Thank you @ECCLESIASTES for the clarification. I am glad to hear that you don’t work at the GC because if the GC were “defuncted” you would be out of a job, and I would feel really bad since I am the one suggestic such a drastic ,easure…
I said it this way because just defunding, as @elmer_cupino suggested, would not be enough. It could surely stop their activities, but there would always be a potential for resuming their activities, By “defuncting” it, the GC would no longer exist, thus no longer being a thorn in the Church’s flesh.
I know that I am discussing completely hypothetical ideas about a situation that will never happen. The POWER & CONTROL at the GC level increased significantly in the past few years. Thank God for the Unions, primarily created to filter the GC’s abuse of power/inflence in case it ever happened.
The GC functions can be delegated under the direction of an NAD secretary. Then we can rid ourselves of the cultural politics that are stifling our church’s mission.
One likely motivation for not publicizing the reports is that not all the divisions had very developed plans, and the GC is probably not interested in publicly embarrassing any of them.
Ted Wilson hinted at this during his remarks on April 15: “There are varying degrees of interest. I remember one division even said, ‘Well we found about five unions that had some fairly detailed information. We found maybe four or more… unions that really didn’t have much on this.’ So this is a beginning process.”
I hope to be able to report on more of the details in the future.
Yes, the links between religion and abuse are complicated. Some research has shown that conservative religious groups can worsen the problem. Yet at the same time, other research has also shown how religious groups can help abuse survivors through support and resources. Our takeaway should probably be that the net impact of a religious institution is going to hinge on what that institution decides to do–or not do.
This is the key…in the “why” there are “varying degrees of interest”. In political speak, it can also mean that some have very little to no interest.
I look forward to your further reporting on this.
"Our takeaway should probably be that the net impact of a religious institution is going to hinge on what that institution decides to do–or not do."
Naturally…but there is always going to be an added “burden” if the Denomination happens to be conservative/fundamentalist in nature. Too many studies show this to be true and this happens even if the religious group is not christian.
Maybe the GC is looking for a new approach that would make domestic violence suddenly miraculously disappear … “poooof”…- gone!
My guess is that there are many people around who believe that “thoughts & prayers” can do the job. But they can’t! The perpetrator needs to be educated on several issues, and it takes time and effort. Besides, even if a church offered a DV treatment program, nobody would ever be threatened with being sent to jail - therefore, nobody would ever finish the 52-week program.
It would be great if the Church promoted the theme to increase awareness, but battered women should also be properly , to call the police and not the pastor when they are being beaten…
So all these years of Bible study, doctrine and indoctrination have accomplished nothing, correct? So why would one expect some committee ‘outcomes’ to accomplish anything different? This CYA business has just got to stop. I am leery of religion being mixed in with any program designed to address issues of abuse and violence, just as I am with marriage counseling. Let the professionals handle it! If ‘prayer and thought’ were going to cure anything, we wouldn’t have the issue. We like to ‘tout’ our medical schools, so use the whole spectrum of medicine, which includes mental health! Quite frankly, I find this topic absurd because it will continue to be ‘hidden’ unless the full gamut of what has happened in the past and present is acknowledged on all levels. This is nothing new, it has always been around in the schools, churches and families. Yes, I can cite examples, but won’t.
