Victims

[Walt]

So, the posts in the OBC category about the issues at Open Door and that other church (Parkside) made me start thinking, and maybe it would be productive to ask the group:

1) Should the victim's family stay at the church where the problem happened?  My opinion: so often, there is a cover-up mentality, and they are made to feel like they are trouble-makers, and responsible for what happened, so it would be really, really hard to stay.

2) How SHOULD the victim/victim's family be treated by other church members?

3) If the victim and/or victim's family begins visiting around, should they tell every church they visit what happened?  Should they tell only the pastor? If they join another church, do the members need to know what they've gone through?

4) If you're on staff, and you happen to learn about the issues that the visitor had with a church in the area, should the family be treated any differently?

 

[Twisted]

So, the posts in the OBC category about the issues at Open Door and that other church (Parkside) made me start thinking, and maybe it would be productive to ask the group:

1) Should the victim's family stay at the church where the problem happened?  My opinion: so often, there is a cover-up mentality, and they are made to feel like they are trouble-makers, and responsible for what happened, so it would be really, really hard to stay.

2) How SHOULD the victim/victim's family be treated by other church members?

3) If the victim and/or victim's family begins visiting around, should they tell every church they visit what happened?  Should they tell only the pastor? If they join another church, do the members need to know what they've gone through?

4) If you're on staff, and you happen to learn about the issues that the visitor had with a church in the area, should the family be treated any differently?

Happy to say I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

So, the posts in the OBC category about the issues at Open Door and that other church (Parkside) made me start thinking, and maybe it would be productive to ask the group:

1) Should the victim's family stay at the church where the problem happened?  My opinion: so often, there is a cover-up mentality, and they are made to feel like they are trouble-makers, and responsible for what happened, so it would be really, really hard to stay.

2) How SHOULD the victim/victim's family be treated by other church members?

3) If the victim and/or victim's family begins visiting around, should they tell every church they visit what happened?  Should they tell only the pastor? If they join another church, do the members need to know what they've gone through?

4) If you're on staff, and you happen to learn about the issues that the visitor had with a church in the area, should the family be treated any differently?

Happy to say I have no idea what you're talking about.

I don't either but victims should get away from abuse and expose it if they possibly feel they can.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

So, the posts in the OBC category about the issues at Open Door and that other church (Parkside) made me start thinking, and maybe it would be productive to ask the group:

1) Should the victim's family stay at the church where the problem happened?  My opinion: so often, there is a cover-up mentality, and they are made to feel like they are trouble-makers, and responsible for what happened, so it would be really, really hard to stay.

2) How SHOULD the victim/victim's family be treated by other church members?

3) If the victim and/or victim's family begins visiting around, should they tell every church they visit what happened?  Should they tell only the pastor? If they join another church, do the members need to know what they've gone through?

4) If you're on staff, and you happen to learn about the issues that the visitor had with a church in the area, should the family be treated any differently?

Not sure what this is about, but it sounds like something legal authorities should be notified about.

 

[Walt]

So, the posts in the OBC category about the issues at Open Door and that other church (Parkside) made me start thinking, and maybe it would be productive to ask the group:

1) Should the victim's family stay at the church where the problem happened?  My opinion: so often, there is a cover-up mentality, and they are made to feel like they are trouble-makers, and responsible for what happened, so it would be really, really hard to stay.

2) How SHOULD the victim/victim's family be treated by other church members?

3) If the victim and/or victim's family begins visiting around, should they tell every church they visit what happened?  Should they tell only the pastor? If they join another church, do the members need to know what they've gone through?

4) If you're on staff, and you happen to learn about the issues that the visitor had with a church in the area, should the family be treated any differently?

Happy to say I have no idea what you're talking about.

There are posts in the Oklahoma Baptist College group about some fairly recent reports of abuse in churches.  It just started me thinking about how the victims should be treated.

 

[Walt]

So, the posts in the OBC category about the issues at Open Door and that other church (Parkside) made me start thinking, and maybe it would be productive to ask the group:

1) Should the victim's family stay at the church where the problem happened?  My opinion: so often, there is a cover-up mentality, and they are made to feel like they are trouble-makers, and responsible for what happened, so it would be really, really hard to stay.

2) How SHOULD the victim/victim's family be treated by other church members?

3) If the victim and/or victim's family begins visiting around, should they tell every church they visit what happened?  Should they tell only the pastor? If they join another church, do the members need to know what they've gone through?

4) If you're on staff, and you happen to learn about the issues that the visitor had with a church in the area, should the family be treated any differently?

Happy to say I have no idea what you're talking about.

I don't either but victims should get away from abuse and expose it if they possibly feel they can.

It was exposed; a pastor of one church was charged with failing to report abuse, and three members (of two different churches) were arrested.  It's been reported in the Oklahoma Baptist College group (not sure why, except that one of the pastors was from Vineyard's church).

So, even if the church reports the abuse and the abuser is arrested, you advocate that the victims should leave the church??

 

[Walt]

So, the posts in the OBC category about the issues at Open Door and that other church (Parkside) made me start thinking, and maybe it would be productive to ask the group:

1) Should the victim's family stay at the church where the problem happened?  My opinion: so often, there is a cover-up mentality, and they are made to feel like they are trouble-makers, and responsible for what happened, so it would be really, really hard to stay.

2) How SHOULD the victim/victim's family be treated by other church members?

3) If the victim and/or victim's family begins visiting around, should they tell every church they visit what happened?  Should they tell only the pastor? If they join another church, do the members need to know what they've gone through?

4) If you're on staff, and you happen to learn about the issues that the visitor had with a church in the area, should the family be treated any differently?

Not sure what this is about, but it sounds like something legal authorities should be notified about.

They were.

From what I've read on here, most of the time, the victims are treated as "the one who caused trouble for us" and are ostracized.

I wondered what a church ought to do, and, if the victims leave, how other churches should treat them.

 

[Twisted]

From what I've read on here, most of the time, the victims are treated as "the one who caused trouble for us" and are ostracized.

We just saw this with the response Jack Treiber gave concerning his president at GSBC.  He said "pray for the Giovani family.  We love them.  etc. etc."

No mention of the victim or prayers for the victim.  The subtle hint being "we wouldn't be having this problem if not for the victim".

Might not have been his motive, but it comes across that way.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

So, the posts in the OBC category about the issues at Open Door and that other church (Parkside) made me start thinking, and maybe it would be productive to ask the group:

1) Should the victim's family stay at the church where the problem happened?  My opinion: so often, there is a cover-up mentality, and they are made to feel like they are trouble-makers, and responsible for what happened, so it would be really, really hard to stay.

2) How SHOULD the victim/victim's family be treated by other church members?

3) If the victim and/or victim's family begins visiting around, should they tell every church they visit what happened?  Should they tell only the pastor? If they join another church, do the members need to know what they've gone through?

4) If you're on staff, and you happen to learn about the issues that the visitor had with a church in the area, should the family be treated any differently?

Happy to say I have no idea what you're talking about.

I don't either but victims should get away from abuse and expose it if they possibly feel they can.

It was exposed; a pastor of one church was charged with failing to report abuse, and three members (of two different churches) were arrested.  It's been reported in the Oklahoma Baptist College group (not sure why, except that one of the pastors was from Vineyard's church).

So, even if the church reports the abuse and the abuser is arrested, you advocate that the victims should leave the church??

I think it would depend on the strength of the victim. I know there is no way in the world I could stay in the same environment where I was abused, even if things had changed. For me, it wouldn't benefit my emotional or spiritual health. I'm sure there are others who are stronger and it wouldn't affect them as much, so I guess there is no right or wrong decision on the part of the victim.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

So, the posts in the OBC category about the issues at Open Door and that other church (Parkside) made me start thinking, and maybe it would be productive to ask the group:

1) Should the victim's family stay at the church where the problem happened?  My opinion: so often, there is a cover-up mentality, and they are made to feel like they are trouble-makers, and responsible for what happened, so it would be really, really hard to stay.

2) How SHOULD the victim/victim's family be treated by other church members?

3) If the victim and/or victim's family begins visiting around, should they tell every church they visit what happened?  Should they tell only the pastor? If they join another church, do the members need to know what they've gone through?

4) If you're on staff, and you happen to learn about the issues that the visitor had with a church in the area, should the family be treated any differently?

Not sure what this is about, but it sounds like something legal authorities should be notified about.

They were.

From what I've read on here, most of the time, the victims are treated as "the one who caused trouble for us" and are ostracized.

I wondered what a church ought to do, and, if the victims leave, how other churches should treat them.

If the church wants to follow the teachings of Christ, they should ALWAYS side with the victims. The church should be the place where the vulnerable are accepted and loved and looked after. You know, the "spiritual hospital" analogy...

 

[Walt]

From what I've read on here, most of the time, the victims are treated as "the one who caused trouble for us" and are ostracized.

We just saw this with the response Jack Treiber gave concerning his president at GSBC.  He said "pray for the Giovani family.  We love them.  etc. etc."

No mention of the victim or prayers for the victim.  The subtle hint being "we wouldn't be having this problem if not for the victim".

Might not have been his motive, but it comes across that way.

True.

But consider what should happen... let's say child "C" makes an accusation against staffer "S"... at this stage, it's only an accusation. Most churches have policies that, at the accusation, "S" is removed from his position during the investigation. Most states have mandatory reporting rules, so the authorities are contacted.

In case #1, let's suppose that "S" denies the charges. Is "S" still encouraged to attend church?  Should "S" be monitored to any degree?  Whether or not "C" attends is up to the parents of "C", I suppose.  I'm not sure what the church members' attitude should be to "S" and to "C" when it's only an accusation -- polite to both?

In case #2, "S" confesses that he has committed this sin and expresses remorse. Presumably, the church will let the authorities know that "S" has confessed.  Does "S" continue to be a member?  This is the time to show support for "C" and the family of "C".

For case #1, there are the two further possible developments:

1A) The authorities investigate and find insufficient evidence of wrongdoing. This is probably the hardest because one now has one person's word against another.  Is "S" restored to his position?  How is "C" treated?

1B) The authorities investigate and charge "S".

 

[Walt]

So, the posts in the OBC category about the issues at Open Door and that other church (Parkside) made me start thinking, and maybe it would be productive to ask the group:

1) Should the victim's family stay at the church where the problem happened?  My opinion: so often, there is a cover-up mentality, and they are made to feel like they are trouble-makers, and responsible for what happened, so it would be really, really hard to stay.

2) How SHOULD the victim/victim's family be treated by other church members?

3) If the victim and/or victim's family begins visiting around, should they tell every church they visit what happened?  Should they tell only the pastor? If they join another church, do the members need to know what they've gone through?

4) If you're on staff, and you happen to learn about the issues that the visitor had with a church in the area, should the family be treated any differently?

Not sure what this is about, but it sounds like something legal authorities should be notified about.

They were.

From what I've read on here, most of the time, the victims are treated as "the one who caused trouble for us" and are ostracized.

I wondered what a church ought to do, and, if the victims leave, how other churches should treat them.

If the church wants to follow the teachings of Christ, they should ALWAYS side with the victims. The church should be the place where the vulnerable are accepted and loved and looked after. You know, the "spiritual hospital" analogy...

But... if the accusation is false and malicious, the accused is the real victim, not the accuser.  I don't know that it is reasonable to suppose that every accusation is automatically true and that the accused person in guilty.

 

[Twisted]

True.

But consider what should happen... let's say child "C" makes an accusation against staffer "S"... at this stage, it's only an accusation. Most churches have policies that, at the accusation, "S" is removed from his position during the investigation. Most states have mandatory reporting rules, so the authorities are contacted.

In case #1, let's suppose that "S" denies the charges. Is "S" still encouraged to attend church?  Should "S" be monitored to any degree?  Whether or not "C" attends is up to the parents of "C", I suppose.  I'm not sure what the church members' attitude should be to "S" and to "C" when it's only an accusation -- polite to both?

In case #2, "S" confesses that he has committed this sin and expresses remorse. Presumably, the church will let the authorities know that "S" has confessed.  Does "S" continue to be a member?  This is the time to show support for "C" and the family of "C".

For case #1, there are the two further possible developments:

1A) The authorities investigate and find insufficient evidence of wrongdoing. This is probably the hardest because one now has one person's word against another.  Is "S" restored to his position?  How is "C" treated?

1B) The authorities investigate and charge "S".

Bro., this is WAY too complicated!  LOL!

If someone is accused, whether found innocent or guilty, they will have a stain on their life.  Period.  There will always be a question in the back of peoples minds.

Of course, you did not say if any of this has been made public.  If not public, then the accused should stay in position until its proved that the accusation is correct.  The accuser should also remain private.  The investigation should remain private.

But if public,  then it's over.  Either way.

 

[Tanner]

In the Open Case leadership found out the 33 year man was abusing a 15 year old girl.  They kicked the girl out of school and thought that solved the problem.  Thank God members in the church alerted authorities the abuser was arrested.  The Pastor was also arrested, for the cover up, and the deacons asked for his resignation. 

Right now there are people in that church blaming the whistle blowers for what the church is going through.  To answer your question,  in this case,  I don?t think it?s possible for the victims to stay in the church because of the hostility that would come their way.

 

[Tanner]

Let me add that some of these IFB churches are so full of pride that they don?t want their preacher buddies to find out they have sin in their church.  Instead of dealing with it, and turning it over to God, they hide it. 

 

[Walt]

True.

But consider what should happen... let's say child "C" makes an accusation against staffer "S"... at this stage, it's only an accusation. Most churches have policies that, at the accusation, "S" is removed from his position during the investigation. Most states have mandatory reporting rules, so the authorities are contacted.

In case #1, let's suppose that "S" denies the charges. Is "S" still encouraged to attend church?  Should "S" be monitored to any degree?  Whether or not "C" attends is up to the parents of "C", I suppose.  I'm not sure what the church members' attitude should be to "S" and to "C" when it's only an accusation -- polite to both?

In case #2, "S" confesses that he has committed this sin and expresses remorse. Presumably, the church will let the authorities know that "S" has confessed.  Does "S" continue to be a member?  This is the time to show support for "C" and the family of "C".

For case #1, there are the two further possible developments:

1A) The authorities investigate and find insufficient evidence of wrongdoing. This is probably the hardest because one now has one person's word against another.  Is "S" restored to his position?  How is "C" treated?

1B) The authorities investigate and charge "S".

Bro., this is WAY too complicated!  LOL!

Yes, just like real life.

If someone is accused, whether found innocent or guilty, they will have a stain on their life.  Period.  There will always be a question in the back of peoples minds.

Well, in a practical sense, you're right, but it's a shame that just an accusation can ruin an innocent person's life like this.

Of course, you did not say if any of this has been made public.  If not public, then the accused should stay in position until its proved that the accusation is correct.  The accuser should also remain private.  The investigation should remain private.

But if public,  then it's over.  Either way.

Well, if the police get involved, I assume it's public at that point.  I think churches are required by insurance companies to have procedures to deal with accusations; I remember going over this at the last few churches we were part of.  One church (a big Hyles follower) tried to make it a big point that the insurance companies did not dictate church policy, but I knew better. Another church didn't try to fool anyone; they said that having a written policy was a requirement to get insurance.  I seem to recall that the accused was to be removed from the position while the investigation was going on.  Personally, I've seen too much cover-up going on, so I'd rather be up-front with what's going on: "Bro S has had an accusation brought against him; by our rules, he must be removed from the position while the accusation is ongoing.  However, it's wrong to assume someone is automatically guilty just because he has been accused, so we should not treat him any differently. We should pray that the truth is revealed."  (or something like that).

 

[Walt]

In the Open Case leadership found out the 33 year man was abusing a 15 year old girl.  They kicked the girl out of school and thought that solved the problem.  Thank God members in the church alerted authorities the abuser was arrested.  The Pastor was also arrested, for the cover up, and the deacons asked for his resignation. 

Amen to the "thank God"!

I've heard it said that the other church with a similar case also had cover-up done, but I don't suppose you'd have insight into that?  I know that the pastor there went to HAC and that they are fans of Hyles.  If they have done wrong, so be it, but I hope not.

Right now there are people in that church blaming the whistle blowers for what the church is going through.  To answer your question,  in this case,  I don?t think it?s possible for the victims to stay in the church because of the hostility that would come their way.

I fully agree -- it is human nature to (as it is said) "kill the messenger" and is probably not possible to stay in the same church.


I'm aware that Open Door didn't handle things properly, but I was curious as to how it SHOULD have been done, and thought it was make a good topic.

 

[Walt]

Let me add that some of these IFB churches are so full of pride that they don?t want their preacher buddies to find out they have sin in their church.  Instead of dealing with it, and turning it over to God, they hide it.

Well said.  May we love God above our "buddies"!!

 

[Twisted]

Well, if the police get involved, I assume it's public at that point.

Having no experience at this, I'm sure my answer will be naive, but I'm not so sure that having the police involved would necessarily make it public.  Investigations can and should be done with discretion.  I think more of a problem will be big-mouth family/friends who can't keep their mouth shut.

 

[Tanner]

Let me add that some of these IFB churches are so full of pride that they don?t want their preacher buddies to find out they have sin in their church.  Instead of dealing with it, and turning it over to God, they hide it.

Well said.  May we love God above our "buddies"!!

Trying to cover sin goes all the way back to Genesis 3.