RumorMongers and the damage they do to the Church

[Stan]

RMS placed the teacher in another academy??

[Stan]

was that criminal charges or a civil suit??

[bonnie]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Stan Jensen said:

RMS placed the teacher in another academy??

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

A settlement was reached in a civil suit. To much time had elapsed for a criminal charge. With the evidence provided the Statute of Limitations was overturned. It was proceeding to a trial when the denomination went for settlement.

YES, he was placed in another academy. Who is it that has the authority to do this. Not sure it would be RMS, however they surely knew what was going on. Many tried to block the employment, but they were bluntly told if they valued their own position they would cease.

He was actively employed at one of our academies, with full knowledge of the settlemnt. In time certain issues began to surface and they were finally forced to act as they should have initially. REMOVE THIS MAN FROM OUR SCHOOLS.

After settlemnt in a civil case of this kind there was no longer insurance coverage on this man. The denomination was willing to risk assets in a future lawsuit if he should re-offend.

This is how eager they are to deal with a victim. The dismissal finally took place only a couple of years ago

[Guest]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

bonnie said:

but they were bluntly told if they valued their own position they would cease.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

More "sharing."

[bonnie]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

calgary_guy said:

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

bonnie said:

but they were bluntly told if they valued their own position they would cease.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

More "sharing."

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

"MORE SHARING"???? No, a response to a statement that most that have dealt one on one with Risk Management would be very skeptical of.

I would assume if it is acceptable to "repeat or share" a self serving statement from Risk Management, it is also alright for those that have shared in their "eagerness to deal with victims and have them file charges" to "share" what many have found out to the contrary the hard way.

This is something that should have been "shared" from the get go. Perhaps there would not have been a need for a civil lawsuit had the "powers that be" actually exhibited a bit of this eagerness to see charges filed and in any way aid or support the victim

[Guest]

Bonnie

This "response" you are "sharing" is an allegation coming from you.

[bonnie]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

calgary_guy said:

Bonnie

This "response" you are "sharing" is an allegation coming from you.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

As is the response coming from Stan Jensen concerning the eagerness of Risk Management to have victims file charges when appropriate and within the law.

Have I missed the statement by Risk Management somewhere here where they have come out with this type of statement, or is the claim third hand???

What I have referred to is hardly news to many, and is not mere speculation or allegation.

Or, are we to blindly accept third hand information when it is favorable to those that have much to gain by making themselves look so very concerned and responsible?????

[Guest]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

bonnie said:

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

calgary_guy said:

Bonnie

This "response" you are "sharing" is an allegation coming from you.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

What I have referred to is hardly news to many, and is not mere speculation or allegation.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Do we blindly accept what you spoon-feed us?

[bonnie]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

calgary_guy said:

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

bonnie said:

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

calgary_guy said:

Bonnie

This "response" you are "sharing" is an allegation coming from you.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

What I have referred to is hardly news to many, and is not mere speculation or allegation.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Do we blindly accept what you spoon-feed us?

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

It is entirely up to you which "spoon" you prefer to be fed with.

Do you blindly accept the "spoon feeding" that Risk Management is eager and wishes these types of things be reported to the proper authorities and charges filed?? Go for it, really doesn't matter to me.

When charges are finally finally against a specific person, the risk to RMS increases dramatically. Rarely is this a first offense, or a first known offense. One coming forward usually means others find the courage to. Or, in the ensuing investigation it becomes clear the many within denominational employment knew, or took part in keeping it quiet,or moved the offending party to a new location.

More and more the sheild of seperation of church and state is pierced. I believe there will come a day when we will loose a church, school,facility,where insurance coverage will be non-exisitent because of what comes to light, or it won't be nearly enough.

To many have been moved and the problem ignored for to long to easily decide now to be up front and open about this. To many have had the green light to continue in their profession while acts and offenses have been covered up. Somebody will pay the piper someday, as has happened to the many millions of dollars that the catholic church has paid oout.

They to make soothing claims about those coming forward.

Just as an aside, and you believe as you wish, or condemn as you wish, there are those here that can confirm what I have said, if they have a desire to do so.

Perhaps while we are waiting we will hear a call for Risk Management to come forward and repeat their desire here. Just so that you now you are not being spoon-fed a very self-serving statement.

[Guest]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

bonnie said:

What I have referred to is hardly news to many, and is not mere speculation or allegation.

"hardly news to many" means what? That you have a few yes men waiting in the sidelines?

It is entirely up to you which "spoon" you prefer to be fed with.

It apparently isn't up to me. We are being told what we should "really think." And so far, over atleast a 5 year span of these diatribes by you on whatever forums allow it, not one shred of public evidence that is verifiable by the general public, has been provided to suport your public accusations. If it's alright for you to publically intimate such serious things about people, why isn't it alright to also name the evidence to us?

Do you blindly accept the "spoon feeding" that Risk Management is eager and wishes these types of things be reported to the proper authorities and charges filed?? Go for it, really doesn't matter to me.

Perhaps while we are waiting we will hear a call for Risk Management to come forward and repeat their desire here. Just so that you now you are not being spoon-fed a very self-serving statement.

Bonnie, we don't need to get that call. Perhaps in your "eagerness" you missed this statement by Risk Management:</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Arthur Blinci, is vice president at Adventist Risk Management, Inc. He oversees the Field Services, Corporate Communication, Customer Care, and Personal Risk Services departments at ARM. In the ARM online newsletter “Solutions Online,” (April Edition; he wrote:

“Adventist Risk Management, Inc., invites all Adventist leaders to help stem the tide of child abuse by becoming knowledgeable in strategies that can prevent its occurrence. The Psalmist reminds us that “Sons are a heritage from the Lord, children a reward from him” (Ps. 127:3). If national museums go to extremes to protect their priceless treasures, how much more should we do as a church to protect our irreplaceable and priceless children from harm?”

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

You can find the full text of Solutions Online ]http://www.adventistrisk.org/

I personally knew someone in Risk Management for several years while we lived in the same area. And I know for a fact that not everyone at ARM can possibly be characterized such as your gross, unproven generalizations are doing here. O, I know, you will say : "There are those who can prove it;" but we have heard this so much for years now from you; it is getting really tired. I would actually like to see something concrete for a change.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

[bonnie]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

calgary_guy said:

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

bonnie said:

What I have referred to is hardly news to many, and is not mere speculation or allegation.

"hardly news to many" means what? That you have a few yes men waiting in the sidelines?

It is entirely up to you which "spoon" you prefer to be fed with.

It apparently isn't up to me. We are being told what we should "really think." And so far, over atleast a 5 year span of these diatribes by you on whatever forums allow it, not one shred of public evidence that is verifiable by the general public, has been provided to suport your public accusations. If it's alright for you to publically intimate such serious things about people, why isn't it alright to also name the evidence to us?

Do you blindly accept the "spoon feeding" that Risk Management is eager and wishes these types of things be reported to the proper authorities and charges filed?? Go for it, really doesn't matter to me.

Perhaps while we are waiting we will hear a call for Risk Management to come forward and repeat their desire here. Just so that you now you are not being spoon-fed a very self-serving statement.

Bonnie, we don't need to get that call. Perhaps in your "eagerness" you missed this statement by Risk Management:</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Arthur Blinci, is vice president at Adventist Risk Management, Inc. He oversees the Field Services, Corporate Communication, Customer Care, and Personal Risk Services departments at ARM. In the ARM online newsletter “Solutions Online,” (April Edition; he wrote:

“Adventist Risk Management, Inc., invites all Adventist leaders to help stem the tide of child abuse by becoming knowledgeable in strategies that can prevent its occurrence. The Psalmist reminds us that “Sons are a heritage from the Lord, children a reward from him” (Ps. 127:3). If national museums go to extremes to protect their priceless treasures, how much more should we do as a church to protect our irreplaceable and priceless children from harm?”

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

You can find the full text of Solutions Online ]http://www.adventistrisk.org/

I personally knew someone in Risk Management for several years while we lived in the same area. And I know for a fact that not everyone at ARM can possibly be characterized such as your gross, unproven generalizations are doing here. O, I know, you will say : "There are those who can prove it;" but we have heard this so much for years now from you; it is getting really tired. I would actually like to see something concrete for a change.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

No, I have not missed this and other statements simiilar. And please stop putting words in my mouth. You will find nowhere that made gross,unproven generalizations towards ALL.

Of course it has been proven many times by the sheer number of lawsuits filed ,and the following of other victims coming forward when it becomes public.

I would certainly be interested in who these yes men are. You wouldn't be making an unproven rumormongering statement now would you.

If you have any knowledge, even a hint of what it takes for one to come forward, you would know how ludicrous and insulting it is to one who has been victimized.

I will answer you more fully in the private forum, Natter Matters, assuming it will be allowed.

In the meantime, even tho you claim to have been reading this for five years, in the next post is the short version of why I am a bit skeptical about the eagerness of Risk Management to have victims file charges

[bonnie]

Ruling Against Church in Sexual Misconduct Case

By Gregory Matthews

On Feb. 24, 2004, representatives of the Seventh-day Adventist Church reached an agreement with Steven R. Odenthal to settle a lawsuit that has the potential to change the way this church does ministry in the United States. Prior to settlement, this case worked its way through the Minnesota District, Appellate, and finally the Minnesota Supreme Court (1). Those legal rulings may make this case into a seminal one which, in addition to establishing precedent in Minnesota (2), is likely to be cited in future cases throughout the United States.

In mid-1997 Steven and Diane Odenthal began individual and couple marital counseling with Lowell Rideout (their Seventh-day Adventist pastor) that continued through September 1999 (3). Early on Rideout was attracted to Diane and said so to her husband. He advised the two of them that it would be difficult for them to have a harmonious marriage, for they were not right for each other. Rideout told them that his personality type was similar to Diane's and that he believed Diane would run off with him if he were to become available. Diane and Steven stopped counseling with Rideout for several months and then began it again. With this new beginning, Diane and Rideout confessed their love for each other. By now the local church had brought this matter to the attention of the Conference, which advised Rideout to resign, as he did, in September. Divorces took place in both families, and Diane and Rideout were married.

But Steven Odenthal did not take this lightly; he sued Rideout, the local church and conference, and the General Conference. He alleged that Rideout had: (a) violated Adventist doctrine and policy in his counseling methods, ( committed clergy malpractice, © inflicted intentional emotional distress, (d) was negligent, and (e) breached his fiduciary duty in a confidential relationship.

The case went to a district court, which dismissed all claims except for negligence and vicarious liability by the Minnesota Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. Rideout had gone beyond accepted limits of pastoral counseling and therefore could be held to the standards of a secular counselor. He had provided psychotherapy, acted as a marriage counselor, and engaged in secular counseling. But the fundamental issue was whether his claimed negligence was actually a clergy malpractice claim, in which case it should be dismissed due to excessive entanglement, or if it was a tort separate from that and thus subject to court adjudication. Under those standards, Rideout could be judged on the basis of: (a) his duty, ( whether or not he had breached that duty, © whether a breach of duty were a proximate cause of injury, and (d) possible damages. If Rideout were to be considered a professional person, then the standard of care would be that usually exercised by a member of that profession under similar circumstances.

Then it went to the court of appeals, which accepted to hear the sole issue as to whether or not the district court had jurisdiction to hear the negligence claim without violating First Amendment provisions against excessive entanglement in religion. The appellate court held that clergy malpractice could not be decided, as that would involve excessive entanglement and a violation of First Amendment provisions. The district court, they said, had excessively entangled itself in religion, in violation of the First Amendment, when it determined on the basis of Adventist rules and regulations that Rideout had gone beyond the role of pastoral counselor. Therefore, the court of appeals reversed the decision of the district court that had allowed the negligent counseling claim to proceed. This decision was not unanimous; there was one dissent.

Steven Odenthal then appealed this decision to the Minnesota Supreme Court, which accepted the appeal. The supreme court decision began by briefly reviewing the beginning counseling relationship that Diane and Steven had established with Rideout.4 It established that the Odenthals began this relationship believing that Rideout was performing marital counseling, and that he had a background in psychology. The court concluded that entanglement issues did not prevail when the issue could be decided by neutral rules that did not involve a religious institution or doctrine. The court then had jurisdiction over clergy when these neutral principles established an applicable standard for clergy. It went on to hold that there were three neutral principles of Minnesota law under which this case could be decided: (1) state law regarding unlicensed mental health practitioners, (2) state law regarding licensure for marital and family counselors, and (3) state law regarding sexual exploitation by a psychotherapist.

In the application of Minnesota law, Rideout argued that his counseling was pastoral and therefore not subject to court jurisdiction, in part due to the fact that the Odenthals did not pay him for his services. The court ruled that Rideout had provided such secular mental health services due to: (1) his description of his services as marital counseling, (2) his discussion with the Odenthals of his psychological training and/or background, (3) his probable use of psychological tests and/or examinations, (4) his attempt to modify behavior in his suggestion that Diane would run away with him if he wanted her to do so, and (5) his challenge of two secular counselors who had also been involved in the counseling. It also ruled that the law did not require that he be paid by the Odenthals. The interesting factor in this aspect is that the court found that if state law required that Rideout be compensated for his counseling, it allowed such compensation to come from the Minnesota Conference that paid him a salary. It also found that state standards of negligence could be applied to Rideout, such as confidentiality and conduct likely to deceive or harm the public, without an excessive entanglement with religion. Clergy malpractice was not a factor in a case where the clergyperson had provided secular services and/or held himself out to be providing the services of a psychological counselor.

The supreme court found that the district court had properly concluded that it had jurisdiction over OdenthalÕs negligence claim, and reversed the court of appeals on this point. It then remanded the case back to the court of appeals, and ordered it to consider whether or not the Minnesota Conference had vicarious liability for negligent training, supervision and retention of Rideout. It should be noted that this ruling did not find that the conference had any liability. It simply allowed the case against the conference to go to trial. It also now raised the issue that there might be liability on the basis that the conference had continued Rideout in his pastoral responsibilities under circumstances where an administrator either knew of his problems, or should have known of them.

Second Court of Appeals found that the Minnesota Conference president, Dennis Carlson, first became aware of allegations of misconduct between Rideout and Diane in April of 1999 (5). It also found that Carlson then became aware of a prior allegation of sexual misconduct against Rideout, and that Carlson failed to investigate that allegation and failed to follow Minnesota Conference policy in regard to action by a 'sexual ethics committee'.

The court then went on to rule that this case could be decided only on the basis of neutral standards, and that Adventist rules, policy and doctrine could not be a factor in considering this case. It further ruled that the claim against the Minnesota Conference could be heard on the basis of neutral standards, and that it could proceed on the basis of whether or not the conference had negligently retained him when it should have known of the claim of his negligent secular counseling. It also ruled that the court could determine whether or not the conference engaged in negligent supervision of Rideout by the neutral standards of a secular counselor. As a final aspect to its ruling, it found that the court could determine whether or not the conference was vicariously liable, due to the fact that Rideout's secular counseling was outside of his pastoral duties.

It should be clearly noted that none of this found the Minnesota Conference to be liable of any wrongdoing. It simply found that the court could determine such, without violating the First Amendment to the Constitution.

My analysis and comment: In all the years that this has taken place to reach settlement, and in all of the legal proceedings, there has been no finding of negligence against any Adventist church agency. This whole process has simply been to decide whether or not a religious agency, or church, could be held accountable in a court of law for the actions of one of its pastors in a counseling relationship. While the court has not found liability, it has clearly found that in Minnesota, such can happen. One might argue that this case has precedence only in Minnesota, and such is legally true. It does not have precedence outside that state. But the 1976 Tarasoff ruling tells us that we should not be complacent. This decision of the California Supreme Court ruled that therapists had a duty to warn of danger to one another, though it established that duty only in California. But Tarasoff reasoning has been used to establish, either by statute or by case law, a duty to warn that is now just about nationwide.

There are those who believe that the Odenthal case is seminal and has the potential to be used as the basis for future case law throughout the United States. On a limited basis, a constitutional protection for the church has been breached, and this may have consequences for Seventh-day Adventist ministry. Church agencies face the potential of being liable for the actions of their employees to a greater extent than before.

There are those who will criticize Odenthal for bringing civil action against the church, chiefly because of the financial expenditures involved. Yes, the church has incurred a financial loss in this case. It so happens that the Minnesota Conference liability was covered, not under a denominational insurance policy, but under one from a private insurance company. So the major expenses of settling this case came from nondenominational sources. Further, while our legal system is not perfect in determining liability and loss, it is ethical for a religious agency to be responsible for loss incurred due to its negligence. The decision that a pastor can be held to a secular standard in regard to counseling, without a First Amendment violation, is of major significance. This is especially true as it includes the potential liability of the conference in all such activities of the pastor.

On occasion, hopefully very seldom, Conference administrators have operated on the principle of benign neglect. That principle can be stated as: "If I do not know what is happening in the local church, I am not responsible for it". But this court decision makes church organizations potentially responsible for what they did not know, but could or should have known. As a result of this potential liability, I foresee that conference administrators will feel forced to establish policies on pastoral counseling that will limit what pastors are allowed to do. Since few of our pastors are actually qualified to do counseling, this may be beneficial in persuading them not to try.

There is also a human element to this case. The prime actors were Diane Odenthal, Rideout, and the Adventist church. But other family members were unwillingly drawn into the issue. The Odenthals had children whose lives have been affected forever. Diane had a husband, and Rideout a wife. The lives of all have been irrevocably changed. In a litigious society such as this, what was the responsibility of the church to relate to these other affected people? That answer is not easy. Lawyers will advise their clients not to do anything that can be construed as an admission of responsibility. In our society, the 'innocent wife' might have to seek refuge in a woman's shelter and get public assistance in order to put her life together. Does the church have a responsibility for innocent people who are affected by the actions of one of its employees? If so, what are the limits of such responsibility? Can this responsibility be fulfilled without litigation, and without an agreement from the concerned parties not to litigate?

In the area where I live, a government agency has attempted to take such responsibility. A government employee has been alleged to have sexually harassed certain people who worked under him. Several of those people have filed lawsuits against the government agency. That agency is paying the legal fees of employees who have filed the lawsuits because those in charge feel it is the right thing to do, and the plaintiffs have agreed to limit the boundaries of the lawsuit (6). In other words, the government agency believes that it is in its financial interest to pay the legal expenses and limit its liability. This situation tells me that it might be possible for the church to provide assistance to people who have been wronged, and still allow for future legal determination of some aspects of the case. We as a church may need to develop legal strategies that allow for such.

The church likely wanted to settle this case to bring to an end a long and contentious process that had consumed the lives of many people on both sides of the issue. It also likely considered the social climate of our time. In a day when clergy abuse is in the headlines, no one could predict what a jury might award in such a case. The time had clearly come to settle and move on.

One interesting aspect of this case is that the original filing included the local church as a defendant. The local church was correctly severed from the case, as well as the General Conference. Rideout was a conference employee, and it was the local conference that should have been a named defendant. But this may affect other employees who are now considered to be local church employees.

In the case of a Task Force worker, the Conference may very well provide all or a portion of that salary. The common thinking is that a Task Force worker is not a conference employee, but employed by the local congregation, and that therefore the conference has no responsibility for the supervision of that person. As Rideout was considered to be a conference employee due to his salaryÕs coming from the conference, so also another person may be considered to be a conference employee if any portion of their salary comes from the conference. The so-called 'deep pockets' rule may apply here.

If Rideout had been considered a local congregation employee, that would have had serious consequences. The local church and its leadership would have been held responsible for his actions. Yes, the conference would likely have stepped in to protect the interests of the local church and in so doing would have extended its leadership. But this would have been at a great emotional toll on the affected people, and there would have been a potential for some individual liability.

This court decision is likely to affect the church's work for a long time to come, during which we will watch the ramifications of the case.

References and Notes

1 Steven R. Odenthal v. Minnesota Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists, Minnetonka Seventh-day Adventist Church, and Lowell Rideout. The first decision of the Court of Appeals was filed on Aug. 28, 2001, and the second was filed on Jan. 27, 2003. The Minnesota Supreme Court decision was filed on Aug. 15, 2002.

2 The Odenthal case has already been used by the Minnesota Court of Appeals to decide JM v. Minnesota District Council of the Assemblies of God, and St. James Assembly of God Church (March 25, 2003), Lisa Olson, et al., v. First Church of Nazarene and The Minnesota District Church of the Nazarene (May 20, 2003), Mary Doe, et al., v. FP and Diocese of Winona (Aug. 19, 2003), Patricia L. Rooney v. Michael T. Rooney and ChristÕs Household of Faith and Ramsey County, intervenor (Sept. 16, 2003). Within this short period of time four different churches or denominations have been affected by the Odenthal case. While there are some general similarities in these cases, one (Christ's Household of Faith) has branched out to involve child support. The boundaries as to how this case will affect churches in Minnesota cannot be now determined. As these cases continue to unfold, their reasoning and rationale may very well be expressed in case law coming from other jurisdictions.

3 These comments are derived from findings of the Court of Appeals in the decision filed on Aug. 28, 2001.

4 This section is based on the decision of the Minnesota Supreme Court filed on Aug. 15, 2002.

5 This section is based on the decision of the Minnesota Court of Appeals filed on Jan. 27, 2003.

6 In addition, these employees have been allowed to go on leave from their jobs with full pay and benefits. This situation has existed for a long time, has cost the government agency some very large sums of money, and has the potential of costing it much more. This case involved an elected official of Arapahoe County, Colo., who can be removed only by either a criminal conviction, which has not yet happened, or by the electorate. He can not be directly removed from office. During this time he was elected once, and recently removed in a special recall election.

[Guest]

Bonnie

I am glad you provided the "short" version, because this is not what I was talking about. I am talking about you making disparaging remarks re ARM such as the one you made re their alleged response above. Unless you can prove something like that you should never be saying it. But, you likely will anyway as history has shown.

You can sprinkle in all the "truth" you want to with it, and you are right - we can choose where we get fed and by whom.

[CyberGuy]

I found this written on June 20 2005 by David Hamstra on his Blog.

==========================================

I was perusing the archives of Adventist Today (a progressive, independent, Adventist journal) when I came across an article, "Ruling Against Church in Sexual Misconduct Case". The title piqued my interest, and as I read "On Feb. 24, 2004, representatives of the Seventh-day Adventist Church reached an agreement with Steven R. Odenthal to settle a lawsuit..." my jaw hit the keyboard.

Steve Odenthal and his ex-wife Dianne were my youth Sabbath School teachers at the Minnetonka SDA Church in Minnesota. They were fun and the youth liked them, but they resigned from their position. I think they said they were having marriage problems. A few years later, shortly after I'd arrived at college in Canada, I learned from my parents that our pastor, Lowell Rideout, had been having some sort of affair with Dianne and was forced to resign

I realized right away that I'd seen it happening but had denied what I was seeing. I'd wondered about little looks passed between them, even on the platform. "Is that appropriate?", I'd ask myself. "Well, he's the pastor, so it must be, OK." I knew something was wrong, but I said nothing.

While I disagree with suing the church, I don't think the church can duck its moral responsibility. I'm not talking about legal responsibility; that's for the courts to decide. I'm asking morally, how a church can allow a pastor to continue in leadership when it's so obvious that something's wrong? Adventist Today reports that the conference president had heard allegations five months prior to Rideout's resignation. Church members must have had suspicions earlier than that. What causes us to suppress our suspicions and ignore sin?

For myself, I think fear has alot to do with it. I and the churches I've lived in are afraid to practice the bolder aspects of love. We've lost the art of confronting sin with truth and justice in an atmosphere of grace. So we approach these church issues in a legal/political way instead of a loving/redemptive way.

Now, I'm certainly not aware of the details of what happened behind the scenes at Minnetonka. The response of the lay leaders there probably had good and bad elements in it. I'm writing this to take responsibility for what I neglected to say. I knew something was wrong and said nothing, and I pray to God that I never fall into that sin of omission again.

I'm also writing to express sympathy for Rideout. There's no excuse for what he did, but there's also no excuse for a system of church polity and administration that isolates pastors from church community by moving them frequently. This discourages pastors from establishing relationships in their churches where they can confess sin and find healing (James 5:16) and encourages them to build a veneer of false holiness. I doubt that Rideout had a group of elders that he could tell about his budding attraction to Dianne who could pray for him and help him find healing from sin.

Call me naive, but I've decided to be as vulnerable as possible in my pastoral ministry, in order to model it for my members and to experience healing from sin. It doesn't come naturally to me. I've spent most of my life working on the veneer, but I think we have to try.

For more information on the topic of confronting and confessing sin check out the work of Jim Van Yperen.

http://apokalupto.blogspot.com/2005_06_01_apokalupto_archive.html

[CyberGuy]

It is natural to deny all the signs you see when all the signs are there.

Several years ago my wife kept aproaching me on how I would feel if one of my step children would caught cheating on a test and suspended. I thought it was just a WHAT IF situation but She kept bringing it up and I ignored the signs. Then I found it she was talking about an an actual event where my step son was suspended for a week for cheating on a test. I was away duing that time so I did not notice the whole week my step child was home. However I did come home on friday and asked my step child why they were home. A plausible answer was given and I did not press the issue. All the signs were there but I ignored them for it was something I knew just could not happen to MY STEPCHILDREN. By the time I found out my step son had repented and had learned a hard important lesson.

My point it is human nature to be in self denial about people who you know and you do not want to believe they could be capable of moral flaws of that nature.

The above blog points out that very point. Looks between Rideout and Diane that were ignored. After all people do not want to be wrong in making an accusation that could be so wrong and possibly damaging to a persons reputation.

The Conference president took five months to investigate as he was giving Rideout the benefit of the doubt. However policy states a person has to be on administrative leave when charges are investigated. We do not know the backgrond of this conference president. It is possible he was stung by a false accusations himself and did not want to embarrass Ridout before he was certain of the charges. Whatever the reasons I would not be so hasty in saying the church was covering up things when all they were doing was investigating the facts before acting.

We have to be more receptive to the signs life hands us but at the same time use caution and not make accusations prematurely eiter. It is a delicate balancing act between mercy and keeping ones opinions to oneself and allowing a wrong to happen when one sees the signs but ignores them as a misinterpretation of the facts.

Our society says that a person is considered Innocent until PROVEN guilty not guilty until proven innocent.

[bonnie]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

CyberGuy said:

I found this written on June 20 2005 by David Hamstra on his Blog.

==========================================

I was perusing the archives of Adventist Today (a progressive, independent, Adventist journal) when I came across an article, "Ruling Against Church in Sexual Misconduct Case". The title piqued my interest, and as I read "On Feb. 24, 2004, representatives of the Seventh-day Adventist Church reached an agreement with Steven R. Odenthal to settle a lawsuit..." my jaw hit the keyboard.

Keeps getting more interesting

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

I realized right away that I'd seen it happening but had denied what I was seeing. I'd wondered about little looks passed between them, even on the platform. "Is that appropriate?", I'd ask myself. "Well, he's the pastor, so it must be, OK." I knew something was wrong, but I said nothing.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Most knew, with the exception of my son. He was doing everything he could to perserve the marriage. The looks and interactio spoken of generally took place when my son was not in the immediate vicinity.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

While I disagree with suing the church, I don't think the church can duck its moral responsibility. I'm not talking about legal responsibility; that's for the courts to decide. I'm asking morally, how a church can allow a pastor to continue in leadership when it's so obvious that something's wrong?

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Regardless of how calgaryguy will yell allegation, this was explained following actions taken. A woman, an employee of the conference came up to me and tried to give me a hug, telling me how very sorry she was for the horriblething that had happened to my family . To me the sorry's were to late for the ones that knew. I told her had she been truly sorry, action would have been taken a whole lot sooner. Her reply...."Well, there were good things he was doing, so we didn't know quite what to do"

My son and his children were allowed to become the sacrificial lamb in order to get the good things..

This happens all the time. You see it in the ongoing debate concerning 3ABN.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Adventist Today reports that the conference president had heard allegations five months prior to Rideout's resignation. Church members must have had suspicions earlier than that. What causes us to suppress our suspicions and ignore sin?

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

It was quite a bit longer than five months. The pastor's wife also knew but was terrified. There is no support, no help for women in her position. They are expendable,as shown when she had to obtain shelter for her and her child in a woman's shelter. We wouldn't want rumormongering, and those that report know instictively in advance how they will be treated.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

For myself, I think fear has alot to do with it. I and the churches I've lived in are afraid to practice the bolder aspects of love. We've lost the art of confronting sin with truth and justice in an atmosphere of grace. So we approach these church issues in a legal/political way instead of a loving/redemptive way.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Of course it is fear. But what is the basis for that fear??? Most would not fear a denomination/organization that has proven itself to be fair, supportive, compassionate, and dedicated to the principals they so casually repeat.

As SDA"a, most of us have our spiritual, social and emotional framework outlined by the denomination which we belong to. Not many have the where-with-all to place that in harm's way. This is of course what reporting or taking action does. For me, it no longer matters. I lost my foolish illusions long ago. But for the many it keeps happening to, it matters a great deal. They still have to be forced to run the denominational gauntlet, and fall hard, harder than they thought possible, before they can even begin to make sense of what is happening to them.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Now, I'm certainly not aware of the details of what happened behind the scenes at Minnetonka. The response of the lay leaders there probably had good and bad elements in it. I'm writing this to take responsibility for what I neglected to say. I knew something was wrong and said nothing, and I pray to God that I never fall into that sin of omission again.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

This is the first I have heard take any responsibility of any kind. Of course his plans for his future may have changed dramatically had he stepped forward.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

I'm also writing to express sympathy for Rideout. There's no excuse for what he did, but there's also no excuse for a system of church polity and administration that isolates pastors from church community by moving them frequently. This discourages pastors from establishing relationships in their churches where they can confess sin and find healing (James 5:16) and encourages them to build a veneer of false holiness. I doubt that Rideout had a group of elders that he could tell about his budding attraction to Dianne who could pray for him and help him find healing from sin.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

This is what I believe to be the honest perception of David, but is not true. He did have elders that in fact he spoke with, knew, counselled him for over a year on his inappropriate behaviour. (And NO, calgaryguy, I will not prove it to you, nor do I care what your response is) Those that obtained or had acess to his previous history well understand why he was moved frequently.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Call me naive, but I've decided to be as vulnerable as possible in my pastoral ministry, in order to model it for my members and to experience healing from sin. It doesn't come naturally to me. I've spent most of my life working on the veneer, but I think we have to try

Even one learning a lasting lesson from this is encouraging. He then hopefully will go on to educate others, take a stand where a stand is necessary, no matter what the cost to him personally may be. Not many have this, preferring to ease their consceince by repeating the soothing words of Risk Management and others. All then becomes right with their world on this topic

For more information on the topic of confronting and confessing sin check out the work of Jim Van Yperen.

http://apokalupto.blogspot.com/2005_06_01_apokalupto_archive.html

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

[bonnie]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

The above blog points out that very point. Looks between Rideout and Diane that were ignored. After all people do not want to be wrong in making an accusation that could be so wrong and possibly damaging to a persons reputation.

The Conference president took five months to investigate as he was giving Rideout the benefit of the doubt. However policy states a person has to be on administrative leave when charges are investigated. We do not know the backgrond of this conference president. It is possible he was stung by a false accusations himself and did not want to embarrass Ridout before he was certain of the charges. Whatever the reasons I would not be so hasty in saying the church was covering up things when all they were doing was investigating the facts before acting.

We have to be more receptive to the signs life hands us but at the same time use caution and not make accusations prematurely eiter. It is a delicate balancing act between mercy and keeping ones opinions to oneself and allowing a wrong to happen when one sees the signs but ignores them as a misinterpretation of the facts.

Our society says that a person is considered Innocent until PROVEN guilty not guilty until proven innocent.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

There is some truth to what you say at times. This however is not the case here. People have been harmed by unfounded suspicions and unfounded rumors. This is why I waited and watched for a year, terrified while I was waiting it would blow up in my sons face.

There was not an investigation going on. I did not know anyone in this chruch well. When I finally knew because of things I was seeing that I would have to take another course of action, I went thru a elder I personally knew and respected of another church. Asking which of the elders it would be most beneficial to speak with in this chruch. Someone that would act discreetly, dicisively, and as quietly as possible. I contacted the name given me and the response was immediate. Yes, they knew and had been counseling this pastor for over a year. It would now come to an end. To give her the credit she is due, it tool a week as she planned each course of action, making sure that before speaking to the pastor's wife she was safe, having someone scehduled to be with my son when the news was delivered.

[CyberGuy]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

This however is not the case here. People have been harmed by unfounded suspicions and unfounded rumors. This is why I waited and watched for a year, terrified while I was waiting it would blow up in my sons face.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

We all should be very cautious before we jump into making accusations. I tend to be over cautious before making a public accusation without the proof to back up that accusation. One can be suspicious but without facts that all it is just a suspicion.

We all tend to be at a a loss at what to do in cases of men who have done much good for the church but who make terrible mistake in morality. Do we remove them and end their careers and discredit all the good they have done or do we try to work with the men to see of we can salvage them. It is a hard thing to decide.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

A woman, an employee of the conference came up to me and tried to give me a hug, telling me how very sorry she was for the horriblething that had happened to my family . To me the sorry's were to late for the ones that knew. I told her had she been truly sorry, action would have been taken a whole lot sooner. Her reply...."Well, there were good things he was doing, so we didn't know quite what to do"

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

You were to close to the situation. I can see and sympathize with this womans dilemma. Maybe with time you can see things from her point of view and see how torn she was. Loyalty to the church vs bringing a pastor down and all the controversy in the church that it would bring.

Until you have walked in the shoes of of a church worker you cannot know how torn we are when these things happen.

First there is denial. " NO this cannot be true. I know this man. He WOULD NOT do this"

Second as facts come out is embarrasment and confusion on how to handle it. A church has to balance the severity of the act to the repercussions. The church will be divided and people will take sides with the pastor and against.

On the other hand there is the victims of the mans actions.

Until you have been on the other side of the fence Bonnie you cannot possibly know what we as church workers feel about these kinds of controversy.

What is black and white to you are so many shades of gray to the church.

Do they remove the pastor and cause a split in the church?

Do they fire the pastor and cause many to leave the church in anger over the perceived unjustice of the church.

The church has to move Slowly and carefully in these situations. Things do not move quickly and I admit sometimes if people do not keep the fire on the church leaders they will tend to just want to forget the whole mess.

That is human nature. The church is made up of imperfect human beings that make mistakes in judgement all the time.

IS it fair to keep banging the church people for their past mistakes for years and years and years as you have done Bonnie?

[bonnie]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

We all should be very cautious before we jump into making accusations. I tend to be over cautious before making a public accusation without the proof to back up that accusation. One can be suspicious but without facts that all it is just a suspicion.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

You are right. Considering I waited a year before saying anything to anyone with the exception of my husband, and the elders fully aware as they had observed much more than I.Actions that removed all suspicions to any but the dimmest, I would think caution had been exercised.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

We all tend to be at a a loss at what to do in cases of men who have done much good for the church but who make terrible mistake in morality. Do we remove them and end their careers and discredit all the good they have done or do we try to work with the men to see of we can salvage them. It is a hard thing to decide.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

You follow church policy or get rid of the policy. Otherwise there is no reason to have a policy except to lull the unsuspecting into beleiving that there is any action that will be taken. The pastors themselves are the ones that discredit any good they have done. But what you are saying is the total opposite of what Stan assured us of. If Risk Management is not only in favor of, but EAGER for charges to be filed, the offending party wil be discredited anyway, so which is it?

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

You were to close to the situation. I can see and sympathize with this womans dilemma. Maybe with time you can see things from her point of view and see how torn she was. Loyalty to the church vs bringing a pastor down and all the controversy in the church that it would bring.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I certainly hope I never reach the point where I can see how torn she was. Loyalty to any human being, institution should never come before lives of innocent people. Especially children.

Your concern for her situation is what most people use as an excuse for remaining silent.

There are those that refuse to understand or consider the fact that any that are caught in this type of thing, want nothing more than anonymity. Discreet and quiet as possible. Ours would have remained very quiet and I would never have had the dubious pleasure of meeting many of you had policy been followed and action queitly taken. Even when it is the abuse of a minor the very last thing that minor and parents wants is publicity. They also do not want a lawsuit. If this eagerness to tackle this problem, eagerness to see charges filed actually existed, you would hear far less than you have any idea.

In states like ours the pastor's conduct is a felony. Some have been tried and gone to prison for this. If eagerness existed, instead of circling the wagons, we should have been encouraged to file charges.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Until you have walked in the shoes of of a church worker you cannot know how torn we are when these things happen

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">.

Until you have walked in the shoes of many of these victims, you will have no idea how offensive those kinds of statements are.

Get rid of the policy, quit making promises of care and concern and then let the courts decide.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

First there is denial. " NO this cannot be true. I know this man. He WOULD NOT do this"

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

You are right many did "know" this man. After counseling him over a year, denial should not have been part of the process

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Second as facts come out is embarrasment and confusion on how to handle it. A church has to balance the severity of the act to the repercussions. The church will be divided and people will take sides with the pastor and against.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Severity of the act?? What is more severe than a pastor breaking up his own marriage and that of another??

The church would not be divided if policy were to be followed. There should be no confusion, but it is a word often used to cover failure to act.

Embarrassment, public knowledge would have been at a minimum.

What you and others fail to understand is the lack of action, the lack of true concern on the part of the denominational leaders, Risk Management and all others involved is what finally creates the public outcry. NO ONE VICTIMIZED wants publicity. Most don't want lawsuits. Lawsuits are an open invitation to HELL. Most only require that the guilty be stopped and have help and support from the denomination

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

On the other hand there is the victims of the mans actions.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post"> I notice with some interest that there is the obligatory one line of concern for the victims of this man.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Until you have been on the other side of the fence Bonnie you cannot possibly know what we as church workers feel about these kinds of controversy.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Frankly, I don't care how they feel about this controversy they create for themselves. The denomination claims to have zero tolerance, Risk Management wants you to file charges, is in fact eager for you to. Elders have instructions on how to procedd. SECommittee has a fairly good, discreet investigative outline to follow. Trash it and let happen will happen if you are not going to follow it. It is far worse than worthless to have it.

This would be the way most victims would choose to go, but very few have faith in a system that claims to be confused as to what to do

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

What is black and white to you are so many shades of gray to the church.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

According to our denomination it is black and white. According to Risk Management it is clearer still. Once knowledge of a moral fall is known, there is no insurance coverage.

1. Do they remove the pastor and cause a split in the church?

Ask anyone in authority, they already claim they do. No more sending him off to another area

2.Do they fire the pastor and cause many to leave the church in anger over the perceived unjustice of the church.

No, they can always let it go, turn a blind eye, and watch those victimized leave. Or wait till it becomes known and then watch several leave.

3.The church has to move Slowly and carefully in these situations. Things do not move quickly and I admit sometimes if people do not keep the fire on the church leaders they will tend to just want to forget the whole mess.

I moved slowly, waiting over a year. The elders moved slowly, counseling him for over a year, because of what they had witnessed. The conference didn't move at all, not acting till the elders were finally forced to act.

4.IS it fair to keep banging the church people for their past mistakes for years and years and years as you have done Bonnie?

Past mistakes are just that. Past. We are not referring to mistakes. We are referring to a all to common problem of refusing to follow the policy set out to deal with this and do as little harm as possible to all concerned. It is deliberate negligence.

My son is doing well. For the most part or as much as can be, it is behind him. What is not the past or left behind is the attitude, the callousness, and the failure to provide a safe and as undamaging way to handle these problems as possible.

What is not behind is still blaming the victim, even if it is for not coming forward. It is a terrifying thought to most.

What is not behind as you so clearly explain, their huniliation, their abuse is secondary to some possible good the offender has done and second to the embarrassment of the church.

Banging the people of the church for past mistakes?? NO,banging them for present false promises, claims and assurances that all is well.

[CyberGuy]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

You follow church policy or get rid of the policy. Otherwise there is no reason to have a policy except to lull the unsuspecting into beleiving that there is any action that will be taken.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

It is not that simple Bonnie. It is easy to follow church policy with people you do not know or care about. In this day of litigation one must be certain that they are right or face possible lawsuit for their actions or worse to be accused of unfairness. Remember that Saten got 1/3 of the angels to side with him due to his accusations that God was unfair.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

I certainly hope I never reach the point where I can see how torn she was. Loyalty to any human being, institution should never come before lives of innocent people. Especially children.

Your concern for her situation is what most people use as an excuse for remaining silent.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

It is obvious you have not worked long enough with an organization to form any loyalty or attachment with the people you work with day in and day out for a decade or longer as I have. Right or wrong it is hard to destroy a persons carreer when you have known then for years. That person would also have friends as well who could become enemies. Remember that the office of many conference officials are an elected one. So when this happens this becomes a political situation which if not handled right could mean trouble at the next election.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

In states like ours the pastor's conduct is a felony. Some have been tried and gone to prison for this.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

You have stated this before but you have not answered this question. Why was Pastor Rider never charged with a crime if this was indeed a felony?

Could it be that to charge the man with this felony the state would need Dianes cooperation and they would not get any cooperation?

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Severity of the act?? What is more severe than a pastor breaking up his own marriage and that of another??

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

We are in a day an age where divorce is common. Marriages break up and people remarry so often that we become numb to it. 50 percent of adventists families have gone through a divorce. I dare say there will be hardly one extended family who have not gone through one divorce of ones children at least once in their lives. When we get used to it divorce does not seem so severe anymore from a distance. Until we have gone through it ourselves. Only those of us who have felt the pain of divorce will truely know the pain that it causes.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Frankly, I don't care how they feel about this controversy they create for themselves. The denomination claims to have zero tolerance, Risk Management wants you to file charges, is in fact eager for you to.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I do not know where you heard that but I think that is more of a false premise. Why would risk Management want to involve itself in a possible litigation?

Zero tolerance is a nice word. The church is not the only ones who have used that word and then gave the problem to someone else.

Police departments have always said they have zero tolerance for prostitution yet many times it is known to solve a prostitution problem the police come in vans and round up all the prostitutes and transport them to another city and drop them off and then the prostitutes become someone elses problem.

Zero Tolerance. Nice words but in a day of litigation or threatened litigation one tends to find it easier to just wish the problem would go away. A pastor resigning and moving away does solve this problem, even more so if the investigation never was complete or hit a deadend.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

According to our denomination it is black and white. According to Risk Management it is clearer still. Once knowledge of a moral fall is known, there is no insurance coverage.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Risk Management does not cover the church in all cases. It is becoming more common for the church to find insurance elsewhere when other insurance companies outbid Risk Management. So Risk Management does not have the final say in all cases anymore.

Did Risk management pay off your son in his lawsuit or was it a third party insurance company?

You and I are closer to agreeing on most points on this case than we were six years ago. Time and experience does add more common ground to work with.

I had no idea this problem was as wide spread as it is six years ago. Your case helped me see that and others that have come to light since then.

On the other hand I have seen false accusations against pastors and school administrators and have seen how those accusations can ruin a person.

What is clear to you is not clear to others who do not see the facts as you have. Also do not be angry just because others do not believe your charges. You are known to come to false conclusions with your so called facts in the past.

[bonnie]

You and others continue to re-affirm some of the basic problems in this little "problem" that gets shoved under the rug. Church policy is not something that is written to make things easy,nice or simple. It is written for a purpose. If it cannot be followed because of friendships, there is simply no reason to have chruch policy anything. The statement by Stan is suppossed to have a re-assuring effect on the church as a whole. People swallow the statement because it is easier than any other route they can take.

[quote[it is not that simple Bonnie. It is easy to follow church policy with people you do not know or care about. In this day of litigation one must be certain that they are right or face possible lawsuit for their actions or worse to be accused of unfairness. Remember that Saten got 1/3 of the angels to side with him due to his accusations that God was unfair

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Remember also that prior to the action taken and action only with prompting, that it was not supicion, rumor, or idle gossip. Remember also that there was a pattern of behaviour going back thirty years. Known BTW, Yes, if it became necessary, that can be proven. Also as part of the documentation, on a retreat to WillowCreek, this man was observed in going into her motel room, seen carrying her back from a walk, because she was "tired". I am not sure what you would need to act to put a stop in this behaviour of a pastor, but should be enough for both.

This negligence is not uncommon. It is not even uncommon when it involves a minor.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

It is obvious you have not worked long enough with an organization to form any loyalty or attachment with the people you work with day in and day out for a decade or longer as I have. Right or wrong it is hard to destroy a persons carreer when you have known then for years. That person would also have friends as well who could become enemies. Remember that the office of many conference officials are an elected one. So when this happens this becomes a political situation which if not handled right could mean trouble at the next election.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

It is obvious you are making assumptions. You should not be doing that here of all places. But again, your reply does certainly dovetail with many assumptions I have and many facts that came to light in the ongoing investigation.

Loyalty outweighs traumatic harm being done, even if the harm done includes and is very damaging to the children.

A career is different and is not sacred or an absolute right of the one with the career. It carries responsibility and obligations. A pastor should have a vocation, far more than a career. A divine calling from God should be treated with the utmost respect. When God is dishonored in such a way, over a span of years, it is no longer a divine calling, but an avenue to abuse such. It then needs to be brought to a halt. As you have spelled out, many conference employees are far more concerned with making enemies that will interfere with their advancement. This again, takes away the divine calling and is nothing more than a materialistic grab for the next ladder rung.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

You have stated this before but you have not answered this question. Why was Pastor Rider never charged with a crime if this was indeed a felony?

Could it be that to charge the man with this felony the state would need Dianes cooperation and they would not get any cooperation?

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I have answered this many times. One more time.

The marriage took place very quickly after the divorce instituted by Diane. Ink barely dry. Yes, it would have taken the charges filed by Diane, or a reporting of the incident by the conference president.

About the same time there was a church of a different denomination that did just that. It is a felony,(look it up if you doubt it in MN. The head pastor took the complaint by the young woman, who was in counseling with the second pastor to the police. This is an example of eagerness to take care of some of this. The man was tried and received four years free board and room, compliments of the State of MN.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

We are in a day an age where divorce is common. Marriages break up and people remarry so often that we become numb to it. 50 percent of adventists families have gone through a divorce. I dare say there will be hardly one extended family who have not gone through one divorce of ones children at least once in their lives. When we get used to it divorce does not seem so severe anymore from a distance. Until we have gone through it ourselves. Only those of us who have felt the pain of divorce will truely know the pain that it causes.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

This isn't about divorce. With a family as large as mine, I am no more a stranger to the pain divorce causes than you are.

This is about a denomination that treats many victims within it's membership as expendable by-products. Failing to follow the assurances and promises made. Further compounding that by protecting their monetary interests or their positions of power

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

I do not know where you heard that but I think that is more of a false premise. Why would risk Management want to involve itself in a possible litigation?

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Where I heard this???? Here on this topic from Stan Jensen. Why, I have no idea

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Zero tolerance is a nice word. The church is not the only ones who have used that word and then gave the problem to someone else.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Isn't it a nice word tho. Meant to make all of us feel secure.

Only issue here of course in giving the problem to someone else they begin to create a pool of quicksand for themselves. Sooner or later they will find themselves sinking and the only way out is to pull the victim in with them and use them as a ladder to get out. Stepping on them every step of the way.

Don't care what the police depts. do. No bearing one what the church does.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Zero Tolerance. Nice words but in a day of litigation or threatened litigation one tends to find it easier to just wish the problem would go away. A pastor resigning and moving away does solve this problem, even more so if the investigation never was complete or hit a deadend.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Yup, just what they do. Of course they will deny this. Of course it is easier, UNTIL the next one. As with the majority of these there is always a next one.

[quot]Risk Management does not cover the church in all cases. It is becoming more common for the church to find insurance elsewhere when other insurance companies outbid Risk Management. So Risk Management does not have the final say in all cases anymore.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

You are right, it does not cover all. But I did have the questionable pleasure of speaking more than once to Risk Management officials.

It does however have the final say in what conditions they will cover. Instead of voluntary screening it needs to be mandatory or no coverage.

Voluntary is ludicrous. What pastor/teacher/pathfinderleader with a past involving this is going to volunteer for screening? What church is going to demnad voluntary screening for those they know has chrages/accusations against them.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Did Risk management pay off your son in his lawsuit or was it a third party insurance company?

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

My son was not paid off by anyone. He was compensated for the near bankruptcy the church/conference placed him in.

You already know it was a third party so why the question?

This needs to be taken care of before any lawsuit is ever filed.

That is where you fail to understand where I am coming from.

BEFORE, not after.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

You and I are closer to agreeing on most points on this case than we were six years ago. Time and experience does add more common ground to work with.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Granted we are, however it needs to begin far before a asuse has occurred. It has to begin with total honesty on the part of those that lead the denomination in any capacity. It has much to do with Risk Management as well. Risk Management could carry a lot of clout in how business was conducted in our churches/schools. Clout instead of smooth sounding words which mean nothing. The problem is wide spread and will continue to be so until those that wish to bury and silence a victim realize the best way to do this is to practise the principals they spout.

There would be no more willing and powerful defender and spokemen for the denomination than someone victimized being treated with fairness, compassion, kindness.

Instead most are treated like human debris.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

On the other hand I have seen false accusations against pastors and school administrators and have seen how those accusations can ruin a person.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

You have stated this numerous times. We have all seen what a false accusation can do. In the end a false accusation hurts the true legitamite victim worse than most anything. This is what so many of you fail to understand. A true victim gets as angry or angrier over a false accusation as anyone does.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

What is clear to you is not clear to others who do not see the facts as you have. Also do not be angry just because others do not believe your charges. You are known to come to false conclusions with your so called facts in the past.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

What is clear to me is on this forum a public apology for a public accusations should never have been made. It was one of my more foolish moments. When I knew I was wrong, I stated so and apologized to you. It was not accepted even tho the pretense to do so was there.

I was wrong on that point concerning you and said so. It was not pretense, false, or in any way a game. It was made into one .

It is clear it is still not accepted, so be it. I withdraw my apology

[bonnie]

Someday hopefully a lesson will be learned. One that will dramatically diminish lawsuits , reduce unpleasent and embarrassing publicity, prevent future victims, and give some crdibility to the claims Risk Management and our denominational leaders repeat.

Put safeguards in place,MANDATORY screening of all employees/volunteers, immediate investigation done according to church policy, charges filed where appropriate, support for the victim and immediate dismissal of those guilty.

You would hear from very few victims that could be treated in this manner. They don't want you to know about them, they don't want your speculation about what a lowlife they are, what a liar. They just want it stopped and get on with their life, what is left of it. They don't want to give you the rest of it as well. It is not fun, interesting or entertaining

Unlikely to happen till a institution/conference/church is brought to it's knee's thru a lawsuit. Finding out OOPS, no coverage on this person, he has done this before and we ignored it.

[CyberGuy]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

What is clear to me is on this forum a public apology for a public accusations should never have been made. It was one of my more foolish moments. When I knew I was wrong, I stated so and apologized to you. It was not accepted even tho the pretense to do so was there.

I was wrong on that point concerning you and said so. It was not pretense, false, or in any way a game. It was made into one .

It is clear it is still not accepted, so be it. I withdraw my apology

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

That is already a matter of public record. Once an accusation is made and it is proven to be false that person making the accusation is discredited. Any other accusation is also suspect.

I have no problem with the apology. It was the fact you waited one year plus one day. One day past the statute of limitations in California that stained the apology. Why would it take ONE year for a person to admit they were wrong unless you were covering your own behind.

You have made many other accusations that are false not only about me but about others and other issues. People see that and start to disbelive anything you have to say about anything. That is the problem with starting to make accusations without proof.

[Dr. Shane]

I think if we all spent more time together around the campfire roasting marshmellows we wouldn't have such issues. <img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

<img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/1poke.gif" alt="" />

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm........ on second thought,,,,,,,

That might make it worse.

<img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/focus.gif" alt="" />

[bonnie]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

CyberGuy said:

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

What is clear to me is on this forum a public apology for a public accusations should never have been made. It was one of my more foolish moments. When I knew I was wrong, I stated so and apologized to you. It was not accepted even tho the pretense to do so was there.

I was wrong on that point concerning you and said so. It was not pretense, false, or in any way a game. It was made into one .

It is clear it is still not accepted, so be it. I withdraw my apology

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

That is already a matter of public record. Once an accusation is made and it is proven to be false that person making the accusation is discredited. Any other accusation is also suspect.

I have no problem with the apology. It was the fact you waited one year plus one day. One day past the statute of limitations in California that stained the apology. Why would it take ONE year for a person to admit they were wrong unless you were covering your own behind.

You have made many other accusations that are false not only about me but about others and other issues. People see that and start to disbelive anything you have to say about anything. That is the problem with starting to make accusations without proof.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I am not getting into this further with you. As to the time element I was completely unaware. You seemed to be aware of it so maybe you should have taken action.

When you received the apology it was a very short time, in fact only as long as it took me to explain and clear your name of this issue on SNT. You then had my apology. Make of it as you wish.

Any other accusation I stand by.

Now make of it as you wish. You have ample opportunity to begin a new thread and a clear field to do so as you did before to start it again.

No one should give you a problem as I am done responding to you as this is still not accepted and I really don't care. It is now your problem