"We, the Board of ABWE and ABWE Administration ask for your forgiveness."

[JohnBrian] It seems that ABWE is “in over their heads” in trying to right this wrong. It was common in the past for ministries to hide such things, and ABWE did what everyone else was doing. Now there is a different standard (and should have been then as well), and more is needed than just an apology. ABWE is being encouraged to bring in http://www.netgrace.org/ GRACE (Joel linked to them in post 16), as it is the organization that the girls/women have requested. They need to do that as they don’t have the in house capability to handle this themselves.

Everyone should take a few minutes to read the http://www.akha.org/content/missiondocuments/grace-final-report-on-ntm-…] GRACE report for New Tribes Missions’ problem a few years back. You can see that these folks are great at recognizing problems within the culture of an organization that permit such situations to occur/recur. I think they would do ABWE a great deal of good.

There is clearly something about the Fundamentalist mindset that makes it too easy for the child molester to lurk in our midst. And there is clearly something about our mindset that makes us not deal with it well once we detect them as well. It’s not universal, but there does seem to be a tendency. Spend a little time researching, and you’ll begin to suspect, along with me, that it’s happening in churches that self-define as Fundamental at perhaps twice the rate as in some other churches (Catholicism excluded, where they have their own set of problems).

Maybe it’s time for one of those group repentances that Roland despises so much.

…not that I’m ever really and truly “brief”. I fully realize and respect that the owners of this site have every right to moderate as they see fit while I assume that the readers have a right to read, not read, post, not post, whatever if they don’t like a policy. I probably should have left my own personal frustrations with moderation in general out of the previous post. I don’t personally believe that the moderators actions were a “cover up” or have some other nefarious motive behind redacting the material. I accept their explanation even if I disagree that it was necessary. I apologize if I implied otherwise.

What I really wanted to say was that tlange has personal reasons for his frustration and his reaction was more than likely due to experiences not wholly unlike what the MK’s are feeling (while admittedly, not in the same category.) That said, I hope folks will extend to him some consideration and thoughtful understanding of why he expressed his frustration here.

As for Roland’s question about my history in administration and whether or not I kept things quiet. While I’ve been a senior pastor FAR longer than I’ve been an administrator and whatever role in which I have found myself, I absolutely did my best to use Biblical church discipline and that often meant dealing with things publicly. Over the years, I’ve reported behavior to the police, made appropriate public statements, etc… Not that I’ve handled every situation perfectly, but I can’t think of a time when anyone would say I “swept” anything “under the rug.” I think ABWE did right in the statement that they made and I do find it breath-taking to consider it motivated by”political correctness.” I have a pretty huge aversion to anything PC.

That said, thanks to the moderators for their best efforts and for putting up with the commentary from those of us in the “cheap seats”. Even when I disagree, I hope I do so respectfully and with a sense of appreciation for your task.

[RPittman] Was it a coverup? A deliberate, intentional coverup? Or, was it bad decisions, or lack of knowledge, or lack of foresight?

Does it matter if it was intentional or not? ABWE fired a missionary for paying for a child prostitute and then didn’t notify the churches that were supporting him. I fail to see how that’s excusable for “lack of foresight”. I do agree that it was a bad decision at the very least.

I have no connection with any of the people involved in these issues. I have no desire to cover it up (or to expose it for that matter). It’s just not on the radar of the ministry that I am responsible for.

(bolding mine)

I think this highlights a profound difference in how we perceive (and therefore handle) these issues. I understand that the intent of the bolded sentence (that you have IRL people that God has placed in your care). However, those of us who “keep bringing up” these issues are doing so because we feel that we ARE responsible, as Christians, for helping victims who have been harmed by people who claim God’s name and promises. I am appalled by the abusers and predators who use their power to abuse those within the church, and God is, too. God tells us to protect the weak and fatherless, and that is what we “noisy” ones are trying to do. We take up their case, even though we may “have no connection with any of the people involved in these issues.”

Rachel L… I think your idea (we are responsible as Christians) is a weighty one and worth thinking about. I don’t want to sound dismissive. On the other hand, some questions:
- Why should the sins of an individual or organization be the responsibility of those with no direct connection to them?
- Why should sins in one particular category be owned by all Christians everywhere but not sins in other categories?

The reason I ask is that we don’t really behave this way with other things. When Jim and Tammy Faye got into legal trouble with their finances, I don’t remember anybody in non-Charismatic Christianity expressing the feeling that they were responsible for the Baakers. But we are all, presumably, Christians. Other examples might be better. My point is that we do draw lines for what we feel responsible to track down and expose, and I think it’s both necessary and proper that we do that.

The question is where are the boundaries of responsibility in these matters?
Another question is, having established that something is “our” responsibility, when has our responsibility been fulfilled? Once sin has been exposed, what more is there for outsiders to do?

In the case of ABWE and the organization’s past failure, the organization has a responsibility because:
a. The offending individual was directly connected to it. They are linked.
b. The organization messed up in how it handled that.
So even though the folks in leadership now weren’t around at the time—and even at the time, didn’t participate in the primary offenses—they are correct to take on responsibility and deal with the offenses as though their own.

But those not connected to the organization or the individual… hard to see how it’s their responsibility, even though we are in the same body of Christ. NT discipline is so focused on local churches—apparently partly because every believer cannot make it his aim in life to track down and expose every sin of every other believer. There must be some boundaries of responsibility in that area.

[Rachel L.] I think this highlights a profound difference in how we perceive (and therefore handle) these issues. I understand that the intent of the bolded sentence (that you have IRL people that God has placed in your care). However, those of us who “keep bringing up” these issues are doing so because we feel that we ARE responsible, as Christians, for helping victims who have been harmed by people who claim God’s name and promises. I am appalled by the abusers and predators who use their power to abuse those within the church, and God is, too. God tells us to protect the weak and fatherless, and that is what we “noisy” ones are trying to do. We take up their case, even though we may “have no connection with any of the people involved in these issues.”

Beautifully said, Rachel. And those who think that they have more important ministry to do than engage these issues need to remember that these issues may be in their own ministry some day. They should be thinking about how to prevent it, and also how to handle it when it comes.

[Aaron Blumer] Rachel L… I think your idea (we are responsible as Christians) is a weighty one and worth thinking about. I don’t want to sound dismissive. On the other hand, some questions:
- Why should the sins of an individual or organization be the responsibility of those with no direct connection to them?
- Why should sins in one particular category be owned by all Christians everywhere but not sins in other categories?

The reason I ask is that we don’t really behave this way with other things. When Jim and Tammy Faye got into legal trouble with their finances, I don’t remember anybody in non-Charismatic Christianity expressing the feeling that they were responsible for the Baakers. But we are all, presumably, Christians. Other examples might be better. My point is that we do draw lines for what we feel responsible to track down and expose, and I think it’s both necessary and proper that we do that.

The question is where are the boundaries of responsibility in these matters?
Another question is, having established that something is “our” responsibility, when has our responsibility been fulfilled? Once sin has been exposed, what more is there for outsiders to do?

In the case of ABWE and the organization’s past failure, the organization has a responsibility because:
a. The offending individual was directly connected to it. They are linked.
b. The organization messed up in how it handled that.
So even though the folks in leadership now weren’t around at the time—and even at the time, didn’t participate in the primary offenses—they are correct to take on responsibility and deal with the offenses as though their own.

But those not connected to the organization or the individual… hard to see how it’s their responsibility, even though we are in the same body of Christ. NT discipline is so focused on local churches—apparently partly because every believer cannot make it his aim in life to track down and expose every sin of every other believer. There must be some boundaries of responsibility in that area.

You are technically correct, Aaron. And it would be easy for some Christians who don’t have enough on their plate to become busybodies and gossips on certain issues.

But the believer ought to desire to bind up the bruised and broken (thinking of the physical ministry of Christ while on earth, or Isaiah 61:1ff). When those who are supposed to help the hurting become those delivering the hurt, we ought to be moved by it. And we ought to a). investigate whether the same problems exist in our own back yard, and b). see if we can do anything to fix the overall problem.

[Aaron Blumer] The reason I ask is that we don’t really behave this way with other things. When Jim and Tammy Faye got into legal trouble with their finances, I don’t remember anybody in non-Charismatic Christianity expressing the feeling that they were responsible for the Baakers. But we are all, presumably, Christians. Other examples might be better. My point is that we do draw lines for what we feel responsible to track down and expose, and I think it’s both necessary and proper that we do that.

The question is where are the boundaries of responsibility in these matters?

I would posit that the boundaries of responsibility are our own immediate borders - the church that I pastor, the home that I live in, the business that I own. Paul commands us to “keep watch”, to “safeguard”, and to “give account” for what we allow. That sounds to me like I’m responsible for whatever God has specifically entrusted to my care, which would also include making sure that the Mission Agencies that I work with are dealing appropriately with sin and or lawbreakers. The parable of the ten talents comes to mind:

[Matthew 25] 14 “For it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted to them his property. 15 To one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away. 16 He who had received the five talents went at once and traded with them, and he made five talents more. 17 So also he who had the two talents made two talents more. 18 But he who had received the one talent went and dug in the ground and hid his master’s money. 19 Now after a long time the master of those servants came and settled accounts with them. 20 And he who had received the five talents came forward, bringing five talents more, saying, ‘Master, you delivered to me five talents; here I have made five talents more.’ 21 His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.’ 22 And he also who had the two talents came forward, saying, ‘Master, you delivered to me two talents; here I have made two talents more.’ 23 His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.’ 24 He also who had received the one talent came forward, saying, ‘Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you scattered no seed, 25 so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.’ 26 But his master answered him, ‘You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sown and gather where I scattered no seed? 27 Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest. 28 So take the talent from him and give it to him who has the ten talents. 29 For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. 30 And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

Furthermore, when the Fayes got into financial trouble, a lot of churches perked up and realized that they had to take care to ensure that they were in compliance with IRS and other laws, so I think your analogy breaks down.

[Mike Durning] And we ought to a). investigate whether the same problems exist in our own back yard, and b). see if we can do anything to fix the overall problem.

If we are doing what we can in our own neck of the woods to address these problems, we ARE doing something to fix the overall problem. I’ve been involved in more than one case in the last few years. It’s no fun to have people who have little or no knowledge of the details to make public pronouncements of what should and shouldn’t have been done. And since the folks who are directly involved are often bound by silence because there is an ongoing investigation, cries of “Cover up! Conspiracy!” are distinctly unhelpful, to say the least.

I’m not opposed to discussing what is public record on a particular case, but the problem is that it seldom ends there. There is always someone who says they are ‘in the know’ who will make statements that others are supposed to take as gospel. That is why it is prudent, IMO, to deal with the issues involved rather than attempting to address the specifics of a case about which we have no firsthand knowledge. It doesn’t mean we aren’t touched by the tragedies and heartache we hear about, but other than praying and considering ourselves, I have no idea what I ‘actions’ one could take with regards to any of the cases we have discussed over the years.

Someone has asked me to explain why I feel so strongly about this issue.

I think that many of us from my era were very poorly educated as to how to deal with these things. I myself handled a situation like this in my early ministry in a sub-optimal way, but through ignorance rather than conspiracy-like plotting. I also found that in the 1980’s the obstacles to even reporting certain kinds of wrong-doing were significant. Since our case was an adult woman pursuing teenaged guys, I found that prosecutors weren’t that eager to do anything (as in “There’s no such thing as a non-consensual teen guy”). Since the fellows were past that state’s age of consent (16), I literally had nowhere to report it. It didn’t fit the legal definitions of child molestation at the time. And since the school was a Christian school, there was not even a way to pull professional credentials. When the entire administration of the school and church changed over the next few years, the woman even got a good reference from an employee of the old school as she applied for a new position — based, I was informed, on her repentance. By God’s grace (and a little legwork by former victims, the person has been hounded out of positions where she can do the same to others.

Was there a cover-up? Well, at some point, we ran out of options to report it. And then we kind of forgot about it. And then she was teaching someplace else!!! Only when one of her former victims walked into school and saw her in a classroom did further action begin. Could we have done more at the time? Sure. But at the time, it wasn’t clear what. In this sense, I completely understand what happened at ABWE with this matter. They hit up against a barrier as to how to report their situation, and inertia finally stalled the effort. Now, looking back, as it is in my case, it’s “should have, would have, could have”.

[Dan Burrell] That said, thanks to the moderators for their best efforts and for putting up with the commentary from those of us in the “cheap seats”

If you think your seats are cheap, try the moderators’ seats. They have to be cheap, otherwise we couldn’t afford them on our pay. :D

[quote-Rachel L.] However, those of us who “keep bringing up” these issues are doing so because we feel that we ARE responsible, as Christians, for helping victims who have been harmed by people who claim God’s name and promises. Thanks Rachel.

I agree with what you say here. And I think ABWE’s help in terms of providing counseling and the like is actual help. There is a confession that it was wrongly handled and there are apparently efforts at reconciliation and fixing the problem as much as is possible twenty years later.

But I am not sure how this type of stuff is actual help? How are abused people helped by these kinds of things?

I suppose there is some comfort in not suffering alone in silence but rather hearing the expressions of care and concern and sympathy.

I suppose we could make the case that publicizing it might hinder others from sinning in predation, though it is unlikely since most predators think they will never get caught. It also might help some not attempt to cover it up for fear of being uncovered, but again, I think that is doubtful since the whole point of covering up is based on the idea that you are convinced it can be covered up and not discovered.

I suppose my main question is what does help look like? In a given ministry, if this were to happen to something or someone I am responsible for, I would like to think I would not cover it up. But that doesn’t mean that you will see it in the local papers, and particularly not in the national news.

I am appalled by the abusers and predators who use their power to abuse those within the church, and God is, too.

I am too. So please don’t mistake my caution for cover-up or apathy.

Mike talks about prevention. And I agree. We need to consider what safeguards we have in place and how we would handle situations. We have taken steps and I have considered what I would do if such a situation were to be alleged in a ministry I am connected with.

But I think responsibility is really connected with relationships. I am not sure we can make the case that we have a responsibility for something with which we are totally unconnected. Again, that goes to what is help? What does it look like? I have a responsibility to help those who have been abused or taken advantage of. But I think we all agree that my responsibility is limited. After all, I don’t see anyone here volunteering to pay for counseling for these abused people, or pay for lawyers to explore restitution or prosecution. I am not saying that is wrong. I am arguing that it shows that we all understand the responsibility is limited to at least some degree. ABWE is responsible and they are showing it by their actions such as counseling. Responsibility is easy when I all I have to do is talk. But do we really want to take responsibility when it is going to cost us something?

So I think we all understand that our responsibility is not open-ended, but limited to our sphere of relationships. If one of these abused was in my sphere of relationships, I would take action and try to help however we could.

Well, at some point, we ran out of options to report it. And then we kind of forgot about it. And then she was teaching someplace else!!! Only when one of her former victims walked into school and saw her in a classroom did further action begin. Could we have done more at the time? Sure. But at the time, it wasn’t clear what.

I wonder, Mike, if this isn’t evidence that refutes, at least in part, your claim that this is part of the fundamentalist mindset. Here you are talking about legal authorities (prosecutors) and laws (age of consent) that have nothing to do with the fundamentalist mindset, and in fact, nothing to do with religion at all. Having a proper mindset about it can’t make prosecutors prosecute and can’t change the age of consent. (Which doesn’t excuse it, but shows that the problem is wider than the fundamentalist mindset.)

Take other cases where someone reports something and the authorities do not act, whether by lack of interest or lack of evidence. What do you do then?

[Larry]

Well, at some point, we ran out of options to report it. And then we kind of forgot about it. And then she was teaching someplace else!!! Only when one of her former victims walked into school and saw her in a classroom did further action begin. Could we have done more at the time? Sure. But at the time, it wasn’t clear what.

I wonder, Mike, if this isn’t evidence that refutes, at least in part, your claim that this is part of the fundamentalist mindset. Here you are talking about legal authorities (prosecutors) and laws (age of consent) that have nothing to do with the fundamentalist mindset, and in fact, nothing to do with religion at all. Having a proper mindset about it can’t make prosecutors prosecute and can’t change the age of consent. (Which doesn’t excuse it, but shows that the problem is wider than the fundamentalist mindset.)

Take other cases where someone reports something and the authorities do not act, whether by lack of interest or lack of evidence. What do you do then?

Not sure I see the connection. The Fundamentalist mindset that I’m talking about makes us less likely to notice the molester in our midst, and deal with the issue poorly when we do.
The legal stuff in that particular case only hindered our ability to make sure she didn’t do it again, elsewhere.

The mindset makes us a likely place for the molester to successfully fulfill his ambitions. They are sociopaths.
The legal issues are merely the evolution of law in response to on-going societal pressures.

The reason I posted that story on this thread instead of the “Implications of ABWE’s example…” thread is because I was trying to say I completely understand how ABWE got into this mess.

I think we have to figure out, on an individual basis, whether or not someone is descending into self-indulgence, or they need to be comforted. There are quite a few verses about ministering to the weak and wounded. That requires a relationship with the person(s) in question, and can’t be done via keyboard.

I would agree that the dynamic has changed- there was a time when you didn’t even say the word ‘pregnant’ in public, and now folks are talking about all manner of intimate issues with 500 of their best friends and thousands of people they don’t know at all.

We have to remember that we are talking in this thread about the always immoral and now criminal victimization and brutalization of children. Don’t anyone tell me that there are some things that happened to you in childhood that don’t still affect you on a visceral level. I still shudder whenever I see a mannequin. Those things are seriously creepy. And don’t get me started on clowns…

[Mike Durning] But the believer ought to desire to bind up the bruised and broken (thinking of the physical ministry of Christ while on earth, or Isaiah 61:1ff). When those who are supposed to help the hurting become those delivering the hurt, we ought to be moved by it. And we ought to a). investigate whether the same problems exist in our own back yard, and b). see if we can do anything to fix the overall problem.

Agreed. Certainly I’m for giving these things thought.
Many of us discover fairly quickly that we’ve already got more than enough to investigate and see if we can fix, know what I mean?

One of those tough realities is the tension between
- I’m called to be compassionate, and…
- Some things really aren’t my problem.

Erring on one side or the other is pretty common. Those who don’t see the “not my problem” part, drive themselves nuts flitting from one problem to another and—since we all have limited resources—not making much of a difference with any of the problems.
Those who don’t see the calling to compassion just kind of do the “not my problem” to just about everything. Not sure one is ultimately better than the other, though the first at least reveals good intentions.