrong, just like an ISO auditor. It is ABWE’s responsibility to act on their findings. If you force PII to do ABWE’s role, the corporate culture at ABWE remains the same and you get more verifiable tragedies like that involving Donn Ketcham.

I think it would be WONDERFUL, by the way, if churches and parachurch ministries did some kind of ISO-like certifications for things like child safety. It would say to the world—at least if done right—“we are taking this seriously”.

I know our church does not let anyone work with children without doing a background check, utilizing all the law enforcement sites available.

I thought the role of PII was to do an investigation and report on any findings they uncovered that might reveal a miscarriage of justice toward the individuals that claimed to be hurt by the actions of Donald Ketcham, and to uncover the organizational errors made by the ABWE administration that permitted those actions to go on unreported and unpunished for so long. It was not in the domain of ABWE to address any possible activity of Dr. Robert Ketcham that did not pertain to those two main objectives. In the course of any investigation hearsay often arises, but it is usually not admitted into the record of the hearings. Tell me if I am wrong on the standpoint of principle.

you are completely missing the point. ​

I think I got your point. I think your point is wrong. ABWE has been placed in the position of answering an second hand accusation about someone who did not work for them for alleged actions that are likely around fifty years old, and they are placed in this position because of the unethical actions of an outside third party who, when confronted, refused to acknowledge the wrongdoing and proceeded anyway. That, to me, is the point.

And the question of when does it stop doesn’t refer to this particular accusation but to the whole arena of gossip. If someone is bound to repeat anything that is said regardless of evidence for its truth, then there is no place that it stops. Anyone can make up anything and ruin a man’s or woman’s reputation. And given your approach, they then have to answer it no matter that there is no evidence for it. And once it has been said, it can’t be unsaid.

You can argue that it was outside the scope of the investigation,

I am not arguing this was outside the scope of the investigation. There is no argument to be made. It was stipulated by Pii and confirmed by ABWE that it was outside the scope of the investigation. So given their own statement, we don’t need to make an argument for it. It has been admitted by both parties.

…the gossip we’re talking about was not deemed significant enough for anyone to act.

Or perhaps it just isn’t true, or perhaps the accusation was never actually made, or perhaps it was made and investigated and determined to be untrue, or perhaps it’s true and irrelevant since Robert Ketcham did not work for ABWE. But most likely, though I don’t know, I would imagine that it was unknown because it wasn’t true. only was it not significant enough to act; the reason for that is that there is apparently no basis for the gossip to begin with.

That’s exactly how Donn Ketcham stayed molesting girls in Bangladesh.

Not at all. Donn Ketcham stayed molesting girls in Bangladesh because known sin was excused. Robert Ketcham appears to have had no such known sin. There is no evidence that Ketcham (who didn’t work for ABWE) was ever charged or blamed with such a thing. You saying this is the same kind of thing that Donn did won’t make it true. With Donn there was evidence and there were people flown over there to talk; he was confronted; etc. There is no record of anything of that sort with Robert Ketcham. This, frankly, is nonsense at this point. It is not the same kind of thing.

I think your hints (or outright statement) at ignoring the biblical process is troubling. You say that we should confront that gossip, but that was apparently exactly what was not done. The gossip was repeated while knowing it should not have been and knowing that there was no evidence for it.

So it’s not one of those “where does it end?”, but rather “this is the way you end it.”

You don’t end it by repeating it. “Where there is no wood, the fire dies out,” said an wise man once upon a time. It seems a principle applicable here. You don’t put the fire out by adding wood to it. You either investigate it or keep your mouth shut. You don’t repeat it.

Later you talk about creating a culture of gossip. The culture of gossip is created when unsubstantiated gossip is repeated. That was the problem. Pii could have chosen to look into this and either confirmed or denied it. They could have chosen to omit it since it was outside their investigation and since it had no evidence. They made the wrong choice. They are the gossipers who repeated a story without evidence and without purpose. You want to defend gossipers. I think they should be confronted and rebuked.

PII was there to report on what went wrong, just like an ISO auditor. It is ABWE’s responsibility to act on their findings.

But there was no finding of anything going wrong. Again, there was an unsubstantiated gossip from (likely) at least second hand sources that someone who didn’t work at ABWE was a long term sex addict in a period at least more than thirty years ago and perhaps more than fifty years ago. And now, ABWE is forced to comment on something decades old about a man who didn’t work for them?

The bottom line for me is that Pii was unethical to repeat this gossip since, by their own acknowledgement (1) it was outside their investigation and (2) there was no evidence for it. You don’t slander a man on the weight of these comments.

[jimcarwest]

I know our church does not let anyone work with children without doing a background check, utilizing all the law enforcement sites available.

I thought the role of PII was to do an investigation and report on any findings they uncovered that might reveal a miscarriage of justice toward the individuals that claimed to be hurt by the actions of Donald Ketcham, and to uncover the organizational errors made by the ABWE administration that permitted those actions to go on unreported and unpunished for so long. It was not in the domain of ABWE to address any possible activity of Dr. Robert Ketcham that did not pertain to those two main objectives. In the course of any investigation hearsay often arises, but it is usually not admitted into the record of the hearings. Tell me if I am wrong on the standpoint of principle.

Whether the allegations against Robert Ketcham are substantiated or complete nonsense (I lean towards the latter), the simple fact that people were sitting on allegations against him for 40 years without doing squat about it says a LOT about the culture at ABWE. That is why ABWE needs to find out exactly what evidence the accusers were working with, if any, contact others working in the office to see (a) how widespread the allegations were within the office by interviewing those who worked there, (b) what incentives there were or are in ABWE culture to come forward or keep back, and the like.

And again, you guys seem to be telling the world that if you were running things at ABWE, you’d basically intimidate people into silence. Again, that is EXACTLY the kind of nonsense that ABWE needs to end.

Whether the allegations against Robert Ketcham are substantiated or complete nonsense (I lean towards the latter), the simple fact that people were sitting on allegations against him for 40 years without doing squat about it says a LOT about the culture at ABWE.

How do you know that these allegations were sat on for 40 years? How do you know that these allegations were even made 40 years ago? Do you have any evidence for that? And how do you know that, if they were made, they were not investigated? Perhaps they were investigated and nothing was found.

I don’t know how you would know any of that, and you have given us no reason to believe you know any of that. Which means you are assuming a lot of stuff it seems, and unless you have evidence for these claims you are making, they probably shouldn’t be made.

And what does this have to do with ABWE anyway? Robert Ketcham did not work for ABWE and I don’t know that he had any official connection. He was a GARBC pastor and the national representative for a while, I believe. ABWE is a missions agency connected with GARBC. But I don’t know that Robert Ketcham had any official connection.

And again, you guys seem to be telling the world that if you were running things at ABWE, you’d basically intimidate people into silence. Again, that is EXACTLY the kind of nonsense that ABWE needs to end.

Far to the contrary, the people making these allegations should have been asked what the evidence was before the allegation was repeated. The problem was that they didn’t speak up. They apparently gave no evidence. They were silent when they should have spoken.

The message should be, don’t be silent; speak up and give the evidence. It is unethical to repeat a baseless accusation, particularly when it is outside the scope of your task and when you have no intent to determine any level of reliability of the claim.

With that, I think everything has been said that can be said and unless there is new information, I will bow out.

Larry, regarding “how do I know?”, it’s really a simple process of deduction. Either the three accusers were relaying gossip that had to have originated before 1978, or they lied—conspired to lie would be the best explanation, actually. The only thing I’m assuming here is the more gracious interpretation towards the accusers. They did so knowing that the allegations were likely to appear in a report.

Whatever the facts actually are, it’s worth a few phone calls by ABWE. I’ve explained above why PII is not the right entity to do this—it’s ABWE that needs to change its own culture, after all.

Moreover, I believe you’re assuming quite a bit when you say the charges are baseless. Agreed 100% that they’re counter-intuitive, but baseless? As I’ve explained above repeatedly, nobody’s talked with the three accusers, let along other people in ABWE and GARBC offices at the time, to figure these things out. You would demonstrate the allegations were baseless any number of ways from the sources mentioned, but not without talking to them.

Again, bring it into the open. Worst possibility is we find the charges are true; more likely is we find a tragic bit of gossip and errors. Either way, ABWE needs to make some phone calls, because if they don’t, public perception is going to default to the worst possibility.

You seem intent on (1) making ABWE responsible for examining the “gossip” about Dr. Robert Ketcham, even though he was never a personnel of the organization; (2) relieving PII of any responsibility for publicizing this gossip by including it in their report; (3) accepting the proposition that the rumor is perhaps true unless someone exonerates Dr. Robert Ketcham. All three of these scenarios are without Scriptural support. Just recognize that an error was made by some apparent talebearers. The error has cast a faithful servant of the Lord in a bad light when there is no justification for it. Hope that, after you are buried, Bert, no one passes a slanderous “report” about you. Leave some things to the knowledge of God, and stop delving into things that are better left in His care. To continue giving credence to the rumor is to perpetuate it. (Prov. 11:13; Ex. 23:1; Prov. 26:20; Prov. 10:19; Prov. 17:9).

[jimcarwest]

You seem intent on (1) making ABWE responsible for examining the “gossip” about Dr. Robert Ketcham, even though he was never a personnel of the organization; (2) relieving PII of any responsibility for publicizing this gossip by including it in their report; (3) accepting the proposition that the rumor is perhaps true unless someone exonerates Dr. Robert Ketcham. All three of these scenarios are without Scriptural support. Just recognize that an error was made by some apparent talebearers. The error has cast a faithful servant of the Lord in a bad light when there is no justification for it. Hope that, after you are buried, Bert, no one passes a slanderous “report” about you. Leave some things to the knowledge of God, and stop delving into things that are better left in His care. To continue giving credence to the rumor is to perpetuate it. (Prov. 11:13; Ex. 23:1; Prov. 26:20; Prov. 10:19; Prov. 17:9).

Seems to me that at least two of the talebearers have worked for ABWE. They’re not responsible for this exactly why, then?

And by no means am I giving credence to it, except to point out that it is clear evidence of a longstanding culture of gossip at ABWE. I am pointing out that given the nature of the accusations, it deserves investigation by the employer of the talebearers. And if I’m accused, I want exactly the same. Talk to the talebearers, talk to other people in the office who would have been aware of it at the time, etc.. Bring it out, get the data.

You’re also appearing to assume that the accusations are flat out false. Again, if you don’t talk to those who would, or would not, have witnessed it, you really don’t know this. All you know is that people working there were part of a gossip chain that is making some nasty comments. Plus, more or less what you’re doing is saying “shoot the messenger.” Sorry, PII is just the messenger, and they got the information from people associated with ABWE. Deal with the accusations.