|
Post by wherefromhere on Aug 24, 2023 8:46:27 GMT -5
Hi getreal I've enjoyed reading the replies which I think have been thoughtfully written...... and therefore good for me to ponder on. Lots of good points. In answer to your question, I am still pondering! I'll try and put some of my current thoughts/concerns down here. I don't think any of the responses attempt to answer the question though, as to whether the people being told to leave meetings are considered still to be our brethren. It's probably not a fair question to put to the poeple here anyway, because the decision to purge the flock of CSA transgressors has been made by the overseers and only they will know exactly the thoughts that have been going through their minds as they've done this. Because everyone is wanting transparency, I thought the overseers may have been able to add a short sentence giving more information about these people's future relationship with the church. But that might be expecting too much at present, as there is a high chance in my view that these overseers will have different views from each other on this - particularly as it does stray a bit into the sensitive area of whether there are saved people outside the 2x2 fellowship. They might want to sidestep this, while feeling happy to act on the thing they are united in - ie the removing of CSA perpetrators from the fellowship. This last week I ran into a friend of mine who is an experienced minister in a mainstream denomination and we talked a bit about these issues as he was heavily involved in the rolling out of safeguarding in his own and some neighbouring churches. I then emailed him with some questions similar to those made in our opening post and I found his response very interesting - as follows in blue "Whenever there is a safeguarding allegation against someone in the church, the Diocese will call together a Core Group who will manage the situation, including locally within the church concerned. The group will normally include the vicar and safeguarding officer from that church. The Core Group will liaise with the statutory authorities (Police, local authority etc). They will do a risk assessment which will inform decisions about what is best in terms of church involvement for the alleged offender. It might be that the police give that person bail conditions (eg no contact with certain people) and these are legally enforceable (it’s a big deal if people break bail conditions). Beyond that, the church would have decisions to make too. If the allegation was about CSA, the person would be asked to step down from any work they did that involve children and young people. The risk assessment process would consider other things too (eg risks if they continue to come along to church) and these would lead to what is called a ‘Safeguarding Agreement’. These aren’t legally enforceable, but are designed to ensure that the alleged offender can continue to come along to church, but only in a way that minimises any risks to others (so maybe coming only to services where children tend not to be present, or only sitting in a certain place, or being accompanied by someone who knows about the situation and keeps a constant eye on what they’re doing, or perhaps going to a different church). [in this minister's church on Sundays they have a number of services during the day but the later evening one basically only has adults attending] If the authorities decided not to take action, or if they did but then the person finished any prison sentence, this Diocese-led risk assessment/Safeguarding Agreement process would continue, with regular reviews. There might well still be restrictions on how the person attended church and (esp if they had been found guilty of CSA) I can’t see any way that they would be allowed to work with children again (in any case, they would be on the Sex Offenders Register, which would help to stop this too). Restrictions shouldn’t just continue ad infinitum without being reviewed. But, if they’re judged to be necessary still, they will continue. Safer Agreements are supposed to be very confidential, so only known about by the vicar, safeguarding officer, and maybe the wardens. So most of the church aren’t meant to know. Obviously court proceedings tend to make things more public, though. As to whether we would look on the offender as a brother or sister, I think the focus would be more on how they seemed to be responding, and less on what they might have done. If they seemed to be genuinely repentant, I think we would have to view them as a brother or sister still. If they didn’t, we couldn’t really. But that wouldn’t change any of the risk assessment/Safer Agreement process – this would still be applied to someone we did think was still a brother or sister."I found this interesting coming from a denomination who spent oodles of money seeking advice for getting processes agreed and then implemented. He mentions some things that I don't think our fellowship has even considered yet and that makes me rather uneasy as I think they are charging on ahead with excommunications etc without having thought the whole thing through adequately. One of the things that I still feel uneasy about is that if people are not considered our brethren then surely they are much more likely to seek out other churches. I know some have written on other threads suggesting that them doing this is fine (I think their thinking is along the lines of 'we don't want them.. they can go to church elsewhere'), but again, I don't think they've thought this through enough, because in practice that is reckless. Pedophiles shifting to other churches is just spreading the problem elsewhere, which is exactly why most of us were so unhappy when we heard of workers who have committed CSA in the past, being moved on to another state with no transparency to anyone at all. Suddenly we seem to be approving something that has similar consequences to what we previously vilified! This is why it does matter how the overseers view these people in terms of whether they are brethren or not - if they confirm they are not brethren, then they will be adding more risk of CSA to other churches (in my view). I do admit from reading this Board that many people here do seem to be fairly happy with the 'new' approach that has been taking place in various parts of the world these past few months. They certainly appear to be happier about it than I, because I am pretty concerned that what we have is actually a half-cocked approach that, for the reasons given above, is still going to cause more heart ache than it needs to. I sincerely hope I am proved wrong on this. I will be observing how things develop over the next while with great interest! Is anyone able to confirm independently that what jf has written in blue is the typical approach to handling child abuse cases in mainstream churches. If you are part of another church but don't feel you can comment on other churches generally, could you perhaps indicate whether your own church operates along similar lines to what jf describes. I share the unease described in jf's last paragraph. The overseers have not thought their approach through and I don't think this will end well at all. Sadly I foresee a confused mess looming on the horizon. Yes, you'll find the approach described is widespread and typical of mainstream churches. Whatever you think of the blanket excommunication approach for convicted and alleged pedophiles in the 2x2s it is now pointless fighting against it. I totally agree that this approach is absolute rubbish but it is now becoming entrenched across 2 continents including USA which has the biggest number of friends. Overall you have easily over 50% of the friends and workers worldwide now starting out on this approach. For now you have just got to go with it.
|
|
plp
Junior Member
Posts: 66
|
Post by plp on Aug 24, 2023 10:22:36 GMT -5
Is anyone able to confirm independently that what jf has written in blue is the typical approach to handling child abuse cases in mainstream churches. If you are part of another church but don't feel you can comment on other churches generally, could you perhaps indicate whether your own church operates along similar lines to what jf describes. I share the unease described in jf's last paragraph. The overseers have not thought their approach through and I don't think this will end well at all. Sadly I foresee a confused mess looming on the horizon. The f & W's fellowship is a unique sect in the way it has been set up and its intimacy in operation. This requires unique and specific address in matters of CSA and other abuses, not identity with other denominations where the necessary procedures and rules applicable to the F & W's are not relevant. Seeking to align the necessary procedures with what happens elsewhere has the potential to leave the sect wide open to the continuance of CSA and other abuses. In general what we are attempting to address is serious criminal activity. Certain immoral behaviour unbecoming of the trade plied by workers should also be viewed as crimes against God and the sect as part of the overall address. Much of these activities result from the unique and intimate way the sect operates. First and foremost, CRIME PREVENTION PROCEDURES should be established. These should be radical yet reasonable in the circumstances. Avoid or reduce as much as possible the circumstances which provide opportunity and temptation for CSA, other abuses and immoral behaviour to take root. Education, though important in raising and maintaining awareness, is insufficient to combat these curses. Strict operational guidelines need to be introduced as a first line of defence. Nothing is fool proof, but every reasonable step must be taken to ensure the safety of the vulnerable. Failure to do so is akin to leaving our doors and windows wide open when we leave our domiciles of citation to go out for the day and not expect a burglar to seize advantage. Mountain, I think you might be the man who is going to help me get resolution in my own mind on all this. I agree totally with your paragraph 3. It is mainly paragraph 1 that I would like to quiz you on. I have been out of the F&W's church for years now so may have forgotten some relevant points. When I read jf's summary of what happens in other churches it instinctively seemed to me that it could be applied and adapted quite easily within the F&W church. What are you seeing in the F&W 'set up and its intimacy' that stands as a barrier to this? I'd really like to understand your thoughts on this. I agree too with your paragraph 2, but think that what the F&Ws have been introducing in north america and australia is not addressing the criminal activity as effectively as it should do. Excommunication of CSA perpetrators will just drive them into other churches where they will not be known and where they can do further damage. I have to stop myself from getting quite angry about this, because it comes across to me as being incredibly uncaring and insular as well as increasing the risk of spreading known CSA problems much further afield. I think the planning and thinking (or non-thinking) around this is really deplorable and is far inferior to what we see other churches doing. Anyway, having said that I'll now calm down (!) and await any pearls of wisdom you have that might help me with where I currently am.
|
|
janj
Senior Member
Posts: 470
|
Post by janj on Aug 24, 2023 13:47:56 GMT -5
The f & W's fellowship is a unique sect in the way it has been set up and its intimacy in operation. This requires unique and specific address in matters of CSA and other abuses, not identity with other denominations where the necessary procedures and rules applicable to the F & W's are not relevant. Seeking to align the necessary procedures with what happens elsewhere has the potential to leave the sect wide open to the continuance of CSA and other abuses. In general what we are attempting to address is serious criminal activity. Certain immoral behaviour unbecoming of the trade plied by workers should also be viewed as crimes against God and the sect as part of the overall address. Much of these activities result from the unique and intimate way the sect operates. First and foremost, CRIME PREVENTION PROCEDURES should be established. These should be radical yet reasonable in the circumstances. Avoid or reduce as much as possible the circumstances which provide opportunity and temptation for CSA, other abuses and immoral behaviour to take root. Education, though important in raising and maintaining awareness, is insufficient to combat these curses. Strict operational guidelines need to be introduced as a first line of defence. Nothing is fool proof, but every reasonable step must be taken to ensure the safety of the vulnerable. Failure to do so is akin to leaving our doors and windows wide open when we leave our domiciles of citation to go out for the day and not expect a burglar to seize advantage. Mountain, I think you might be the man who is going to help me get resolution in my own mind on all this. I agree totally with your paragraph 3. It is mainly paragraph 1 that I would like to quiz you on. I have been out of the F&W's church for years now so may have forgotten some relevant points. When I read jf's summary of what happens in other churches it instinctively seemed to me that it could be applied and adapted quite easily within the F&W church. What are you seeing in the F&W 'set up and its intimacy' that stands as a barrier to this? I'd really like to understand your thoughts on this. I agree too with your paragraph 2, but think that what the F&Ws have been introducing in north america and australia is not addressing the criminal activity as effectively as it should do. Excommunication of CSA perpetrators will just drive them into other churches where they will not be known and where they can do further damage. I have to stop myself from getting quite angry about this, because it comes across to me as being incredibly uncaring and insular as well as increasing the risk of spreading known CSA problems much further afield. I think the planning and thinking (or non-thinking) around this is really deplorable and is far inferior to what we see other churches doing. Anyway, having said that I'll now calm down (!) and await any pearls of wisdom you have that might help me with where I currently am. It seems that NZ & Australia have set up an advisory group made up of qualified people. In my view one of the biggest problem that is not really spoken about is the number of serious offenders who have never been reported to the police. One man I can think of has abused dozens of boys and yet he walks free. So much more needs to be done to try and encourage and support people to go to the authorities. People cannot move on and continue to offend in another community if the are locked up or on a sex offenders registry!
|
|
|
Post by snow on Aug 24, 2023 15:40:08 GMT -5
I think one of the big misses at present is the lack of a statement around the standing of people around the world who have recently been asked to no longer attend meetings because of CSA convictions or allegations. At present, people will understandably be confused whether such people are to be considered brethren or not. If they are still considered brethren, how are these people to have interaction with their brethren going forward? Presumably some friends (maybe some of those without children) will still meet up socially with them – if so, then why can’t they also meet with such people in recognised fellowship (which it seems is now being permanently shut off from them)? If they are no longer considered our brethren in Christ, then it feels like we have reached a point where ‘not a sin so great but He’ll forgive it’ seems in actual practice to be rather a hollow (or false?) statement for those in the meetings. If they are no longer considered our brethren, then because of something done in their past, these people would effectively be viewed as permanently ‘out of Christ without a Saviour’ (because they are no longer counted as brethren and with no way open for them to come back). Something really feels strange and conflicting here to me. Hopefully some overseer will provide some real transparency on this subject for the friends. Interestingly, if a statement is made that these folk are still considered brethren (or even if they are considered as ‘possibly brethren’!) then it would be the first time as far as I know of a formal acknowledgement that there may be saved people outside the 2x2 meetings. For me, considering offenders as brethren is dependent on their repentance. This link might be of interest. This is what is needed in the 2x2 group also. thewartburgwatch.com/2023/08/02/restoring-fallen-pastors-means-calling-them-abusive-clergy-and-requiring-restitution-for-the-victims/
|
|
|
Post by Persona non grata on Aug 24, 2023 16:19:31 GMT -5
Yes! This is what I mean by Restorative Justice.
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Aug 28, 2023 3:29:21 GMT -5
The f & W's fellowship is a unique sect in the way it has been set up and its intimacy in operation. This requires unique and specific address in matters of CSA and other abuses, not identity with other denominations where the necessary procedures and rules applicable to the F & W's are not relevant. Seeking to align the necessary procedures with what happens elsewhere has the potential to leave the sect wide open to the continuance of CSA and other abuses. In general what we are attempting to address is serious criminal activity. Certain immoral behaviour unbecoming of the trade plied by workers should also be viewed as crimes against God and the sect as part of the overall address. Much of these activities result from the unique and intimate way the sect operates. First and foremost, CRIME PREVENTION PROCEDURES should be established. These should be radical yet reasonable in the circumstances. Avoid or reduce as much as possible the circumstances which provide opportunity and temptation for CSA, other abuses and immoral behaviour to take root. Education, though important in raising and maintaining awareness, is insufficient to combat these curses. Strict operational guidelines need to be introduced as a first line of defence. Nothing is fool proof, but every reasonable step must be taken to ensure the safety of the vulnerable. Failure to do so is akin to leaving our doors and windows wide open when we leave our domiciles of citation to go out for the day and not expect a burglar to seize advantage. Mountain, I think you might be the man who is going to help me get resolution in my own mind on all this. I agree totally with your paragraph 3. It is mainly paragraph 1 that I would like to quiz you on. I have been out of the F&W's church for years now so may have forgotten some relevant points. When I read jf's summary of what happens in other churches it instinctively seemed to me that it could be applied and adapted quite easily within the F&W church. What are you seeing in the F&W 'set up and its intimacy' that stands as a barrier to this? I'd really like to understand your thoughts on this. I agree too with your paragraph 2, but think that what the F&Ws have been introducing in north america and australia is not addressing the criminal activity as effectively as it should do. Excommunication of CSA perpetrators will just drive them into other churches where they will not be known and where they can do further damage. I have to stop myself from getting quite angry about this, because it comes across to me as being incredibly uncaring and insular as well as increasing the risk of spreading known CSA problems much further afield. I think the planning and thinking (or non-thinking) around this is really deplorable and is far inferior to what we see other churches doing. Anyway, having said that I'll now calm down (!) and await any pearls of wisdom you have that might help me with where I currently am. plp, Sorry it has taken me a bit of time to reply. I had to nip out and get some milk. To address your questions about Para 1 in my last post, it is necessary to keep in mind that the F&Ws sect is unique in its set up and practices and is a very intimate, closed fellowship. This requires rules and measures specific to that sect. Other denominations and sects may have unique set ups and features which should also be specifically legislated for by those concerned with them, but these are not our concern as we are discussing the F&Ws sect. Basically all of the abuses coming to light in the F&Ws should be lumped together for consideration, whether they are criminal or immoral. They all can vary in degree and have disastrous consequences for victims. Let's just call them all criminal, since they are crimes or offences against the person. The whole answer is simple. All of these abuses require favourable circumstances which allow them to happen. Circumstances present opportunities for temptation to be stimulated and the weakness of the abuser may be activated. This is where the FIRST LINE of crime prevention/abuse prevention is necessary. If we genuinely wish to prevent as much as reasonably possible, abuses from occurring, it's common sense to place the safety of victims before other considerations which may conflict with any prevention measures. It would take too long to look at every type of situation which may occur in the F&Ws and present suitable anti abuse measures here, so I will focus on one or two situations which in my view are badly needed. The F&Ws sect operates a very intimate relationship between workers and worker and friends. Nowadays in the Western world, with so few outsiders coming into the fold, the future hope of the kingdom is in the children of professing members. These children are by and large targeted by workers with much encouragement from their parents. These children are to a great extent 'groomed' for professing and even for going into the work. It is obvious to see how this culture can result in an intimate relationship that may become very unhealthy. Workers are human after all. They are (generalisation) capable, like any one of us, of committing some serious offences. The peripatetic nature of the work allows workers to freely go about the homes of the friends, either in pairs or singly, where they are welcome to stay for varying periods. Think Trojan Horse! Keeping in mind what has been said up till now, an obvious and common sense measure to address abuses against children and other vulnerable persons, workers should NOT stay in the homes of unrelated children or other vulnerable persons. Neither should they stay in the homes of single people of the opposite sex, or be in homes with persons of the opposite sex where the spouse is away at work, etc. These things are just NOT right! There are many situations where sensible distance must be maintained. This does not need to affect genuine friendship, pastoral care, etc., but is a must in order to reduce the chances of unhealthy intimacy. The rest of the world does it, so why not the workers? This is good crime prevention practice. When a pair of workers are staying in a home, they should as far as possible be accommodated in separate bedrooms. Where this is not possible they should at least have separate beds. Bed sharing should not be allowed. The practice of an older worker being with a young companion should really be considered very carefully. Right away you have a dominant and a submissive individual thrown together, where depending on the nature of the older companion, all sorts of domineering and abusive behaviour may occur. Young or weak workers require protection in principle. I will let that go for now but if you have further questions I will try my best to answer them. The first line of defence in tackling abuses of all kinds is to put in place practical measures which will reduce as far as possible these abuses from occurring in the first place. It's simply common sense. Education is a key ingredient, but without the enforcement of practical measures, it soon becomes ineffective. In fact more of than not it is no more than a talking shop. The myth of worker infallibility has been smashed for all time now. They are ordinary people like you and I. I should add that any abuse prevention measures should be reasonable in the circumstances. Are they reasonable in countering the potential threats? These threats won't go away while we all have human nature to contend with. The traditional practices, some of which were once considered necessary, have obviously allowed abuses to occur and in no small measure. These practices are badly in need of control. The Lord's Prayer gives simple yet ample guidance on the matter, if we are willing for it: 'Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.'
In my view that covers it all. Be wary of the circumstances and we have increased chances of avoiding opportunities and the temptations that may go with it.There you have it, crime prevention practices straight from the Bible!
|
|