|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Aug 15, 2010 14:38:04 GMT -5
I'm interested to know if these statistics are for the public at large or are they solely based up the F&W's sect? I suspect one would not represent the other by a long way? I suppose the difference depends on how big of a giant you want to imagine that windmill to be - like Don Quixote's - your imagination is the limit.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2010 14:55:44 GMT -5
I'm interested to know if these statistics are for the public at large or are they solely based up the F&W's sect? I suspect one would not represent the other by a long way? I'm not sure what you mean, Ram. do you mean that you think the percentages within the F&W would be different than their cultural setting? |
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Aug 15, 2010 15:11:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by ts on Aug 15, 2010 15:13:18 GMT -5
those statistics make sense. That is why it is so serious when a clergy member abuses a child. He is not just affecting one child but possibly several generations of children. The church should be a place of refuge from all this abuse. Instead it is a refuge for perpetrators. An abusing worker affects more children and more generations than any other abuser? Why is that? A refuge for perps ... that is a rather strong statement, IMO. 'Refuge' would indicate that perpetrators go there for protection. I don't think that is the case. It is a strong statement and I will stand by it. We have read of one well known case where the woman tried for 30 or 40 years to expose her abuser but no one responded. The abuser eventually rose to overseership before she exposed him online. The exposure should have come from his peers to whom he should have been accountable and answerable to. They should have been upholding truth and not showing impartiality. I also speak from my own experience where the workers are hiding an immoral relationship right now in the work. I have spoken to overseers who are obviously covering for the man. The relationship has gone on for 20 years. The idea of having a clergy, after all, is to have a moral compass that helps people out of the depravity of this world. If they are not, what are they doing there. Rather not have a clergy at all. Abusive parents who are looking for help have nowhere to turn if the clergy is also abusive. Examples in the scriptures is Eli's sons, Hophni and Phinehas. They were causing God's people to sin. Are the clergy more responsible than parents? The are not less responsible. If they have no power to cause evil, they have no power to change family situations for the good. We do not know how many of the parents poled in the survey were vicitms of clergy abuse or if the parents or grandparents were victims of clergy abuse. What I am saying is, do not tout the importance of Workers and what an influence they are...until there is a problem. Then you minimize their influence in the lives of God's people. The fact is, the errors of Workers can have a dramatic, negative effect in people's lives and the effects can last generations. Don't just ignore the negative issues and cover them over with good works. |
|
|
|
Post by ronhall on Aug 15, 2010 15:21:15 GMT -5
Like Emy, I have never once heard a worker say they were sinless. When growing up, I never heard my parents or any of the parents of my friends even hint that workers were sinless. They were held up as examples of a godly life, yes--but not as sinless. There is a fine line between believing workers are truthful therefore, to be believed and obeyed -- and -- sinless. I don't think my parents ever stated that the workers were sinless, either, but the association is pretty strong. This belief is further reinforced by their "being held up as examples of a godly life". How can someone being upheld as an example of a godly life on one hand also be held up as an example of a sinful life on the other hand? I suspect there are many, perhaps even the majority, who hold the workers in such unrealistically high regard. When this expectation is deflated by the actions of a few, all are seen as potential disappointments for a time. I have experienced this. I still have to quite often deal with personal fits of anger being careful even on this forum to temper my responses with salt, rather than pepper! I suspect the brother workers in Tasmania/Victoria are in a similar flux of wondering if enough time for healing has elapsed to feel that the tempering with salt is stronger than the anger they must have at the damage that one of their associates has done. The sister workers don't have that burden to bear, therefore they can be more free to deal with it. Hopefully they aren't secretly laughing under their sleeves at the predicament the brother workers are in! Hey! We all have human natures! Unfortunately, I sometimes forget that. |
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Aug 15, 2010 15:27:51 GMT -5
Like Emy, I have never once heard a worker say they were sinless. When growing up, I never heard my parents or any of the parents of my friends even hint that workers were sinless. They were held up as examples of a godly life, yes--but not as sinless. There is a fine line between believing workers are truthful therefore, to be believed and obeyed -- and -- sinless. I don't think my parents ever stated that the workers were sinless, either, but the association is pretty strong. This belief is further reinforced by their "being held up as examples of a godly life". How can someone being upheld as an example of a godly life on one hand also be held up as an example of a sinful life on the other hand? I suspect there are many, perhaps even the majority, who hold the workers in such unrealistically high regard. When this expectation is deflated by the actions of a few, all are seen as potential disappointments for a time. I have experienced this. I still have to quite often deal with personal fits of anger being careful even on this forum to temper my responses with salt, rather than pepper I have often heard workers state that they are very aware of their sin. But, as Ron states, the danger lies in believing that the workers are always truthful. I know that I have heard many friends expressing fear at ever doubting or questioning what a worker says. The NT has numerous references to "false apostles" and "false prophets." I always wonder how a person could determine anyone else to be false if they never questioned them on anything they had spoken. |
|
|
|
Post by JO on Aug 15, 2010 15:30:12 GMT -5
Yes, some parents are CSA perps.
However, in the context of this thread that is a deflection of the very real challenge that is being discussed here...
i.e. some of us feel the ministry should announce a zero-tolerance policy towards CSA, apologize for all CSA committed by its representatives, and provide CSA training for all workers.
Is that too much to ask?
|
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Aug 15, 2010 15:45:38 GMT -5
The sin or crime is no greater, but the effects of it are because the workers are held up to be sinless spiritual leaders more often then not, that is what children often perceive. How true is that statement? Held up by whom? Themselves? (I have yet to hear a worker claim to be sinless.) Parents? (shame on them) Emy, if we're to be honest, the workers have always been held up to be above sin and reproach. Now nowhere in that statement have I declared the workers themselves say that...but it is just something that happened because most people think the workers have given up ALL and are expecting that to be so, and that even means their base desires! |
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Aug 15, 2010 15:46:48 GMT -5
Yes, some parents are CSA perps. However, in the context of this thread that is a deflection of the very real challenge that is being discussed here... i.e. some of us feel the ministry should announce a zero-tolerance policy towards CSA, apologize for all CSA committed by its representatives, and provide CSA training for all workers. Is that too much to ask? Yes, some workers are CSA perps. However, in the context of overall CSA prevention that is a deflection of the very real challenge that is being discussed here... i.e. some of us feel parents should announce a zero-tolerance policy towards CSA, apologize for all CSA committed by its representatives, and provide CSA training for all parents. Is that too much to ask? ~ If prevention of CSA is really "the challenge" the problem of parents/relatives committing most CSA has to be acknowledged and addressed with the same dedication and energy or "the challenge" is a farce. I'll bet that more workers have taken CSA training in the last few years than readers of this board. They are now in a better position to prevent CSA than most readers of this board!! People who act like CSA is a worker only problem ought to be ashamed of themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by ts on Aug 15, 2010 15:47:52 GMT -5
Yes, some parents are CSA perps. However, in the context of this thread that is a deflection of the very real challenge that is being discussed here... i.e. some of us feel the ministry should announce a zero-tolerance policy towards CSA, apologize for all CSA committed by its representatives, and provide CSA training for all workers. Is that too much to ask? Well said. Rather create a place of refuge for victims than perps. Rather create a spiritually and emotionally healthy generation rather than a mixed up and frustrated one. |
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Aug 15, 2010 15:50:07 GMT -5
those statistics make sense. That is why it is so serious when a clergy member abuses a child. He is not just affecting one child but possibly several generations of children. The church should be a place of refuge from all this abuse. Instead it is a refuge for perpetrators. An abusing worker affects more children and more generations than any other abuser? Why is that? A refuge for perps ... that is a rather strong statement, IMO. 'Refuge' would indicate that perpetrators go there for protection. I don't think that is the case. Emy, due to past practices, it would not take a stretch of the imagination for people who have these kind of base desires to figure out that "Wow, I can get by with that just because I declare I'm a worker." So yes, the workership became a refuge for those kind of people simply because they were never brought to face their crimes before their victims muchless the law. Don't you know that the workers who first were guilty of such behaviours were found out by non-workers growing up and when those first workers didn't get brought to reckoning, that made those growing up aware that this was one place that NOT only were they in a POWER position that children would feel obligated to obey, but that they'd get by without being brought to reckoning by their peers. |
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Aug 15, 2010 15:51:19 GMT -5
JO, If the friends have a right to ask that of workers - do workers have a right to ask that of friends?
If not why not?
|
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Aug 15, 2010 15:52:46 GMT -5
Like Emy, I have never once heard a worker say they were sinless. When growing up, I never heard my parents or any of the parents of my friends even hint that workers were sinless. They were held up as examples of a godly life, yes--but not as sinless. Do you not know that young children do NOT know the difference between a "godly life" and a "sinless one"....Jesus is preached as being "sinless" and He's preached as a "godly man". It take some maturity to make the difference known to a child. Then it is too late. As spiritual leaders, the workers MUST maintain morality and when they don't it is a pure way to mar the whole fellowship. This is true with any spiritual leaders. It is their whole duty to maintain their morality. |
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Aug 15, 2010 15:56:31 GMT -5
Here is the percentage of the total for parents, relatives, unmarried partners of parent, foster parents, and legal guardians as perpetrators of CSA; 2000 65.7% -> Source 2001 68.2% -> Source 2002 62.2% -> Source2003 63.5% -> Source2004 63.9% -> Source2005 61.7% -> Source2006 61.4% -> Source2007 65.0% -> Source2008 65.7% -> SourceNote ; The "sexual abuse" numbers seems to be if there was sexual abuse only, if so there might be be sexual abuse included in the "multiple maltreatments" row too.Note; The numbers are from the US Department of Heath and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. Click the "source" links for the actual tables. I totally disagree with that statement....physical abuse and lack of care do not always and very seldom come with sexual abuse. those abuses come from anger issues and mostly poor parenting issues. Whereas sexual abuses come from a psychological abberation which actually is part of control issues. Rape of any form is about control not sex. |
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Aug 15, 2010 15:57:39 GMT -5
Here's the actual numbers for sexual abuse by perpetrator for 2008;
Parent 16,322
Child Daycare Provider 1,001
Foster Parent 206
Friends or Neighbors 2,335
Legal Guardian 69
Other 13,056
Other Professionals 349
Other Relative 17,688
Residential Facility Staff 170
Unmarried Partner of Parent 5,276
Unknown or Missing 378
-----------------------------------------
total 60,253
oops! "Other relative" outranks parents. |
|
|
|
Post by ts on Aug 15, 2010 15:57:57 GMT -5
JO, If the friends have a right to ask that of workers - do workers have a right to ask that of friends? If not why not? Definitely. We are the body of Christ. No one is above the other. I think the workers already do ask that and much more of the friends. They get into many areas of personal life of the friends. I think there should be more of a breakdown of the barriers of separation between the workers and friends. That way the workers would be more accountable and approachable. |
|
|
|
Post by ts on Aug 15, 2010 16:01:33 GMT -5
Why do we not keep statistics among the friends and workers? Do you think that the statistics would reveal problems within the group if they happened to deviate from the norm? Would that be too much to ask? If that is unreasonable, why?
|
|
|
|
Post by ronhall on Aug 15, 2010 16:04:48 GMT -5
JO, If the friends have a right to ask that of workers - do workers have a right to ask that of friends? If not why not? By law don't they already have that right? -- i.e., if they see anything that might suggest child abuse when staying in the homes of the friends, they are supposed to call the cops and let them sort it out. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2010 16:04:49 GMT -5
There is a fine line between believing workers are truthful therefore, to be believed and obeyed -- and -- sinless. I don't think my parents ever stated that the workers were sinless, either, but the association is pretty strong. This belief is further reinforced by their "being held up as examples of a godly life". How can someone being upheld as an example of a godly life on one hand also be held up as an example of a sinful life on the other hand? I suspect there are many, perhaps even the majority, who hold the workers in such unrealistically high regard. When this expectation is deflated by the actions of a few, all are seen as potential disappointments for a time. I have experienced this. I still have to quite often deal with personal fits of anger being careful even on this forum to temper my responses with salt, rather than pepper I have often heard workers state that they are very aware of their sin. But, as Ron states, the danger lies in believing that the workers are always truthful. I know that I have heard many friends expressing fear at ever doubting or questioning what a worker says. The NT has numerous references to "false apostles" and "false prophets." I always wonder how a person could determine anyone else to be false if they never questioned them on anything they had spoken. Good point, Al. Many years ago at Santee an older brother worker said something questionable from the platform and you could see the surprise ripple around the crowd. I heard several talking about it afterwards (I was about 16), and in driving home, my Dad said "we'll check that against scripture when we get home." |
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Aug 15, 2010 16:09:25 GMT -5
I have often heard workers state that they are very aware of their sin. But, as Ron states, the danger lies in believing that the workers are always truthful. I know that I have heard many friends expressing fear at ever doubting or questioning what a worker says. The NT has numerous references to "false apostles" and "false prophets." I always wonder how a person could determine anyone else to be false if they never questioned them on anything they had spoken. Good point, Al. Many years ago at Santee an older brother worker said something questionable from the platform and you could see the surprise ripple around the crowd. I heard several talking about it afterwards (I was about 16), and in driving home, my Dad said "we'll check that against scripture when we get home." Who and how does one bring that older brother into harmony about the questionable statements? Does any of the elders dare take that into hand? More often then not, older brother workers are held is such positions as that no one dares to bring them to accountability. Oh, yes, some people have the knowledge, like your dad did, to check the scriptures...but for that one man there is many more who just accept those kind of things simply because an older brother worker said it. |
|
|
|
Post by JO on Aug 15, 2010 16:10:42 GMT -5
JO, If the friends have a right to ask that of workers - do workers have a right to ask that of friends? If not why not? When friends live in workers' homes and have access to the workers kids as authority figures then the answer is "YES!" |
|
|
|
Post by landdownunder on Aug 15, 2010 16:14:24 GMT -5
Like Emy, I have never once heard a worker say they were sinless. Nice points, but this thread is not about workers and sin/sinlessness. It is about criminal behaviour against children. From what I have been told (excellent authority), what this worker was put out of the work and out of fellowship for, is criminal conduct which would earn a very severe gaol term in the state of Victoria. There are a few posters in this thread who come across as staunch support for a ministry even if there are child sex abusers amongst it. The young mums who are my friends here in Australia are getting very angry at this. You are doing great damage to the church you profess to love at all costs. |
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Aug 15, 2010 16:15:20 GMT -5
I totally disagree with that statement....physical abuse and lack of care do not always and very seldom come with sexual abuse. those abuses come from anger issues and mostly poor parenting issues. Whereas sexual abuses come from a psychological abberation which actually is part of control issues. Rape of any form is about control not sex. Sharon did you look at the source and study the charts?? I've spent hours doing that. Here, have at it; -> Table of Contents Child Maltreatment 2008I could contact them to see how "multiple maltreatments" is defined but it seems pretty clear; if only one maltreatment type, it is categorized singly, if multiple then in the "multiple maltreatment" category. oops! "Other relative" outranks parents.  I've always grouped parents and relatives together since they are the closest to children. Did you notice how much higher either is than "Friends or Neighbors"? |
|
|
|
Post by ts on Aug 15, 2010 16:15:59 GMT -5
statistics say nothing about the culture of the workers and friends. There might actually be a higher rate of worker CSA than in any other sector of society and there might be less parent abuse. How are we going to know unless we take statistics within the group. I think it is safe to say that the environment of the work is a unique demographic. also the environment of the meetings.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Aug 15, 2010 16:20:13 GMT -5
Good point, Al. Many years ago at Santee an older brother worker said something questionable from the platform and you could see the surprise ripple around the crowd. I heard several talking about it afterwards (I was about 16), and in driving home, my Dad said "we'll check that against scripture when we get home." Who and how does one bring that older brother into harmony about the questionable statements? Does any of the elders dare take that into hand? More often then not, older brother workers are held is such positions as that no one dares to bring them to accountability. Oh, yes, some people have the knowledge, like your dad did, to check the scriptures...but for that one man there is many more who just accept those kind of things simply because an older brother worker said it. Good point, Sharon. While discussing it privately is a step, and may help a family to make wise decisions, it is extremely difficult to move beyond that point and address the system. |
|
|
|
Post by landdownunder on Aug 15, 2010 16:20:20 GMT -5
Yes, some workers are CSA perps. What do you propose should be done about these? What about one who is now known to have operated with good protection and opportunity in the work for 30 years in Victoria? How do you propose people whose children or mums themselves who might have been at risk should be informed? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2010 16:19:25 GMT -5
I'm interested to know if these statistics are for the public at large or are they solely based up the F&W's sect? I suspect one would not represent the other by a long way? I'm not sure what you mean, Ram. do you mean that you think the percentages within the F&W would be different than their cultural setting? I'm sure it would. I have no doubt. General statistics averages things out. For instance, in the general setting there is no provision for ministers or pastors. In the F&W's section there should be because of their unique domestic arrangements etc. Overall though, I would be very surprised if the statistics for the F&W's were anything but considerably less than what general statistics would show. Two reasons for this (and it could apply to other sects as well). 1) By and large, in general, the friends uphold higher moral standards than the general public (my opinion). 2) The lid on the CSA jar as far as the F&W's go is still being unscrewed and lags behind society in general. Therefore many instances may be unknown. The cultural setting you refer to is based upon known cases. Although I would expect the F&W's to show a much lower incidence than the general public, I would expect workers to feature with a significant percentage of the known figures within the sect. The statistics can only be based upon known cases. That oft used big carpet, which has only been partially lifted, will contribute to much lower figures, even though I believe they would be lower anyway. I must clarify. For cases I am talking about perpetrators, not victims. One perp can be responsible for 6,7 or 20 nor more victims. |
|
|
|
Post by JO on Aug 15, 2010 16:24:02 GMT -5
Nice points, but this thread is not about workers and sin/sinlessness. It is about criminal behaviour against children. From what I have been told (excellent authority), what this worker was put out of the work and out of fellowship for, is criminal conduct which would earn a very severe gaol term in the state of Victoria. There are a few posters in this thread who come across as staunch support for a ministry even if there are child sex abusers amongst it. The young mums who are my friends here in Australia are getting very angry at this. You are doing great damage to the church you profess to love at all costs. Once again, this thread confirms that the ministry and fellowship lacks the ability and the will to root out the CSA from amongst us. Thank God that we live in an age where the secular authorities have an interest in protecting our children from this evil crime. |
|
