A Georgia megachurch is facing allegations it failed to warn congregants about a former youth volunteer who’s been charged with trying to traffic a 16-year-old on the dark web.
Records obtained by The Roys Report (TRR) show that on June 30, authorities arrested Kelly Garrett Ivey—a former youth volunteer at Rock Springs Church in Milner, Ga.—and charged him with child cruelty and kidnapping. And last Monday, a grand jury indicted Ivey, 41, on first and second-degree charges of cruelty to children, trafficking, and three counts of criminal attempt to commit a felony, including kidnapping.
This volunteer isn’t “the church”
Removed by mod
I didn’t realize quite how dismissive of it they were. I still don’t agree with you 100% but in this case the church acted horribly and I was in the wrong with my last comment.
My son came out about being molested at church years after the fact. My brother thinks he lied about being molested four years after he stopped going to church, so he wouldn’t have to go to church (???), And my mom thinks it was my dad, not the pastor my son insists it is. Yes. It is “the church.”
The congregants seems to be jumping to the conclusion that the church was formally notified of Ivey’s status, somehow, and sat on the information while Ivey was still a threat. But it’s not clear this was the case.
It doesn’t excuse church leaderships’ tone-deaf response to the arrest, though.
Removed by mod
But this is an educated guess; there is nothing in the article to support this timeline of events.
Depending on who you believe, Ivey’s formal association with the church ended 20 months previous, or maybe he was seen at the church in an unofficial capacity as recently as June. Either way, there’s nothing here to suggest police had contacted the church or notified them. It would certainly be reasonable diligence for them to do so, but then police are not known for diligence. They may have also been concerned that someone would tip off Ivey and he would become a flight risk.
Agreed. It is disappointing (if not surprising) that the church leadership did not IMMEDIATELY assess potential impact to the children of the church and school where Ivey volunteered.
Removed by mod
These statements:
are educated guesses at what could have happened in this case. The article doesn’t make these claims.
The article says nothing about police contacting the church.
As for the news, here is the timeline that I could reconstruct:
Monroe County Reporter published Aug 16. They do not mention Ivey’s employment history or affiliation with the church or school in their article.
Shortly after that (Aug 17), the parent FB group broke the news among the parents.
Aug 20, Atlanta News First say that they spoke to a pastor at the church, but elected not to mention the name of the church “for the purposes of ensuring anonymity for the victim”.
I don’t know when or if the church tried to reach out to the parents, all we do know is that as of Aug 17 they had not done so. But it’s possible that they – like the parents – didn’t actually find out about this until the newspaper article of Aug 16.
I’m not defending the church at all, but I don’t think it’s appropriate to make claims about what the church leadership knew, and when they knew it, without evidence.
Seriously, what kind of Christians are they? Like, they just keep throwing the word around but don’t even say what type they follow
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
What’s wrong about not having critical race theory in classrooms? Like, seeing it from an outside perspective it just sounds like a racist “one eye for an eye” with a Marxist lenses
Edit: maybe instead of just downvoting what you don’t like to hear you should try to explain why critical race theory is actually good and why it should be taught in schools as something more than a radical ideology that appeared in the 60s
It’s fucking history. We should teach fucking history. Sorry if it hurts your feelings.
Again, mentioning it as a radical theory from the 60s
The church protects these fucking animals.
And “the church” failed to disclose this guy’s actions to the parents of children that “the church” allowed him to be around.
Is that really “the hill” you want to die on?
No it is not. I changed my mind after realizing how badly the church actually acted. I wrongfully assumed this was another case of people massively exagerrating the implications of a situation in a desperate attempt to demonize religion somehow. I should have looked more into it before making the comment, but I was too annoyed for critical thinking and my instincts got the better of me.
Oh NOOO! You can’t just contradict my intelectual atheism for smart people by saying an individual that didn’t even have power represents the church and how degenerate it is!!!
I was actually in the wrong on this one. Someone else corrected me and the church acted far worse than I originally thought. They should have taken the situation much more seriously and notified the parents of the situation at the very least.
Yeah, but a certain church acting wrong shouldn’t be used to say the concept of religion is evil
I made the comment originally because I thought that’s what they were doing, but now I think they meant “the church” as just that specific church.
I mean, it’s really easy to get defensive on the internet where you can’t really clear up misunderstandings in comments and you can’t directly see the commenter’s intentions