|
|
Post by kencoolidge on Jan 24, 2013 19:01:48 GMT -5
Jimmy
Could you be a worker? or saint. Clouded vision perhaps or big time denial.
ken
|
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jan 24, 2013 20:10:38 GMT -5
I wonder what noels' opinion is. I think noels is somewhere between New Zealand and Bangladesh. He earned his wings by keeping off this board. Oh, oh! You mean he was sent to where he couldn't? Found him another foreign field, eh? I think maybe he'll see what some of tried to tell him.....hopefully! |
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jan 24, 2013 20:22:25 GMT -5
I feel bad for Steve as well. Getting booted out of the work and told that after a year then David will consider allowing him back into the work. All for going to the one person who should be considered the most likely person in the church to take action on such matters. Well..... I guess he did take action though didn't he..... and now there is one less worker...... and some others who will be leaving the church...... and his leadership abilities questioned again...... Although I don't personally know any of the folks involved here .. I can't help but compare somewhat with our exit from 2x2ism. I can feel for this Steves pain --- but in reality I don't feel bad for his as you worded it. --- I think that like it was for us, this is possibly one of the greatest blessings in his experience. A chance to leave 2x2ism in the past understanding that his expulsion was in the interests of a righteous cause. I doubt if I could have left 2x2ism without the rejection that gave us no other choice -- and am satisfied to today that the whole painful issue was God in his mercy leading us away from something evil into the far, far better life and privelages that we have today. I feel sorry for this Steves pain -- but I hope it turns out to be the blessing for him that it has for us, Edgar Isn't it amazing the wide range of issues that give folks the courage to stand tall, and find something better!!! I had mentioned also that this painful experience for SS will probably turn out God's mercy for SS and God's intent that SS have that which will enrich his spiritual being and I'm praying he will consider this as you're speaking to, Edgar! |
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jan 24, 2013 20:25:09 GMT -5
Here are the honorable things that Jimmy thinks: Firstly tho I want to make it perfectly clear I believe any CSA offender should be reported to authorities and dealt with according to the law. Here he is being quite insulting and offensive to worker Steve, a person with a brain who has stood in support of many victims now. A worker with a shepherd's heart who stands by and supports the downtrodden and those without a voice: That's right, dismiss a caring shepherd worker as a nice but influencable bumbleton who has stumbled into a trap because he doesn't have the brains of someone like his powerful and politically savvy overseer. BUT THERE"S WORSE. In dismissing worker Steve and his advocacy for the downtrodden, you are badly insulting and demeaning of all the victims who Steve is supporting and who he has provided with a voice and some hope. SHAME! Here Jimmy shows his agenda: in any of my dealings with David I have found him to be reasonable, compassionate and fair. I have found him to have integrity and intellect. The victims who Steve supports and David continues to mistreat know another side to this man altogether. Perhaps there are 2 Davids? The family will tell you if that is possible. Split personalities? |
|
Ju
New Member
Posts: 36 
|
Post by Ju on Jan 25, 2013 20:34:20 GMT -5
I understand and share the horror that a worker would be removed from the work for raising concerns of CSA. I understand the victims in this case are now adults and that does raise some questions.
Where the victims aware the matter was being taken to DL?
Did they give consent for the matter to be addressed?
We know from past experience in VIC that many survivors of CSA choose not to name their abuser even in adult hood and even when named on their behalf and a matter goes to the law as in the case of EB survivors are not empowered to make statements and press charges with the police.
DL was cristisced in the case of EB for making direct contact with survivors and then accepting at face value their response and for not providing ongoing support of the people he contacted. Some people felt violated agin through this contact. So how should this situation be handled? Referal to the authorites may open an investigation if names of potential victims are provided but if no names availabe even the police would be power less to take action.
Interested to hear others thoughts....
|
|
|
|
Post by emmarr75 on Jan 26, 2013 7:24:29 GMT -5
Hi Ju Some great thought provoking questions here  Here's some of my thoughts. I think it comes down to empowering the victim to speak out. This can be done in a "corporate" manner. If the friends and workers began to speak publically in a supportive manner of victims and actively encouraged them to seek help. This would ensure that victims would feel confident that they had the support of their fellowship with them as they journeyed through the legal system. In doing so there is no need to name victims, just a simple statement acknowledging that there have been people affected by CSA within the church (it would be lovely to hear that a hymn at convention had been sung as a prayer for victims). It can also be done on a personal basis - build up the victim through counselling and prayer until they feel confident enough to seek help. Its important to accept that this is a victim's journey to travel if he/she wishes to do so as they will have to relive the experience(s). To push the victim into such an undertaking before they are ready is another violation. This shouldn't be an isolating experience for the victim and care needs to be taken to ensure that the victim feels supported through a small network of family and friends of their choosing. This is very much a private manner of handling a CSA and its important for the entire fellowship to respect that need for privacy. |
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jan 26, 2013 10:22:28 GMT -5
Hi Ju Some great thought provoking questions here Here's some of my thoughts. I think it comes down to empowering the victim to speak out. This can be done in a "corporate" manner. If the friends and workers began to speak publically in a supportive manner of victims and actively encouraged them to seek help. This would ensure that victims would feel confident that they had the support of their fellowship with them as they journeyed through the legal system. In doing so there is no need to name victims, just a simple statement acknowledging that there have been people affected by CSA within the church (it would be lovely to hear that a hymn at convention had been sung as a prayer for victims). It can also be done on a personal basis - build up the victim through counselling and prayer until they feel confident enough to seek help. Its important to accept that this is a victim's journey to travel if he/she wishes to do so as they will have to relive the experience(s). To push the victim into such an undertaking before they are ready is another violation. This shouldn't be an isolating experience for the victim and care needs to be taken to ensure that the victim feels supported through a small network of family and friends of their choosing. This is very much a private manner of handling a CSA and its important for the entire fellowship to respect that need for privacy. But isn't that just doing pretty much what's been done all along? The family is supportive most usually of the victims...and the workers don't want to hear anything about it at all and they seek to emphasize this "privacy" issue in the matter that a public ackowledgement of the crime and the perpatrator hurts the whole church....that in turn makes the victims less willing to offend the workers and so here they are without one bit of help to make the decision what needs to be done about this CRIME. When victims are pushed back into their "privacy" does this stop the perpatrators? I don't think so...we've seen how this has helped people in the past multiple decades, where perpatrators keep offending and training new victims, etc. I think that it is imperative that everyone including the victims need to understand that this is a crime just like other crimes that if we turn our heads to them, not only are there more crimes done by that perpatrator but it says to those who would like to be in that perp's shoes that hey, they can do whatever they so well wish in the fellowship and workership because the victims and families are told that it is harmful to the fellowship to be going to law against their perps. This is why we have these years of hidden CSA and now it is crippling the whole fellowship because these crimes were not addressed when they happened and the guilty perps were removed from the fellowship's populace! |
|
|
|
Post by emmarr75 on Jan 26, 2013 15:17:00 GMT -5
Hi Sharonw
When I wrote the above comments you will notice that I wrote the comments about a "corporate" response first. At the moment there is nothing (from my observations) being said or done at a whole group level to remove the deep seated sense of shame that the victim feels.
To me, the "corporate" response is about building respect for each and every individual within the fellowship - not just the people preaching at the front of a hall or meeting shed at convention.
This is not a quick fix solution- one convention/special meeting round and we've addressed the problem, right lets go back to preaching the usual stuff. It's going to take years of gentle leadership to encourage victims to begin to acknowledge the hurt.
It is only once the victims begin the healing process that the personal basis stuff begins.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2013 20:56:01 GMT -5
Interesting that the title of this thread includes moral clarity. This topic - Steve Schulz - has attracted a huge number of posts on various forums. I have no idea of what actually happened but the moral viewpoint of many surprises me.
I suggest the moral imperitive is that anybody aware of an incident/s of CSA should report this to the authorities. The mandatory reporting law acts more to protect individuals within certain groups from internal repercussions for raising/reporting such issues, rather than a law to punish those who fail to.
Many posts regarding this issue seem to suggest Steve Schulz raised concerns/allegations of CSA involving a worker not currently under investigation and misuse of funds connected to CSA. If so, legally he should have reported his concerns directly to the authorities, not the overseer, and still is obliged to do so. Ditto with regards to the overseer. While this may not apply legally to any who actually have access to 'facts' regarding this event, or the events Steve was concerned about, it certainly does morally.
Your reputable sources, Clearday, need to get to the police. So many seem to be assuming the respective inquiries and the police are going to clean all this up. I doubt this, by and large whats happening amongst the friends and workers is small fry compared to some of the larger religious groups. Weight of numbers, in terms of reports, may help but if change is going to be forced from without its more likely to come from a civil case rather than a criminal one. Change will com from within though, if enough people act.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Feb 4, 2013 20:46:08 GMT -5
Hi Sharonw When I wrote the above comments you will notice that I wrote the comments about a "corporate" response first. At the moment there is nothing (from my observations) being said or done at a whole group level to remove the deep seated sense of shame that the victim feels. To me, the "corporate" response is about building respect for each and every individual within the fellowship - not just the people preaching at the front of a hall or meeting shed at convention. This is not a quick fix solution- one convention/special meeting round and we've addressed the problem, right lets go back to preaching the usual stuff. It's going to take years of gentle leadership to encourage victims to begin to acknowledge the hurt. It is only once the victims begin the healing process that the personal basis stuff begins. However if the workers in the past have oppressed the victims in regards to them reporting the crime to appropriate authorities, is there ever going to be a place within that siad workership/fellowship that victims will feel "good" about coming forward even many years after the fact? The logistics and people are still much in the same mode as before.... Would it not be better if even the victims could come to the place of being angry about not only their perpatrator's crime but also about those who have oppressed the victims' need to see justice done? If one could just chanel more then one victim into the anger stage and keep the negative part of their anger from getting in the way, but putting that energy of their emotions into helping those victims tell their stories to the appropriate people. I don't know I'm just trying to figure out what different stages people go through when they've been thusly violated. I know in myself how protective I became of the persons that loved me and what they would do IF they ever found out about my violation, so it was I had to keep mum, to keep them from behaving in such a manner as to them suffering some pretty negative things if they did what I know they would have done....and as far as I know no one has ever found it out and right now I no longer care who finds it out....the perpatrator is dead and he faced a horrible death...do I find that right? Sometimes I do and this is why I speak to having help for the victims to channel that anger and desire for revenge even into positive avenues of justice! |
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Feb 4, 2013 20:52:02 GMT -5
Interesting that the title of this thread includes moral clarity. This topic - Steve Schulz - has attracted a huge number of posts on various forums. I have no idea of what actually happened but the moral viewpoint of many surprises me. I suggest the moral imperitive is that anybody aware of an incident/s of CSA should report this to the authorities. The mandatory reporting law acts more to protect individuals within certain groups from internal repercussions for raising/reporting such issues, rather than a law to punish those who fail to. Many posts regarding this issue seem to suggest Steve Schulz raised concerns/allegations of CSA involving a worker not currently under investigation and misuse of funds connected to CSA. If so, legally he should have reported his concerns directly to the authorities, not the overseer, and still is obliged to do so. Ditto with regards to the overseer. While this may not apply legally to any who actually have access to 'facts' regarding this event, or the events Steve was concerned about, it certainly does morally. Your reputable sources, Clearday, need to get to the police. So many seem to be assuming the respective inquiries and the police are going to clean all this up. I doubt this, by and large whats happening amongst the friends and workers is small fry compared to some of the larger religious groups. Weight of numbers, in terms of reports, may help but if change is going to be forced from without its more likely to come from a civil case rather than a criminal one. Change will com from within though, if enough people act. To Steve's defense in regards to why he didn't go to the authorities with what he knew...We have to consider that in all likelihood that his overseer(s) had told the underling workers that they MUST bring such things to the overseers first and then the overseer would be the one who would say what was to be dfone.....that said, of course, Steve could easily become a target for the legalese to be putting him to court just like they tried to do to Jerome Frandle in Michigan...and eventually IF this happens over and over with the authorities trying their best to get it into the heads of these heads of churches that it MUST go to the authorities FIRST before it becomes the overseers' businessd...some overseer or worker will end up in prison yet for not reporting the crime. |
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 4, 2013 21:58:05 GMT -5
I agree with passerby. Steve should have contacted the authorities himself. I don't have a problem with him telling the overseer first and let him do it, respecting the chain of command in doing it that way, but when it became evident that nothing was going to be done, then Steve should have gone to the authorities himself. Maybe he has? Isn't he obligated to report CSA? Isn't anyone, friend or worker obligated to have it checked out by the authorities?
|
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 4, 2013 22:47:58 GMT -5
Steve is part of a hierarchy, and if he went to the authorities instead of up through the chain of command he would likely be thrown out of the work like Marg Magowan in Saskatchewan.
I believe the same doctrine that Dale Shultz explained would apply in the Australian church in 2013:
" I would just like to encourage you to accept this support that Willis and Jim have at the present time as a reality and to respect that decision because it comes from a group of men whom God has called and whom God is using in guiding his work in this part of the earth. If our attitude towards them becomes disrespectful, it is a reflection on our attitude towards God as well."
"However, something that is very much a part of being a child of God is to respect those who are over us in the Lord, to pray for them, to obey them, to esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake. Their judgement may not always be right, but it is always right for us to respect that judgement and to work with it in the best way that we possibly can."
" it does remain the right thing to respect that decision because of where it has come from and to work with it no matter what our own thoughts might be on the subject. This is a very practical area where we can exercise the teaching of 11 Corinthians 10:5, "- bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ." We may think that we are "obeying men" and not "obeying Christ" when we submit to something that seems wrong to our own thinking. However, the scriptures teach so much about submission e.g. to the government of the land, wives to husbands, children to parents, the Lord's people to the ministry, etc. That teaching doesn't just apply when the governments, husbands, parents or workers are 100% on the right track, but it applies in a very comprehensive way. We also know that a point could be reached in these different relationships in which submission is generally expected where, because of some deep conviction before God, we would feel that we could not submit to something that is being asked of us. However, there is also great danger in "not submitting" and in taking a rebel attitude when the situation doesn't warrant that extreme position in God's mind."
"Whether the decision is right or wrong, the right thing for all of us is to respect it because of those who have made the judgement. If the decision is wrong, I am sure that the Lord will have ways of correcting that over time."
|
|
|
|
Post by holdmyhand on Feb 4, 2013 23:05:14 GMT -5
I agree with passerby. Steve should have contacted the authorities himself. I don't have a problem with him telling the overseer first and let him do it, respecting the chain of command in doing it that way, but when it became evident that nothing was going to be done, then Steve should have gone to the authorities himself. Maybe he has? Isn't he obligated to report CSA? Isn't anyone, friend or worker obligated to have it checked out by the authorities? Does the mandatory reporting apply to old as well as recent cases ? The victims are now adults, if they don't report it to police (and give statements) I'm not sure Steve has an obligation to report unless be has reason to believe the crime is recent Did he go to overseers in an attempt to clean up the fellowship of past crimes ? having knowledge of crime but not having enough support for the police to act |
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 4, 2013 23:28:38 GMT -5
Did he go to overseers in an attempt to clean up the fellowship of past crimes ? Probably. He has dedicated his life to the work and he needs to feel comfortable about what he's promoting. He wouldn't want to be promoting a cult that is hiding something as evil as child sexual abuse and enabling workers to continue their wicked behavior while pretending to be servants of God. Also, I think he cares about the victims. Its hard for victims to heal and move on until their abuse has been acknowledged. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2013 3:30:39 GMT -5
I know nothing first hand about this case in Australia -- but have some experience with CSA allegations both within 2x2ism and otherwise. It is easy to jump to conclusions in a zeal to condemn folks that are hesitant to press charges, or report to authorities.
Looking at it from the onlookers (concerned and 'could be' reporter of suspicions) position, there is seldom completely tangible hard evidence. If there is, then there is no problem or doubt as to responsibility for action.
However my experience is that this is seldom the case. Most often concerned people have what could be, or maybe not be, founded suspicion. This is the horror of the 'gray zone'
To be honest, at some time or other, most of us have raised our eyebrows at someones behavior in this issue -- but then with a little reflection, calmed our suspicions and 'let it be'. Even in this we sometimes could have made mistakes. It is a tough issue.
By default, parents should have the greatest sensitivity in this -- but within 2x2ism the 'natural caution' in this regard, is effectively disabled.
Most of us would wish for fairly tangible evidence before taking such an issue to the police. What this 'tangible evidence' or 'realistic suspicion' is, is hard to define. Some people seem to have a better feel for it than others. For instance my wife reacts to things that I hardly even notice!!! I have supported her in issues when likely on my own, I wouldn't have reacted at all to. Does that make me evil?? Or unconcerned for the welfare of children?
It would be easier if everything was clearly black or white -- However , if we are honest we must acknowledge that gray is also sometimes a reality in our world!
|
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 5, 2013 4:15:38 GMT -5
Edgar, I agree with much of your last post but I think you're underestimating the ability of today's police and support agencies to extract the truth if given the opportunity.
Unfortunately the opportunity is often denied them because victims and potential whistle-blowers feel intimidated and disempowered by a perceived or real "let-it-be" attitude - or even a "sweep-it-under-the-carpet" attitude - in folks whose support they need.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2013 8:42:50 GMT -5
No, I don't share your enthusiasm for police and lawyers and attorneys and prosecutors and legal agencies - either for their interest in the truth, or for their ability to bring it to light.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Feb 5, 2013 9:24:24 GMT -5
No, I don't share your enthusiasm for police and lawyers and attorneys and prosecutors and legal agencies - either for their interest in the truth, or for their ability to bring it to light. edgar, from what I've seen and heard the inabilities of the authorities to get to the real truth is encumbent to the size of the city/town and the overall requisites of that population. Usually in large cities within the authorities are different professionals who certainly CAN get to the truth of the matter...and yet other places that the authorities do prove to be oppressive to the victims even for it depends on the "impression" the victims make upon those said authorities OR the authorities are affected by whatever else they are dealing with at that time....so it does come down to being both ways....and I find that sad...and I feel that victims should be willing to go to professional counseling either before or at least simultaneous with their dealings with the authorities of said question. |
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 5, 2013 11:07:56 GMT -5
I agree with passerby. Steve should have contacted the authorities himself. I don't have a problem with him telling the overseer first and let him do it, respecting the chain of command in doing it that way, but when it became evident that nothing was going to be done, then Steve should have gone to the authorities himself. Maybe he has? Isn't he obligated to report CSA? Isn't anyone, friend or worker obligated to have it checked out by the authorities? Does the mandatory reporting apply to old as well as recent cases ? The victims are now adults, if they don't report it to police (and give statements) I'm not sure Steve has an obligation to report unless be has reason to believe the crime is recent Did he go to overseers in an attempt to clean up the fellowship of past crimes ? having knowledge of crime but not having enough support for the police to act I guess the way I see it is this: He may not know for sure something happened, no real hard evidence and be reluctant. I understand that. However, I totally believe that an incident should be reported to authorities so that they can determine if there was wrong doing. We are talking about children that have been abused. Even if the event happened in the past and these children are now adults, they still have suffered the abuse and likely still have problems because of it. A system that tries to cover this up and/or protects the abuser, should be exposed for what it is. The church, whatever church it may be, should not be a 'law unto itself'. It is for spiritual matters only. When it becomes a legal matter then it should be exposed and reported to the authorities because that is their area of expertise. That's my thoughts on it anyway. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2013 12:28:53 GMT -5
snow said: However, I totally believe that an incident should be reported to authorities so that they can determine if there was wrong doing. We are talking about children that have been abused. Even if the event happened in the past and these children are now adults, they still have suffered the abuse and likely still have problems because of it.Are you saying that child abuse should be reported even if victims are now adults? My understanding was that you can report CSA only if the victim is still a minor. 
|
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 5, 2013 14:19:51 GMT -5
snow said: However, I totally believe that an incident should be reported to authorities so that they can determine if there was wrong doing. We are talking about children that have been abused. Even if the event happened in the past and these children are now adults, they still have suffered the abuse and likely still have problems because of it.Are you saying that child abuse should be reported even if victims are now adults? My understanding was that you can report CSA only if the victim is still a minor. I don't know about the limitations that way. However, one needs to remember that the abuser is still out there around children still. It really should be about getting that person out of environments where they can continue to abuse children. Hopefully the adult child that was abused would have the courage and insight to report it themselves, but I do understand that is not always the case. I feel complete compassion for that place that they are. It needs to be dealt with by someone that has the ability. |
|
|
|
Post by holdmyhand on Feb 5, 2013 16:19:46 GMT -5
Dealing with past abuse is not as straightforward as dealing with recent abuse, my suggestion
When the fellowship becomes aware of past abuse, we should keep that person away from children,
Get him help to acknowledge what he did was wrong...... no excuses
Give the victims all the support they need to heal. Including professional counselling if they want it
As I see it, reporting to authorities without (now adult ) victims consent, could open old wounds and cause a whole lot more pain, when dealing with it privately, especially in the early process could achieve a better outcome.
Support victims/survivors if they choose to report to police
If Steve is trying to clean up the workership and help victims of past abuse, the overseers should have been the right persons to go to start the process.
Note I am not suggesting covering up abuse and any current concerns should immediately be reported to police
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2013 16:35:05 GMT -5
If serious crimes like csa are still outstanding and are not time barred through limitations of statutes, then they should be reported and investigated if the victims now adults wish this to happen. It should be up to the investigation services to determine whether or not a case can go forward.
Consideration for the process of law MUST come before the concerns or responsibilities of the workers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Supercalifragilistic on Feb 5, 2013 19:01:23 GMT -5
snow said: However, I totally believe that an incident should be reported to authorities so that they can determine if there was wrong doing. We are talking about children that have been abused. Even if the event happened in the past and these children are now adults, they still have suffered the abuse and likely still have problems because of it.Are you saying that child abuse should be reported even if victims are now adults? My understanding was that you can report CSA only if the victim is still a minor. You can report csa whether or not the child is still a child or an adult. It probably is a good idea to report it even if the children are now grown...BECAUSE of the fact that abusers are highly unlikely to have only one victim...if they have abused b4 they likely still are. SO reporting even past abuse gets them on the authorities radar, gets them looked into and hopefully uncovers current or more recent abuse cases. |
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Feb 5, 2013 19:25:37 GMT -5
snow said: However, I totally believe that an incident should be reported to authorities so that they can determine if there was wrong doing. We are talking about children that have been abused. Even if the event happened in the past and these children are now adults, they still have suffered the abuse and likely still have problems because of it.Are you saying that child abuse should be reported even if victims are now adults? My understanding was that you can report CSA only if the victim is still a minor. Sharyl, not all countries or even states have a statute of limitations on things such as CSA, simply because it often takes years for the victim to come to the point that the authorities can even begin to know what happened....some victims will push it back in their subconscious minds and then when some other stresses such as a new marriage, a new baby born, etc will bring back the horrors of that victimization and then there will be all these other pyschological manifestations of a memory full of horrors. So yes, reporting CSA whenever it becomes know is when to do it, esp. in countries/states that have no statue of limitations...BTW also many countries DO not close their ears to people just coming into their majority and then they want to tell of their abuse.... |
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 5, 2013 20:26:19 GMT -5
Dealing with past abuse is not as straightforward as dealing with recent abuse, my suggestion When the fellowship becomes aware of past abuse, we should keep that person away from children, Get him help to acknowledge what he did was wrong...... no excuses Give the victims all the support they need to heal. Including professional counselling if they want it As I see it, reporting to authorities without (now adult ) victims consent, could open old wounds and cause a whole lot more pain, when dealing with it privately, especially in the early process could achieve a better outcome. Support victims/survivors if they choose to report to police If Steve is trying to clean up the workership and help victims of past abuse, the overseers should have been the right persons to go to start the process. Note I am not suggesting covering up abuse and any current concerns should immediately be reported to police I agree with you on many of your points. I do think Steve went the right way initially when he went to the overseer. However, when the overseer kicks him out for being concerned and bringing up a serious issue such as this, it seems like there needs to be something else done because the overseer doesn't appear to be in agreement with the seriousness. I wish it was easy for adult abuse victims to come forward and report their abuser. However, it is like in this regard they are still back in the age group when it happened. Unless they have dealt with it, they have a hard time moving past it. So I agree that old wounds could be torn open. However, what should be done about the abuser? I like that you feel there should be counselling for all involved including the abuser. But should they be allowed to get away with it as far as the legal ramifications of their abuse. I don't know how I feel about that. It's definitely a tough decision and my heart goes out to everyone involved in it. |
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 5, 2013 23:17:47 GMT -5
Dealing with past abuse is not as straightforward as dealing with recent abuse, my suggestion When the fellowship becomes aware of past abuse, we should keep that person away from children, Get him help to acknowledge what he did was wrong...... no excuses Give the victims all the support they need to heal. Including professional counselling if they want it As I see it, reporting to authorities without (now adult ) victims consent, could open old wounds and cause a whole lot more pain, when dealing with it privately, especially in the early process could achieve a better outcome. Support victims/survivors if they choose to report to police If Steve is trying to clean up the workership and help victims of past abuse, the overseers should have been the right persons to go to start the process. Note I am not suggesting covering up abuse and any current concerns should immediately be reported to police I agree with you on many of your points. I do think Steve went the right way initially when he went to the overseer. However, when the overseer kicks him out for being concerned and bringing up a serious issue such as this, it seems like there needs to be something else done because the overseer doesn't appear to be in agreement with the seriousness. I wish it was easy for adult abuse victims to come forward and report their abuser. However, it is like in this regard they are still back in the age group when it happened. Unless they have dealt with it, they have a hard time moving past it. So I agree that old wounds could be torn open. However, what should be done about the abuser? I like that you feel there should be counselling for all involved including the abuser. But should they be allowed to get away with it as far as the legal ramifications of their abuse. I don't know how I feel about that. It's definitely a tough decision and my heart goes out to everyone involved in it. Steve was between a rock and a hard place. Still is. |
|
