|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Mar 21, 2014 18:33:42 GMT -5
This is a VERY important point. Huge difference between someone that is dangerous and can't help themselves, vs someone that is "opportunistic". The "opportunistic" would be acting on normal urges that they are unable to control. In the case of a worker, it would be due to the un-natural celibacy life style. The same reason they may have an affair/sexual immorality. Simply leaving the work, getting married, and living a normal life style could perhaps be the cure to this. I would venture to guess that the majority (not all) of workers that have committed CSA were for these reasons. I wonder if this may have been the reason Jesus nor the Apostles required a un-married, celibate, ministry. I think Jesus answered that when he told his Apostles that is wasn't for everybody to make themselves a eunuch for the gospel.......and he sure didn't go on to say that it was exactly how it had to be.....fact is, later it was declared that the marital bed was desired......and then in Timothy we read of the woes of prohibiting marriage! I don't think there is one thing that would declare single status as the have-to-be status for everyone seeking to be in the ministry! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2014 18:48:25 GMT -5
The real issue to discuss ought to be in my humble opinion the actions or inaction of those workers and elders who help the criminal evade prosecution. Whilst I find the thought of sexual assault abhorrent enough, to me it is made much worse when workers or elders do what they can so that the crime can be brushed under the carpet. This is an evil in the fellowship.
I think good advice that could be followed if you or someone you know is offended against would be "Go straight to the police" They have the knowledge and the resources to investigate and prosecute. Do not involve the perpetuator or the overseers or the elders in any discussion.
|
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Mar 21, 2014 20:14:13 GMT -5
This is a VERY important point. Huge difference between someone that is dangerous and can't help themselves, vs someone that is "opportunistic". The "opportunistic" would be acting on normal urges that they are unable to control. In the case of a worker, it would be due to the un-natural celibacy life style. The same reason they may have an affair/sexual immorality. Simply leaving the work, getting married, and living a normal life style could perhaps be the cure to this. I would venture to guess that the majority (not all) of workers that have committed CSA were for these reasons. I wonder if this may have been the reason Jesus nor the Apostles required a un-married, celibate, ministry. the bolded above was true, then the doctrine of forbidding to marry would need to be re-examined. Not only would ministry be deprived of the services of normal married individuals, ministry staff would be at greater risk of sexual immorality and sexual offending. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 24, 2014 8:46:19 GMT -5
I think Chris Johnston is a fair reporter. It's obvious he is on the side of the victims but he does report the facts. I would like to support Chris Chandler but there is much that prevents me from doing so. This is one example: "Chandler, a self-employed ecologist who recently returned from several years in Uruguay and Brazil, resigned from the sect in 2012. Yet he went to an overnight sect convention where children were present at Speed, near Mildura, and last year went to sect meetings at Crib Point near Hastings." What is the matter with Chris? What is the matter with whomever controls the Speed convention? Anyone facing charges for CSA should stay far from children. For heaven's sake, it's in the CSA Guidelines that Chris supported! It sounds like the crimes were decades ago and now the criminal is being made to face the charges. The more important question has there been any criminal activity since the 1970s? If not, what is the danger to attending gatherings where there might be children present? While conventional wisdom seems to set the Child molesters' rate of recidivism very high, this view is not supported by the available data. The reporter seemingly did report a fair picture but in the 30+ years since the crimes that Chris is facing has there been any reason to suspect that there have been additional crimes? |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 24, 2014 8:53:27 GMT -5
I've heard of the fact that when a girl's parent(s) found a single young man who looked promising or was due to inherent riches, etc they would teach their girl to flirt with the young man and then after they started dating teach her to get him to get her pregnant and then her papa dear would threaten the young man with "Marry her or go to jail." Course most would marry the girl! So I think this still happens at times, though birth control isn't as big an issue howadays! Where/when did this happen? In what jurisdiction could a man be jailed for getting a woman pregnant? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2014 9:16:51 GMT -5
I think Chris Johnston is a fair reporter. It's obvious he is on the side of the victims but he does report the facts. I would like to support Chris Chandler but there is much that prevents me from doing so. This is one example: "Chandler, a self-employed ecologist who recently returned from several years in Uruguay and Brazil, resigned from the sect in 2012. Yet he went to an overnight sect convention where children were present at Speed, near Mildura, and last year went to sect meetings at Crib Point near Hastings." What is the matter with Chris? What is the matter with whomever controls the Speed convention? Anyone facing charges for CSA should stay far from children. For heaven's sake, it's in the CSA Guidelines that Chris supported! It sounds like the crimes were decades ago and now the criminal is being made to face the charges. The more important question has there been any criminal activity since the 1970s? If not, what is the danger to attending gatherings where there might be children present? While conventional wisdom seems to set the Child molesters' rate of recidivism very high, this view is not supported by the available data. The reporter seemingly did report a fair picture but in the 30+ years since the crimes that Chris is facing has there been any reason to suspect that there have been additional crimes? So you are prepared to declare this man safe around children? If not you, who was qualified to do so? |
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Mar 24, 2014 10:33:38 GMT -5
I believe they 'cured' CC by shipping him off to South America 20 odd years ago. Isn't that how it works?? Problem? What do you mean he has a problem? There's no problem, he's not in the work in Victoria so we've FIXED the problem! Aren't we great problem solvers? And we didn't even need to go to the authorities. Problem no more! So it seems that YOU have the problem, not CC. Can't you forgive? Then that's a problem. Let's talk about that instead. And on it goes.... My husband and I communicated with CC around 2002 when we wanted to put our Ugandan friend in touch with the workers. CC was in East Africa at the time. F&W have such a hard time understanding why it is important for us to know what is happening in another state, let alone continent, and yet the decision to allow a known CSA offender to enter the ministry in Australia may have affected some on two other continents as well. I hope he did not commit CSA while in the work, but as someone has pointed out, it is not likely we would ever find out if he did. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 24, 2014 13:18:20 GMT -5
So you are prepared to declare this man safe around children? If not you, who was qualified to do so? Who was qualified to declare him unsafe? My point was that you cannot broad brush people who may have abused children just because of the mistaken belief that they will molest again. It may well be that they are no more dangerous than the other people who attend a convention. Giving people the idea that their children do not need to be monitored because there are no known former offenders may be presenting a false sense of security. My stand would be that if parents are vigilant regarding their children, a person who abused children 30+ years ago and has not committed a crime since he was in his 20s is no more of a threat to children than any man they are sitting in front of in the meeting hall/shed. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2014 14:19:03 GMT -5
So you are prepared to declare this man safe around children? If not you, who was qualified to do so? Who was qualified to declare him unsafe? My point was that you cannot broad brush people who may have abused children just because of the mistaken belief that they will molest again. It may well be that they are no more dangerous than the other people who attend a convention. Giving people the idea that their children do not need to be monitored because there are no known former offenders may be presenting a false sense of security. My stand would be that if parents are vigilant regarding their children, a person who abused children 30+ years ago and has not committed a crime since he was in his 20s is no more of a threat to children than any man they are sitting in front of in the meeting hall/shed. How do you know he hasn't abused for the last 30 years? All you know is that he hasn't been charged with an offense that is less than 30 years old. Yes it is safe to broadbrush offenders. The risk of previous offenders for re-offending is much higher than an adult who is not known to have offended.....or at least I hope you understand that the risk profile is quite different. However, you can send your grandchildren off to this man for babysitting if you choose on the basis that there is a chance he won't reoffend....... though I wouldn't recommend that as a sound basis for keeping your grandchildren safe. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 25, 2014 14:34:05 GMT -5
How do you know he hasn't abused for the last 30 years? All you know is that he hasn't been charged with an offense that is less than 30 years old. How do you know that he has abused someone in the past 30 years? The statement as written is true. Someone who has not offended has 0% chance to re-offend. However, this implies that you you know what the rate of sexual offenders is in the general population. What rate are you using to determine that a convicted abuser has a greater chance of continued abuse than a member of the general population? This is the type of idiotic response that I didn't expect from you. I have never said he should be picked to babysit. I never suggested children should be left alone with him. I simply stated that his attending convention does not present a risk. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2014 15:11:13 GMT -5
How do you know he hasn't abused for the last 30 years? All you know is that he hasn't been charged with an offense that is less than 30 years old. How do you know that he has abused someone in the past 30 years? I don't need to know nor have I stated that I do know, unlike yourself who has stated that he hasn't offended for 30 years......if that is even supposed to be significant for something. What is important is that we don't know, we act upon what we do know. Play with words all you like. The truth is, someone who has re-offended in the past is much more likely to offend in the future than someone who has never offended. There are less than 800,000 registered sex offenders in the US. That is all sex offenders, not just child sex offenders. You can do the math I'm sure, based on all the recidivism statistics that are available to you. The risks are profoundly higher for previous offenders, and risk profile is even higher for pedophiles. Exactly true. It was meant to be an idiotic response to reveal how idiotic it is for anyone to imply that the risk profile for a previous offender is no different than one who has not been known to offend. Expect similar idiotic responses to such suggestions. Bottom line is this: Chris Chandler should not be trusted alone around children, whether he offended 30 years ago or 30 days ago. It doesn't matter if he is reformed or not because no one knows for sure. Any other position is idiotic. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 25, 2014 21:06:52 GMT -5
I don't need to know nor have I stated that I do know, unlike yourself who has stated that he hasn't offended for 30 years......if that is even supposed to be significant for something. Where did I state this? And you are acting on the fact that he abused 30 years ago and that is significant today? All of this depends on the crime. Doesn't sound like this person could be classified as a pedophile. The data shows that a very high percentage of men who offend when they are young will not offend again. Exactly true. It was meant to be an idiotic response to reveal how idiotic it is for anyone to imply that the risk profile for a previous offender is no different than one who has not been known to offend. Expect similar idiotic responses to such suggestions. Bottom line is this: Chris Chandler should not be trusted alone around children, whether he offended 30 years ago or 30 days ago. It doesn't matter if he is reformed or not because no one knows for sure. Any other position is idiotic. [/quote]No one knows for sure what happened with CC during the past 30 years but no one knows what happened with most people who have not been accused/convicted of criminal activity in the past 30 years. My knowing the recidivism rates mean nothing until you can show what the rates for non-identified offenders in the general population. My statement was that this man does not present a greater danger to the children at a convention than the unidentified sexual predator. No adult should be trusted alone around children but parents do have to take care of their children, and since a large percentage of child abuse is by the parents/step-parents, this does present a dilemma. In fact, since he is known as an offender, he probably is less of a threat because parents will be more cautious. And no, I am not suggesting that parents let him bathe their children or get them ready for bed at night. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2014 23:34:03 GMT -5
I don't need to know nor have I stated that I do know, unlike yourself who has stated that he hasn't offended for 30 years......if that is even supposed to be significant for something. Where did I state this? You implied it here: Your description sounded a lot like what may be the case with Chris Chandler. (or maybe not the case) Yes, very significant. Now for another idiotic question: would you hire a person to manage your financial affairs if you knew he pleaded guilty to two charges of embezzlement to two different firms 30 years ago? [/quote] Let's not play more trick word games. This man would actually present considerably less danger to children than the unidentified sexual predator. The unidentified sexual predator is by far the most dangerous of them all. If "no adult should be trusted alone around children", then you would need to shut down every babysitter in the country, along with all the daycares and pre-schools where adults have full access to children alone if they so choose. Do you have any idea how many friends at that convention knew that CC is a sexual offender? A few might have heard some grapevine whispers of "lies" about him but you can be sure that his attendance at a recent convention was almost completely under the radar. That is what we are dealing with here. We don't have a world of full disclosure, most particularly among the F&Ws. Another idiotic question: so you would be ok with him babysitting your grandchildren as long as he promised not to bathe them or get them ready for bed at night? Really, it's a rhetorical question so no answer is expected. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2014 2:40:31 GMT -5
His bail conditions would state what he is not allowed to do or where he is not to be. Normally with pedophiles there will be strict conditions around proximity to children and so on.
There seems to be a number of wannabe rocket scientists and trick cyclists on here blathering on about ifs and maybes. How about you buy a box of beer and go fishing for a week. You should be able to sort out the issues with each other after that. (My idea of convention)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2014 5:52:06 GMT -5
In the back and forth on this issue, some context is relevant. The general community expectation would be that Chris Chandler should not attend convention given: (a) the nature of his confession (b) that it seemed highly probable that he would plead guilty given his confession. I would expect that this general community attitude would be broadly reflected by the friends. Even if he had not confessed but was facing charges before a court of the Crown, he should have been asked to not attend convention. There are 5 key reasons that come to mind: 1. To demonstrate to the friends that David Leitch and workers regard the matters with which CC has been charged as very serious; 2. We are in the middle of a Federal Royal Commission which is often in the headlines. The issue of CSA has been elevated on the national agenda, a Victorian State Royal Commission is wrapping up - most people have zero tolerance for CSA; 3. As leader of the church in Victoria, David Leitch would presumably be wanting to avoid bad media coverage. By letting CC attend he should know that he opens himself up to additional damaging criticism. That scenario has now played out; 4. To demonstrate that DL is capable of exercising sound judgement given that it is better to be "safe than sorry". 5. Last but by no means least, to protect the children and to demonstrate that the workers regard child protection as an absolute priority. CC may not have committed any further offences (but read his resignation letter to the friends where he says..."After I began to serve God, I tried to address the issues from my past and a little later, sought professional counseling. I felt this matter had been settled years ago. However, now that this matter has been raised, I feel it is not appropriate for me to continue in the ministry". I don't want to read too much into his statement but he sounds like he has had some kind of continuing struggle with either the original incidents or the ongoing temptation. In my mind whether he slept at convention is not the main issue. Whilst it raises the risk profile(particularly the perceived risk profile) it does not change the fact that it is relatively poor judgement to allow him to attend in the first place. #5 is the only important item for consideration. Take care of the child safety issue properly and you automatically take care of all the associated media and political issues in #1-#4. For instance, you wouldn't want to unjustly ban someone from convention just because it might play well in the media. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2014 8:20:36 GMT -5
#5 is the only important item for consideration. Take care of the child safety issue properly and you automatically take care of all the associated media and political issues in #1-#4. For instance, you wouldn't want to unjustly ban someone from convention just because it might play well in the media. Agree it's the most important issue but if I was a church leader I'd be pretty concerned that the reputation of the church was solid. I'm not disagreeing with you. My point is that if you take care of child safety properly, the reputation of your organization will be automatically enhanced by doing that. It concerns me that overseers make decisions on the basis of protecting reputation (such as covering up problems) rather than on the basis of solid moral values. Things get really messed up if you worry about your reputation first, and other important moral values second. Definitely. The RCC didn't move forward in that case on solid moral grounds either, but solely to protect itself. That's why so many kids were harmed in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Mar 26, 2014 8:23:15 GMT -5
The author was accurate in describing the group....
the shadowy Bible sect known as Friends and Workers or the Two by Twos
It is this fact that disturbs me the most about the fellowship.... we intentionally operate in the shadows. The workers do not do as Jesus taught- to put their light on a candlestick for all to see. They are not confident about going before kings and magistrates and boldly proclaiming our gospel. The most galling was Jerome Frandle's defense in court that the workers shouldn't even be considered ministers. Why the fear? Where is the boldness? Where is the RIGHTEOUSNESS?
There ARE good and bold workers out there. Maybe even a few overseers. But- the system is decidedly skewed toward protecting the system rather than promoting righteousness.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2014 8:30:49 GMT -5
The author was accurate in describing the group.... the shadowy Bible sect known as Friends and Workers or the Two by Twos It is this fact that disturbs me the most about the fellowship.... we intentionally operate in the shadows. The workers do not do as Jesus taught- to put their light on a candlestick for all to see. They are not confident about going before kings and magistrates and boldly proclaiming our gospel. The most galling was Jerome Frandle's defense in court that the workers shouldn't even be considered ministers. Why the fear? Where is the boldness? Where is the RIGHTEOUSNESS? There ARE good and bold workers out there. Maybe even a few overseers. But- the system is decidedly skewed toward protecting the system rather than promoting righteousness. Being "shadowy" is one of the strangest characteristics of the group. Insiders regularly state in meeting about how wonderful the fellowship is and how we "have everything", but nobody is out there telling others about how great it is. That disconnect is very odd. It would lead one to believe that when people talk like that amongst themselves but not to others, that they are still trying to convince themselves that it is true. |
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Mar 26, 2014 8:39:21 GMT -5
The author was accurate in describing the group.... the shadowy Bible sect known as Friends and Workers or the Two by Twos It is this fact that disturbs me the most about the fellowship.... we intentionally operate in the shadows. The workers do not do as Jesus taught- to put their light on a candlestick for all to see. They are not confident about going before kings and magistrates and boldly proclaiming our gospel. The most galling was Jerome Frandle's defense in court that the workers shouldn't even be considered ministers. Why the fear? Where is the boldness? Where is the RIGHTEOUSNESS? There ARE good and bold workers out there. Maybe even a few overseers. But- the system is decidedly skewed toward protecting the system rather than promoting righteousness. Being "shadowy" is one of the strangest characteristics of the group. Insiders regularly state in meeting about how wonderful the fellowship is and how we "have everything", but nobody is out there telling others about how great it is. That disconnect is very odd. It would lead one to believe that when people talk like that amongst themselves but not to others, that they are still trying to convince themselves that it is true. What I am about to write will gall most... but it is how I see it... our fellowship acts ALMOST EXACTLY like Scientology and Catholicism in its methods of self-preservation. Persecute those that ask questions about the system, separate them as being "enemies"- even separate them from their own family, let it be known, albeit subtly, of those who are "struggling", etc. Have ministers that sign up for voluntary "life time" ministry duties. There are many great books about Scientology now, written by both former insiders as well as written by professional investigative journalists... one can easily see parallels between the 2x2 system and Scientology. (Catholicism as well.) And like Scientology, the thing that seems to have caused the biggest crack into these man made systems- the internet. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2014 9:32:01 GMT -5
Being "shadowy" is one of the strangest characteristics of the group. Insiders regularly state in meeting about how wonderful the fellowship is and how we "have everything", but nobody is out there telling others about how great it is. That disconnect is very odd. It would lead one to believe that when people talk like that amongst themselves but not to others, that they are still trying to convince themselves that it is true. What I am about to write will gall most... but it is how I see it... our fellowship acts ALMOST EXACTLY like Scientology and Catholicism in its methods of self-preservation. Persecute those that ask questions about the system, separate them as being "enemies"- even separate them from their own family, let it be known, albeit subtly, of those who are "struggling", etc. Have ministers that sign up for voluntary "life time" ministry duties. There are many great books about Scientology now, written by both former insiders as well as written by professional investigative journalists... one can easily see parallels between the 2x2 system and Scientology. (Catholicism as well.) And like Scientology, the thing that seems to have caused the biggest crack into these man made systems- the internet. I think you will find that most organizations rally around self-preservation and are not kind to those who appear to be going against the flow. It's just a matter of degrees. Scientology is an interesting comparison in that the numbers of members are in a similar ballpark to the F&Ws and their decline is pretty much in the same timeframe as F&WS.....post-internet as you suggest. Scientology seems to have peaked around 2001 and have declined by around 50% since then. The F&Ws began its decline from its peak a few years earlier. The decline is almost the same magnitude but over 20+ years rather than 10+ years for the Scientologists. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 26, 2014 12:26:42 GMT -5
You implied it here: Your description sounded a lot like what may be the case with Chris Chandler. (or maybe not the case) No, that was not the case. It is unknown whether there were additional offenses during the 30+ years. No, and I have never suggested that this man should be employed to manage children. The discussion is whether he should be allowed to attend a convention. While I know you would like to imply that I am saying he should be taking care of children, that is not the case. Exactly. And that is why it presents a dilemma. On the other hand, in most states workers in licensed daycare and pre-schools do not have free access to children anytime they wish. All areas where children are cared for must be visually accessible and a single adult cannot be alone with a child for an extended time. Of course, there are exceptions. The bottom line is you have to trust the person with who you leave your children. Here's a scary thought - I take care of my grandchildren! It is not just the F&W. But whether the parents are aware of him or not - parents should take the same precaution with any adult at convention. Banning CC does not, in my opinion, lower the risk. Oh I know, but the question implies that I am advocating that CC be left alone with children and that is certainly not the case. The emotional baggage needs to be removed and decisions need to be facts based instead. Would someone who had been convicted of voluntary homicide, been released 30 years ago be banned from attending convention? |
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Mar 26, 2014 16:40:38 GMT -5
Depends.
If he killed someone because he didn't like when they made the place smell like stew - 30 years ago....
yes
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2014 17:50:57 GMT -5
Depends. If he killed someone because he didn't like when they made the place smell like stew - 30 years ago.... yes All levity aside, you make the right point. Attendees are risk-assessed. If there is reason to believe that a person's risk profile for danger is sufficiently elevated, you ban them or take other action such as an assigned monitor which is already in practice at convention in a few cases. Doing anything less would be irresponsible. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2014 5:22:52 GMT -5
Being "shadowy" is one of the strangest characteristics of the group. Insiders regularly state in meeting about how wonderful the fellowship is and how we "have everything", but nobody is out there telling others about how great it is. That disconnect is very odd. It would lead one to believe that when people talk like that amongst themselves but not to others, that they are still trying to convince themselves that it is true. "Shadowy" is such an emotive word and fantastic where you are trying to describe a group that is hard to pin down. It also starts with "S" so has that alliterative effect when used with Sect....as does the word Secret. However, I've never really thought of the 2x2 church as "shadowy" and I still don't. Most of the 2x2 folks we still mix with are pretty mainstream and even most of the conservative ones are generally always quite friendly. Many of the workers are nice folk but the senior leadership is hard to pin down on anything and in my experience they walk down a very "broad way" when it comes to doctrine. So I've been thinking of some adjectives to describe some of the WORST characteristics of 2x2 senior leadership. The following come to mind: - Evasive - Autocratic - Shifty - Cagey - Wary - Guarded - Naive - Disengenuous However, they don't work as well as Shadowy or Secret - those two words pack a punch. Which gets back to the article which is the main topic of this thread... I agree that shadowy isn't the perfect word. Shadowy implies that an offender is hiding in the shadows waiting to jump out and harm someone. F&Ws may well be hiding their religion in the shadows and may well be looking for the perfect opportunity to spring it on someone, but the intention to hurt, harm or damage is not there. They think they are doing the right thing and they all believe that if someone comes into the group its the best thing possible for that person. Chris Johnston writes in a biased and emotive way to manipulate his readers against CSA and CSA offenders. He is not error-free either. When he got his facts wrong about WINGS in a previous article, I wrote him and let him know. He thanked me, then got it wrong again in this article. I doubt it was intentional but it highlights that one must be pretty cautious about media reports. Even if they get all the facts right, their use of emotive words can bias the article and leave readers with a false impression. |
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Mar 27, 2014 6:27:45 GMT -5
"Shadowy" is such an emotive word and fantastic where you are trying to describe a group that is hard to pin down. It also starts with "S" so has that alliterative effect when used with Sect....as does the word Secret. However, I've never really thought of the 2x2 church as "shadowy" and I still don't. Most of the 2x2 folks we still mix with are pretty mainstream and even most of the conservative ones are generally always quite friendly. Many of the workers are nice folk but the senior leadership is hard to pin down on anything and in my experience they walk down a very "broad way" when it comes to doctrine. So I've been thinking of some adjectives to describe some of the WORST characteristics of 2x2 senior leadership. The following come to mind: - Evasive - Autocratic - Shifty - Cagey - Wary - Guarded - Naive - Disengenuous However, they don't work as well as Shadowy or Secret - those two words pack a punch. Which gets back to the article which is the main topic of this thread... I agree that shadowy isn't the perfect word. Shadowy implies that an offender is hiding in the shadows waiting to jump out and harm someone. F&Ws may well be hiding their religion in the shadows and may well be looking for the perfect opportunity to spring it on someone, but the intention to hurt, harm or damage is not there. They think they are doing the right thing and they all believe that if someone comes into the group its the best thing possible for that person. Chris Johnston writes in a biased and emotive way to manipulate his readers against CSA and CSA offenders. He is not error-free either. When he got his facts wrong about WINGS in a previous article, I wrote him and let him know. He thanked me, then got it wrong again in this article. I doubt it was intentional but it highlights that one must be pretty cautious about media reports. Even if they get all the facts right, their use of emotive words can bias the article and leave readers with a false impression. There was also at least one other factual mistake in the first article. One of the convention grounds mentioned no longer operates as a convention. Unfortunately it gave a couple of the friends to whom i spoke about this article an excuse to dismiss the entire article. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2014 7:31:28 GMT -5
I agree that shadowy isn't the perfect word. Shadowy implies that an offender is hiding in the shadows waiting to jump out and harm someone. F&Ws may well be hiding their religion in the shadows and may well be looking for the perfect opportunity to spring it on someone, but the intention to hurt, harm or damage is not there. They think they are doing the right thing and they all believe that if someone comes into the group its the best thing possible for that person. Chris Johnston writes in a biased and emotive way to manipulate his readers against CSA and CSA offenders. He is not error-free either. When he got his facts wrong about WINGS in a previous article, I wrote him and let him know. He thanked me, then got it wrong again in this article. I doubt it was intentional but it highlights that one must be pretty cautious about media reports. Even if they get all the facts right, their use of emotive words can bias the article and leave readers with a false impression. There was also at least one other factual mistake in the first article. One of the convention grounds mentioned no longer operates as a convention. Unfortunately it gave a couple of the friends to whom i spoke about this article an excuse to dismiss the entire article. True, that is definitely one of the problems of writing without paying attention to detailed facts: the people you need most to influence and are most difficult to influence are lost because of a minor error. His sloppiness is fine for most other people and the broad story is accurate enough but non-F&Ws are not as important in the goal of protecting the children within the sphere of those inside the F&Ws. The article will prevent some people from going to gospel meetings in the first place so might fit his objective. |
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Mar 27, 2014 12:27:27 GMT -5
I agree that shadowy isn't the perfect word. Shadowy implies that an offender is hiding in the shadows waiting to jump out and harm someone. F&Ws may well be hiding their religion in the shadows and may well be looking for the perfect opportunity to spring it on someone, but the intention to hurt, harm or damage is not there. They think they are doing the right thing and they all believe that if someone comes into the group its the best thing possible for that person. Indeed, the fellowship is not a shadowy danger to the world. But within the fellowship, there is a shadowy danger to the members themselves, hiding in the secrecy and lack of transparency. Who makes decisions? Based on what principles? With whose interests in mind? Most friends and lower-ranking workers are left in the dark as to what happens at the higher levels of the ministry. I have the impression that most don't even want to know as curiosity about it would signify a lack of trust in overseers, and they may even realize that it is best not to know as the knowledge would shake their faith in the ministry. It is "safer" to not know. ...when we asked: who is responsible that such and such was allowed to remain in the work? who made that decision?, we did not receive an answer. ...who made the decision that such and such would be sent to our home in spite of known allegations? no answer. ...how can we know that it will not happen again? no answer. ...workers we've talked to and some friends tell us that BB is at the head of the work in the eastern US; an overseer tells us he is not. Why then do all these people think that BB is at the head of the work?? Or, if he is, why is it officially negated? ...there seems to be a group of "equals" who make decisions at the highest level of the ministry. Who they are and how they to came to belong to this group of "equals" is a mystery. We asked who they are, but did not receive an answer. The following comes to mind as the background for our unanswered questions: An overseer spoke at the last convention: "People don't know what we (the ministry) have been entrusted with... We need to love and respect the workers..." Another overseer said at the end of the convention, that "you have not just heard the workers speaking, but you have heard the voice of God here." From this it seems clear that they are above the need to be transparent or accountable . At the same convention, a sister worker said in a raised voice, as if irritated by suggestions that it is not so: "This is NOT just another sect!!!" Who would dare suggest that there may be problems that need to be addressed in this group of people (remember, it is NOT an organization!) that is NOT just another church on the block, and whose ministers have been entrusted with something that cannot be named, and whose ministers are the mouthpiece of God? It seems consistent that the first-mentioned overseer at this convention also said that: "some would give us lists and instructions, but it is all worthless." Final words of our overseer regarding the issues that concern us (CSA and immorality in the ministry) were: "In dealing with the souls of men and their destiny it seems awkward to us to use formalities normally present in associations with men." This is not all he said, and I apologize for taking them out of context of everything else that was said. But, I believe they do reflect the prevailing sentiment among overseers: the fellowship is so above what is of the world that there is a danger that things like CSA guidelines and transparency would bring it down to the level of worldly organizations. (Of course, they would also make decision makers suspect to being held accountable for their decisions.) Therefore, decision-making processes and players remain in the shadows. Overseers have created a secure kingdom for themselves - a kingdom whose inhabitants are generally willing and eager to follow and obey without asking questions. Indeed, the prevailing thought in the fellowship is that the dangers don't come from the secrecy at the highest levels of the ministry, but from questioning and not putting one's full trust in the ministry and its decisions. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2014 13:42:31 GMT -5
This is to more than merely "like" Maja's post above, but to attest to the factuality of it in everything grievously and personally discovered about that work over my lifetime. Idealistic people need not apply, nor plan to support it, for without fail, every such person over my 71 years of lifetime that I've known who has done so honestly and without the proverbial "rose colored glasses" has come away, like Maja, many others and myself, very very saddened and disappointed.
|
|
