|
Post by fixit on Jul 10, 2013 19:15:33 GMT -5
Is WINGS trying to do the impossible i.e. attract buy-in from the friends and workers who can make the fellowship a safer place for the fellowship's children, and at the same time trying to please those who want to expand the WINGS objectives to expose readers to the full monty of gripes about the church and belief system of F&W.
So the question is:
1. Should WINGS be focussed on CSA, and not confront friends and workers with everything that people don't like about their church and belief system, so that friends and workers will actually use the site and make the fellowship a safer place for children?
Those who despise this approach could develop a website more in line with their vision.
2. Should WINGS allow its CSA focus to be diluted to include everything else that people don't like about the friends and workers church and belief system.
Those who think this approach alienates many of the friends and workers could develop a website more in line with their vision of what is needed to eradicate CSA from the fellowship.
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Jul 10, 2013 19:18:14 GMT -5
I get the impression some folks here would like WINGS to be the "confront everything in the church that you don't like" website that deals with spiritual abuse, history of the fellowship, why the church is an evil cult, religious doctrine, workers are evil, etc. If that was to happen, there'd be a need for a website that is focused on CSA in the fellowship. A site that is not going to confront friends and workers with all sorts of other issues that serves to alienate them and make them back off. Nope. Not me. I think that Wings should focus on CSA and the victims- all victims equally.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 10, 2013 19:43:56 GMT -5
I get the impression some folks here would like WINGS to be the "confront everything in the church that you don't like" website that deals with spiritual abuse, history of the fellowship, why the church is an evil cult, religious doctrine, workers are evil, etc. If that was to happen, there'd be a need for a website that is focused on CSA in the fellowship. A site that is not going to confront friends and workers with all sorts of other issues that serves to alienate them and make them back off. Nope. Not me. I think that Wings should focus on CSA and the victims- all victims equally. The survivors who want to crash and burn the church and crucify every worker? Or the survivors who want everyone in the church to work toward preventing further cases of abuse?
|
|
|
Post by blandie on Jul 11, 2013 0:37:45 GMT -5
The survivors who want to crash and burn the church and crucify every worker? Or the survivors who want everyone in the church to work toward preventing further cases of abuse? If WINGS wants to further the progress of the F&W 'church' and make it a place where abuse doesn't happen then thats one thing but if it wants to advocate for victims / survivors that is another ball of wax. Those are 2 aims that both might have good results but I don't see how they are very compatible with each other and I think that is where there is disagreement. You and others think that WINGS can take up both the cause of the victim and those who have been associated with the victimizer. Some others see that as something thats more likely to push away survivors and a conflict in many ways. Reading the WINGS charter it seems to be oriented to helping the 'church' and I think its fine for people to do that though I wonder why it has to come from an outside organization and I think that there should be no pretending that the focus is on victims - tell them to report to the authorities and let the authorities direct them to counseling and other remedies - but leave the rest of the job to some other independent site or existing organization and not just shuffle off their stories to some discussion group - it looks bad.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 11, 2013 2:48:14 GMT -5
The survivors who want to crash and burn the church and crucify every worker? Or the survivors who want everyone in the church to work toward preventing further cases of abuse? If WINGS wants to further the progress of the F&W 'church' and make it a place where abuse doesn't happen then thats one thing but if it wants to advocate for victims / survivors that is another ball of wax. Those are 2 aims that both might have good results but I don't see how they are very compatible with each other and I think that is where there is disagreement. You and others think that WINGS can take up both the cause of the victim and those who have been associated with the victimizer. Some others see that as something thats more likely to push away survivors and a conflict in many ways. Reading the WINGS charter it seems to be oriented to helping the 'church' and I think its fine for people to do that though I wonder why it has to come from an outside organization and I think that there should be no pretending that the focus is on victims - tell them to report to the authorities and let the authorities direct them to counseling and other remedies - but leave the rest of the job to some other independent site or existing organization and not just shuffle off their stories to some discussion group - it looks bad. "...take up the cause of those who have been associated with the victimizer". I don't know where you get that from, and I'm not even sure that I know what you mean. "....it seems to be oriented to helping the 'church'". I think a statement like that might confuse and anger those who hate the church with a passion. It would be more accurate to say "it seems to be oriented to ridding the 'church' of CSA." "...tell them to report to the authorities and let the authorities direct them to counseling and other remedies"Counselling is not something that WINGS does, its more of a referral service - much as you recommend. "...and not just shuffle off their stories to some discussion group - it looks bad."Are you suggesting WINGS shouldn't publish survivor stories?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2013 3:07:30 GMT -5
Fixit -- It is true that 2x2ism is plagued by a large assortment of ills --- many/most of which are not connected to CSA. However as the Wings issue has proven, there isn't even much interest within the group for dealing with one of the non-contestable and sicker issues -- CSA.
The apparent condition 2x2ism places on bringing CSA into focus is that no other non-related problem issues are mentioned, effectually puts the whole CSA issue off the board. -- As has been mentioned, many of the difficulties have the same roots in 'group doctrinal untouchables' and cannot be separated.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2013 4:05:57 GMT -5
Whilst the workers who commit csa or other forms of abuse are responsible for their wrongdoings, I do not need to stretch my imagination very far to find mitigating circumstances connected with the environment they live in. Some counselors are identifying a link between spiritual abuse and csa with regards to the victims. If this is the case, there may well be a link with the perpetrators also. Clearly not all CSA is the result of spiritual abuse. This is true. However, if you can identify possible or probable sources it makes sense to appropriately address these sources. This may go some way towards reducing instances of CSADo you think if you eliminated spiritual abuse you would eliminate CSA? I think that if you eliminated spiritual abuse that it would have a marked effect on the occurrence of ALL forms of abuse including CSA.What percentage of CSA do you think is spiritual abuse-related? Are we able to give percentages in respect of any form of abuse within the sect, having regards to workers, friends, perpetrators, victims, etc. Always put reducing opportunities for offences to occur way above concerns over percentages, especially where real potential for these is present. Education for all and reducing opportunities for perpetrators is the key for crime prevention/reduction.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 11, 2013 5:08:39 GMT -5
Education for all and reducing opportunities for perpetrators is the key for crime prevention/reduction. We're absolutely agreed on that. Do you think it can be achieved by telling friends and workers they're in an evil cult and they'd better listen up?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2013 5:13:15 GMT -5
Education for all and reducing opportunities for perpetrators is the key for crime prevention/reduction. We're absolutely agreed on that. Do you think it can be achieved by telling friends and workers they're in an evil cult and they'd better listen up? I really don't know where you are coming from with the above question? Presumably you have someone else/others in mind? Here's just an example of what I'm trying to inject, Fixit. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_prevention
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 11, 2013 5:28:36 GMT -5
Education of friends and workers around CSA is the key to prevention of this crime.
How can we reach the mass market of friends and workers without alienating them?
I'm certain that most F&W will want nothing to do with information that attacks their belief system.
|
|
|
Post by holdmyhand on Jul 11, 2013 5:37:01 GMT -5
Fixit if you are a member of WINGS I would encourage you to examine your agenda
Your recent posts suggest you are more concerned about the friends and workers and the fellowships image than the victims /survivors While I believe you have the best of intentions, your strong bias suggests your first priority isn’t the CSA survivors,
You have used the following very emotional and unsubstantiated phrases: “Survivors who want to crash burn the church and crucify every worker” “If you make wings a confront everything in the church that you don’t like” “confront friends and workers,” “Not wings objective to destroy the church” “Those who hate the church with passion” “The eradication of the church (which some exes would like to see)” “Role is not to tear down anyone’s religious belief system” “Workers are evil:, "evil cult” “Bashing”
If this is how you think, how can you support all survivors right to speak ?
Why do you think BTS would be so much different from TMB? If survivors try to “crucify every worker” I believe many people will show them their view is distorted.
If you seriously believe some will be hurt by “rock throwing” make it be known personal attacks are not tolerated,
But if you send them to an anti '2x2 only site', they will have people to agree with them, and possibly encourage them to 'maintain the rage' but they probably will not get a balanced view point so it would not be very constructive I have learnt a lot here because both pro and anti views can be expressed freely, learning and understanding the thoughts and experiences that have given people a different perspective than my own has been interesting and helpful.
CSA and only CSA
There is evidence, CSA stems from other forms of abuse, to be successful the root causes will need to be addressed, CSA cannot be isolated and packaged into a neat little stand alone box all on its own.
Making the fellowship a safer place: Fact is, if the workers want to make the fellowship a safer place, they could do it easily and immediately by removing the known predators and informing everyone of CSA guidelines, there is no excuse for the lack of action. The message they portray is clear. The pretence of a good outward image is more important than the children. (and abused adults and their families and friends)
Lets not try and kid ourselves the bad image of so called bitter people, speaking out, is in reality, people fighting injustice, and voicing it in the only place they can be heard they are not the cause of the bad image problem they are the symptom.
Snow: you mentioned you only like to use the word survivor, because it is empowering, I use both because some victims, have no desire to live, they haven’t reached survivor stage, some never do, to call them all survivors sends a message “It’s no big deal they all get over it”, Would love to know what others think about using the word victim. Can you be a victim and survivor at the same time? should we use survivor only?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2013 5:38:59 GMT -5
Education of friends and workers around CSA is the key to prevention of this crime.
How can we reach the mass market of friends and workers without alienating them?
I'm certain that most F&W will want nothing to do with information that attacks their belief system. [/font] Point 1. Why are you ignoring the need to reduce opportunities through practical measures? Granted education is a great start. Is there some reason that you are avoiding the question of introducing practical measures, a key ingredient of crime prevention/reduction? Point 2. If you are hoping to avoid causing any stir, then you are in the wrong job. Biting the bullet is what is required. Doing so with tact, sensitivity and with firmness will reduce alienating the majority. However, there may be some casualties, but if you are looking for a real easy way in which no one will be concerned for one reason or another, then that easy way is "do nothing!" Point 3. Common sense use of education and introduction crime opportunities, using tact and sensitivity along with necessary firmness, will go a long way towards achieving your goals. These need not be seen as an attack, but rather a "necessity!" Don't let imagination or over-active perceptions put you off doing things properly. Remember, there is not one way for everybody else and another (easier) way for the friends and workers.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 11, 2013 5:59:37 GMT -5
Education of friends and workers around CSA is the key to prevention of this crime.
How can we reach the mass market of friends and workers without alienating them?
I'm certain that most F&W will want nothing to do with information that attacks their belief system. Point 1. Why are you ignoring the need to reduce opportunities through practical measures? Granted education is a great start. Is there some reason that you are avoiding the question of introducing practical measures, a key ingredient of crime prevention/reduction? Point 2. If you are hoping to avoid causing any stir, then you are in the wrong job. Biting the bullet is what is required. Doing so with tact, sensitivity and with firmness will reduce alienating the majority. However, there may be some casualties, but if you are looking for a real easy way in which no one will be concerned for one reason or another, then that easy way is "do nothing!" Point 3. Common sense use of education and introduction crime opportunities, using tact and sensitivity along with necessary firmness, will go a long way towards achieving your goals. These need not be seen as an attack, but rather a "necessity!" Don't let imagination or over-active perceptions put you off doing things properly. Remember, there is not one way for everybody else and another (easier) way for the friends and workers. I have no idea what you mean by "practical measures" or why I would have a problem with them. You're preaching to the converted on the other points.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 11, 2013 6:08:20 GMT -5
Your recent posts suggest you are more concerned about the friends and workers and the fellowships image than the victims /survivors Definitely not. The fellowship's image is not an issue with me. The fellowship is what it is, and I wouldn't want to wallpaper over anything to give a false impression. My concern is simply that the majority of friends and workers need to be educated around CSA, and attacking their belief system is the wrong way to achieve that. How can wanting to CSA-educate the majority of friends and workers be anti-victim?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 11, 2013 6:10:21 GMT -5
There is evidence, CSA stems from other forms of abuse, to be successful the root causes will need to be addressed, CSA cannot be isolated and packaged into a neat little stand alone box all on its own. How could this be achieved?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 11, 2013 6:15:58 GMT -5
Fact is, if the workers want to make the fellowship a safer place, they could do it easily and immediately by removing the known predators and informing everyone of CSA guidelines, there is no excuse for the lack of action. The message they portray is clear. The pretence of a good outward image is more important than the children. (and abused adults and their families and friends) It seems that change won't happen from the top down. That's why its so important that the rank and file are educated around CSA. If they perceive that their belief system is under attack you won't get near them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2013 6:20:03 GMT -5
Point 1. Why are you ignoring the need to reduce opportunities through practical measures? Granted education is a great start. Is there some reason that you are avoiding the question of introducing practical measures, a key ingredient of crime prevention/reduction? Point 2. If you are hoping to avoid causing any stir, then you are in the wrong job. Biting the bullet is what is required. Doing so with tact, sensitivity and with firmness will reduce alienating the majority. However, there may be some casualties, but if you are looking for a real easy way in which no one will be concerned for one reason or another, then that easy way is "do nothing!" Point 3. Common sense use of education and introduction crime opportunities, using tact and sensitivity along with necessary firmness, will go a long way towards achieving your goals. These need not be seen as an attack, but rather a "necessity!" Don't let imagination or over-active perceptions put you off doing things properly. Remember, there is not one way for everybody else and another (easier) way for the friends and workers. I have no idea what you mean by "practical measures" or why I would have a problem with them. You're preaching to the converted on the other points. The practical measures that I have in mind were partly covered (and to my satisfaction)by the guidelines drawn up and recently distributed by WINGS. You will have access to a copy of this. However, from a couple of sources from different parts of the globe it has been suggested to me that things may not have changed. I may not have the right picture, but have the guidelines been properly disseminated or are they being avoided?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2013 6:24:54 GMT -5
There is evidence, CSA stems from other forms of abuse, to be successful the root causes will need to be addressed, CSA cannot be isolated and packaged into a neat little stand alone box all on its own. How could this be achieved? I reckon tackling spiritual abuse would be a necessary and big start. However, this would have more potential for fall out than CSA, since most people in the sect have not only been victims of it, but they have actually perpetrated it themselves, many times, either wittingly or unwittingly, largely through good intentions. However, the matter needs to be brought home at least to the workers to bring them under more disciplined control and then they could lead by example.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2013 6:31:11 GMT -5
Fact is, if the workers want to make the fellowship a safer place, they could do it easily and immediately by removing the known predators and informing everyone of CSA guidelines, there is no excuse for the lack of action. The message they portray is clear. The pretence of a good outward image is more important than the children. (and abused adults and their families and friends) It seems that change won't happen from the top down. This is more than just the root of the problem and it is why virtually any organisation who becomes acquaint with the mindset of the sect will tell you to walk away from them.
That's why its so important that the rank and file are educated around CSA. What situation eh? The top dogs don't want to know. Those below them need to know. Refer to above answer.
If they perceive that their belief system is under attack you won't get near them. Those at the top must be MADE to face the music. There's no way round that. This is where firmness kicks in. Anything which may be perceived as an attack must be presented as a necessary change, using tact, care and sensitivity. If those at the top ain't going to do the business, they need to get off the pot!
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 11, 2013 6:33:09 GMT -5
How could this be achieved? I reckon tackling spiritual abuse would be a necessary and big start. However, this would have more potential for fall out than CSA, since most people in the sect have not only been victims of it, but they have actually perpetrated it themselves, many times, either wittingly or unwittingly, largely through good intentions. However, the matter needs to be brought home at least to the workers to bring them under more disciplined control and then they could lead by example. Could you suggest an action plan to achieve that?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jul 11, 2013 6:35:27 GMT -5
It seems that change won't happen from the top down. This is more than just the root of the problem and it is why virtually any organisation who becomes acquaint with the mindset of the sect will tell you to walk away from them.
That's why its so important that the rank and file are educated around CSA. What situation eh? The top dogs don't want to know. Those below them need to know. Refer to above answer.
If they perceive that their belief system is under attack you won't get near them. Those at the top must be MADE to face the music. There's no way round that. This is where firmness kicks in. Anything which may be perceived as an attack must be presented as a necessary change, using tact, care and sensitivity. If those at the top ain't going to do the business, they need to get off the pot! How could this be achieved?
|
|
|
Post by holdmyhand on Jul 11, 2013 6:50:23 GMT -5
Your recent posts suggest you are more concerned about the friends and workers and the fellowships image than the victims /survivors Definitely not. The fellowship's image is not an issue with me. The fellowship is what it is, and I wouldn't want to wallpaper over anything to give a false impression. My concern is simply that the majority of friends and workers need to be educated around CSA, and attacking their belief system is the wrong way to achieve that. How can wanting to CSA-educate the majority of friends and workers be anti-victim? You are using that attacking word again On a person to person level I think you can point out failings in the system to people without attacking, they may not agree initially, might not want to hear much at first but I think everyone is aware of problems, they may make excuses etc. but so long as you are honest and don't exaggerate or become too forceful or pushy, some of what you say is accepted, I believe in saying little and leaving it to the Holy Spirit to do the prompting. As far as the belief system If the new testament doesn't support the belief do you think it should be left unchallenged?
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Jul 11, 2013 8:29:20 GMT -5
Nope. Not me. I think that Wings should focus on CSA and the victims- all victims equally. The survivors who want to crash and burn the church and crucify every worker? Or the survivors who want everyone in the church to work toward preventing further cases of abuse? They earned the right to tell the 2x2s to all to go to hell by virtue of having been sexually abused by a worker and/or if the workers were involved in the cover up. It becomes part of church history- and history needs to be kept so as not to repeat the same mistakes.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 11, 2013 12:31:36 GMT -5
The survivors who want to crash and burn the church and crucify every worker? Or the survivors who want everyone in the church to work toward preventing further cases of abuse? If WINGS wants to further the progress of the F&W 'church' and make it a place where abuse doesn't happen then thats one thing but if it wants to advocate for victims / survivors that is another ball of wax. Those are 2 aims that both might have good results but I don't see how they are very compatible with each other and I think that is where there is disagreement. You and others think that WINGS can take up both the cause of the victim and those who have been associated with the victimizer. Some others see that as something thats more likely to push away survivors and a conflict in many ways. Reading the WINGS charter it seems to be oriented to helping the 'church' and I think its fine for people to do that though I wonder why it has to come from an outside organization and I think that there should be no pretending that the focus is on victims - tell them to report to the authorities and let the authorities direct them to counseling and other remedies - but leave the rest of the job to some other independent site or existing organization and not just shuffle off their stories to some discussion group - it looks bad. For the most part I agree with your analysis. WINGS does not have to appeal to every person, and must stay true to its core values which are neutral on the issue of religion. I think it is okay if some victims determine the site is not suitable for their needs-that is the reality regardless of WINGS editorial position on friends'internal issues, but WINGS is morally obligated to help every victim that makes contact through the site. But as far as looking bad or good, there will never be unanimity no matter what WINGS does. As you point out there are other resources for those who are out. Those in often have none. And the best way to help the victim of the future is to prevent the abuse from occurring in the first place. WINGS simply cannot be all things to all people.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 11, 2013 12:50:47 GMT -5
Definitely not. The fellowship's image is not an issue with me. The fellowship is what it is, and I wouldn't want to wallpaper over anything to give a false impression. My concern is simply that the majority of friends and workers need to be educated around CSA, and attacking their belief system is the wrong way to achieve that. How can wanting to CSA-educate the majority of friends and workers be anti-victim? You are using that attacking word again On a person to person level I think you can point out failings in the system to people without attacking, they may not agree initially, might not want to hear much at first but I think everyone is aware of problems, they may make excuses etc. but so long as you are honest and don't exaggerate or become too forceful or pushy, some of what you say is accepted, I believe in saying little and leaving it to the Holy Spirit to do the prompting. As far as the belief system If the new testament doesn't support the belief do you think it should be left unchallenged? By WINGS, yes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2013 14:02:19 GMT -5
I have no idea what you mean by "practical measures" or why I would have a problem with them. You're preaching to the converted on the other points. The practical measures that I have in mind were partly covered (and to my satisfaction)by the guidelines drawn up and recently distributed by WINGS. You will have access to a copy of this. However, from a couple of sources from different parts of the globe it has been suggested to me that things may not have changed. I may not have the right picture, but have the guidelines been properly disseminated or are they being avoided? The CSA Guidelines were emailed to a majority of overseers as well as many senior workers. The CSA Guidelines can be accessed directly at sites.google.com/site/csacodeofconduct/entire-site or through the Resources section of WINGS at wingsfortruth.info/All readers welcome! Feel free to copy and keep/distribute hard copies. There are no copyright issues whatsoever on this. We believe that the efforts of the Guidelines authors and the efforts of WINGS has raised awareness of CSA within the fellowship. That alone makes children safer. There are other changes occurring. We know that Eastern workers are specifically aware of reporting offenses and are required to do so. We also know that the Western ministry group has made efforts to remove all workers with any known sexual deviancy including CSA. Just because you don't read it in the newspapers or hear it from the convention platforms doesn't mean that there is not a paradigm shift going on right now. In fact, it is underway. The F&Ws attempt to be a movement rather than an organization so while formalities aren't evident, things change informally.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 11, 2013 14:24:54 GMT -5
So Jack is an elder in the 2x2 church and a school teacher. Jack sexually abused his niece who has no connection with the 2x2 church. Jack also sexually abused the child of a professing friend of the family. Jack also sexually abused a child at the school where he works. What percentage of responsibility should be apportioned to Jack? What percentage of responsibility should be apportioned to Jack's non-professing family? What percentage of responsibility should be apportioned to the 2x2 church? What percentage of responsibility should be apportioned to the school where Jack works? The criminal is 100% responsible for the abuse. Trying to spread/assign blame accomplishes nothing. It is a criminal act and the criminal is responsible.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2013 14:30:24 GMT -5
I can well understand that Wings has not taken upon itself the responsibility of challenging the doctrinal inconsistencies and idiosyncrasies in 2x2ism.
However it seems to me that Wings, as a declared serious site in dealing with the CSA concern within 2x2ism, has a clear responsibility to hear CSA victims/survivers feelings on how some of these doctrinal inconsistencies and idiosyncrasies have influenced their situation and pain. Much of the moral collapse in 2x2ism is directly responsible for the environment that has produced the CSA situation.
Otherwise the prime function of Wings has become to be a site primarily existing to protect the interests of 2x2ism -- CSA and all. The CSA issue is closely interwoven into many other deviations from basic Christianity within the group.
|
|