|
|
Post by emy on Aug 17, 2010 23:57:10 GMT -5
[quote author=jesusonly board=general thread=16322 post=356705 time=1282045325 ... Mark 10:16 ... And he took the children in his arms, put his hands on them and blessed them.[/quote] Oh, dear! Is that allowed?  |
|
|
|
Post by JO on Aug 18, 2010 2:00:20 GMT -5
Mark 10:16 ... And he took the children in his arms, put his hands on them and blessed them. Oh, dear! Is that allowed? Emy, if you think Jesus was coming to the children privately and putting his hands on their private parts, asking them to put their hands on his private parts, whispering "this is our little secret, don't tell anyone or something terrible will happen".... ....then perhaps it's not allowed. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2010 5:14:43 GMT -5
Even worse JO, perish the thought that the workers are yet again being equated with Jesus!
|
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Aug 18, 2010 6:15:22 GMT -5
If either of you really think that's what emy was thinking, you're nuts... Those kinds of comments don't help the conversation and don't even deserve to be put in print.
~~~
My MinistrySafe module works. The per session cost is $5, I'll pick it up for any who want to go through it. Any interested please contact me with a first name, last name, and e-mail address. The training is online, fast internet is preferable, and the training link is sent in an e-mail to you. I can give the login and password to WINGS, but they would still need a name and e-mail - I don't know if they want to offer and administer this kind of training.
Interesting MinistrySafe recommends refreshing CSA training every two years.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2010 6:28:16 GMT -5
Have another look at Emy's remark which was unhelpful to begin with. It was entirely related to sexuality, even though it was sarcasm. Perhaps a sarcastic remark deserves a sarcastic response in the same vein it was intended. Regardless, most Christians prefer not to hear comments which might suggest that Jesus practiced CSA.....sarcastic or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Aug 18, 2010 7:10:40 GMT -5
Have another look at Emy's remark which was unhelpful to begin with. It was entirely related to sexuality, even though it was sarcasm. Perhaps a sarcastic remark deserves a sarcastic response in the same vein it was intended. Regardless, most Christians prefer not to hear comments which might suggest that Jesus practiced CSA.....sarcastic or not. I agree.....I can see Jesus now with tears flowing down His face everytime some perp takes advantage of an innocent child! Jesus loved the children and He would not that any of them be offended as He said it would be like a milestone around that offender's neck and the offender would feel like being drowned in the sea...otherwords, if the price for being an offender was severe enough the perp would committ suicide, is the way I read that of Jesus' words! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2010 7:40:16 GMT -5
Well Mr Jesse "backs to the wall, fight like a cornered rat" Lackman:
I saw Emy's remark, either rightly or wrongly as being this. Since Jesus took children in his arms, put his hands on them and blessed them, then it was okay for workers to do this! I did not have any CSA thoughts in mind. However, if workers can copy Jesus in this incident, then why not anybody else?
Emy asked "oh dear, is that allowed?" Yes it is allowed with Jesus and also there is nothing wrong with it for workers or anyone else, provided they have exactly the same motivation as Jesus or other innocent virtue. The trouble is, apart from the guarantee we have with Jesus being the pure and flawless one, we do not have this with workers or anyone else. There exists a risk factor, and no matter how small, it is not worth the risk taking.
Part of my cultural 2x2 upbringing was that the workers in this day and age were just like Jesus. They were Jesus come in the flesh. We were led to equate the workers all with Jesus. They were this world's pure and innocent ones in whom we could have complete trust.This was the basis of my remark. If it's okay for Jesus to do something then it is okay for workers. Well with the type of incident referred to here, I'm afraid it is not and only a half-wit would question the reasons why not.
With Jesus there is NO risk factor.
With workers or anyone else, there IS a risk factor.
When Jesus had no place to lay his head on his travels and abode with others, there was NO risk factor.
When workers stay in the homes of the friends, there IS a risk factor.
The risk factor has to be prescribed for, no matter how small it may be. The domestic arrangements of the ministry MUST be controlled to remove the risk factor as much as possible - NOW!
Jesus said, suffer the children to come unto him (no risk).
He did not mean, suffer the children to come unto the workers or anyone else where a risk factor existed and they might end up doing the suffering instead.
By the way Jesse, I exalt you!
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Aug 18, 2010 8:21:03 GMT -5
If either of you really think that's what emy was thinking, you're nuts... Those kinds of comments don't help the conversation and don't even deserve to be put in print. ~~~ My MinistrySafe module works. The per session cost is $5, I'll pick it up for any who want to go through it. Any interested please contact me with a first name, last name, and e-mail address. The training is online, fast internet is preferable, and the training link is sent in an e-mail to you. I can give the login and password to WINGS, but they would still need a name and e-mail - I don't know if they want to offer and administer this kind of training. Interesting MinistrySafe recommends refreshing CSA training every two years. If I remember correctly, Jesse got the $5 per session by pre-paying a fee ($100.00?) which allowed him as many 5$ sessions in a year as needed/wanted. I think it is quite commendable that Jesse and his wife are willing to pick up the tab for any and all who might wish to take this course. It doesn't take too long to take, and it gives a good overview of CSA and how to protect not only the kids, but also those who work with kids. After completion, you are able to print out a certificate with your name on it which can be used to show you have completed the training course. Some states require this kind of training for anyone that works with kids. This includes scout leaders, coaches of youth sports etc. Although the site is called MinistrySafe, it is training for all aspects of working with and around kids. My MinistrySafe module works. The per session cost is $5, I'll pick it up for any who want to go through it. Any interested please contact me with a first name, last name, and e-mail address. The training is online, fast internet is preferable, and the training link is sent in an e-mail to you. I can give the login and password to WINGS, but they would still need a name and e-mail - I don't know if they want to offer and administer this kind of training.Thanks Jesse! If people show an interest in taking the course and would prefer to do it through WINGS, we will gladly accept your offer. I will discuss this with the other members of WINGS and see what they think. Perhaps I should approach the overseers and let them know that WINGS would be willing to be a focal point for any and all who wish to receive this training. It could be that they would like to have a place where workers, elders and friends can easily access the course. We could have one of our professing members administer this. It would be great if they would like to fund such an idea!!  Scott  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2010 8:59:29 GMT -5
Scott, do you know of any specific plans, anywhere, to control the domestic hospitality arrangements of the workers in light of the CSA revelations over the last few years? By this I mean, are there any senior workers and overseers actively seeking to restrict or limit the circumstances in which workers may stay at homes where there are children and young persons or other vulnerable people staying.
Also, the protection of young workers and not so young workers from older workers and not so old workers in the domestic arrangements?
The unique living circumstances of the ministry needs unique control measures in light of what is coming to light. This should be the first matter to be addressed and then built upon with more general advice and guidelines.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Aug 18, 2010 10:05:12 GMT -5
Scott, do you know of any specific plans, anywhere, to control the domestic hospitality arrangements of the workers in light of the CSA revelations over the last few years? By this I mean, are there any senior workers and overseers actively seeking to restrict or limit the circumstances in which workers may stay at homes where there are children and young persons or other vulnerable people staying. Also, the protection of young workers and not so young workers from older workers and not so old workers in the domestic arrangements? The unique living circumstances of the ministry needs unique control measures in light of what is coming to light. This should be the first matter to be addressed and then built upon with more general advice and guidelines. I do know of overseers restricting individual workers from staying in homes with children based on questionable past history. I think that this is a good action that was taken. Although no charges had been filed against the individuals, it seemed right that the overseers took that step. A few years ago I helped arrange a meeting between one of the members of the TMB and the overseer of the state where the grandparents of her children lived This individual had asked the grandmother of her children (her ex mother-in-law) to please not allow a certain worker be around her children. She found out that the grandma was ignoring her request and even allowing the worker in question to stay there at the same time her kids were there. Upshot of the meeting between that individual and the overseer was that he agreed with her concerns and let the worker know that he would NOT be allowed to stay at that home, and he also informed that grandma that she should not allow the worker there. This whole meeting between an overseer and an ex-professing lady went very well. She was very surprised and glad for the results of the meeting. She knew the overseer fairly well from her professing days, and they had an enjoyable visit considering the subject matter at hand. Also, the protection of young workers and not so young workers from older workers and not so old workers in the domestic arrangements?No, not in the sense you mean. I HAVE heard of sister workers who when hearing of certain a certain worker being on the visiting worker list at a convention, then approached the state overseer and asked that the worker be kept away due to past abuse to one of the sister workers. The overseer to his credit in that instance stepped in and refused to let the worker attend that convention. Scott |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2010 12:01:46 GMT -5
Thanks for that Scott.
It is my firm belief that if CSA and other forms of abuse, sexual or otherwise, are to be addressed in the F&W's system, then the unique way in which the domestic arrangements of the ministry operates, should be the starting ground for attempts to limit these matters.
This is the horse which pulls the cart in many instances.
|
|
|
|
Post by JO on Aug 18, 2010 15:21:51 GMT -5
Mark 10:16 ... And he took the children in his arms, put his hands on them and blessed them. Oh, dear! Is that allowed? Perhaps my earlier response to this post was unhelpful so I'll try again. Comments on this thread that suggest an over-reaction to the touching of children or the prevalence of false CSA accusations put another stumbling block in the way of rooting out this evil crime. Its incredibly hard for victims to come forward and expose these criminals, and its many times more likely that crimes will go unreported than false accusations will be made. Genuine rape victims and genuine CSA victims despise the few who do make false accusations because it makes it so much harder to bring the guilty to justice. Its normal for CSA victims to convince themselves that they won't be believed, and reading some of the comments on this thread are likely to reinforce that belief. If a worker in all sincerity "took the children in his arms, put his hands on them and blessed them" I would have no problem with it as long as it was done in public. What goes on behind closed doors is the problem. I don't even have a problem with workers staying in homes where there are children as long as: 1. Workers are not upheld as some kind of infallible Christ substitute. 2. A parent is present whenever workers are with a child. |
|
|
|
Post by emy on Aug 18, 2010 17:35:41 GMT -5
I apologize for the remark.
A couple observations:
I find it incredibly sad that a natural affection between children and workers has to be suspect.
I find it incredibly sad that, in many cases, teachers are warned against touching children affectionately. (Sometimes kids just NEED a hug!)
I think that Jesse keeps asking us to take the course because there could be a better way.
Curious -- did you all miss the wink after my comment? (No, I don't equate workers with Jesus or vice versa.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Aug 18, 2010 19:37:03 GMT -5
Emy, I knew what you were talking about, I heard workers comment over ten years ago they could not take the chance to even touch or hug a child. The possibility of false accusation is so great it wasn't and isn't worth the risk. It's a risk even for parents let alone workers. It is almost "not allowed" anymore.
That is sad.
|
|
|
|
Post by ronhall on Aug 18, 2010 19:38:21 GMT -5
I apologize for the remark. A couple observations: I find it incredibly sad that a natural affection between children and workers has to be suspect. I find it incredibly sad that, in many cases, teachers are warned against touching children affectionately. (Sometimes kids just NEED a hug!) I think that Jesse keeps asking us to take the course because there could be a better way. Curious -- did you all miss the wink after my comment? (No, I don't equate workers with Jesus or vice versa.) I saw the wink and having read your posts for some time the picture I got was that of a worker giving a little encouragement to a child, perhaps after an excessively long meeting. Then some one calibrated a bit different taking it wrongly. The irony of Jesus message was that his people were to be like little children, yet the whole aspect of preaching, professing, taking part in meetings, attending conventions, funerals, etc., etc., etc. is entirely at the adult level. So now the limit to accepted interaction between a child and a worker is, "Don't forget to shake hands with the worker, Johnny. No, not your left hand, your right hand." As semi-grown up snot-nosed kids my brother and I were never the favored ones. Older folks and workers just kinda' put up with us. We loved to be outside, were curious about everything, especially things that would make us dirty. I'm still that way, though my younger brother has partially reformed himself. Just now I came in from sanding down a 32 year old pickup truck, getting it ready to paint. It's a 4x4 and I've had it since it was six years old. I could easily afford one, and my wife keeps reminding me that I deserve a new Silverado. But -- well, there's a young fellow, about 15, comes to our meeting every Sunday with his mother. There's also a 30 year old Mustang parked behind the well house that was my go-to-work car until I retired. You never know we might get together and make a project of it next summer. Since I haven't painted a car for a couple of years, I need the practice. Besides, its fun to get involved in a dirty project. And my old truck still runs great, sounds great with its Q-Jet carb on a Performer intake manifold and Tri-Wye headers speaking into 2-1/2 duals with glass pack silencers and will look great with a new shiny coat of paint. (Did I say silencers?) So I'm stickin' up for Emy! "You go, girl." And I'm all for the kids, especially the snot nosed ones. "That's my story and I'm sticking to it!" :>) |
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Aug 18, 2010 19:50:14 GMT -5
I don't even have a problem with workers staying in homes where there are children as long as: 2. A parent is present whenever workers are with a child. What if the adults directly related to and/or responsible for the children are the perps like they 60%+ of the time? Isn't ignoring that cold hard statistical fact kind of like putting your head in the sand? How would a war go if you were committed to destroying only 40% of the enemy? |
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Aug 18, 2010 20:11:04 GMT -5
Have another look at Emy's remark which was unhelpful to begin with. It was entirely related to sexuality, even though it was sarcasm. Perhaps a sarcastic remark deserves a sarcastic response in the same vein it was intended. Regardless, most Christians prefer not to hear comments which might suggest that Jesus practiced CSA.....sarcastic or not. I don't think it was "entirely related to sexuality", I don't think it was related to sexuality *at all*. And it wasn't sarcasm, if anything it was an indictment of the world we live in. It was about natural non-sexual human affection from an adult towards a child practically being not allowed anymore. You just about can't do it without risk of being accused, the CSA training courses go over this. I can't believe anyone could have interpreted the comment as suggesting "that Jesus practiced CSA". That's thoughly disgusting. The thought never even crossed my mind - what's wrong with you people? Goodness! |
|
|
|
Post by JO on Aug 18, 2010 20:30:53 GMT -5
I don't even have a problem with workers staying in homes where there are children as long as: 2. A parent is present whenever workers are with a child. What if the adults directly related to and/or responsible for the children are the perps like they 60%+ of the time? Isn't ignoring that cold hard statistical fact kind of like putting your head in the sand? How would a war go if you were committed to destroying only 40% of the enemy? Jesse, if my suggestion was followed it would: 1. Protect children in their homes from CSA workers. 2. Protect workers from false allegations of CSA. How you cannot see that is beyond me. |
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Aug 18, 2010 20:40:22 GMT -5
What if the adults directly related to and/or responsible for the children are the perps like they 60%+ of the time? Isn't ignoring that cold hard statistical fact kind of like putting your head in the sand? How would a war go if you were committed to destroying only 40% of the enemy? Jesse, if my suggestion was followed it would: 1. Protect children in their homes from CSA workers. 2. Protect workers from false allegations of CSA. How you cannot see that is beyond me. Oh I can see that I'd be a moron if I couldn't, what I can't see is why you seem willing to write off over half of CSA victims. Why act like it's a worker only problem when it so obviously isn't?? Why? |
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Aug 18, 2010 20:44:47 GMT -5
The saddest part of it all is this...all the training in the world still will not totally delete or overcome those who are either mentally ill and do CSA OR WHEN the temptation rises...often the more something is a no-no, the more often those who feel tempted to go against what is right will do it....sometimes the thrill of getting by even in a close call is worth all the hazzle...this doesn't only apply to CSA, but about every issue that is pulled to the front and efforts to eliminate them with rules, laws, traing and policing effforts increased. So to THINK that training is going to eliminate it ks just that a dream! It does bring awareness more to the adult world of what happens when something like that is about to happen or does happen, but still the weaker population will always be the target of someone just crazy enough or silly enough to buck the rules/laws and the policing units.
I agree with those who have pushed the thought that it is the parents who need to teach their children very young and very early about proper human contact and behaviours. That is about the only way a child will have any real defense and that is to know what it normal and what is not normal...and particularly not to be a repeat victim.
|
|
|
|
Post by ts on Aug 18, 2010 21:12:31 GMT -5
If either of you really think that's what emy was thinking, you're nuts... Those kinds of comments don't help the conversation and don't even deserve to be put in print. ~~~ My MinistrySafe module works. The per session cost is $5, I'll pick it up for any who want to go through it. Any interested please contact me with a first name, last name, and e-mail address. The training is online, fast internet is preferable, and the training link is sent in an e-mail to you. I can give the login and password to WINGS, but they would still need a name and e-mail - I don't know if they want to offer and administer this kind of training. Interesting MinistrySafe recommends refreshing CSA training every two years. I am with you on this one Jesse. Thanks. I don't mind banter but sacrilege should not be here. I really dislike some of the "shock" posts with crude pictures of extremely polarized and irrelevant comments. My kids are sometimes in the room when I am writing. It just isn't kind or considerate to post tacky pictures. |
|
|
|
Post by ts on Aug 18, 2010 21:17:29 GMT -5
Jesse, if my suggestion was followed it would: 1. Protect children in their homes from CSA workers. 2. Protect workers from false allegations of CSA. How you cannot see that is beyond me. Oh I can see that I'd be a moron if I couldn't, what I can't see is why you seem willing to write off over half of CSA victims. Why act like it's a worker only problem when it so obviously isn't?? Why? I think I have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the role of a worker is. Can you please detail their job description. I do feel like us as exes (especially ex worker exes) have a different idea of the power and influence of a worker than those who post here who are professing. I think if we both understood where we stand on our actual expectations of a worker, we might get somewhere. |
|
|
|
Post by ts on Aug 18, 2010 21:18:15 GMT -5
In fact, I am going to start a new thread called, "What is the role of a worker?"
|
|
|
|
Post by JO on Aug 18, 2010 21:34:45 GMT -5
Jesse, if my suggestion was followed it would: 1. Protect children in their homes from CSA workers. 2. Protect workers from false allegations of CSA. How you cannot see that is beyond me. Oh I can see that I'd be a moron if I couldn't, what I can't see is why you seem willing to write off over half of CSA victims. Why act like it's a worker only problem when it so obviously isn't?? Why? OK Jesse, I agree that CSA can be committed by parents, siblings, cousins, uncles, family friends - most anyone who has access to kids. The more trusted they are the easier it is for them to do their evil thing. Having got that out of the way, can we now talk about how to protect kids from CSA-inclined workers... ...and how to salvage the reputation of the ministry as a whole? Which incidentally is what this thread is about. If you want to discuss saving children from their parents then start another thread. |
|
|
|
Post by emy on Aug 18, 2010 21:57:15 GMT -5
...if anything it was an indictment of the world we live in. It was about natural non-sexual human affection from an adult towards a child practically being not allowed anymore.... That's exactly right! Thank you. |
|
|
|
Post by emy on Aug 18, 2010 22:10:17 GMT -5
... I don't even have a problem with workers staying in homes where there are children as long as: 1. Workers are not upheld as some kind of infallible Christ substitute. 2. A parent is present whenever workers are with a child. I totally agree with #1. The second one is hardly practical. It would mean that if I have workers staying in my basement bedrooms, I can't let my kids go down to the playroom in the basement, unless I go, too. If my kids are playing outside away from the house when a worker decides to take a walk, I have to go out to be sure s/he doesn't make contact with a child alone. I think it might be better to take one of the courses and learn how to instruct my child in a way that keeps him/her safe but allows normal affection - if there is such a course.  And constant supervision isn't an option for the other possible offenders, such as teachers, coaches, "funny uncles," parents of their friends, or that 60% of parents themselves who molest. |
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Aug 18, 2010 22:16:22 GMT -5
or that 60% of parents themselves who molest. Uh.... without looking at Jesse's figures he posted, I think it was 60% of the abuse cases were by relatives. The way you posted it would be that 6 of 10 parents abuse their kids..... Scott
|
|
|
|
Post by emy on Aug 18, 2010 22:30:23 GMT -5
or that 60% of parents themselves who molest. Uh.... without looking at Jesse's figures he posted, I think it was 60% of the abuse cases were by relatives. The way you posted it would be that 6 of 10 parents abuse their kids..... Scott Ooops.. my mistake. |
|
