|
Post by Mary on Aug 20, 2023 4:06:46 GMT -5
Regarding the 'faceless' advisory group (FANZAG16), how do we know that the workers haven't just chosen a group of sycophants who serve their purpose in presenting a nice 'corporate world' gloss on this, to paint them and the meetings in a good light. And to try and remove any legal ramifications of CSA and SA from them or the church that they oversee? You mention "restorative justice, and real support for victims". Is this the priority for this FANZAG16 group, with their experience in "professional roles including in risk avoidance and quality compliance, policy development and corporate governance"? Just exactly what we need, I would have thought, to redeem us from all the criminal, moral and spiritual wickedness that has continued to this day. Why, again, is the overseer of the outpost of Western Australia left off this letter? Exactly. The expectation seems to be that we just have to take their word for it. In this regard, nothing much has changed: ...with assurance I can say that each and every instance of CSA allegation made to the ministry in New Zealand is fully looked into and dealt with according to standards that are right in the sight of God and man and will stand open audit. For the record, I believe that ANZAG16 is a good initiative, and, given that it's role is exclusively to advise the ministry, revealing the identities of the members is not an absolute necessity for me. They just shouldn't claim that this is a commitment to transparency. Also, no one should imply (and to be fair; the overseers have never claimed this) that ANZAG16 is an alternative to TBTA. It remains to be seen, but I hope that ANZAG16 will work closely with initiatives such as TBTA, AFTT, VFTT, and Wings. They could fill an important role as mediator, especially given the reluctance of certain workers to cooperate. It would be good for you to add what year noels / International Studies wrote that. Maybe 10 years ago. We were given assurance back then. Nothing changed?
|
|
|
Post by Persona non grata on Aug 20, 2023 4:09:37 GMT -5
You mention "restorative justice, and real support for victims". Is this the priority for this FANZAG16 group, with their experience in "professional roles including in risk avoidance and quality compliance, policy development and corporate governance"? Just exactly what we need, I would have thought, to redeem us from all the criminal, moral and spiritual wickedness that has continued to this day. Why, again, is the overseer of the outpost of Western Australia left off this letter? Regarding Restorative Justice; ( en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorative_justice ) that is what the ministry should be focused on as their role when it comes to handling cases of abuse. Criminal Justice is the role of the police and the court system. In most of the recent letters that have come from the overseers, they encourage all victims of sexual abuse to take it to the appropriate authorities (law enforcement). This is, without question, the right thing to do. Further to that, the overseers need to cooperate fully with law enforcement authorities and immediately provide all information regarding issues of sexual abuse within the church. Restorative Justice should not replace but rather be in addition to Criminal Justice, and is the role of the church. It seeks to get offenders to take responsibility for their actions, to understand the harm they have caused, to give them an opportunity to redeem themselves, and to discourage them from causing further harm. Restorative Justice involves the victims, giving them an active role in the process, and encourages healing. Restorative Justice asks the questions: 1) Who has been hurt? 2) What are their needs? 3) Whose obligations are these? 4) What are the causes? 5) Who has a stake in the situation? 6) What is the appropriate process to involve stakeholders in an effort to address causes and put things right? (Zehr, Howard. Changing Lenses – A New Focus for Crime and Justice. Scottdale PA: 2005 (3rd ed), 271.) Amoungst other things; - It requires empathy of the ministry, and means sitting down with victims/survivors on their own terms (regardless of "professing" status) and welcoming dialogue in a caring, non-combative environment. - It means sitting down with the offenders, making them understand the harm they have caused, seeking them to take responsibility for their actions, and encouraging them to hand themselves over to law enforcement (as part of seeking redemption). - It means providing (also covering financially) professional services for therapy and healing for victims/survivors. - It requires that the ministry take responsibility for the culture of the church which has enabled such abuse, and it means actively changing this culture. Helpful resources: restorativejustice.org.uk/what-restorative-justicewhy-me.org/what-is-restorative-justice/www.victimsupport.org.uk/help-and-support/your-rights/restorative-justice/www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/rj-jr/index.html
|
|
|
Post by mountain on Aug 20, 2023 4:22:03 GMT -5
Exactly. The expectation seems to be that we just have to take their word for it. In this regard, nothing much has changed: For the record, I believe that ANZAG16 is a good initiative, and, given that it's role is exclusively to advise the ministry, revealing the identities of the members is not an absolute necessity for me. They just shouldn't claim that this is a commitment to transparency. Also, no one should imply (and to be fair; the overseers have never claimed this) that ANZAG16 is an alternative to TBTA. It remains to be seen, but I hope that ANZAG16 will work closely with initiatives such as TBTA, AFTT, VFTT, and Wings. They could fill an important role as mediator, especially given the reluctance of certain workers to cooperate. It would be good for you to add what year noels / International Studies wrote that. Maybe 10 years ago. We were given assurance back then. Nothing changed? Give the guy a chance! Do you expect everything to happen at the snap of the fingers? I have it on good authority that in the meantime he has had to nip out for a pint of milk and the newspapers.
|
|
|
Post by Persona non grata on Aug 20, 2023 4:37:17 GMT -5
Why, again, is the overseer of the outpost of Western Australia left off this letter? Again, lacking transparency, but the situation is that the oveerseers have received an accusation, made by a former companion of his, of one incident of possible sexual abuse. The overseers have also received a letter from former worker, Graham Thompson, in which he refers to his questionable record on moral matters. The overseers are aparently questioning the credibility of the accusations and have asked for further clarification. While the situation is under investigation, he appears to have been relieved of oveerseer responsibilities, but remains in the work.
|
|
|
Post by Persona non grata on Aug 20, 2023 4:47:01 GMT -5
It would be good for you to add what year noels / International Studies wrote that. Maybe 10 years ago. We were given assurance back then. Nothing changed? The timestamp shows the quote as having been made 12 April 2012. (This may not be visible if you're viewing on a mobile phone.)
|
|
|
Post by Pragmatic on Aug 20, 2023 5:03:56 GMT -5
Why, again, is the overseer of the outpost of Western Australia left off this letter? Again, lacking transparency, but the situation is that the oveerseers have received an accusation, made by a former companion of his, of one incident of possible sexual abuse. The overseers have also received a letter from former worker, Graham Thompson, in which he refers to his questionable record on moral matters. The overseers are aparently questioning the credibility of the accusations and have asked for further clarification. While the situation is under investigation, he appears to have been relieved of oveerseer responsibilities, but remains in the work. Yup, and to add to it, it confirmed what many of us here knew with regard to a former companion, and suspected regarding other behaviour and leanings.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Aug 20, 2023 15:14:49 GMT -5
Exactly. The expectation seems to be that we just have to take their word for it. In this regard, nothing much has changed: For the record, I believe that ANZAG16 is a good initiative, and, given that it's role is exclusively to advise the ministry, revealing the identities of the members is not an absolute necessity for me. They just shouldn't claim that this is a commitment to transparency. Also, no one should imply (and to be fair; the overseers have never claimed this) that ANZAG16 is an alternative to TBTA. It remains to be seen, but I hope that ANZAG16 will work closely with initiatives such as TBTA, AFTT, VFTT, and Wings. They could fill an important role as mediator, especially given the reluctance of certain workers to cooperate. It would be good for you to add what year noels / International Studies wrote that. Maybe 10 years ago. We were given assurance back then. Nothing changed? April 18, 2012 so over 11 years ago.
|
|
tulip2
Junior Member
Posts: 176
|
Post by tulip2 on Aug 21, 2023 8:45:27 GMT -5
For the record, I believe that ANZAG16 is a good initiative, and, given that its role is exclusively to advise the ministry, revealing the identities of the members is not an absolute necessity for me. They just shouldn't claim that this is a commitment to transparency. Several names of members of the G16 are being bandied around on the grapevine. Well-placed sources, likely knowledgeable. If correct, those overseers with connections to South Australia and NSW have had considerable influence in choosing the G16 members. At least it gives us some faces to hold accountable for whatever happens (or doesn't happen)
|
|
|
Post by godsgrace on Sept 3, 2023 23:38:39 GMT -5
The following letter released to elders in Australia and NZ for distribution. It gives a little insight into the promised Advisory Group: 18 August 2023 Dear Australian and New Zealand Co-workers, Elders and Friends, Thank you to everyone for your response to our letter of 1 July 2023, regarding the prevention of child sexual abuse. We appreciate your patience as we work to address these issues in a measured and sensitive way and feel it is now important to provide you with an update. We have communicated our zero tolerance with respect to the harming of children, young people, or anyone within our fellowship and have begun actions to support this stance. The impact of child sexual abuse is devastating and far reaching. Our thoughts are with each one of you who have been affected. Since we last wrote to you, work has commenced to develop a standard policy and approach towards child sexual abuse prevention and survivor support. An advisory group consisting of 16 individuals from Australia and New Zealand has been formed to undertake this work. This advisory group includes members with lived experience of child sexual abuse and those who have supported survivors. It includes members with experience in child safety and protection, child safe compliance, vulnerable persons advocacy, psychology, counseling, and mental health. Several members hold professional roles including in risk avoidance and quality compliance, policy development and corporate governance. The group includes ten females, three workers, elders, and elders’ wives. A broad age range is represented. The advisory group’s role, is to provide advice to the ministry, focusing on child safety and survivor support, drawing on personal and professional experience, sourcing assistance from specialist experts, external resources and professional bodies as required. Consultation and engagement will be needed from time to time, for example the voice of our parents and our young people will be critical. The advisory group will also rely upon reputable, published material, expert bodies’ formal guidelines and relevant research that is publicly accessible, to provide advice that is grounded in best practice and will operate fully within the bounds of the law. Australian national child safety standards and New Zealand child safety guidelines will form the basis of the review of current child safety practices and guide development of improvements within our fellowship. The identity of advisory group members will remain confidential, and they will not be providing direct engagement with the broader fellowship. Member confidentiality is important for the protection of survivors within the group, and to enable the group to focus on this important work in an impartial manner without external pressure or distraction. We will be looking at mechanisms to provide additional support to survivors in future. All members of the advisory group completed independently recognised training on the prevention of child sexual abuse and advisory group level training. In addition, all members have obtained and provided current Working with Children Checks or Children’s Worker Safety Checks and police clearances. The scope of work to be completed is large and will take time to develop and implement. The advisory group has commenced a risk assessment to determine the areas of highest risk so these can be given immediate attention. We appreciate each one of you who have encouraged and supported us to move forward in addressing concerns about management of child safety and survivor support. We thank each one who has approached us with concerns about individual situations. We have had to make some difficult and firm decisions to mitigate risks to children and will continue to do so. We understand that it will take time to restore your trust and we feel inadequate in addressing these issues but commit to working openly and transparently on preventing and responding to child sexual abuse. The advisory group will be valuable in guiding us however we will need the support of each one of you to progress. We acknowledge processes may take longer than some may wish. We expect to update you in the next month and will continue to communicate with you as the work progresses and we have further matters to address. We thank you for your efforts in supporting each other and any survivors who no longer feel able to meet with us in fellowship. Warm regards and encouragement Malcolm Clapham, Graeme Dalton, Wayne Dean, Trevor Joll, Alan Mitchell and Alan Richardson. Australia: Get support | National Office for Child Safety or 24/7 support on 1800 737 732 New Zealand: www.kidshealth.org.nz/listing-information-support-resources-child-abuse or 24/7 support on 0508 326 459 "We understand that it will take time to restore your trust and we feel inadequate in addressing these issues but commit to working openly and transparently on preventing and responding to child sexual abuse." But there's 3 workers on this Advisory committee? So is that at least 3 people on the Advisory committee that are inadequate? or are they not any of the overseers that have signed this letter???
|
|
|
Post by Persona non grata on Sept 4, 2023 0:34:43 GMT -5
The following letter released to elders in Australia and NZ for distribution. It gives a little insight into the promised Advisory Group: 18 August 2023 Dear Australian and New Zealand Co-workers, Elders and Friends, Thank you to everyone for your response to our letter of 1 July 2023, regarding the prevention of child sexual abuse. We appreciate your patience as we work to address these issues in a measured and sensitive way and feel it is now important to provide you with an update. We have communicated our zero tolerance with respect to the harming of children, young people, or anyone within our fellowship and have begun actions to support this stance. The impact of child sexual abuse is devastating and far reaching. Our thoughts are with each one of you who have been affected. Since we last wrote to you, work has commenced to develop a standard policy and approach towards child sexual abuse prevention and survivor support. An advisory group consisting of 16 individuals from Australia and New Zealand has been formed to undertake this work. This advisory group includes members with lived experience of child sexual abuse and those who have supported survivors. It includes members with experience in child safety and protection, child safe compliance, vulnerable persons advocacy, psychology, counseling, and mental health. Several members hold professional roles including in risk avoidance and quality compliance, policy development and corporate governance. The group includes ten females, three workers, elders, and elders’ wives. A broad age range is represented. The advisory group’s role, is to provide advice to the ministry, focusing on child safety and survivor support, drawing on personal and professional experience, sourcing assistance from specialist experts, external resources and professional bodies as required. Consultation and engagement will be needed from time to time, for example the voice of our parents and our young people will be critical. The advisory group will also rely upon reputable, published material, expert bodies’ formal guidelines and relevant research that is publicly accessible, to provide advice that is grounded in best practice and will operate fully within the bounds of the law. Australian national child safety standards and New Zealand child safety guidelines will form the basis of the review of current child safety practices and guide development of improvements within our fellowship. The identity of advisory group members will remain confidential, and they will not be providing direct engagement with the broader fellowship. Member confidentiality is important for the protection of survivors within the group, and to enable the group to focus on this important work in an impartial manner without external pressure or distraction. We will be looking at mechanisms to provide additional support to survivors in future. All members of the advisory group completed independently recognised training on the prevention of child sexual abuse and advisory group level training. In addition, all members have obtained and provided current Working with Children Checks or Children’s Worker Safety Checks and police clearances. The scope of work to be completed is large and will take time to develop and implement. The advisory group has commenced a risk assessment to determine the areas of highest risk so these can be given immediate attention. We appreciate each one of you who have encouraged and supported us to move forward in addressing concerns about management of child safety and survivor support. We thank each one who has approached us with concerns about individual situations. We have had to make some difficult and firm decisions to mitigate risks to children and will continue to do so. We understand that it will take time to restore your trust and we feel inadequate in addressing these issues but commit to working openly and transparently on preventing and responding to child sexual abuse. The advisory group will be valuable in guiding us however we will need the support of each one of you to progress. We acknowledge processes may take longer than some may wish. We expect to update you in the next month and will continue to communicate with you as the work progresses and we have further matters to address. We thank you for your efforts in supporting each other and any survivors who no longer feel able to meet with us in fellowship. Warm regards and encouragement Malcolm Clapham, Graeme Dalton, Wayne Dean, Trevor Joll, Alan Mitchell and Alan Richardson. Australia: Get support | National Office for Child Safety or 24/7 support on 1800 737 732 New Zealand: www.kidshealth.org.nz/listing-information-support-resources-child-abuse or 24/7 support on 0508 326 459 "We understand that it will take time to restore your trust and we feel inadequate in addressing these issues but commit to working openly and transparently on preventing and responding to child sexual abuse." But there's 3 workers on this Advisory committee? So is that at least 3 people on the Advisory committee that are inadequate? or are they not any of the overseers that have signed this letter??? Apparently the three workers are not overseers. And apparently the commitment to transparency doesn’t extend to being transparent about the Advisory Group. In fact, I can’t figure out what it actually IS, they’re referring to about being transparent.
|
|
jwatt
Junior Member
Posts: 190
|
Post by jwatt on Sept 4, 2023 1:15:43 GMT -5
"We understand that it will take time to restore your trust and we feel inadequate in addressing these issues but commit to working openly and transparently on preventing and responding to child sexual abuse." But there's 3 workers on this Advisory committee? So is that at least 3 people on the Advisory committee that are inadequate? or are they not any of the overseers that have signed this letter??? Apparently the three workers are not overseers. And apparently the commitment to transparency doesn’t extend to being transparent about the Advisory Group. In fact, I’m can’t figure out what it actually IS, they’re referring to about being transparent. Do they, workers/overseers know what to be transparent means??
|
|
|
Post by Persona non grata on Sept 4, 2023 1:59:09 GMT -5
Apparently the three workers are not overseers. And apparently the commitment to transparency doesn’t extend to being transparent about the Advisory Group. In fact, I’m can’t figure out what it actually IS, they’re referring to about being transparent. Do they, workers/overseers know what to be transparent means?? It seems they do have difficulty understanding the concept. Perhaps understandably, given that, for a century, the majority of them have held a united commitment to the exact opposite of transparency.
|
|
|
Post by Pragmatic on Sept 4, 2023 3:19:17 GMT -5
To me
Transparency would have been saying that GT was right all along, and deserves a public apology.
Transparency would have been acknowledging that they have not done things right, and now wish to make amends.
Transparency would have been inviting submissions from elders, and even the friends, to suggest a way forward.
Transparency would have been having a committee setup to full investigate the workers involved in covering up abuses, perpetrators and/or moving/hiding them.
And the committee would be made up of a majority of outside professionals who have no axe to grind, and have no fear of ex-communication.
Transparency would be have a defined scope that is made public, along with who the committee members are. And because they outside the church, they would be less inclined to be subjected to pressure from inside the church.
It would be appointing a committee that is done in conjunction with elders.
|
|
|
Post by Persona non grata on Sept 4, 2023 4:00:10 GMT -5
To me Transparency would have been saying that GT was right all along, and deserves a public apology. Transparency would have been acknowledging that they have not done things right, and now wish to make amends. Transparency would have been inviting submissions from elders, and even the friends, to suggest a way forward. Transparency would have been having a committee setup to full investigate the workers involved in covering up abuses, perpetrators and/or moving/hiding them. And the committee would be made up of a majority of outside professionals who have no axe to grind, and have no fear of ex-communication. Transparency would be have a defined scope that is made public, along with who the committee members are. And because they outside the church, they would be less inclined to be subjected to pressure from inside the church. It would be appointing a committee that is done in conjunction with elders. Your first point would be an exercise in humility, and GT is not the only worker to deserve such an apology. Regarding your second point; To be fair, the ministry in Aus/NZ have made such an acknowledgment. Otherwise I’d add a couple of extra points to your good ones: Transparency would mean publicly acknowledging, and embracing, the history of the movement, including the roles played by Irvine and co. (To be fair, some workers/overseers are open about discussing this, but fall short of publicly preaching it.) Transparency would mean being honest and open about the financial status of the movement, giving members insight into the use of funds.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Sept 4, 2023 4:29:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Persona non grata on Sept 4, 2023 4:48:05 GMT -5
This letter from 1991 shows that the same issues go again and again. Other examples are workers who have tried taking such issues up with their overseer, only to have been forced out of the ministry. The treatment they’ve received can itself be considered abuse; it has had dire effects on their mental health, and has pushed some to the brink of suicide.
|
|
|
Post by openingact34 on Sept 4, 2023 5:14:10 GMT -5
To me Transparency would have been saying that GT was right all along, and deserves a public apology. Transparency would have been acknowledging that they have not done things right, and now wish to make amends. Transparency would have been inviting submissions from elders, and even the friends, to suggest a way forward. Transparency would have been having a committee setup to full investigate the workers involved in covering up abuses, perpetrators and/or moving/hiding them. And the committee would be made up of a majority of outside professionals who have no axe to grind, and have no fear of ex-communication. Transparency would be have a defined scope that is made public, along with who the committee members are. And because they outside the church, they would be less inclined to be subjected to pressure from inside the church. It would be appointing a committee that is done in conjunction with elders. This is a religion, and we know that the overseers labored greatly in the place of prayer, asking what to do about these cases. Transparency means telling plainly what the direction from God was: 1) Did God guide you to cover it up and you obeyed? Or 2) Did God direct you to report it and you disobeyed? Or 3) Did God refuse to answer and told you to focus the preaching on women's hairstyles and dress code?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Sept 4, 2023 14:33:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Sept 4, 2023 14:54:06 GMT -5
Transparency would mean publicly acknowledging, and embracing, the history of the movement, including the roles played by Irvine and co. (To be fair, some workers/overseers are open about discussing this, but fall short of publicly preaching it.) Transparency would mean being honest and open about the financial status of the movement, giving members insight into the use of funds. That looks like mission creep. Let's stay focused on the sex offender problems.
|
|
|
Post by Persona non grata on Sept 4, 2023 15:20:57 GMT -5
Transparency would mean publicly acknowledging, and embracing, the history of the movement, including the roles played by Irvine and co. (To be fair, some workers/overseers are open about discussing this, but fall short of publicly preaching it.) Transparency would mean being honest and open about the financial status of the movement, giving members insight into the use of funds. That looks like mission creep. Let's stay focused on the sex offender problems. Cleansing the church of CSA is the first priority, but we need to go further than that. There are many other forms of abuse that are rampant in the church. One major contributor to this is the culture of deceit. When the early workers conspired to hide the beginnings of the ministry, they started down a slippery slope; making it acceptable to lie, ultimately leading to the mass of cover-ups of sexual abuse, which are finally being exposed today. We will never be quit abuse in the church until we change from a culture of deceit to a culture of honesty and transparency. (There are a few more cultural aspects that need to change - fear and apathy foremost, but I'll save that rant for another day.)
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Sept 4, 2023 22:34:53 GMT -5
That looks like mission creep. Let's stay focused on the sex offender problems. Cleansing the church of CSA is the first priority, but we need to go further than that. There are many other forms of abuse that are rampant in the church. One major contributor to this is the culture of deceit. When the early workers conspired to hide the beginnings of the ministry, they started down a slippery slope; making it acceptable to lie, ultimately leading to the mass of cover-ups of sexual abuse, which are finally being exposed today. We will never be quit abuse in the church until we change from a culture of deceit to a culture of honesty and transparency. (There are a few more cultural aspects that need to change - fear and apathy foremost, but I'll save that rant for another day.) Perhaps the biggest deception is to claim that the kingdom of God/Heaven is an organisation or religious system on Earth. It's essential for all to understand that the kingdom lived and taught by Jesus is within the hearts of those who accept it.
|
|