|
|
Post by lilwolfmisty on Apr 13, 2014 20:24:37 GMT -5
Once a gift is given it is up to the giver to receive it graciously and manage it accordingly if someone mismanages they should be held accountable, that is why "worldly churches" for all their faults at least have written policies in place regarding CSA and management of money and assets Jesus never hid what he did if we are following his example why hide? God will deal with those who mismanage funds, but they should also be held accountable if those funds are meant for general use.
As for someone calling themselves Christian then using our belief against us that just makes the case that they are in the dark and on the side of dark. My ex husband who molested our daughters used the line "you won't divorce me because you don't believe in it" one of the reasons I am so sensitive over the divorce remarry issue. I do not believe that God wants me to be miserable and unattached for the rest of my life!
Why in the heck would ANYONE counsel another believer that they need to put up with cheating spouse, verbal rape, physical violence just because they interpret the bible to say that the husband should be able to do anything and have no repercussions. as for forgiveness it says forgive but we do not have to forget! when we forgive someone we release them to their karma instead of letting what was done to us eat at us and cause us health and mental problems.
Those who abuse children should be dealt with, and should be watched however they are human too and perhaps at the time their sickness comes out they need to be shown the true love of Christ also! I feel that sweeping it under the rug serves nothing and nobody, because the perpetrator does not get help, and the victim gets shamed that is WRONG! I believe there should be trained professionals that help perpetrators, but perps should also not be allowed around children without a chaperon. Like my dad when he goes to his church they all know what he did, but they also know he is a good person has repented. His church has written policies in place where my dad is never alone with children but they are unobtrusive so he can participate fully in worshiping Jesus. The truth does none of these things and that makes me sad because EVERYONE loses, the victim loses because they are not believed, or told that it is being taken care of, the perp is moved around to where he/she can do it more and create more victims, potential victims are not warned to be on their guard, and the perp is not treated, and sometimes is just kicked out and left to rot in jail or whatever that is not the love of Jesus either!
The people in the truth that knew my dad for 20 years or more turned their backs on him and shunned him that makes me sad it is like we all are friend's until we mess up then we get put out that makes me very sad, because I don't think that is what Jesus intended at all! We have all sinned even Jesus said one sin is not greater than the other so we need to remember that before we damage people further by ignoring them, shunning them, or verbally raping them whether it is about weight, education, being a criminal, having a divorce, remember Jesus preached the gospel not to the saved but to (stupid auto correct) dolls, adulterers, liars, cheats, mentally ill, disabled people not to the perfect, skinny, white skinned, rich, privileged, educated people!
|
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 13, 2014 23:00:15 GMT -5
Rational - we obviously have very different views on God and his working BUT that aside I do think you are missing my point. I would do ALL I could to encourage a victim to report abuse, if for no other reason than to stop the same thing happening again and again by the same offender. All you could do would be to file a report yourself for known/suspected child abuse. Let the professionals deal with criminal matters.Perhaps true but unless you are a professional you should not e making that determination. In some locations it would be illegal. The ethical question applies to all locations. And indeed the offender did. I think the cases of CSA that are being discussed usually are not false accusations because of custody battles. |
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Apr 14, 2014 10:20:03 GMT -5
Quite honestly I have never asked the overseer because I have no need to. I have seen no evidence ever in this country of anything that would cause me to question in the $$ department. As for appearances of evil - It definitely doesn't appear that way to me. Locking my car etc... well actually to put it in context yes I should but no I wouldn't if I was at convention because I am among people that I trust. I haven't 'locked my tent' for 50 years and I have never had anything stolen. My point in using that example (before people leap in with stories of things been stolen by people at cons!!  is that until someone breaks your trust (or is proved dishonest) you should continue to trust them, otherwise you can become a very cynical person seeing people as 'guilty until proven innocent' Until I see funds being used dishonestly by the ministry I will continue to trust them, and if they use it dishonestly and it goes undetected they ultimately must answer to God. The Chris Chandler case - no allowing someone into peoples homes when it is known that he is was a molester is totally not acceptable. The person that made that decision was wrong BUT it doesn't mean that I would loose trust in the ministry as a whole or never trust another overseer. Reallyandtruly, the ministry has broken our trust by not dealing with CSA with children's safety in mind. Yet you say that CC case does not affect your trust in the ministry. Based on what do you trust the ministry when it comes to protecting children? Have they acknowledged the mistake they made in the case of CC and others? Have they apologized for the mistake to those who have been put in harm's way? Have they outlined the measures they will take so that the same mistake will not be repeated in the future? |
|
|
|
Post by magpie on Apr 14, 2014 17:29:26 GMT -5
Not just C.C. Barry and decades of others.I will spell it DECADES. What about ALL the Ernie Barry victims (known)? They wipe their hands of them,easy? We are NOT an organisation,so by a FRAUDULANT TWIST.
|
|
|
|
Post by magpie on Apr 14, 2014 18:45:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 14, 2014 19:24:05 GMT -5
Odd, I thought it was because he was part of the plot to assassinate Hitler. According to: Joachim Fest in Plotting Hitler's Death: The German Resistance to Hitler, 1933-1945. "On April 4, 1945, the diaries of Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, head of the Abwehr, were discovered, and in a rage upon reading them, Hitler ordered that the Abwehr conspirators be destroyed." Bonhoeffer was one of the Abwehr conspirators being held in a concentration camp. While it is true Bonhoeffer was christian, Hitler also made the same claim and worked with the Pope and other christian leaders. |
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Apr 14, 2014 20:15:13 GMT -5
I don't suppose there were too many "groupings" of people that were not "guilty" of working with Hitler at one point and time, and he used any "group" of person he could including American senator, Prescott Bush, to further himself. He also used Jews who "worked" diligently with and for him, until Hitler felt necessary to dispose of them too, including his own family. Looking back, now, it is easy for all of us to just "wash' our hands of him and say he was not one of "us" , BUT at the time he had MANY MANY supporters and ,sadly, probably lots of us in our "ignorance" would have at least considered his thoughts and reasonings as having some "merit". There are people today, who stil consider Hitler and Stalin as "great" men? I don't imagine it would make one wit of difference to a "hitler" today, if he could further his own agenda, wheher the people he could "work" with were theists or atheists or anyone of any race, creed...........
We often hear, well, Hitler was an atheist, or he was a Christian or .......or Stalin was an atheist or whatever as a "reason", but ALSO not the reason at all.
"evil" people are are not restricted to any "belief" or "non belief" and are quite willing to use "whatever " works for their narcissism.
Alvin
“If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”
― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago 1918-1956
edit - just to even the "score" - democrats and republicans "tied" 1 t0 1
"You can't blame Bush for what his grandfather did any more than you can blame Jack Kennedy for what his father did - bought Nazi stocks - but what is important is the cover-up, how it could have gone on so successfully for half a century, and does that have implications for us today?" he said.
|
|
|
|
Post by reallyandtruly on Apr 14, 2014 21:33:06 GMT -5
But do you know all the people at convention? I certainly didn't when I attended. Maybe you are better at networking and knowing everyone  So, assuming you don't know everyone at convention (which is more than likely the case) why do you automatically trust them? Just because they are professing or friends? White South Africans believed this at one point and created all kinds of systems so they could only mix with people they trust. But ultimately, they were each other's worse enemy. We do have to have a certain level of trust in our community, otherwise I agree we'd be paranoid and looking behind every door. But it strikes me (because I've been there) that when we are introduced to a person and they are tagged "a worker" that we instantly think of a certain set of behaviours/values that means we instantly trust them completely before we even get to know them, what they believe and stand for, who they are. It may be nice thing to do but we shouldn't be surprised if they let us down. I think the trust we put in workers etc is an outworking of an exclusive mindset. We have been conditioned to view true Christians as those in "the way" or "the truth". Hence, the language of "strangers", "outsiders", "worldly people", "unwilling", "false preachers" which is contrasted with "friends", "truth", "fellow servants", "brothers", "sisters". This is not exclusive to 2x2's but is necessarily accentuated in an exclusive, tight-knit community. Jesus saw everyone as sinners in need a Saviour. Well Ross I don't know about the 'we' part. My attitude of trust is not elusively reserved for the workers and friends. I see workers as completely human. I do not put them on pedestal believing they can do not wrong. They are prone to mistakes and errors of varying degrees just like any other person, but I have the same attitude to them as I have to anyone else that I come in contact with. I like to trust them unless I have or sense a reason not to. Trust is an attitude and the level of trust you have, develops over time as you get to know that person better. You don't meet someone, think yes I trust this person and instantly hand out your bank account password! If I was let down by a worker of another person in this way, I wouldn't think 'oh the way has let me down' - I would just think 'that person has let me down'. Just the same as if the neighbour let me down. I dont understand your comments about the exclusive mindset . I have wonderful 'outside friends that I love dearly and would trust with my life (yes and even my bank account details.)Their Beliefs have no bearing on my level of trust. I hope, because you had that mindset you don't assume every '2 x 2' person has the same. |
|
|
|
Post by reallyandtruly on Apr 14, 2014 22:19:58 GMT -5
I am not saying that you do put workers on a pedestal but many do reverence workers - do you accept that? I used to. Trust does develop over time but can be instantly removed....but I just found it interesting that you would not lock your car at convention (despite not knowing everyone and therefore not being able to trust everyone). If a worker let me down I would limit my feelings to them but in the case of CSA and many other doctrinal issues there is a point I think where you have to ask the question "is this endemic or is it just limited to an indivual". Do I trust this church that I belong to? Re the exclusive comments it's interesting that you refer to them as "outside friends". Why are they "outside friends"? Outsider was the one of the words you used so it was a little bit of sarcasm I guess though we use that term to differentiate them from someone that attends the meetings - just like you refer to us as 2x2's. You would have understood straight away what I meant when I used it so it served its purpose. I certainly don't weigh up the word and then apply it to a person because of its meaning.
Boy.. you have to watch your p's and q's here eh!!
\
And YES I trust that church that I belong to. Do you? |
|
|
|
Post by magpie on Apr 15, 2014 5:03:59 GMT -5
READ THE QUOTES OF BONHOEFFER, JFK SPOKE GREATWORDS,BUT HE WAS A TERRIBLE ADULTERER? THE USUAL JUDGEMENTAL 2x2s ATTITUDE COMES OUT STRAIGHT AWAY. WISE WORDS HAVE BEEN SPOKEN BY SOME TERRIBLE MEN/WOMEN, THAT DOES NOT DEVALUE THE MEANING OF THE WORDS. WE ALL CHEERED WHEN HITLER AND TOJO WERE OVER THROWN,DIDN"T WE. BOMBS,GUNS,BAYNOTS,ETC WERE TO SLAUGHTER THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS MORE.BONHOEFFER WANTED WITH OTHERS TO STOP THAT,A FEW TYRANTS FOR THE THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT FAMILIES THAT WOULD DIE,EXECUTED OR INCARCERATED IN HORRID RAZOR WIRED FENCED SQUALLER. NOW READ WHO WAS BONHOEFFERS ALLEGIENCE TO GOD'S HURTING MASSES OR THE TYRANTS OF HITLERS ARMIES? Stop knocking the carrier AT LEAST HE WAS NOT JAILED FOR CSA,DESTROYING THE LIVES OF LITTLE CHILDREN,"NO" SAVING THEM WAS WHAT HE WANTED. NOW READ FURTHER OF HIS LIFE AND SACRIFICE,WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE DONE??? DROP A NEUCLEAR BOMB,NO NOTHING 2x2s HAVE NEVER DONE ANYTHING EVER.
|
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 15, 2014 8:07:20 GMT -5
READ THE QUOTES OF BONHOEFFER, JFK SPOKE GREATWORDS,BUT HE WAS A TERRIBLE ADULTERER? I don't know if this was a question or a statement but the issue was not what was written/said but the fact that he was part of a group who plotted to assassinate Hitler. Regardless of his religious beliefs he would have been executed. To twist the reason for his execution to make Bonhoeffer a martyr for christianity is simply inaccurate. It is true Bonhoeffer and others plotted to overthrow Hitler. And for that act they were placed in camps and for that reason they were executed. When you posted: Bonhoeffer wrote much of this from prison,he spoke against Hitler,finally executed. Why? Because of his christian stand. it was wrong. He was allied with the plotters to kill Hitler and for that reason he was he was executed, not because of his christian stand.If the carrier is carrying a message that is incorrect it needs to be corrected. As to whether or not Bonhoeffer should have been jailed for child abuse is unknown. There is no record that he was so speculation is a moot point. None of us can be certain what we would have done under those conditions. Without being there it is only speculation. It is difficult to condemn the population of a country for following their government when the major christian churches supported that same government.I am not sure many 2x2s have thermonuclear weapons at their disposal. Not being a 2x2 I don't know what the reaction would be. I do know 2x2 members of my family did fight against the axis powers. But I have a feeling this is not what your fight is about. |
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 15, 2014 11:03:21 GMT -5
I did understand what you meant and I was just stirring as well With my family I tend to use the term "your church". When I first left anything I used was offensive (particularly if I said your group) but I think they are roughly okay with "church". For this board I'm okay with 2x2's or friends/workers in context. For the record, the church that I go to has been described as Satan and the devil despite the family members who refer to it as that having never been (despite invitations). There's a bit of good old conditioning and exclusive thinking at work there! And when I ask what makes their church right they say to a tee "the sacrifice of the workers and the spirit and quietness in the meeetings...". I've been told "if you died today, you would go to hell" and "you will be eternally responsible (in hell) for raising your children outside of the truth". Fairly strong mindset at work. Despite your protestations the language of the church is alive and well. I hear it all the time. I sometimes listen to two older professing women talk about the strangers, outsiders, professing women wearing makeup and clothes that are too young for them, professing women who dye and cut their hair. When you hear a conversation like this you get the full vernacular. In relation to the church that we go to (christchurch.com.au)yes I do trust our ministry team. I know them well, know what they believe and uphold in preaching and in their lives. I trust that the theology of other evangelical Anglican churches that are in the same denomination is also correct. I don't place any trust in a number of Anglican churches around the world though which have strayed from the truth about Jesus. Before you are too hard on the 2x2's for their belief that you are 'eternally responsible (in hell) for raising your children outside of the truth', look at your own belief that I am also 'eternally responsible (in hell)' for raising my children outside of Christianity. You just include more people in your 'pile' that are saved. It baffles me how you are somehow better because you exclude fewer people from being saved then they do. You are both exclusive and there is no excuse for that imo. |
|
|
|
Post by magpie on Apr 15, 2014 17:38:31 GMT -5
STOP AGAIN? THIS POST WAS STARTED TO GIVE NEWS OF ANOTHER WORKERS SEXUAL CRIMES?NAMELY CHRIS CHANDLER AND CSA. WE DO GO OFF THE TRACK A BIT.I KNOW A HABIT WE PICKED UP DURING OUR TIME IN THE 2x2s,HELPED US WITH OUR SELF JUSTIFICATIONS,AS OUR THEOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE WAS PRETTY WEAK.LETS GET BACK ON TRACK
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2014 19:20:19 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!
Apologies if I have missed anything reading through this thread: may I ask in what way did Chris support the CSA (Wings?) guidelines? In another post you stated Chris's history was known to the worker group. Do you know what was known? Specifically were the worker group aware in the eyes of the law Chris had not been dealt with? |
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Apr 15, 2014 19:45:23 GMT -5
Before you are too hard on the 2x2's for their belief that you are 'eternally responsible (in hell) for raising your children outside of the truth', look at your own belief that I am also 'eternally responsible (in hell)' for raising my children outside of Christianity. You just include more people in your 'pile' that are saved. It baffles me how you are somehow better because you exclude fewer people from being saved then they do. You are both exclusive and there is no excuse for that imo
Would you consider it "excusable" if the both of them, for instance, would consider Hitler and Stalin as "unsaved". Would that not also make them exclusive, even if the "pile" they considered as saved was quite large and only excluded a number of "evil" people, or is it only acceptable to totally 100 % exclude NOBODY under NO circustances, as somehow that makes one "exclusive". Can being exclusive EVER be a good thing, or always bad. Naturally, we all understand , "we are not the judge", ( but since you mention you are baffled )and I think you don't believe in the concept of "saved" or "unsaved", but is there ever a justification, in our opinion for "believers" to be "exclusive"? Not directed just at snow, but anyone.......for discussion........... Alvin
|
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 15, 2014 20:03:08 GMT -5
Before you are too hard on the 2x2's for their belief that you are 'eternally responsible (in hell) for raising your children outside of the truth', look at your own belief that I am also 'eternally responsible (in hell)' for raising my children outside of Christianity. You just include more people in your 'pile' that are saved. It baffles me how you are somehow better because you exclude fewer people from being saved then they do. You are both exclusive and there is no excuse for that imo Would you consider it "excusable" if the both of them, for instance, would consider Hitler and Stalin as "unsaved". Would that not also make them exclusive, even if the "pile" they considered as saved was quite large and only excluded a number of "evil" people, or is it only acceptable to totally 100 % exclude NOBODY under NO circustances, as somehow that makes one "exclusive". Can being exclusive EVER be a good thing, or always bad. Naturally, we all understand , "we are not the judge", ( but since you mention you are baffled )and I think you don't believe in the concept of "saved" or "unsaved", but is there ever a justification, in our opinion for "believers" to be "exclusive"? Not directed just at snow, but anyone.......for discussion........... Alvin I don't see Hitler or Stalin as 'unsaved'. I see no reason why they should suffer for eternity because they made a mistake in their life where they had a finite brain to work with. Why anyone would want to see anyone tormented for eternity is quite beyond my understanding. Thankfully, I don't have to worry about such a thing because I think the belief is not true. So to answer your question. No I don't believe there should ever be a reason to be exclusive. If someone has done harm, keep them separate from people so they can't continue to harm, but don't hope they go to hell for eternity. That's just nasty imo. |
|
|
|
Post by xna on Apr 15, 2014 20:11:06 GMT -5
Before you are too hard on the 2x2's for their belief that you are 'eternally responsible (in hell) for raising your children outside of the truth', look at your own belief that I am also 'eternally responsible (in hell)' for raising my children outside of Christianity. You just include more people in your 'pile' that are saved. It baffles me how you are somehow better because you exclude fewer people from being saved then they do. You are both exclusive and there is no excuse for that imo Would you consider it "excusable" if the both of them, for instance, would consider Hitler and Stalin as "unsaved". Would that not also make them exclusive, even if the "pile" they considered as saved was quite large and only excluded a number of "evil" people, or is it only acceptable to totally 100 % exclude NOBODY under NO circustances, as somehow that makes one "exclusive". Can being exclusive EVER be a good thing, or always bad. Naturally, we all understand , "we are not the judge", ( but since you mention you are baffled )and I think you don't believe in the concept of "saved" or "unsaved", but is there ever a justification, in our opinion for "believers" to be "exclusive"? Not directed just at snow, but anyone.......for discussion........... Alvin I don't see Hitler or Stalin as 'unsaved'. I see no reason why they should suffer for eternity because they made a mistake in their life where they had a finite brain to work with. Why anyone would want to see anyone tormented for eternity is quite beyond my understanding. Thankfully, I don't have to worry about such a thing because I think the belief is not true. So to answer your question. No I don't believe there should ever be a reason to be exclusive. If someone has done harm, keep them separate from people so they can't continue to harm, but don't hope they go to hell for eternity. That's just nasty imo.[/ "infinite punishment for a finite crime ", & Godwin's law came to mind. :-) en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_lawSent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2014 20:42:39 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!
Apologies if I have missed anything reading through this thread: may I ask in what way did Chris support the CSA (Wings?) guidelines? He was one of several workers who gave their input into the development of the Guidelines. As the Guidelines went through the writing process, it was roughed-in by a smallish group of individuals, then it went out in rough form to a much larger focus group who gave their input as to what they suggested for change. Chris was in that larger group of contributors. Chris was fair and reasonable in his input and made one good suggestion for a wording change. He was quite against a move away from homestay in homes with young children. Otherwise, he agreed with it. I am sure you know that specifics of what overseers (and many workers) know about misconduct of fellow workers is tightly held. These conversations are never recorded and never shared. However, we do know from Chris that his past was known. I doubt that any worker or overseer will confirm or deny it though......the culture prevents that sort of forthright information. I think what you are really asking is whether or not there are currently workers or overseers who could be in a criminal situation right now? If there is, I doubt it is a productive path to go down unless Chris himself were willing to come forward on evidence for that. |
|
|
|
Post by magpie on Apr 15, 2014 22:20:07 GMT -5
OF course Chris would put input into the guidelines,and possibly sound advice. But he was hiding ,as others ,of his true knowledge and experience of CSA damage and crimes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2014 23:02:49 GMT -5
Apologies if I have missed anything reading through this thread: may I ask in what way did Chris support the CSA (Wings?) guidelines? He was one of several workers who gave their input into the development of the Guidelines. As the Guidelines went through the writing process, it was roughed-in by a smallish group of individuals, then it went out in rough form to a much larger focus group who gave their input as to what they suggested for change. Chris was in that larger group of contributors. Chris was fair and reasonable in his input and made one good suggestion for a wording change. He was quite against a move away from homestay in homes with young children. Otherwise, he agreed with it. I am sure you know that specifics of what overseers (and many workers) know about misconduct of fellow workers is tightly held. These conversations are never recorded and never shared. However, we do know from Chris that his past was known. I doubt that any worker or overseer will confirm or deny it though......the culture prevents that sort of forthright information. I think what you are really asking is whether or not there are currently workers or overseers who could be in a criminal situation right now? If there is, I doubt it is a productive path to go down unless Chris himself were willing to come forward on evidence for that. Thanks for your reply Clearday, and you input Ross. I am a cynical speculator, best I go direct to the questions rather than justify them. Was Chris involved with Wings in any fashion with regards to any CSA incident? Were Wings aware of Chris's past prior to the letter sent out to Vic/Tas friends? With regards to the second question. I'm not actually asking whether any workers or overseers have committed crimes. Sad to say I'm pretty cynical about the law and judicial process...! I am interested in establishing culture. For instance, if the worker group knew Chris had committed CSA related crimes in his past but didn't see fit that he should admit these crimes to the law. The newspaper article claimed Chris had a key role in CSA issues in the group in Vict/Tas. Surely a key question is what brought him to that role: previous experience with a 'false' (as assumed by worker group) claim of CSA, previous experience as a CSA offender or personal interest? |
|
|
|
Post by magpie on Apr 16, 2014 0:05:43 GMT -5
Dear passerby, Little kids often ask Mum-Dad ,what does a stranger look like. Well the one that traps the little ones are the lovely supposed gentle ones. Chris Chandler is as those of the mental disorder of pedophilia they develop a cunning that covers up what is there. Those around would have no reason to think there was inside a cruel monster.By assisting in guideline setup,what a better cover?
But the dumb and dumbers knew of his adult mature cruel indescretions,but "OH I have put that behind me now'I have changed.So why a celibate non biblical ministry choice?MMMMM?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2014 0:09:44 GMT -5
He was one of several workers who gave their input into the development of the Guidelines. As the Guidelines went through the writing process, it was roughed-in by a smallish group of individuals, then it went out in rough form to a much larger focus group who gave their input as to what they suggested for change. Chris was in that larger group of contributors. Chris was fair and reasonable in his input and made one good suggestion for a wording change. He was quite against a move away from homestay in homes with young children. Otherwise, he agreed with it. I am sure you know that specifics of what overseers (and many workers) know about misconduct of fellow workers is tightly held. These conversations are never recorded and never shared. However, we do know from Chris that his past was known. I doubt that any worker or overseer will confirm or deny it though......the culture prevents that sort of forthright information. I think what you are really asking is whether or not there are currently workers or overseers who could be in a criminal situation right now? If there is, I doubt it is a productive path to go down unless Chris himself were willing to come forward on evidence for that. Thanks for your reply Clearday, and you input Ross. I am a cynical speculator, best I go direct to the questions rather than justify them. Was Chris involved with Wings in any fashion with regards to any CSA incident? Were Wings aware of Chris's past prior to the letter sent out to Vic/Tas friends? No and no. The CSA Guidelines were not a WINGS initiative and Chris was never a key player in the Guidelines....just one of a number of workers on a large focus group. When Chris' past became known, it was a surprise to everyone...a shock and disappointment to some. In fact, up to that point, Chris' position was that he was in trouble from Vic management because of his strong stand against CSA. It is only a very recent development that worker management has been coming around to the idea that CSA crimes should be reported and/or admitted to. The self-protective reflex is very strong within the culture. I don't know what a "key role in CSA issues" means in this case. You would have to elaborate on what the newspaper seemed to be referring to. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 16, 2014 9:56:42 GMT -5
But the dumb and dumbers knew of his adult mature cruel indescretions,but "OH I have put that behind me now'I have changed.So why a celibate non biblical ministry choice?MMMMM? Do you know the answers to this or is this speculation? There are people who have been diagnosed as pedophiles who are opting for chemical castration to help curb their deviant compulsions. Some have never committed a crime but know the potential force of their desires and want to prevent any possibility of stepping over the line. Perhaps CC recognized his problem and thought that a celibate life-style would, along with following the bible, offer some support in helping him not to offend others. Certainly just speculation but probably as valid as any other speculation. Perhaps he should have asked for the monthly injection of Lupron. It has help some in the past. |
|
|
|
Post by magpie on Apr 17, 2014 2:25:47 GMT -5
rational g'day. Well try---en.wikipedia.org/wiki/paraphilia.----Chemical castration for so many workers? NO, the mental disorder has been mostly shown as unaltered,and other methods of getting kicks overule physical alteration. NOT a success. But you think these types amongst celibate ministries & workers should be on medications or chemical surgery,to keep preaching or to stop criminal CSA? We of Gods kingdom are Royal also "children" of a great Kingdom of God.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2014 3:52:21 GMT -5
Thanks again for your prompt reply Clearday. It is good to know that.
Chris Johnston wrote in the newspaper article from pg 1 of this thread:
"From 1991 until 2004 Chandler was in Wodonga, Shepparton, Launceston and rural Tasmania. He later positioned himself within the sect as a counsellor and contact for victims of child sexual abuse."
I just can't visualise behaviour that might draw such a description. I speculated it might have something to do with Wings. Things may have changed but the group I grew up in didn't have workers positioned for counsellors or points of contact for minors in any regard. It is way out of whack that Chris or anyone else might see him fit for any role with victims of CSA.
Clearday posted : It is only a very recent development that worker management has been coming around to the idea that CSA crimes should be reported and/or admitted to. The self-protective reflex is very strong within the culture.
For sure. Way I see it is the group is really an affiliated group of fiefdoms world wide. Sure most of the fiefdoms may be grappling with the relatively quick change in community values with regard to CSA over the last couple of decades. Question is, does the 'self-protective reflex' actually reflect what is happening in Victoria or is there more to it? Has the Victorian worker group normalised sexual assault and inappropriate sexual behaviour to the extent it has developed an understanding that is way out of whack with the rest of the Victorian (and western world) community?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2014 6:38:16 GMT -5
Thanks again for your prompt reply Clearday. It is good to know that. Chris Johnston wrote in the newspaper article from pg 1 of this thread: "From 1991 until 2004 Chandler was in Wodonga, Shepparton, Launceston and rural Tasmania. He later positioned himself within the sect as a counsellor and contact for victims of child sexual abuse." I just can't visualise behaviour that might draw such a description. I speculated it might have something to do with Wings. Things may have changed but the group I grew up in didn't have workers positioned for counsellors or points of contact for minors in any regard. It is way out of whack that Chris or anyone else might see him fit for any role with victims of CSA. I am not sure either what Chris Johnston is referring to. CC had no direct contact with WINGS. I do know that he had some contact with victims but whether he "positioned himself as a counsellor and a contact" may or may not be a bit of a stretch. We do know that he was considered an anti-CSA-friendly worker and as I mentioned, indicated that he felt ostracized from the Victoria worker group for being anti-CSA. At this point, if he was ostracized in his latter worker-days, it may have been for his anti-CSA stance, his CSA history, or his seemingly hypocritical position.....or....  My understanding about the broader Victorian culture is that certain forms of CSA were fairly normalized at one time, particularly in Tasmania. It is believed that Chris Chandler grew up in a culture in which CSA was rampant, not just among 2x2's. I think the greatly outdated laws in Victoria are an indicator of that. So the current trend is a change of culture for the whole state as well as for the F&Ws. David Leitch's comment about doing his own investigations is a subtle reminder that he remains in a CSA-soft mindset and he likely represents a serious cultural resistance to change. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2014 6:50:14 GMT -5
Thanks again for your prompt reply Clearday. It is good to know that. Chris Johnston wrote in the newspaper article from pg 1 of this thread: "From 1991 until 2004 Chandler was in Wodonga, Shepparton, Launceston and rural Tasmania. He later positioned himself within the sect as a counsellor and contact for victims of child sexual abuse." I just can't visualise behaviour that might draw such a description. I speculated it might have something to do with Wings. Things may have changed but the group I grew up in didn't have workers positioned for counsellors or points of contact for minors in any regard. It is way out of whack that Chris or anyone else might see him fit for any role with victims of CSA. Clearday posted : It is only a very recent development that worker management has been coming around to the idea that CSA crimes should be reported and/or admitted to. The self-protective reflex is very strong within the culture. For sure. Way I see it is the group is really an affiliated group of fiefdoms world wide. Sure most of the fiefdoms may be grappling with the relatively quick change in community values with regard to CSA over the last couple of decades. Question is, does the 'self-protective reflex' actually reflect what is happening in Victoria or is there more to it? Has the Victorian worker group normalised sexual assault and inappropriate sexual behaviour to the extent it has developed an understanding that is way out of whack with the rest of the Victorian (and western world) community? I can't imagine a worker leadership group wanting to normalise but all their actions point to the leadership group being completely out of their depth and many actions seem to simply add to the problem. To change a culture you need to start at the top. It would appear high time for David Leitch to step aside and let someone else come in from outside who may be more able to clean out much dirty linen. The only time DL and Victoria have been publicly criticised is by Graham Thompson. GT has now stood aside so DL has effectively won this battle. What I don't understand is why the elders in Victoria haven't demanded accountability from the leadership group. Rather it seems that some have bankrolled cover-ups and supporting EB which must be highly embarrassing. In the light of The Age newspaper articles have the elders got together and demanded a clean-out? If not, why not? My gut feeling is that the friends who are believed to have bankrolled Ernie Barry's legal defence are indeed embarrassed at this point.....or at least would be embarrassed if word got out that they were behind Barry getting a slap on the wrists after now being alleged to have many as 20 victims while in the work. As I mentioned in another post, the same friends are personal friends with Chris Chandler and now we see Chris pleading guilty which indicates a change of heart from the financial supporters to refuse to bankroll yet another fiasco and injustice. Had they had their heads on straight at the time, I think we might have seen Ernie Barry plead guilty too without a top notch lawyer behind him. There has been some good effort among elders in Victoria in this regard, but have faced fierce opposition from Leitch, Robinson and others. I think the problem is that there have not been enough elders in influential positions take the right stand on this. Let's hope something is going on in the background right now in this regard. Based on the worker-worship culture of 2x2ism, I don't hold out high hopes on that. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2014 10:13:12 GMT -5
Clearday posted: "I am not sure either what Chris Johnston is referring to. CC had no direct contact with WINGS. I do know that he had some contact with victims but whether he "positioned himself as a counsellor and a contact" may or may not be a bit of a stretch. We do know that he was considered an anti-CSA-friendly worker and as I mentioned, indicated that he felt ostracized from the Victoria worker group for being anti-CSA. At this point, if he was ostracized in his latter worker-days, it may have been for his anti-CSA stance, his CSA history, or his seemingly hypocritical position.....or.... " In this light I am beginning to wonder if Chris Johnston should be viewed as objective or accurate. Is this a stretch, what else has he stretched? Clearday posted: "My understanding about the broader Victorian culture is that certain forms of CSA were fairly normalized at one time, particularly in Tasmania. It is believed that Chris Chandler grew up in a culture in which CSA was rampant, not just among 2x2's. I think the greatly outdated laws in Victoria are an indicator of that. So the current trend is a change of culture for the whole state as well as for the F&Ws. David Leitch's comment about doing his own investigations is a subtle reminder that he remains in a CSA-soft mindset and he likely represents a serious cultural resistance to change." Hmmm. What is that understanding based upon? As a Victorian from the inside that is not my understanding. I'm not putting on my nationalistic Victorian hat here, just wondering if your assessment of outdated laws is hearsay or based on a good understanding. I wouldn't have thought current law in Victoria is that outdated, guess it depends relative to who. Certainly the recent senate enquiry has suggested changes that would bring Victoria to a better position. I'd definitely challenge your suggestion the current trend is a change of culture for the whole state and I would also challenge Victoria has a 'CSA-soft mindset', if that is what you were suggesting. Victoria and Tasmania are two seperate states, with quite different cultural histories, quite different socio-economic environments both past and present. That they are linked within the 2by2 group into one overseer area does not reflect any link in reality. Being generally of lower socio-economic status and with a strong convict history Tasmania has often been genaralised by mainland aussies as full of two heads, incest, etc. They are simplistic, general views with their only truth being these sort of issues are more common amongst lower socio-economic groups. They are certainly not the hot-spot states in terms of CSA in Australia now or over the last few decades. I challenge the view the law in Australia in any region has ever been particularly CSA-soft. I don't know a lot about Chris's background but I know he was connected with French Island at some time, not certain he grew up there. That is a small, isolated community and perhaps the words CSA-soft environment might be more relevant there. Don't know. I think your understanding gives David Leitch, the Victorian worker group and the 2by2's in victoria a soft landing they don't deserve. David Leitch and the Victorians I grew up with knew CSA was wrong 5 decades ago. Catholic priests have been going to prison in Victoria for over 3 decades now for CSA related offences and it has been in the news in Victoria repeatedly over that time. There is no excuse and no need for a reminder. David Leitch made it to the Age not because of some gentle reminder but because his comments were so out of whack with the community around him. |
|
is that until someone breaks your trust (or is proved dishonest) you should continue to trust them, otherwise you can become a very cynical person seeing people as 'guilty until proven innocent'
