|
|
Post by mdm on Jul 28, 2014 6:01:47 GMT -5
Maybe he has gone to jail as it may be safer for him....just sayin. Goingforward said: "Chris is now serving a 12 month sentence (min.3 mths), though he originally appealed his sentence, he handed himself in last week to Melbourne Magistrate, withdrawing his appeal and is now serving his sentence in prison. He was known to say that he withdrew his appeal because he was nervous of serving a longer sentence ( which he was told could happen if he appealed by the original judge in Morwell Magistrate court)." Sounds like he had two choices: accept the 3-month sentence, or appeal the sentence and risk getting a longer sentence. He "chose to go to jail" for 3 months. |
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 28, 2014 9:51:43 GMT -5
Maybe he has gone to jail as it may be safer for him....just sayin. He doesn't know much about jail and sex offenders then! |
|
rs
Junior Member
Posts: 77
|
Post by rs on Jul 28, 2014 13:13:55 GMT -5
Rational said - How is this not doing one's job as a parent? Outline a hypothetical situation where a child would be in danger of sexual abuse because there is a convicted CSA offender attending the meeting. I would NEVER sit in a meeting with my children if I was aware there was a CSA offender there - not for the literal protection of my children as the risk in that environment would be minimal - but I would not want that person even LOOKING at my children... I find this to be a very sad statement. why? |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 28, 2014 15:28:20 GMT -5
I find this to be a very sad statement. why? Probably best not to be the topic of an open discussion board. |
|
rs
Junior Member
Posts: 77
|
Post by rs on Jul 28, 2014 15:36:45 GMT -5
Probably best not to be the topic of an open discussion board. OK, but i'd still be interested to hear why you think this, if you think it's important enough pm me... |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 28, 2014 16:39:04 GMT -5
Probably best not to be the topic of an open discussion board. OK, but i'd still be interested to hear why you think this, if you think it's important enough pm me... Let me ask you this - you say you would be unable to sit in a meeting where there was a CSA offender, who had been charged, tried, convicted, and served his sentence, was in attendance. Would you sit in a meeting with a CSA offender who was currently offending children? |
|
rs
Junior Member
Posts: 77
|
Post by rs on Jul 28, 2014 16:53:03 GMT -5
OK, but i'd still be interested to hear why you think this, if you think it's important enough pm me... Let me ask you this - you say you would be unable to sit in a meeting where there was a CSA offender, who had been charged, tried, convicted, and served his sentence, was in attendance. Would you sit in a meeting with a CSA offender who was currently offending children? Not if I was aware of it |
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jul 28, 2014 17:16:03 GMT -5
What puzzled me the most in the why the workers did not treat the CSA offending workers different since we had such an example that Paul told of in Corinathians! Paul told those people that were or had been meeting with the man to not have ONE thing to do with him, to not have fellowship with him. So Rat, again, sex offenders often find themselves alone and often publicly shamed and shammed and other negative emotional things.....IF THEY get out of prison alive, that is. The hardcore prisoners in prison often will kill a CSA offender and often it isn't a fast death.....it is a slow death and it is a death they welcome! The prisons do their best to keep the CSA perps out of the general run of prisoners because they know that the other prisoners will at the very least injure them seriously!
So the authorities even tell the CSA cons they must not be within so many feet or yards or blocks where children are and why would you expect a parent to want to sit in mtg. with him? Why are the 2x2 friends supposed to rise up and greet such perps with a holy kiss in your estimation, Rat?
|
|
|
|
Post by goingforward on Jul 28, 2014 18:08:47 GMT -5
Chris is in a minimum security prison for people who need protection ( guess lots of sex offenders are there!), it's called Langi Kal Kal. There is an email going around to the friends to ask for support, letters of support and has even posted the mailing address of the prison to send these letters directly to him.
I also wanted to comment on a previous post (can't remember who started it, rational maybe) about known sex offenders in meetings or anywhere really. Can you tell me that you could sit.there knowing what a sicko this person is and maybe what he has done , with your children, not knowing what they are thinking? People like this never stop, even if they stop offending (being names and shamed helps!) you cannot tell me they stop thinking about it. Keeping your children away and showing your disgust by not going to these meetings, seems like a good plan to me!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2014 18:37:35 GMT -5
Chris is in a minimum security prison for people who need protection ( guess lots of sex offenders are there!), it's called Langi Kal Kal. There is an email going around to the friends to ask for support, letters of support and has even posted the mailing address of the prison to send these letters directly to him. I also wanted to comment on a previous post (can't remember who started it, rational maybe) about known sex offenders in meetings or anywhere really. Can you tell me that you could sit.there knowing what a sicko this person is and maybe what he has done , with your children, not knowing what they are thinking? People like this never stop, even if they stop offending (being names and shamed helps!) you cannot tell me they stop thinking about it. Keeping your children away and showing your disgust by not going to these meetings, seems like a good plan to me! we have at least one sex offender in our gospel meetings(i dont know if he goes to sunday mornings)everyone knows him and treats him okay. i myself have shaken hands with him numerous times. he doesn't go near children as far as i can see. |
|
rs
Junior Member
Posts: 77
|
Post by rs on Jul 28, 2014 19:04:07 GMT -5
[/quote]we have at least one sex offender in our gospel meetings(i dont know if he goes to sunday mornings)everyone knows him and treats him okay. i myself have shaken hands with him numerous times. he doesn't go near children as far as i can see.[/quote]
Wally, I don't know if you have children, or what age they are, but would you have them shake hands with this person?
|
|
|
|
Post by elizabethcoleman on Jul 28, 2014 20:16:42 GMT -5
Nobody should ever be permanently excluded from church fellowship because of their sin. If this were the case, none of us would be eligible.
What IS required, is that we confess and repent of sin, and seek to struggle against it. For some sins, this will require a high level of accountability.
I believe in justice, I believe in the protection of vulnerable people from the sins of others, but I do not believe in the demonisation of anyone. There is never an excuse to treat anyone badly, or as less than human. How we treat others is a reflection of ourselves, not them.
Chris will have to continue to come to terms with his guilt, now very public. There has been a level of justice. There must also be avenues for repentance, confession, forgiveness and restoration to the church - of any sinner. I do not know where Chris is in this process. But I do know that Christ will not turn any away who truly repent.
I hope that the workers can show some wisdom in acknowledging their own guilt in being a party to Chris's sins by putting him in ministry in the first place, and not providing any kind of accountability or disclosure to assist in protecting others. They never sought to deal with his sins of the past by seeking out the victims and dealing with what had happened. Instead, they made him a worker and put him knowingly into the homes of unknowing friends. They put the wolf in with the lambs. Somehow they expected this to all be ok. They continue to protect the worst of sinners instead of exposing them and dealing with them. They continue to ignore victims and or even vilify them for coming forward.
What a ministry. What a mess.
I, for one, pray that Chris will have a true understanding of his crimes, and true repentance. I pray that he will see the need for high accountability for himself for the rest of his life. I pray that his victims will have healing and peace.
Psalm 103.
|
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 28, 2014 22:25:17 GMT -5
So Rat, again, sex offenders often find themselves alone and often publicly shamed and shammed and other negative emotional things.....IF THEY get out of prison alive, that is. Usually because conventional wisdom groups all CSA offenders as pedophiles without understanding the difference between the types of behavior that is considered sexual child abuse.Generally speaking, the behavior of other prisoners is not a way to pass judgement on people. Is that what the court orders said? Or was it unattended with individuals under 18? Or was the individual released without stipulatio0n because of the type of crime that was committed? I don't know about the spiritual side because this is a criminal matter and a legal matter. How you wish to treat the individual is up to you. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 28, 2014 22:28:17 GMT -5
Let me ask you this - you say you would be unable to sit in a meeting where there was a CSA offender, who had been charged, tried, convicted, and served his sentence, was in attendance. Would you sit in a meeting with a CSA offender who was currently offending children? Not if I was aware of it Is that the example you want to give your children regarding the treatment of others? |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 28, 2014 22:33:28 GMT -5
Wally, I don't know if you have children, or what age they are, but would you have them shake hands with this person? Children should be taught that it is their decision whether they wish to shake hands of have any other type of physical contact with another person. How you treat others sets a strong example for your children regarding their treatment of others. How do you want them to treat others? |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 28, 2014 22:38:39 GMT -5
Nobody should ever be permanently excluded from church fellowship because of their sin. If this were the case, none of us would be eligible. This seems to be a widely held feeling. This is a requirement that would be difficult to verify as true. Excellent point! You have turned the corner and combined the secular with the non-secular aspects, something that does not always mesh well. This needs to stop. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 28, 2014 22:47:29 GMT -5
I also wanted to comment on a previous post (can't remember who started it, rational maybe) about known sex offenders in meetings or anywhere really. Can you tell me that you could sit.there knowing what a sicko this person is and maybe what he has done , with your children, not knowing what they are thinking? People like this never stop, even if they stop offending (being names and shamed helps!) you cannot tell me they stop thinking about it. Keeping your children away and showing your disgust by not going to these meetings, seems like a good plan to me! All I can say is - Wow! To quote elizabethcoleman: I believe in justice, I believe in the protection of vulnerable people from the sins of others, but I do not believe in the demonisation of anyone. There is never an excuse to treat anyone badly, or as less than human. How we treat others is a reflection of ourselves, not them. Isn't this the was humans are supposed to act? Re-read what elizabethcoleman wrote. I wish I had been that articulate. Personally, I worked with "those people" and their victims for years. Believe it of not, they are human beings. Why do you think "People like this never stop,..."? Be realistic - you don't know what anyone sitting anywhere is thinking. "Keeping your children away and showing your disgust...". Is that the example you want to show your children? |
|
|
|
Post by whyisitso on Jul 28, 2014 23:47:45 GMT -5
Nobody should ever be permanently excluded from church fellowship because of their sin. If this were the case, none of us would be eligible. What IS required, is that we confess and repent of sin, and seek to struggle against it. For some sins, this will require a high level of accountability. I believe in justice, I believe in the protection of vulnerable people from the sins of others, but I do not believe in the demonisation of anyone. There is never an excuse to treat anyone badly, or as less than human. How we treat others is a reflection of ourselves, not them. Chris will have to continue to come to terms with his guilt, now very public. There has been a level of justice. There must also be avenues for repentance, confession, forgiveness and restoration to the church - of any sinner. I do not know where Chris is in this process. But I do know that Christ will not turn any away who truly repent. I hope that the workers can show some wisdom in acknowledging their own guilt in being a party to Chris's sins by putting him in ministry in the first place, and not providing any kind of accountability or disclosure to assist in protecting others. They never sought to deal with his sins of the past by seeking out the victims and dealing with what had happened. Instead, they made him a worker and put him knowingly into the homes of unknowing friends. They put the wolf in with the lambs. Somehow they expected this to all be ok. They continue to protect the worst of sinners instead of exposing them and dealing with them. They continue to ignore victims and or even vilify them for coming forward. What a ministry. What a mess. I, for one, pray that Chris will have a true understanding of his crimes, and true repentance. I pray that he will see the need for high accountability for himself for the rest of his life. I pray that his victims will have healing and peace. Psalm 103. I vote this for post of the week... |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 29, 2014 0:12:36 GMT -5
Nobody should ever be permanently excluded from church fellowship because of their sin. If this were the case, none of us would be eligible. What IS required, is that we confess and repent of sin, and seek to struggle against it. For some sins, this will require a high level of accountability. I believe in justice, I believe in the protection of vulnerable people from the sins of others, but I do not believe in the demonisation of anyone. There is never an excuse to treat anyone badly, or as less than human. How we treat others is a reflection of ourselves, not them. Chris will have to continue to come to terms with his guilt, now very public. There has been a level of justice. There must also be avenues for repentance, confession, forgiveness and restoration to the church - of any sinner. I do not know where Chris is in this process. But I do know that Christ will not turn any away who truly repent. I hope that the workers can show some wisdom in acknowledging their own guilt in being a party to Chris's sins by putting him in ministry in the first place, and not providing any kind of accountability or disclosure to assist in protecting others. They never sought to deal with his sins of the past by seeking out the victims and dealing with what had happened. Instead, they made him a worker and put him knowingly into the homes of unknowing friends. They put the wolf in with the lambs. Somehow they expected this to all be ok. They continue to protect the worst of sinners instead of exposing them and dealing with them. They continue to ignore victims and or even vilify them for coming forward. What a ministry. What a mess. I, for one, pray that Chris will have a true understanding of his crimes, and true repentance. I pray that he will see the need for high accountability for himself for the rest of his life. I pray that his victims will have healing and peace. Psalm 103. I vote this for post of the week... I vote paragraph 3 as post of the year... |
|
rs
Junior Member
Posts: 77
|
Post by rs on Jul 29, 2014 2:08:03 GMT -5
Is that the example you want to give your children regarding the treatment of others? As a mother of two young children I see one important aspect of my role being to protect them and minimise the risk of harm - while I can. I feel that choosing to take them to a place where they will be in close contact with a CSA offender is not doing what I can to protect them. And my children would not be aware of my wariness, or concern - just that we weren't going to the meeting. The protective instinct regarding my children far outweighs the need to publically recognise that everyone has the opportunity to repent. |
|
tom
Junior Member
Posts: 82
|
Post by tom on Jul 29, 2014 4:00:06 GMT -5
Is that the example you want to give your children regarding the treatment of others? As a mother of two young children I see one important aspect of my role being to protect them and minimise the risk of harm - while I can. I feel that choosing to take them to a place where they will be in close contact with a CSA offender is not doing what I can to protect them. And my children would not be aware of my wariness, or concern - just that we weren't going to the meeting. The protective instinct regarding my children far outweighs the need to publically recognise that everyone has the opportunity to repent. I am sure that by going to the meeting with a known offender you are not putting your children in danger. He is hardly going to attack them after the meeting if you are there is he? That is the very reason why these offenders should be dealt with correctly by the police/ courts so that if they are guilty people are aware and not put their children at risk or the person bin a position where they could re offend Your children are at a far greater risk from the offender you are unaware of. If your reason for not going to that meeting was because you felt sick just sitting in the same room as them, I can understand this. I struggled with this very thing for a long time and never quite got on top of my feelings but had to tell myself he needed to be in that meeting as much as I did. That helped (well sort of) |
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Jul 29, 2014 4:09:51 GMT -5
Is that the example you want to give your children regarding the treatment of others? As a mother of two young children I see one important aspect of my role being to protect them and minimise the risk of harm - while I can. I feel that choosing to take them to a place where they will be in close contact with a CSA offender is not doing what I can to protect them. And my children would not be aware of my wariness, or concern - just that we weren't going to the meeting. The protective instinct regarding my children far outweighs the need to publically recognise that everyone has the opportunity to repent. I personally could handle being in fellowship with a CSA offender, but only if what elizabethcoleman describes is done. The key being that "there has been a level of justice... avenues for repentance, confession, forgiveness and restoration to the church - of any sinner." This is the way of hope. What I have a problem with is that these things are not practiced in the fellowship. If reporting is discouraged, how can there be justice? If there is no confession, how do we know there is repentance? An overseer told us that "we should not confess our sins to one another" in a conversation regarding CSA. So how do you know there is true repentance if there is no confession? And how can they be forgiven if they have not repented and confessed? Also, if known offenders have not been removed from the fellowship, how can they be restored? |
|
|
|
Post by elizabethcoleman on Jul 29, 2014 5:21:12 GMT -5
Maja said:
"What I have a problem with is that these things are not practiced in the fellowship. If reporting is discouraged, how can there be justice? If there is no confession, how do we know there is repentance? An overseer told us that "we should not confess our sins to one another" in a conversation regarding CSA. So how do you know there is true repentance if there is no confession? And how can they be forgiven if they have not repented and confessed? Also, if known offenders have not been removed from the fellowship, how can they be restored?"
Yes, Maja, exactly. This is the true breadth and depth of the problem. The fellowship has no such processes. Sad to say, these are Biblical processes, yet are not followed at all by the workers. They focus on meeting in a house and keeping in pairs while ignoring the more important matters. They strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. Their first and foremost concern has always been the system, not the people.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2014 7:38:03 GMT -5
E.C., Ma'am, having just clicked on "like" your post, once again I am aware that in doing so, my intent is "agree" or "amen" to what you have so clearly expressed.
Over and over, I am reminded, as applicable to others as well as myself, "get the beam out of your own eye first so that you can clearly see to help with the mote in another's eye."
Just so very usual to look at things as being "motes" in our own eyes, and "beams" in another's. It has been my personal observation that when I, or another land with four feet on another's back publically over an issue, there are pretty good odds and indications focus has been placed upon the wrong party.
Thank you for your posts that once again remind me of that which is easy to often overlook!
"Hope! Hope for tomorrow, what a joyous thing! Hope for tomorrow and what a new day may bring!"
|
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 29, 2014 8:22:27 GMT -5
Is that the example you want to give your children regarding the treatment of others? As a mother of two young children I see one important aspect of my role being to protect them and minimise the risk of harm - while I can. Can you explain what harm you feel they would be in to be sitting in a roomfull of people no matter what the people had done in the past? Protect them from what? From the very little I know about children, I think if that man came up to shake your hand your children would get a good idea of your feelings. I know what you mean about people repenting or not. I would not care one way or the other regarding his repenting. But sitting in a gathering, knowing that there are all types of people there as well, singling out someone because their crimes are known seems to be somewhat arbitrary. |
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Jul 29, 2014 8:36:05 GMT -5
As a mother of two young children I see one important aspect of my role being to protect them and minimise the risk of harm - while I can. I feel that choosing to take them to a place where they will be in close contact with a CSA offender is not doing what I can to protect them. And my children would not be aware of my wariness, or concern - just that we weren't going to the meeting. The protective instinct regarding my children far outweighs the need to publically recognise that everyone has the opportunity to repent. I am sure that by going to the meeting with a known offender you are not putting your children in danger. He is hardly going to attack them after the meeting if you are there is he? That is the very reason why these offenders should be dealt with correctly by the police/ courts so that if they are guilty people are aware and not put their children at risk or the person bin a position where they could re offend Your children are at a far greater risk from the offender you are unaware of. If your reason for not going to that meeting was because you felt sick just sitting in the same room as them, I can understand this. I struggled with this very thing for a long time and never quite got on top of my feelings but had to tell myself he needed to be in that meeting as much as I did. That helped (well sort of) Tom, if I may just say that "going to meeting" doesn't usually involve just sitting in a meeting and shaking hands afterwords. A meeting, at least in my experience, is a close knit community of people who socialize together, trust each other to baby sit, to help out in time of need. These are all huge plusses, but they also present a danger when offenders manage to blend in as trusted members of the meeting. On Wings there are stories of those who were abused right after a meeting, or at a convention, so the danger is not just hypothetical. The offender you had to be in meeting with, did he serve the sentence, did he confess before the church, was everybody informed of his offenses, were any restriction put on his dealing with children/going to conventions? If not, do you think that it would have been easier for you to sit with him in meeting had he and the church gone through those steps? |
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Jul 29, 2014 8:52:39 GMT -5
Is that the example you want to give your children regarding the treatment of others? As a mother of two young children I see one important aspect of my role being to protect them and minimise the risk of harm - while I can. I feel that choosing to take them to a place where they will be in close contact with a CSA offender is not doing what I can to protect them. And my children would not be aware of my wariness, or concern - just that we weren't going to the meeting. The protective instinct regarding my children far outweighs the need to publically recognise that everyone has the opportunity to repent. Rs, I am curious: are you professing? If you are, should you not be more concerned about offenders who have not served a sentence and are not known by most as offenders than about known offenders who have served their sentence? For example, overseers knew that CC had committed CSA but still accepted him into the work and sent him to unsuspecting homes even on different continents. How many like that are still in the work and in people's homes? As long as there are no child protection guidelines and commitment from overseers to follow them, you can't even know who is sitting in your meeting or who is sleeping in your guest room. That to me is even more concerning. |
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jul 29, 2014 9:05:21 GMT -5
Chris is in a minimum security prison for people who need protection ( guess lots of sex offenders are there!), it's called Langi Kal Kal. There is an email going around to the friends to ask for support, letters of support and has even posted the mailing address of the prison to send these letters directly to him. I also wanted to comment on a previous post (can't remember who started it, rational maybe) about known sex offenders in meetings or anywhere really. Can you tell me that you could sit.there knowing what a sicko this person is and maybe what he has done , with your children, not knowing what they are thinking? People like this never stop, even if they stop offending (being names and shamed helps!) you cannot tell me they stop thinking about it. Keeping your children away and showing your disgust by not going to these meetings, seems like a good plan to me! Goingforward, you have a point that needs to be carefully thought about by the powers that be in the 2x2 religion! This is one of the reasons I signed off of the religion and I know there are others who having hoped to see the workers step up to the plate and handle the CSA issues and perps as they should and most have NOT done so....then we have voted with our feet. We cannot be found backing up these perps with allowing fellowship with them or it could be construed that we approve or are in collusion with them! Again, finding out the amount of fornication even going through the ranks of workership has been the very reason some of these workers have felt they cannot correct a peer who is a CSA offender, because they are not looking at CSA as the crime it is....they can't believe in themselves that such a thing is a crime....they have looked at it as a deviated sex! However, they shouldn't be allowing deviated sex actions going on in the workership! I also know most workers have NO knowledge of what the real laws of the land are about certain things and further more I don't think they care about finding out....it becomes too much for them! |
|
