|
Post by Persona non grata on Aug 6, 2023 5:25:54 GMT -5
Here are some of my suggestions of the steps the church must take in order to move forward. Some of these steps have already been taken in some countries, some of these steps may be in progress in some countries. None of these steps have been implemented universally in the church. This is not a finished document, this is a response to dialogue with internationalstudies, and an attempt to encourage some constructive action on issues that deeply affect so many of us. I welcome input from all sides; former members, current members, workers,... In the first instance, these are focused on, but not restricted to CSA. There is also a need to apply or adapt them to all cases of abuse; sexual, spiritual, emotional, and physical. We need to discuss what an acceptable timeframe for implementation is. For NZ and Australia, I believe it is reasonable to expect that these be effective before the next convention. How do we prevent CSA from happening in the church?We need to publicly acknowledge that it occurs, and we need to implemet a definite zero tolerance policy. We must promote education, we must make Ministry Safe (or similar) training mandatory for every worker, and freely available for every member. We need to vet workers and elders, and immediately forbid any offenders from attending gospel meetings, fellowship meetings, conventions, and any church social gatherings. We must implement and publish guidelines and routines for conduct at conventions, and for conduct when visiting/staying in homes. We must remove any culture of stigma attached to speaking out about such issues. We need to preach about it often, in a Spirit led manner. We must make it abundantly clear to abusers that there is no place for them to hide in the church. We need to promote mental health awareness, and make professional services available to workers (also after they leave the ministry). We need to promote an open dialogue with former members, and encourage bipartisanship on such issues as abuse. How do we deal with it when it does happen?We must believe victims who share their experiences. We must immediately inform the Police, allowing them to handle all aspects of criminal justice. We must immediately remove any offenders from attending gospel meetings, fellowship meetings, conventions, and any church social gatherings. We need to refer victims to professional therapy services and resources. We need to encourage survivors to share their testimony on their terms, treating them with respect and understanding. We must require that workers and elders who are the subject of accusations, step down during a period of investigation. We must never seek to cover up such issues. How do we rectify historical cases?We need to understand that many victims experience a difficult relationship with the church, and we need to show love, respect, and understanding to all, regardless of whether or not they are currently a member. We must establish a system for ensuring restorative justice. We must strongly encourage the offender to do the morally right thing and turn themselves in to the authorities. We must hand over to the Police, all information we have, regarding historical instances of criminal behaviour. We need to offer professional counseling services to victims. We need to establish forms of fellowship for offenders, only after they have gone through the correct legal proceedings.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2023 10:06:10 GMT -5
"We must believe victims who share their experiences."
Only in the sense of reporting to LE quickly, Not 100% though, LE will make that clearer when investigated. I have changed though from 1% belief it might be true, to more of a 90% its true though...
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Aug 6, 2023 12:33:41 GMT -5
"We must believe victims who share their experiences." Only in the sense of reporting to LE quickly, Not 100% though, LE will make that clearer when investigated. I have changed though from 1% belief it might be true, to more of a 90% its true though... It is wise to judge every case on its own merits. An open mind must be kept and any allegations made should be investigated as being true until shown otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Aug 6, 2023 12:50:49 GMT -5
"We must believe victims who share their experiences." Only in the sense of reporting to LE quickly, Not 100% though, LE will make that clearer when investigated. I have changed though from 1% belief it might be true, to more of a 90% its true though...
That was one of my objections too.. While most allegations are likely legitimate, it sets a dangerous precedent to automatically condemn the accused. Its venturing into a category of 'Damn the evidence, crucify him'.
|
|
|
Post by Persona non grata on Aug 6, 2023 23:32:14 GMT -5
"We must believe victims who share their experiences." Only in the sense of reporting to LE quickly, Not 100% though, LE will make that clearer when investigated. I have changed though from 1% belief it might be true, to more of a 90% its true though... That was one of my objections too.. While most allegations are likely legitimate, it sets a dangerous precedent to automatically condemn the accused. Its venturing into a category of 'Damn the evidence, crucify him'.
Research shows that only 2% of sexual abuse accusations are false. Believing victims doesn't mean condemning the accused. Here's a good article about what it means to believe victims: thebluebench.org/about-us/media-center/blog-content/believing-survivors-sexual-assault-legal-system.html
|
|
|
Post by Persona non grata on Aug 6, 2023 23:42:58 GMT -5
From another thread: i) Restating from an earlier post I made: "The Overseers stated they will regularly update as they progress. I know further written statements will be circulated to the church in Aust and NZ."
ii) "Icebergs". Brothers workers are aware of the 'icebergs' also. Maybe that is news to you? CSA is a society wide curse and problem. The Ministry Safe course that ALL NZ workers have completed gave us these many galling statistics, amongst them: -one in four females , one in six males are sexually abused
. 2/3 of those abused will not disclose, if ever until adulthood. -Majority offenders married and with children. -Convicted abusers on average have 150 boy victims or 52 girl victims prior to conviction -Ave age at at 1st offence 13 y/o
- Ave age of convicted is 34 y/o -85% offend b4 18 y/o To deal with CSA within our church isn't something that can done by us workers alone. Have you done what the six Overseers suggested? "We have a shared responsibility across our fellowship for the safety of our children and are grateful for each one caring for young ones. We encourage parents, grandparents and any who have regular contact with children to inform themselves about child sexual abuse. The two videos below may be helpful in this regard, and we encourage parents and guardians to educate their children about keeping safe and aware."
The Office of the Children's Guardian NSW has a 20-minute video on recognising abuse. ocg.nsw.gov.au/resources/induction-video-part-1-recognising-abuse Ministry Safe provides online information for parents Vimeo.com/577634014 To do this requires 90 mins of people's time. I've been disappointed to know how few of our friends have done this so far. Excellent points here. An important step we can take is education. To answer the question directed to me: Yes, I'm aware that the brother workers know that the cases which have been made public so far, are only the tip of the iceberg. They know of MANY more. Like Internationalstudies, I also strongly recommend the Ministry Safe program. I haven't seen the video from NSW gov. but I will. Education, especially for parents, is an important step in preventing abuse.
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Aug 7, 2023 2:36:22 GMT -5
From another thread: i) Restating from an earlier post I made: "The Overseers stated they will regularly update as they progress. I know further written statements will be circulated to the church in Aust and NZ."
ii) "Icebergs". Brothers workers are aware of the 'icebergs' also. Maybe that is news to you? CSA is a society wide curse and problem. The Ministry Safe course that ALL NZ workers have completed gave us these many galling statistics, amongst them: -one in four females , one in six males are sexually abused
. 2/3 of those abused will not disclose, if ever until adulthood. -Majority offenders married and with children. -Convicted abusers on average have 150 boy victims or 52 girl victims prior to conviction -Ave age at at 1st offence 13 y/o
- Ave age of convicted is 34 y/o -85% offend b4 18 y/o To deal with CSA within our church isn't something that can done by us workers alone. Have you done what the six Overseers suggested? "We have a shared responsibility across our fellowship for the safety of our children and are grateful for each one caring for young ones. We encourage parents, grandparents and any who have regular contact with children to inform themselves about child sexual abuse. The two videos below may be helpful in this regard, and we encourage parents and guardians to educate their children about keeping safe and aware."
The Office of the Children's Guardian NSW has a 20-minute video on recognising abuse. ocg.nsw.gov.au/resources/induction-video-part-1-recognising-abuse Ministry Safe provides online information for parents Vimeo.com/577634014 To do this requires 90 mins of people's time. I've been disappointed to know how few of our friends have done this so far. Excellent points here. An important step we can take is education. To answer the question directed to me: Yes, I'm aware that the brother workers know that the cases which have been made public so far, are only the tip of the iceberg. They know of MANY more. Like Internationalstudies, I also strongly recommend the Ministry Safe program. I haven't seen the video from NSW gov. but I will. Education, especially for parents, is an important step in preventing abuse. Education is an important tool in addressing abuses, however, we must not throw all our eggs in the one basket and think that is the answer. It certainly raises awareness. However it is secondary to the real answer. Most of the matters coming to light are serious criminal offences and these need serious crime prevention measures to reduce as far as possible any chances of recurrence. Abuses like other wrongs, thrive on circumstances, opportunity and temptation. Anyone who is serious in wishing to address abuses MUST focus on these three things and introduce 'reasonable' and understandable measures to combat the problem. Education alone is insufficient to tackle the problem. Unfortunately the introduction of radical changes to the way the group operates, especially in respect of the ministry, are extremely unattractive and will be ignored.
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Aug 7, 2023 2:38:40 GMT -5
Can anyone please post the 'Ministry Safe' programme here? Many thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Persona non grata on Aug 7, 2023 4:57:42 GMT -5
Can anyone please post the 'Ministry Safe' programme here? Many thanks. safetysystem.ministrysafe.com/auth/plan_optionsThe course I took cost US$10 The ministry has purchased a package so that the workers can all take it free of extra charge, however I’m not sure if this available to any outside the ministry (to regular friends, for example).
|
|
|
Post by Persona non grata on Aug 7, 2023 5:02:02 GMT -5
From another thread: Excellent points here. An important step we can take is education. To answer the question directed to me: Yes, I'm aware that the brother workers know that the cases which have been made public so far, are only the tip of the iceberg. They know of MANY more. Like Internationalstudies, I also strongly recommend the Ministry Safe program. I haven't seen the video from NSW gov. but I will. Education, especially for parents, is an important step in preventing abuse. Education is an important tool in addressing abuses, however, we must not throw all our eggs in the one basket and think that is the answer. It certainly raises awareness. However it is secondary to the real answer. Most of the matters coming to light are serious criminal offences and these need serious crime prevention measures to reduce as far as possible any chances of recurrence. Abuses like other wrongs, thrive on circumstances, opportunity and temptation. Anyone who is serious in wishing to address abuses MUST focus on these three things and introduce 'reasonable' and understandable measures to combat the problem. Education alone is insufficient to tackle the problem. Unfortunately the introduction of radical changes to the way the group operates, especially in respect of the ministry, are extremely unattractive and will be ignored. Do you feel that the steps I outlined in the opening post are enough, or do you have suggestions about any further steps that need to be added? Education is super important, but it’s just one of many necessary steps.
|
|
|
Post by internationalstudies on Aug 7, 2023 5:31:21 GMT -5
My contribution to this thread is the suggestion to you as a New Zealander is (if you haven't done so already) you take this up with personally with the workers in your field or Wayne Dean or Alan Richardson. Face to face/person to person non anonymous communication seems decent and preferable in this important concern.
If you don't have contact details for Alan or Wayne, then ask your local field workers or pm me.
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Aug 7, 2023 7:24:25 GMT -5
Education is an important tool in addressing abuses, however, we must not throw all our eggs in the one basket and think that is the answer. It certainly raises awareness. However it is secondary to the real answer. Most of the matters coming to light are serious criminal offences and these need serious crime prevention measures to reduce as far as possible any chances of recurrence. Abuses like other wrongs, thrive on circumstances, opportunity and temptation. Anyone who is serious in wishing to address abuses MUST focus on these three things and introduce 'reasonable' and understandable measures to combat the problem. Education alone is insufficient to tackle the problem. Unfortunately the introduction of radical changes to the way the group operates, especially in respect of the ministry, are extremely unattractive and will be ignored. Do you feel that the steps I outlined in the opening post are enough, or do you have suggestions about any further steps that need to be added? Education is super important, but it’s just one of many necessary steps. PNG first and foremost, many thanks for giving this matter a lot of thought and for producing suggestions for the church to move forward. These suggestions are ideal for general discussion, but it will all come down to what they mean in practice and that is where 'general suggestions' can easily become circumvented. Hard and fast rules are what is needed to combat the poison of abuses. This is why I was asking about Ministry Safe. The F&Ws sect is unique in the way it operates, especially the ministry. It needs tailor made rules and boundaries. Consider your following suggestion. [ i]We must implement and publish guidelines and routines for conduct at conventions, and for conduct when visiting/staying in homes.Let's make this an example rather than addressing some of the others. What does the above mean in practice? Again Ministry Safe may give us guidance, but is it tailored towards this sect? I don't know. That's why I asked about Ministry Safe. In order to properly address (all) forms of abuse and immoral sexual conduct, I would consider strong rules eg; For workers visiting homes. 1) Unless in extreme circumstances, workers (especially males) should not stay in the homes of unrelated children or other vulnerable persons. When visiting they should not be allowed to be alone with these categories of people. It is for their own protection as well as the innocent and vulnerable. No one else does it, why should they? 2) They should not stay in the homes of single persons of the opposite sex, nor remain in a house where a spouse of the opposite sex is alone (eg partner at work, etc). This should also take day visits into account. 3) when workers are staying in homes of the faithful, they should wherever possible have their own rooms. Where sharing a room is unavoidable, this must be for short duration and they must never share a bed. These are just a few examples to introduce in order to tackle the 1) circumstances, opportunity and temptation, which could reasonably be seen that would allow offences to occur. Obviously other such rules have to be tailored to other circumstances as they arise. Specific instruction rather than general guidelines is what is needed. There is a bullet to be bitten and it must. In case anyone thinks such an approach is draconian, there are 550 X manyfold reasons out there that each one wishes the foregoing and other like tailor maid rules had been in place when they needed it. Most people will accept generalisations rather than specific instruction, because it gives them wriggle room.
|
|
|
Post by Persona non grata on Aug 7, 2023 14:13:27 GMT -5
My contribution to this thread is the suggestion to you as a New Zealander is (if you haven't done so already) you take this up with personally with the workers in your field or Wayne Dean or Alan Richardson. Face to face/person to person non anonymous communication seems decent and preferable in this important concern. If you don't have contact details for Alan or Wayne, then ask your local field workers or pm me. I hope this is not your only contribution, but that you’ll continue to have a constructive dialogue. Over the last decade I’ve had numerous conversations with the various workers in my fields; with varying reactions, and very little action. I’ll take you up on your offer; please pm me the contact details for Wayne Dean.
|
|
|
Post by Persona non grata on Aug 7, 2023 14:18:29 GMT -5
Do you feel that the steps I outlined in the opening post are enough, or do you have suggestions about any further steps that need to be added? Education is super important, but it’s just one of many necessary steps. PNG first and foremost, many thanks for giving this matter a lot of thought and for producing suggestions for the church to move forward. These suggestions are ideal for general discussion, but it will all come down to what they mean in practice and that is where 'general suggestions' can easily become circumvented. Hard and fast rules are what is needed to combat the poison of abuses. This is why I was asking about Ministry Safe. The F&Ws sect is unique in the way it operates, especially the ministry. It needs tailor made rules and boundaries. Consider your following suggestion. [ i]We must implement and publish guidelines and routines for conduct at conventions, and for conduct when visiting/staying in homes.Let's make this an example rather than addressing some of the others. What does the above mean in practice? Again Ministry Safe may give us guidance, but is it tailored towards this sect? I don't know. That's why I asked about Ministry Safe. In order to properly address (all) forms of abuse and immoral sexual conduct, I would consider strong rules eg; For workers visiting homes. 1) Unless in extreme circumstances, workers (especially males) should not stay in the homes of unrelated children or other vulnerable persons. When visiting they should not be allowed to be alone with these categories of people. It is for their own protection as well as the innocent and vulnerable. No one else does it, why should they? 2) They should not stay in the homes of single persons of the opposite sex, nor remain in a house where a spouse of the opposite sex is alone (eg partner at work, etc). This should also take day visits into account. 3) when workers are staying in homes of the faithful, they should wherever possible have their own rooms. Where sharing a room is unavoidable, this must be for short duration and they must never share a bed. These are just a few examples to introduce in order to tackle the 1) circumstances, opportunity and temptation, which could reasonably be seen that would allow offences to occur. Obviously other such rules have to be tailored to other circumstances as they arise. Specific instruction rather than general guidelines is what is needed. There is a bullet to be bitten and it must. In case anyone thinks such an approach is draconian, there are 550 X manyfold reasons out there that each one wishes the foregoing and other like tailor maid rules had been in place when they needed it. Most people will accept generalisations rather than specific instruction, because it gives them wriggle room. Thanks again Mountain, This is exactly the kind of constructive response I was hoping for in this thread. We don’t have to agree on absolutely everything, but it’s helpful to get others’ views, questions, and criticisms. Food for thought, and healthy discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Persona non grata on Aug 7, 2023 14:38:59 GMT -5
… This is why I was asking about Ministry Safe. The F&Ws sect is unique in the way it operates, especially the ministry. It needs tailor made rules and boundaries. … … Again Ministry Safe may give us guidance, but is it tailored towards this sect? I don't know. That's why I asked about Ministry Safe. Regarding Ministry Safe: No, it is not targeted specifically to the F&W’s.
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Aug 7, 2023 15:43:44 GMT -5
… This is why I was asking about Ministry Safe. The F&Ws sect is unique in the way it operates, especially the ministry. It needs tailor made rules and boundaries. … … Again Ministry Safe may give us guidance, but is it tailored towards this sect? I don't know. That's why I asked about Ministry Safe. Regarding Ministry Safe: No, it is not targeted specifically to the F&W’s. This is why it might concern me. It may not take into account the unique practices of the F & Ws sect and give a false sense of security, allowing those in charge to claim they are following the guidelines like other Christian sects and organisations. The unique way in which the sect operates requires unique considerations, which may not be covered by Ministry Safe?
|
|
|
Post by deepdeep on Aug 7, 2023 18:52:04 GMT -5
On the topic of false reporting and who to believe....the 2% of abuse accusations being false does not exist in a vacuum. That 2% is arrived at in an environment that has, in the past (and somewhat currently), heavily penalized coming forward with any accusation, false or otherwise. Another way to say this is that overall reporting of abuse, false or otherwise, is very low compared to overall incidents of abuse due to the myriad difficulties associated with reporting. Those difficulties range from very young victims to victims who feel they are under threat to fear of losing social status....and many other reasons probably too numerous to mention. One of the reasons it is not reported is the fear of not being believed. Try doing the thought experiment of what the world would look like if every victim and perpetrator knew for certain that a report of abuse would 100% be believed. Would you expect overall reporting, false or otherwise, to go up or down? I think it is a nearly trivial prediction that false reporting would definitely go up. What about reports of actual incidents of abuse? That would rise as well but I would not expect it to rise as high as false reporting. The reason for this is that 100% is a special number...when we say things like "believe all victims", we are giving up a very valuable social lever. Who is reporting falsely? Who would take the destructive step of making a false allegation of SA or CSA? These are some version of a low functioning psychopath. People who are impulsive, manipulative, exploitative, and lack conscience or guilt. Currently, it is a bad strategy to try and exert control over people by making false accusation because of the collateral damage it often comes with and there is the chance you won't even be believed. Overall psychopathy runs somewhere between 4 and 5% in the general population. People like that are not moderated by social norms...they are motivated by something like the exercise of power over others. Currently, the skepticism that reports of abuse are greeted with are viewed as a social evil...and for victims that skepticism is deadly....HOWEVER...that same skepticism is protective against that 4 to 5% of the population who are psychopaths who would take advantage of a norm like "believe all victims". In an environment where an accusation is greeted with complete credulity, the door to the rest of the psychopaths who are operating at a higher level is wide open. There is a balance to be struck...it's not simple. BTW...i'm using the term "psychopath" technically and not just as a proxy for "bad person".
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Aug 7, 2023 20:35:14 GMT -5
My contribution to this thread is the suggestion to you as a New Zealander is (if you haven't done so already) you take this up with personally with the workers in your field or Wayne Dean or Alan Richardson. Face to face/person to person non anonymous communication seems decent and preferable in this important concern. If you don't have contact details for Alan or Wayne, then ask your local field workers or pm me. You seem to be suggesting that all of the problems can only be addressed via the workers, and especially the two men at the top.
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Aug 8, 2023 2:19:41 GMT -5
My contribution to this thread is the suggestion to you as a New Zealander is (if you haven't done so already) you take this up with personally with the workers in your field or Wayne Dean or Alan Richardson. Face to face/person to person non anonymous communication seems decent and preferable in this important concern. If you don't have contact details for Alan or Wayne, then ask your local field workers or pm me. You seem to be suggesting that all of the problems can only be addressed via the workers, and especially the two men at the top. there is a mould that needs to be broken. Until it is there will be barriers of reluctance or inertia to contend with.
|
|
|
Post by bigtrax on Aug 8, 2023 12:51:01 GMT -5
Can anyone please post the 'Ministry Safe' programme here? Many thanks. safetysystem.ministrysafe.com/auth/plan_optionsThe course I took cost US$10 The ministry has purchased a package so that the workers can all take it free of extra charge, however I’m not sure if this available to any outside the ministry (to regular friends, for example). I know at least in the PNW the Ministry Safe Program was made available to all in the fellowship free of charge.
|
|
|
Post by Persona non grata on Aug 8, 2023 14:49:52 GMT -5
safetysystem.ministrysafe.com/auth/plan_optionsThe course I took cost US$10 The ministry has purchased a package so that the workers can all take it free of extra charge, however I’m not sure if this available to any outside the ministry (to regular friends, for example). I know at least in the PNW the Ministry Safe Program was made available to all in the fellowship free of charge. That's a good initiative. Providing it free of charge helps reach a wider audience. The course I took (a few years ago) was targeted towards parents. I'm not sure but the one the workers take may be more extensive. Here's the link, as recommended by the Aus/NZ overseers, to the intro/condensed version:
|
|
|
Post by Persona non grata on Aug 8, 2023 15:04:35 GMT -5
Here are a few other forms of abuse that need to be addressed when moving forward and making the church a safe place:
1) Questions being met with hostility and/or derision
A sure sign of abuse in a church is when anyone who questions or criticises is met with a hostile or mocking response. They may be belittled, ridiculed, or branded as "unchristian". Criticisms are seen as attacks on the church, or on the leadership, and those who raise questions are considered to be troublemakers. Instead of engaging in open and frank discussions, abusers will resort to petty remarks, threats, and sarcasm.
2) A culture of Us vs. Them
An abusive church will perpetuate conflict between those who are "in" and those who are "out". Abusers of this sort are not receptive to bipartisanship, but are taken up with pointing out others' errors or failings.
3) Controll rather than Care
Another form of abuse is where the ministry seeks to controll the congregation, rather than care for them. In these cases, rather than leading by humility, and showing empathy as a shepherd would, abusive ministers will seek to manipulate through fear or shame. True shephards are not taken up with their own reputation, or the reputation of the organisation, but rather with protecting the sheep.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Aug 8, 2023 17:01:58 GMT -5
On the topic of false reporting and who to believe....the 2% of abuse accusations being false does not exist in a vacuum. That 2% is arrived at in an environment that has, in the past (and somewhat currently), heavily penalized coming forward with any accusation, false or otherwise. Another way to say this is that overall reporting of abuse, false or otherwise, is very low compared to overall incidents of abuse due to the myriad difficulties associated with reporting. Those difficulties range from very young victims to victims who feel they are under threat to fear of losing social status....and many other reasons probably too numerous to mention. One of the reasons it is not reported is the fear of not being believed. Try doing the thought experiment of what the world would look like if every victim and perpetrator knew for certain that a report of abuse would 100% be believed. Would you expect overall reporting, false or otherwise, to go up or down? I think it is a nearly trivial prediction that false reporting would definitely go up. What about reports of actual incidents of abuse? That would rise as well but I would not expect it to rise as high as false reporting. The reason for this is that 100% is a special number...when we say things like "believe all victims", we are giving up a very valuable social lever. Who is reporting falsely? Who would take the destructive step of making a false allegation of SA or CSA? These are some version of a low functioning psychopath. People who are impulsive, manipulative, exploitative, and lack conscience or guilt. Currently, it is a bad strategy to try and exert control over people by making false accusation because of the collateral damage it often comes with and there is the chance you won't even be believed. Overall psychopathy runs somewhere between 4 and 5% in the general population. People like that are not moderated by social norms...they are motivated by something like the exercise of power over others. Currently, the skepticism that reports of abuse are greeted with are viewed as a social evil...and for victims that skepticism is deadly....HOWEVER...that same skepticism is protective against that 4 to 5% of the population who are psychopaths who would take advantage of a norm like "believe all victims". In an environment where an accusation is greeted with complete credulity, the door to the rest of the psychopaths who are operating at a higher level is wide open. There is a balance to be struck...it's not simple. BTW...i'm using the term "psychopath" technically and not just as a proxy for "bad person". I'm feeling you are equating 100% believing the victim with being found guilty in a court of law. There are consequences for false reporting. Believing a person when they come forward to report is absolutely necessary because you have no idea at that point in time if it's true or not. But to not believe does way more harm to the person reporting and trust me, people don't report easily. It takes a lot of courage because they know what they are in for in a court of law. It's really personal and very unpleasant. If abusers realized that they would reported 100% of the time I think that stat might decrease. They are counting on the person to not report. That's what the stats reflect. Many of those who are raped are vulnerable and scared. They are the kind that won't report or even tell anyone. The kind of people that would report usually aren't the target in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by deepdeep on Aug 8, 2023 18:32:56 GMT -5
On the topic of false reporting and who to believe....the 2% of abuse accusations being false does not exist in a vacuum. That 2% is arrived at in an environment that has, in the past (and somewhat currently), heavily penalized coming forward with any accusation, false or otherwise. Another way to say this is that overall reporting of abuse, false or otherwise, is very low compared to overall incidents of abuse due to the myriad difficulties associated with reporting. Those difficulties range from very young victims to victims who feel they are under threat to fear of losing social status....and many other reasons probably too numerous to mention. One of the reasons it is not reported is the fear of not being believed. Try doing the thought experiment of what the world would look like if every victim and perpetrator knew for certain that a report of abuse would 100% be believed. Would you expect overall reporting, false or otherwise, to go up or down? I think it is a nearly trivial prediction that false reporting would definitely go up. What about reports of actual incidents of abuse? That would rise as well but I would not expect it to rise as high as false reporting. The reason for this is that 100% is a special number...when we say things like "believe all victims", we are giving up a very valuable social lever. Who is reporting falsely? Who would take the destructive step of making a false allegation of SA or CSA? These are some version of a low functioning psychopath. People who are impulsive, manipulative, exploitative, and lack conscience or guilt. Currently, it is a bad strategy to try and exert control over people by making false accusation because of the collateral damage it often comes with and there is the chance you won't even be believed. Overall psychopathy runs somewhere between 4 and 5% in the general population. People like that are not moderated by social norms...they are motivated by something like the exercise of power over others. Currently, the skepticism that reports of abuse are greeted with are viewed as a social evil...and for victims that skepticism is deadly....HOWEVER...that same skepticism is protective against that 4 to 5% of the population who are psychopaths who would take advantage of a norm like "believe all victims". In an environment where an accusation is greeted with complete credulity, the door to the rest of the psychopaths who are operating at a higher level is wide open. There is a balance to be struck...it's not simple. BTW...i'm using the term "psychopath" technically and not just as a proxy for "bad person". I'm feeling you are equating 100% believing the victim with being found guilty in a court of law. There are consequences for false reporting. Believing a person when they come forward to report is absolutely necessary because you have no idea at that point in time if it's true or not. But to not believe does way more harm to the person reporting and trust me, people don't report easily. It takes a lot of courage because they know what they are in for in a court of law. It's really personal and very unpleasant. If abusers realized that they would reported 100% of the time I think that stat might decrease. They are counting on the person to not report. That's what the stats reflect. Many of those who are raped are vulnerable and scared. They are the kind that won't report or even tell anyone. The kind of people that would report usually aren't the target in the first place. It is complex..but I think we can set aside the viewpoint of the "court of law"...that viewpoint is actually inverted right? The legal system 100% does not believe a victim's report and will only act after a truth-determining body (a jury in the western legal systems), makes a determination. I'm much more interested in claims that social norms of everyday people should change. What about an individual person? If somebody makes a report of abuse to an individual....should the individual believe the report 100% of the time? That is probably a pretty good heuristic if your highest value is to never make the error of not believing a report. But is that value in tension with anything? Do we not lose something if as a society we do not reserve some room for judgement and a social non-legal process of discovery? Obviously...i'm taking law enforcement and medical professionals off the table here since there reactions to a report are dictated by professional standards or statute. I'm addressing the rest of society here. A person making a report of SA should be taken very seriously....but should they be 100% "believed"? The correct answer is ... not 100%...and believing or not believing a victim is the wrong metric. Even skilled therapists will interrogate traumatized people (in a non-triggering way) to help people to sort through experiences so that the truth of their experiences can be more accurately portrayed...does the therapist that does this "believe all victims"?...not really....but they are definitely supporting them. Deciding that a report is true when, as you say, "... you have no idea at that point in time if it's true or not.", is a bad idea. You don't have to believe or not believe a report that is made to you to be able to help. A report of abuse is very serious even in the unlikely case that it is untrue. Whether the accusation is true or not...the very fabric of society has torn in some way and that deserves careful consideration. This should in no way be construed as a defense for those who have directly challenged a victim about the veracity of claims of abuse. That is a big error and one that is made all too often. The error is in rushing to "believe" or "not believe"....If a child goes rushing to a parent with an injury and a wild tale...does the parent need to believe the wild tale before treating and caring for the injured child? Absolutely not...in fact it is the wrong thing to do if the tale becomes the focus. Treat the injury...soothe the victim. That can all be done without assigning blame or deciding who is telling the truth. This may seem like a pedantic distinction to some but if we do this well as a society...everybody benefits.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Aug 9, 2023 14:35:03 GMT -5
I'm feeling you are equating 100% believing the victim with being found guilty in a court of law. There are consequences for false reporting. Believing a person when they come forward to report is absolutely necessary because you have no idea at that point in time if it's true or not. But to not believe does way more harm to the person reporting and trust me, people don't report easily. It takes a lot of courage because they know what they are in for in a court of law. It's really personal and very unpleasant. If abusers realized that they would reported 100% of the time I think that stat might decrease. They are counting on the person to not report. That's what the stats reflect. Many of those who are raped are vulnerable and scared. They are the kind that won't report or even tell anyone. The kind of people that would report usually aren't the target in the first place. It is complex..but I think we can set aside the viewpoint of the "court of law"...that viewpoint is actually inverted right? The legal system 100% does not believe a victim's report and will only act after a truth-determining body (a jury in the western legal systems), makes a determination. I'm much more interested in claims that social norms of everyday people should change. What about an individual person? If somebody makes a report of abuse to an individual....should the individual believe the report 100% of the time? That is probably a pretty good heuristic if your highest value is to never make the error of not believing a report. But is that value in tension with anything? Do we not lose something if as a society we do not reserve some room for judgement and a social non-legal process of discovery? Obviously...i'm taking law enforcement and medical professionals off the table here since there reactions to a report are dictated by professional standards or statute. I'm addressing the rest of society here. A person making a report of SA should be taken very seriously....but should they be 100% "believed"? The correct answer is ... not 100%...and believing or not believing a victim is the wrong metric. Even skilled therapists will interrogate traumatized people (in a non-triggering way) to help people to sort through experiences so that the truth of their experiences can be more accurately portrayed...does the therapist that does this "believe all victims"?...not really....but they are definitely supporting them. Deciding that a report is true when, as you say, "... you have no idea at that point in time if it's true or not.", is a bad idea. You don't have to believe or not believe a report that is made to you to be able to help. A report of abuse is very serious even in the unlikely case that it is untrue. Whether the accusation is true or not...the very fabric of society has torn in some way and that deserves careful consideration. This should in no way be construed as a defense for those who have directly challenged a victim about the veracity of claims of abuse. That is a big error and one that is made all too often. The error is in rushing to "believe" or "not believe"....If a child goes rushing to a parent with an injury and a wild tale...does the parent need to believe the wild tale before treating and caring for the injured child? Absolutely not...in fact it is the wrong thing to do if the tale becomes the focus. Treat the injury...soothe the victim. That can all be done without assigning blame or deciding who is telling the truth. This may seem like a pedantic distinction to some but if we do this well as a society...everybody benefits. I think I see where you're coming from. You advocate for always taking it seriously, but not 100% believing it. I think that's what you're saying? I agree we must 100% take it seriously and listen and carry it to the next stage where it is investigated. I believe that needs to happen no matter what.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Aug 9, 2023 20:14:52 GMT -5
"We must believe victims who share their experiences." Only in the sense of reporting to LE quickly, Not 100% though, LE will make that clearer when investigated. I have changed though from 1% belief it might be true, to more of a 90% its true though... LE are the ones responsible for determining the truth of such matters. They have techniques that the run of the mill people do not have.
|
|
|
Post by deepdeep on Aug 9, 2023 22:07:01 GMT -5
It is complex..but I think we can set aside the viewpoint of the "court of law"...that viewpoint is actually inverted right? The legal system 100% does not believe a victim's report and will only act after a truth-determining body (a jury in the western legal systems), makes a determination. I'm much more interested in claims that social norms of everyday people should change. What about an individual person? If somebody makes a report of abuse to an individual....should the individual believe the report 100% of the time? That is probably a pretty good heuristic if your highest value is to never make the error of not believing a report. But is that value in tension with anything? Do we not lose something if as a society we do not reserve some room for judgement and a social non-legal process of discovery? Obviously...i'm taking law enforcement and medical professionals off the table here since there reactions to a report are dictated by professional standards or statute. I'm addressing the rest of society here. A person making a report of SA should be taken very seriously....but should they be 100% "believed"? The correct answer is ... not 100%...and believing or not believing a victim is the wrong metric. Even skilled therapists will interrogate traumatized people (in a non-triggering way) to help people to sort through experiences so that the truth of their experiences can be more accurately portrayed...does the therapist that does this "believe all victims"?...not really....but they are definitely supporting them. Deciding that a report is true when, as you say, "... you have no idea at that point in time if it's true or not.", is a bad idea. You don't have to believe or not believe a report that is made to you to be able to help. A report of abuse is very serious even in the unlikely case that it is untrue. Whether the accusation is true or not...the very fabric of society has torn in some way and that deserves careful consideration. This should in no way be construed as a defense for those who have directly challenged a victim about the veracity of claims of abuse. That is a big error and one that is made all too often. The error is in rushing to "believe" or "not believe"....If a child goes rushing to a parent with an injury and a wild tale...does the parent need to believe the wild tale before treating and caring for the injured child? Absolutely not...in fact it is the wrong thing to do if the tale becomes the focus. Treat the injury...soothe the victim. That can all be done without assigning blame or deciding who is telling the truth. This may seem like a pedantic distinction to some but if we do this well as a society...everybody benefits. I think I see where you're coming from. You advocate for always taking it seriously, but not 100% believing it. I think that's what you're saying? I agree we must 100% take it seriously and listen and carry it to the next stage where it is investigated. I believe that needs to happen no matter what. I do advocate that...If you find yourself in a position where a victim trusts you enough to come forward with a terrible experience they have suffered...how well the details of their "story" matches the reality of what happened should not be the focus. People often want to "get to the bottom" of something like that but people who come forward with details of having been abused need to be embraced and supported in some sort of healing process. As far as things like guilt or innocence of an alleged abuser...I know that most are not in a position to make that call but those who are tasked with that un-enviable job should be aided and not hindered. Anyways.....the deceased horse has been properly beaten on this topic probably.....thx for the discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Persona non grata on Aug 10, 2023 4:19:51 GMT -5
I can’t see that this has been posted here on TMB, but here’s a summary of a recent Worker’s Workshop in Minnesota/Iowa. I appreciate the transparency. I’m posting it verbatim, but to keep the posts of manageable length, I’ll post it in five parts:
Part 1:
Summary from the MN/IA Worker’s Workshop
July 27-28, 2023
Pre-work: Each member of our staff was expected to complete work prior to the workshop:
• Read: The Five Dysfunctions of a Team and The Servant • Read: The Thin Book of Trust (if possible) • Review MN/IA CSA policy • Ensure completion of the Ministry Safe module (this is required every 2 years)
Staff Attendees (23): Lucille Anderson, David Bergh, Janet Bergman, Sandra Boettcher, Kyle Bredesky, Melissa Chardeen, Shari Connelly, Dean Dykstra, Marla Freesemann, Skyler Gartin, Ashley Hoseth, Andrea Jensen, Patricia Johnson, LaVerna Kleffman, Jake Nelson, Kara Plesek, Miranda Quick, Aunika Schraw, John Simons, Loran Skaw, Shari Stamps, Ron Thomke, Mary Weeda
Visitors (5): Darryl Doland (WA/N Idaho/AK), Craig Winquist (AR/MO/OK), Perry Pearson (ND/SD), Jennifer Horton (AR/MO/OK), Diane Harper (AR/MO/OK)
Presenters/Facilitators (6):Terry Saber, Patty Henderson, Deb Miller, Summer Nelson, Kris Foner, Denise Ducette Dickson (via YouTube video)
The initial morning session opened with Hymn #347, followed by prayer led by Craig Winquist.
Overview:
Terry Saber started the workshop with the ground rules and the objectives for our time together. She also spoke about the key concepts for trust within teams from The Five Dysfunctions of a Team.
• Ground rules: Candor, full participation (“say it! And say it here!”), listen with intent to understand vs respond, phones only during polling or at break.
• Objectives: o Education and understanding of Child Sexual Abuse and Sexual Abuse. o Acknowledge and discuss path forward on enhancing communication and trust. o Increase awareness of needed Self-Care. o Deepen awareness of the staff leadership needs and crisis management.
• Key takeaway from The Five Dysfunctions of a Team: o Trust is foundational to all teams to accomplish the work expected of the team. o If trust is broken; creates dysfunction, fear, paralysis, lack of commitment, avoidance of accountability, and inattention to the needed results.
Servant Leadership and Trust:
Patty Henderson presented key concepts from The Thin Book of Trust and The Servant as they relate to trust and leadership. Elements of Trust: discussed what each is and how each influence whether a feeling of trust is created or damaged.
• Care
• Sincerity
• Reliability
• Competence
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs: (only discussed the first two levels)
• The foundation of human well-being starts with physiological needs: air, water, food, etc. Ex: if a child is hungry in school, they won’t be able to learn.
• Secondly you must have all your safety needs met (feel safe AND be safe). Ex: if a victim/survivor does not feel safe in the fellowship meeting, it is difficult to focus on spiritual feeding.
Broken Trust: discussion of the emotions and behaviors that are elicited when trust is broken.
Leadership is influence, nothing more, nothing less. (Author Ken Blanchard as quoted by James Hunter in The Servant).
• Scope of influence: as leaders we all have influence, but some have a greater scope of influence than others.
• Authority/Influence versus Power. In order to influence, a person must be trusted. Power is the ability to impose your own will on someone else therefore trust is not required.
Staff Communication Updates/Discussion:
Because the entire staff had not been together, time was created on the agenda for updates on current situations and discussion as to how the leadership team was formed to respond to crisis.
• Take-aways from Seneca overseers’ meeting. o Spent a good deal of time in spiritual meetings. Much of what was shared related back to our current situation. God is chastising his ministry—there is a purpose in all of this. o Strong encouragement for education to become more trauma-informed. o Consider ways in which we can provide financial support to victims who may not otherwise be able to afford it. o Policies to deal with allegations and perpetrators will be very similar across the states but can’t be exactly the same because laws differ. Legal advice is that each state ensures that their policy adheres to all laws while protecting the victims. Safety for all is key!
• Staff Discussion: o Need for more communication between the staff and to the fields. o Need a method to make communication easier so that it happens more frequently. The leadership team has been inundated with current allegation situations—so communication doesn’t become front and center. o Thankful for the opportunity for timely education o Much discussion on the need to take care of self. Someone who is empty can’t serve others! o Discussion on the question of what secrecy versus confidentiality is.
|
|