Being accused of slander in today’s churches usually means you are saying something they don’t want to hear.

Isn’t one of the major signs of a false prophet is the False Prophet tells the king what he Wants to hear while the True Prophet tells the king what he NEEDS to hear?

It is not slander if it’s true.

The Five Most Revolting Details from the Evidence in the Jack Schaap Case

http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/The-312/March-2013/The-top-five-revolting-x-from-the-latest-prosecutor-filing-in-the-Jack-Schaap-case

In the Strong’s definitions, at least, of the Greek and Hebrew words for slander, revile, speak against, etc., I’m coming up with the words “calumny” and “traduce” also. From my computer dictionary:

calumny: the making of false and defamatory statements in order to damage someone’s reputation; slander; a false and slanderous statement.

traduce: speak badly of or tell lies about (someone) so as to damage their reputation.

Lying or at least misrepresentation keeps coming up. How would you damage someone’s reputation by telling the whole truth about them? – unless of course the whole truth was actually bad news, in which case see below about the works of darkness, I would think. (Note: “technical” truths aren’t the whole truth, those fall under misrepresentations and/or lying by omission.)

Zens seems to be cutting off viable avenues of doing what we’re told to do in Eph. 5:11.

“One doesn’t have to be operating in malice to be guilty of gossip and slander. Again, the motive is irrelevant. Spreading negative or shameful information about another person is contrary to walking in love. Love ‘thinks no evil’ and ‘believes the best of others’ (1 Cor. 13)”

How do you expose the unfruitful works of darkness (Eph. 5:11) without damaging someone’s reputation? I’m having trouble even conceiving of this scenario.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Isn’t one of the major signs of a false prophet is the False Prophet tells the king what he Wants to hear while the True Prophet tells the king what he NEEDS to hear?

Yes..this!

In my former church, the was a culture of ‘walking in love.’ Any criticism (unless it came from the pastor in the pulpit) was a violation of your love walk. Sigh….

“I was once part of a church where a pedophile was discovered to be among us. We went to him in private first. Eventually he was put out of the church, following Matt. 18, because he refused to accept correction. What he was doing was inappropriate, but it hadn’t gotten to the crime stage.” Viola

This statement doesn’t give clear details. It’s possible that the church found a convicted pedaphile in their midst, who didn’t disclose such, they went to him to find out and let him know what he needed to do to worship among them, and he didn’t comply so they removed him from their fellowship. Up to this point, they may have acted appropriately. However, if the “convicted pedaphile” wasn’t supposed to be near children, he may have violated his parole and they should have also reported him to authorities and not just sent him on his way.

If this was a man who confessed that he had thoughts and desires for children, but had never been convicted, this is a different situation that may have been handled correctly. It’s possible that it was a different scenario than either of these. It’s hard to know if the handling of this situation was correct without more information.

You said, “(As an aside, in fact, we want to commend SBC Voices. In one post here, they revealed their relationship to Cruciform Press and Kevin Meath’s former relationship to SGM.)”

I hope the other facts you present in your article are more accurate than this. First of all, SBC Voices does not have a relationship with Cruciform Press or Kevin Meath. SBC Voices is a collaborative blog which represents the wide range of Southern Baptist views.

One of our contributors, Mike Leake, whose name is clearly on the article you referenced, is publishing a book with Cruciform.

I am the editor of SBC Voices and manage its content. Mike Leake is one of our best writers and I am sure will have a successful career as an author. He has strong convictions which he articulates well in an irenic spirit.

But he, and he alone has a relationship with Cruciform and the editing team there. I had never even heard of them until Mike told me about their work.

I’m not sure what you were trying to say with the blurb about SBC Voices, but your facts were inaccurate.

So, are these guys saying that they would rather have their children exposed to pedophiles than listen to a testimony that might turn out to be just ‘gossip?’
If my parents had thought the way Viola does about slander/gossip and pedaphilia/Matthew18, I would be pretty worried, but then again, who even knows what may already have happened since secrecy seems to be a virtue over protection of children.

@ Dave A A:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-jack-schaap-sentencing-memorandum-20130314,0,4467793.htmlpage
The memorandum

“Someone’s “fear” or “suspicion” doesn’t make it so. If there’s a legitimate concern with clear evidence, an investigation should be done. The person should be approached directly. If it’s clear that it’s happening and will continue to happen, the authorities should be contacted for this is a serious crime. Again, just as yourself, how would I want to be treated if it were me being accused. That question answers most of these questions. ” – Frank Viola

I just finished serving as a juror on a case charging 1. sexual conduct with a minor, 2. Public indecency and 3. Child molestation. All I can say is that I hope Frank never has to explain his opinion to a prosecuting attorney. No one in a courtroom is going to be impressed with Frank.

“I was once part of a church where a pedophile was discovered to be among us. We went to him in private first. Eventually he was put out of the church, following Matt. 18, because he refused to accept correction. What he was doing was inappropriate, but it hadn’t gotten to the crime stage.” Viola

He is not qualified to make that determination. How does he know there were not tons of victims before then and then more after he left? Pedophiles love guys like Viola because they have many victims before they are caught or reported. They just move to another church.

When will people in the Christian subculture get the fact that they ARE NOT trained professional investigators!!!
Confronting a suspected pedaphile can be dangerous….not just for you, but for any current victims. Grrrr!!!!!!

@ Hester:

Maybe he’s envisioning a “Herbert the Pervert” type scenario. Otherwise, I’m stumped too.

Patti wrote:

So, are these guys saying that they would rather have their children exposed to pedophiles than listen to a testimony that might turn out to be just ‘gossip?’

I’ve noticed that in the same way, a lot of Christian churches would rather a woman stay in an abusive marriage than divorce the abuser, because to them, murder isn’t quite as bad as divorce.

Then there’s an old joke about Baptists not liking to discuss sexual topics because it might lead to dancing.

There’s a lot of weird prioritization or how sins are ranked in seriousness going on among conservative Christians.

Currently it seems the individual is dispensable, but anything that may cause a black eye on a church’s (the group’s) reputation is considered of utmost importance.

Jesus said the Good Shepherd would go after the one lost sheep, not sit around protecting his reputation among the 99 and the other shepherds.

http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/abuse-boz-tchividjian#disqus_thread

Great interview with Boz T of GRACE.

This is the part that resonated with me:

I often tell people that the GRACE team spends a large part of our lives swimming in Christian cesspools that are created when the Christian community sacrifices individual souls for institutional protection and reputation. This is a dark underbelly that the Church would rather ignore because acknowledging it would require being confronted with its own dark and destructive sins. It’s much easier and much more glamorous for the Church to invest time and energy into building programs, evangelism techniques, and theological debates. All the while these cesspools are filling with precious human souls who are drowning because they’ve lost hope—lost hope in life, lost hope in the Church, and lost hope in God. They have lost all hope because the professing Christian community has either abused them or responded with nothing but silence to their cries for help.

Off Topic: Stop Baptist Predators [Christa Brown] > Boots, biscuits and the Prestonwood scandal

If the above does not work, then try this:
http://stopbaptistpredators.blogspot.com/2013/03/boots-biscuits-and-prestonwood-scandal.html

Doesn’t Zens and Viola’s definition of slander lead us to some pretty logical extremes?

If I overheard my friend Bob saying that he wanted to shoot my friend Frank, then I heard that Frank had been invited over to Bob’s house by himself, it would technically be “slander” (according to their definition) if I told Frank that Bob might be trying to kill him. My wish to protect Frank would not cut it in their book.

I know this is kind of an extreme example, but…technically it fits the definition they have laid out. But let’s look at some less extreme examples of times when I’ve broken their “no slander” rule. I’ve had to speak to someone about the fact that her boyfriend was showing signs of being an abuser. I’ve had to warn a friend’s parents that he might be hurting himself. As a teen, I had to alert adults that a friend of mine was making risky sexual choices. Should I have kept all these things quiet? Should I have confronted the abusing boyfriend (who had a foot and a half on me and was very strong) first, or tried to counsel my friend out of hurting himself without alerting his family, or confronted my risk-taking friend who I already knew wouldn’t listen to me?

If motivations are NEVER sufficient to cover slander, and the only way to avoid slander is to have hard evidence AND go to the person in private first…doesn’t that rule out some very important preventative steps that all of us have to take every once in awhile, for a variety of reasons? From that, we can deduce that their definition may need tweaking. I would say that truly pure motivation and strong suspicion are almost always (maybe always always!) justification for warning the proper people.

And for goodness sakes, the SGM debacle is about COVERING UP ALLEGED ONGOING ABUSE. Isn’t it really important for the church as a whole to show that we don’t stand for that in our midst?

@ Eagle:

Notice something interesting about that list? It mentions “attendance” for numbers. Not members. They count their highest attending weekend and report that. Probably Easter last year.

Heck most “members” don’t attend and most attenders don’t join. It is a circus.

@ Eagle:

I used to live in Houston, and I know where Woodlands is. I could’ve gone to several of the churches on that list (but did not). I almost went to the Osteen church to see what it was like.

Ooh, Eddie Long’s church is on the list. He allegedly had inappropriate contact with minors.

Steve Munsey’s church is on the list. I just read something about him and his wife, something about them allegedly bilking their church out of money, or some kind of dishonesty going on.

I never trusted him anyway. He’s always on TBN, coming across like a snake-oil salesman, trying to convince 80 year old granny ladies to mail TBN their grocery money.

Robert Morris’ church is on the list. He has a show on some Christian networks.

I’ve read former members say his church does not help the “little guy,” even if you’ve tithed to them for years, if you go to them in a time of financial need, they will refuse to aid you.

Creflo Dollar is on the list. He got into a skirmish with police when his daughter called to say he was physically abusing her, that was in the news.

John Hagee is on the list. He who insults overweight ladies, usually (though not always) attributes clinical depression to being a character flaw, and who uses, was it $15 million, to build an animatronic Noah’s Ark exhibit at his church.

Perry Noble of New Spring is on there. I’ve read really bad stuff about him and his church, like this.

I sometimes wonder if there are any trustworthy pastors and churches left at all. Most seem to be mired in sexism, domestic abuse, greed, child abuse, or plain old insensitivity towards members.

Patti wrote:

So, are these guys saying that they would rather have their children exposed to pedophiles than listen to a testimony that might turn out to be just ‘gossip?’

According to Christian Monist, at his childhood church in the Godly Golden Age of The Fifties (my highlighting):

To start with the 50s . . . well that was the period when the Sunday school director at my childhood church was sexually molesting little boys. This has nothing to do with the issues about gay marriage, but I’m trying to make the point that bad things were happening back then. What made it worse in this child molestation problem in our church was that the pastor and the mom’s all covered for the Sunday school director. They tried to keep their little boys away from him and introduced him to other little boys as decoys so he would fulfill his pleasure and leave their sons the hell alone (I know it sounds sick now). The dads called any talk of what was going, “women’s gossip.”

sad observer wrote:

If motivations are NEVER sufficient to cover slander, and the only way to avoid slander is to have hard evidence AND go to the person in private first…doesn’t that rule out some very important preventative steps that all of us have to take every once in awhile, for a variety of reasons?

Your examples bring a lot of moral clarity to this issue. What so many want to do is take a single Bible verse out of context and apply it to all situations in life. How has that worked out for them? Don’t answer that…

@ Daisy:

Though after having read more of The Christian Monist’s page, I can’t agree that we are living in a golden age of Christianity, prosperity, rainbows, kittens, and peace and things are going to get rosier.

I’m not exactly a doom’s day type, but, I can’t share his view that things are getting better.

His blog is an interesting read, though.

Nice letter Eagle.

On another issue – is this the same Frank Viola of Minnesota Twins fame? The man with the great circle change-up? His advice on how to handle pedophiles in a church appears to be a hanging curveball.

@ TW:
No, TW. Same name, different person.

Anon 1, you wrote:

“I was once part of a church where a pedophile was discovered to be among us. We went to him in private first. Eventually he was put out of the church, following Matt. 18, because he refused to accept correction. What he was doing was inappropriate, but it hadn’t gotten to the crime stage.” Viola

In a more recent comment, Viola has described that incident in more detail. I wasn’t impressed. I just wrote the following comment a little farther down, and it’s in moderation. We’ll see if it sticks.

“Mr. Viola,

Sorry to tell you this, but your judgement here is entirely wrong. This is not a matter of my opinion as a Christian, but a matter of law. Neither you nor I have any capacity or training to determine whether anyone is sexually abusing children — only highly trained experts in law enforcement can do that. NO ONE else has any business even trying. The mothers you mentioned above shouldn’t have gone to you, but straight to the police, with their concerns. When you heard about it, your only job in that case was to call the authorities, and let them do their God-appointed work.

You may ask whether I would enjoy facing such an investigation, based on suspicion or malicious accusation. The answer: Of course I wouldn’t. That doesn’t matter. The law is the law, and there are very good reasons for this one. The protection of children must come before my (or anyone else’s) comfort or convenience. The best I could do in such a situation would be to trust that the authorities know their jobs, that they would discern the truth, and that I would be vindicated eventually. Complaining that “I don’t like it” would do me no good at all.

You seem to think that there are no exceptions to Matthew 18. You’re wrong. The truth is, Matthew 18 offers us no exemption from the laws of the land. Please keep this in mind if you’re serious about guarding children under your care, brother.”

@ Serving in Japan:

Your post is there and responded to. Not sure that mine will stay, though, I was considerably more blunt. In responding to that same comment I wrote:

This advice is, quite frankly, evil. Waiting until there’s ‘evidence’ is waiting too long. If there’s suspicion it should IMMEDIATELY be reported to the relevant authorities, and the accused should NEVER be approached. Do you really think you’re just going to strike up a conversation with someone and ask them if they’ve sexually abused any kids lately? Really? Because that’s what your advice is suggesting. It’s terrible advice. And, in some jurisdictions and for people who are mandatory reporters, borderline illegal.
As for if it was me accused? Well, if the correct process is followed – i.e. if someone’s made an allegation to the child protection agency – they’ll investigate and will find no evidence and likely nobody will be any the wiser that the investigation and allegation even happened. A better question to ask (i.e. one that isn’t silencing of victims and protecting of abusers) is ‘how would I want my child to be treated if it was them allegedly abused?’ And I sure as hell would want people trained in dealing with sexual abuse cases to be presiding over the investigation, not someone with a clerical collar but no experience or training in criminology or counselling.
So really, please rethink this advice. Rethink this discussion. And learn what the law is around investigation and reporting of abuse.

Serving in Japan, Excellent comment over there. Then Viola fails again in his answer to Glen who speaks of the shepherding movement in his neck of the woods and how everything was considered gossip and slander. Viola sticks to his guns that Matt 18 is a cure all for every situation.

I get so frustrated with the cult of Matt 18 for everything. For crying out loud, can we get some context, please!

In Viola’s mention of a false accusation, nothing shuts down a person who would do this faster than calling the authorities. And he could use a good talk with Boz T if his concern are false accusations. He needs to get a reality check at how rare they are. Boz outlines why that is in that link to the RHE interview.

Nice job, Serving, he not only allowed your excellent comment to stay, but he replied and referred to your comment in two other comments, implying your insight was more prudent than his.

@ Serving in Japan:

The related topics of “gossip” and “slander” are of some interest to me since I have personally been on the receiving end of both, in a specific and rather unsavoury episode earlier this year. I don’t want this post to be overlong (I’ve touched on it before in a comment a few weeks ago), so I’ll post a separate comment later today as I think it’s relevant to the discussion. But I have a couple of general observations.

Consider first the cliched accusation-masquerading-as-a-question: So, you disagree with what Arnold Famous-Pastor wrote in his latest bestselling book. Have you taken up your issues with him personally?” This question is, of course, specious. The questioner knows perfectly well that you haven’t, nor could you have done since Arnold Famous-Pastor won’t answer emails from the likes of you. In other words, it’s a veiled accusation that you haven’t Followed Matthew 18™, therefore you should shut up and go away. But since Arnold Famous-Pastor didn’t write his book in private, but in public, and disseminated it to the widest possible audience when he published it, Matthew 18 is irrelevant. No witnesses are needed to establish what a person’s publicly declared theology contains.

Secondly, depending on what church background you have and what country you live in, what you regard as a sin, the state may not regard as a crime, and vice versa. But where the two coincide, if a crime is serious enough to expel someone from the church, it’s difficult to see how it would not warrant alerting the police. Incidentally, paedophiles and wife-beaters are not the only sinners that target naive christian communities. A congregation I know nearby was targeted by a married couple who established themselves as respectable members, then systematically defrauded numerous other members of thousands of pounds (using fictitious business ventures). When confronted, they simply left the church and found another one – sadly, the pastor of “their new church” refused to believe that such charming people could be capable of such nasty things and they were free to rob more people.

Thirdly, we may not be “trained investigators” but we still have to exercise some responsibility, as both believers and citizens, on what is “reasonable evidence” that a crime has been committed. So, if I see an adult church member accompanying older children into toilet cubicles against the childrens’ express wishes, then – and call me a witch-hunter if you like – I’m going to stick my neck out and say this is reasonable evidence of criminal behaviour. But suppose Anne comes to me and says she reckons Bert has been “behaving inappropriately” to young Charlie. What does she mean? Showing insufficient distaste when changing young Charlie’s nappy (if Charlie is 1) or accompanying Charlie go to the toilet as described above (if Charlie is 10)? Is she telling the truth? Have I known Anne to spread false gossip before, and if so, how does it affect how I treat this story? Importantly, assuming young Charlie is old enough, what does he have to say about it? Can we safely raise the subject with him/her (“Charlie” could be Charles or Charlotte… I chose the name deliberately!)? If Anne honestly fears Bert is a pervert and a danger to children, has she told the police? If not, why not, and why has she come to me? In this case, I’m not going to run straight to the police. Viola’s blog post itself contains a reference to an accusation that was malicious and, ultimately, proven false. Significantly, it didn’t come from the child, but surfaced as hard-to-trace rumours.

Pam wrote:

He suggests talking to the accused? Striking up a conversation and chatting about alleged paedophilia? WHAT? No no no no no no no no no no NO!

Because then he knows you’re on to him and will start covering his tracks, calling in favors with groomed and cultivated allies, and generally defend himself/destroy you. If he can’t groom you into becoming his ally, he will play the Falsely Accused Innocent Martyr and It’s All Your Fault.

Muff Potter wrote:

Father Guido Sarducci will hear your confession. Chances are, all you’ll have to do is say a couple of Our Fathers & a couple of Hail Marys and everything will be cool.

That’s still more penance than SGM gives to active pedophiles.

Eagle wrote:

Don’t forget…one must burn their fundagelical books…. Not a problem…let’s have a barbecue. Burgers and beer all around!

Last local Brony meet I was at some guy grilled up a big batch of his custom “Tequila Burgers”. Near as I could tell from watching him do it, it was done by kneading (1) fresh-squeezed limes, (2) small bottle Worcestershire Sauce, and (3) small bottle Tequila into bulk ground beef. I do not know the actual recipe proportions, but it was good.

Wisdomchaser wrote:

Zen doesn’t post that often and I have been busy reading other blogs so I hadn’t checked on him in a while. I had thought the Zen was usually right on and agreed with what he said. I am very disappointed in the direction this post went. That Viola reposted and agreed with it doesn’t really surprise me.

I agree with your view of Jon Zens. I have listened to his interviews on thatmom and I am sure he commented on Wade’s blog. I appreciate what he says about women and the church. I realized I was encountering cognitive dissonance (http://undermuchgrace.blogspot.com/2009/03/understanding-cognitive-dissonance-part_565.html) when I read his article on slander weeks ago. I couldn’t reconcile what I was reading with what I thought I knew of Zens. I still feel like there must be something I am missing, or that Zens could make his point clearer.

Does he really think that a person saying, truthfully, “That pastor did and said this” is slandering that pastor? Is it then slander for that pastor to then say he was slandered? Lol. What a warped world.

In 1 Timothy 4 Paul says: The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron.

Is he slandering these people? What if Timothy knows who Paul is talking about?

Then he says: If you point these things out to the brothers, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, brought up in the truths of the faith and of the good teaching that you have followed.

Paul, I wonder what you would think if you could see how the the church does things now? Pointing out these things, the hypocritical liars and the abusers of children and the cover-uppers of sin in the church, makes us slanderers. In some eyes.

Both this subject and the other TWW post about the rules of blogging make me wonder how Jesus and Paul would have fared in todays evangelical climate. Only say nice things. “You brood of vipers!”

When you really think for a minute, none of this pedophile stuff or pedophile coverup stuff should shock us.

God gave us the law. He gave it to us to reveal to us what is sin.

Sin is not determined by our individual conscience, by a group vote, or decreed by pastors. It is laid out, and that pretty clearly, in God’s Word.

BUT–even in the church we have twisted that. We make statements about how times have changed, how the Bible says A but really means B, how everything is up to interpretation. We excuse some pretty hard hearted and gross sin because we don’t want to offend the sinner.

Can we really be so shocked then, when the same excuses and sin coverups happen with a sin we don’t happen to like?

Wow, @ Pam, that was BOTH barrels. And I thought my comment was hard-hitting. 😉

Good for you.

Anon 1 wrote:

Did Paul practice Matthew 18? He does not say.

In fact, a case could be made that Paul did NOT practice it in I Cor 5, where he ordered the immoral man cast out based upon something he’d heard. Likewise in II Cor 2 where he ordered the restoration of (likely) the same man– and never talked to the guy personally. I think these 2 chapters address “CHURCH discipline” (though the phrase is unbiblical) and restoration while Matt 18 focuses on PERSONAL forgiveness and restoration.
My personal take on the Matt 18 steps, and I’d think there must be some scholars who would say this better, is that those steps are directed to individual disciples, not to corporate church leaders. They’re not “discipline” rules which must be followed by corporate shunning. Jesus uses “thee”– second person SINGULAR to address the person taking the steps. The church only comes in as extra support in seeking repentance, just like the couple of individuals previously. But it’s the sinned-against party, not the church, who takes the step of letting him be unto “thee” (singular) as a tax-collector or gentile. Peter seems to take it just this way when, after the keys section, he asks, not about his apostolic authority or unlocking the pearly gates, but “How often shall MY brother sin against ME, and I forgive him?”

The admonition to never “gossip” or “slander” doesn’t stop the leadership from partaking in it wholeheartedly in Calvary Chapels:

“Be a Narc for Jesus,” Excerpt from Calvary Chapel’s primer for Assisting Pastors
Found here: http://c317808.r8.cf1.rackcdn.com/TheMinistryOfAssistingPastor.pdf

20. Keep the Pastor Informed About Absolutely Everything—Be His Eyes and Ears, Be a Narc for Jesus

The Pastor needs to be told everything. He cannot oversee the ministry without data. Senior pastors hate surprises in their ministries. Tell the pastor all about the people in the congregation. Tell him what’s happening at meetings he doesn’t attend. Tell him how the Sunday School is going, what the youth group is doing, and the latest missionary efforts. Leave no stone unturned. Tell him everything.

Some ministries are so big that the Assisting Pastor doesn’t see or talk to the Pastor regularly. If that’s your case, write him letters. Pastor Chuck has far too much to do to talk to me every day on the phone or have me planted in his office when I should be out serving the people. So, I regularly write him a long letter, in which I tell him everything about the areas of ministry that I’m assisting him with. He needs input and data to make his decisions and oversee the ministry, so I give him as much input as I can. I inform him of everything. If something goes wrong, I want him to hear from me first. I want him to have all information in case he needs to make decisions about the ministry. I don’t expect an answer to the letters—it is just input from me to him.

Be the eyes and ears of the ministry. Listen to what people are saying. Pick up on the attitudes of the staff and leadership. Watch people to see who serves diligently and who goofs off. Be a narc for Jesus. Squeal on people. Narc on the guy who litters the parking lot. Tell the pastor everything. Absolutely everything.
* * *

Bridget wrote:

I have come to the conclusion that many people in the Church simply do not understand the issues surrounding this crime. Most people are far to busy and often don’t give any of it much thought. There is so much ignorance and lack of education regarding all aspects of abuse, most of all pedophilia. I am thankful that you are bringing this to the forefront and hope and pray that men and women of the Church will become educated in this area. It doesn’t need to rest in the shoulders of leaders only. Members should ask, learn, and push for changes where necessary.

I agree with you, Bridget. That was my first thought when I read Frank Viola’s comment. I thought, “He has no clue.” Just like the pastors at my former church seemed to have no idea. To be honest, Neither did I until recently. I think as we continue to put this information out there, more and more people will start to understand and take appropriate action. Thank God for the Internet and for ministries like G.R.A.C.E..

Dee,

Hey,

I know this subject is important to you. Thanx.

The SGM lawsuit is happening in part IMHO because there  was this ‘silencing action’ going on for years, utilizing the tools you describe. Acts 29 has been documented as doing quite the same. Using various tools to ‘silence’ and ‘conform’ people. Falsely accusing people of ‘gossip’, and ‘slander’ are just two of the tools in their nefarious arsenal to shut kind folk up.  They have been quite effective. Ask their many victims.

I remember reading about the AoR testimonies, how AoR really did not care, yet was quick to note the ‘hostility’ of the many witnesses. If that isn’t shut the ___ up, I don’t know what is.

(sadface)

Sopy

—

Anon 1 wrote:

Dee, Redefining is going on in all sectors of Christendom.

Didn’t Screwtape write about redefining words into “their diabolical meanings”?

“Nya Ha Ha, My Dear Wormwood…”

Katie –

I have no words to express my disgust of the quotes and the havoc that such teaching causes. Leaders (can no longer call them pastors) who write such things are wicked.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Didn’t Screwtape write about redefining words into “their diabolical meanings”?

HUG, I need to reread that. It has been a while.

@ sad observer:

Nice applications to real life situations. I keep imagining what I would say to the people at my former church about child sex abuse. I just found out this weekend that prior to our joining that church, there was a church split over an abuse case. Apparently the perpetrator went to the new church, and the pastor planted a new church in Missouri. I asked if there were procedures in place or if the incident was reported to the police. The answer was no to both questions.

Regardless of the defintions, in my last face-to-face encounter with a SGM leader (read “apostle”), he brought 5 or 6 assertions against me, from the local church leadership, that were completely false. I countered every accusation with the truth which left said SGM leader with his face red, voice high pitched, and backed into a corner. So he did what any “gospel” centered leader would do – he promptly attacked my family!

A year or two later one of the locals contacted me. This was about the time of the AoR reconciliation farce. The local confessed, without coercion on my part, that he had gossiped and probably defamed me to the upper echelons of the SGM hierachy. I gave him the task of making this right.

Haven’t heard from him/them,
Former SG Pastor

Our old Calvinista church spiritually and emotionally abused my wife: she wanted a women’s Bible study, they accused her of rebelling against the male elders and tried to bully her into submission. (I’ve mentioned this in previous comments).

I and a few other guys from my small group stepped in to defend my wife, and when we started poking and prodding to figure out what the heck was going on amongst the elders, we were accused of “being critical” and “speaking negatively about leadership.”

My wife and I, and a few other couples, got out of there as fast as we could. Thank goodness it was not a drawn-out process! However, a few friends who had stayed kept us informed about developments, and forwarded us a manifesto that the elders produced and gave to the entire congregation shortly after we left. Among the many “gems” (that are both hilarious and disturbing in their ludicrousness) in this manifesto was an extreme insistence that NO ONE is allowed to say ANYTHING NEGATIVE about anyone else unless that person is present.

My wife and I found this hilarious, mainly due to the fact that the elders (by their own admission!) had been discussing my wife’s possible sins (rebelling against male authority?) in private amongst themselves, without her present.

In my own view, a leader who is paranoid about people speaking badly about him/her has some deeper issues that need to be addressed. At minimum, they are insecure and defensive, which are never good qualities in a leader. In the case of our former church, it is clear in retrospect that the elders were insecure and defensive for good reason! None of them were trained or equipped to be doing pastoral ministry in the first place.

Sopwith wrote:

Acts 29 has been documented as doing quite the same. Using various tools to ‘silence’ and ‘conform’ people. Falsely accusing people of ‘gossip’, and ‘slander’ are just two of the tools in their nefarious arsenal to shut kind folk up.  They have been quite effective. Ask their many victims.

Exactly. Our old church was a Mars Hill-affiliated church. The lead pastor was a young guy who clearly idolized Mark Driscoll.

This little gem sticks in my mind:

“In a situation where something in the church is so completely wrong that the sheep in the body are in spiritual danger, then say nothing to anybody, resign, and move on. If the church is a Calvary Chapel affiliate, then take your concerns and share them privately with Pastor Chuck or with Oden Fong, then drop it; leave it alone. Let them handle it. Trust God. He’ll correct the situation. But do not gossip. It is a terrible sin before God.”

When Alex Grenier told Chuck Smith of the abuse he and his brothers received at the hands of their father/step-father/Calvary Chapel Pastor Bob Grenier, as well as the many documented spiritual abuses and financial improprieties, it fell on deaf ears. Though Chuck said he believed Alex and the mounds of signed testimony from many witnesses were in Chuck’s hands, Chuck did NOTHING. He continues to do NOTHING while Bad boy Bob Grenier sues his own son to intimidate him into silence saying Alex is slandering him.

So even if the people in the church are in danger, one is not supposed to tell anyone other than the pastor. This is so bad that it reveals the incredible blindness and evil that has infiltrated (or more likely always been there) in the leadership of the 4th largest, arguably the most influential, non-denominational denomination in the United States.

I have no doubt that SGM’ers, Driscollites, Acts29ers, and the like have all taken copious notes on how Chuck Smith pulled this off and implement these practices with their own style.

Mr.H wrote:

I suppose this means that the pastor is infallible and without sin? What if the pastor makes a mistake, or willfully pursues a strategy/action that is contrary to God’s will?

Mr. H., Calvary Chapel pastors have a “Moses Model” church government structure whereby the Pastor is “Moses” and he is accountable to NO ONE except God. The assumption is that a pastor does not need accountability, but if he does sin a big one, then no one is to do anything unless Chuck Smith decides to arbitrarily step in (which is usually if a church goes Calvinist, but rarely if there is moral failure,) or the law removes the pastor in sin.

Both the Financial Board and the Elder Board are subject to the Pastor and have no rule over the pastor. If they disagree with the Pastor, the Pastor can fire them. There are a few rare exceptions to this, but don’t be fooled by some who try to say that many CC pastors have come to their senses. They always (from what I understand) keep a measure of the Moses Model power and trump card to keep control, but you have to read the by-laws to see exactly what is going on … though they often won’t let you.

@ Nick Bulbeck:

Nick –

Were you saying in your comment that this document was retracted? (I’m hopeful it was!) If so, where can I find that retraction? The sad thing is that it can take a long time to unteach false beliefs that have infiltrated churches.

lilyrosemary wrote:

@ Katie:
I don’t understand this! I am sitting here openmouthed. Katie, the excerpts you posted are insane. … I can’t wrap my head around this.

Welcome to the club, Lilyrosemary! 😉

I suspect that you all (Former SGMers) have been told to be loyal to your pastor?

Here’s how the CC’s put it:

6. Be Unconditionally Loyal
If you can’t be loyal to people like your pastor and your wife, you can’t be loyal to God. … Be loyal no matter what is happening. Stand by the man God has raised up to be the pastor.

Katie wrote:

Calvary Chapel pastors have a “Moses Model” church government structure whereby the Pastor is “Moses” and he is accountable to NO ONE except God.

OK, I am American and will freely admit to having that bias. The U.S. government was founded on the principle that NO ONE is so good or so pure or so divinely appointed that they are accountable to no one but God. And, by gum, I believe that. Thank God I never believed in the idea that when I reconverted I needed to rid my mind of everything I ever learned from life experience or books other than the Bible. Because I think “the Moses model” reeks of the pit of hell and any church that asked me to pretend it smelled like roses would earn my undying suspicion.

Thanks for writing about this, Katie. It has been … educational!

@ Nick Bulbeck:

Thanks, Nick. I missed it.

Katie –

Do you know if Chuck Smith and others are still using this book and/or promoting these teachings in their training? I realize that damage was already done and that the teaching was assimilated. I’m sure the mindset can still be found in churches.

Bridget, I don’t know for sure if the book is still in use, officially. I know of one CC, personally, that was still using it 3 years ago. The principles are reinforced through many avenues like the yearly pastors conference and the two weeks every year that a CC pastor has to spend with another mentor CC pastor. But truthfully, the indoctrination occurs before they get a title. The men striving for positions must prove themselves by living out these principles to be worthy of being chosen to serve the pastor.

I’ve heard some CC pastors try to distance themselves from the book when confronted with it, so it may no longer be something that is mandatory reading in that form, especially since the author repented of it publicly. But the evidence of the principles being lived out currently is abundant.

@ Katie:
I love how section 50, “Stay close to Jesus” is the very shortest section of all! 🙂
I was appointed Associate Pastor (should have been *assisting*, I now see) right about the time this was written. Not at a CC, but with the same Moses model. The senior pastor asked no one else about my appointment. He handled all the church funds personally. This didn’t cause tooooooo very much trouble, since he was honest, managed money “well” and took no salary. But all benevolence had to go through him. So if I or anyone else saw needs where the church could help, the recipients had to qualify in his eyes. This was a means of control. When the church dissolved, we had thousands in the bank, which Pastor donated to the charity of his choice.
Later we were in ANOTHER church with a mini-Moses. He wasn’t quite so honest. After we left, we heard that his mother-in-law had been bought a house with church funds….

Sorry, Dave AA, I called you Unicorn.

Rafiki wrote:

These are places where you will suffer and likely be killed if you “slander” or “gossip” about the government but even these monstrous regimes wouldn’t write something like those Calvary Chapel “guidelines.”

Because they are not God’s Chosen, the One True Church with Eternal Hell as their enforcer. There is no salvation outside Calvary Chapel.

They at least have the sense to gussy up their authoritarianism with a faux legal veneer and hastily thrown-together constitutions that are a joke.
The only reason I bring this up is because I utterly fail to see how any sentient person could read that CC document and stay in that system. It’s the most pathetic thing I’ve ever read.

Yet if you bring this (or any suspicion of CC) up to a Calvary Chapelite (i.e. one of the SAVED), the wall in the mind slams down after which there is only the full-auto barrage of Bible Bullets.

Really horrible advice from Viola here.

Another thing – his definition of gossip isn’t even correct. Gossip isn’t “always negative personal information about another that puts them in a bad light.”

In fact, gossip can be wonderful positive information that isn’t public and just isn’t your business to share without permission. An example I commonly use is if your friend tells you she’s 8 weeks pregnant. She’s happy but she’s not showing yet. If you go tell a mutual friend, that’s gossip. Your intentions may be great. The news is great. But it’s her news to share, not yours!

Now once the news is public, it’s not gossip anymore if you share it, even if you tell someone who didn’t know before.

Slander is different because the motive is malicious AND the information is at least partly inaccurate / false. It isn’t just information that is negative. An example I use is if I tell you that Newt Gingerich has been twice divorced and is now on his third marriage, the information is true and public, so it’s not slander even though it is negative.

On the other hand, if I say that so-and-so is a thief when they have not been either (a)convicted in a court of law of the crime, or (b) admitted to it, or (c) it otherwise have been proven about them, I am committing slander and could even be sued for my accusation.

EMSoliDeoGloria wrote:

Slander is different because the motive is malicious AND the information is at least partly inaccurate / false. It isn’t just information that is negative. An example I use is if I tell you that Newt Gingerich has been twice divorced and is now on his third marriage, the information is true and public, so it’s not slander even though it is negative.

And according to the judge in the Calvary Chapel Visalia SLAPP-suit, because of his position Pastor Bob is a public figure. Just like Newt Gingrich.

These guys have their panties in a wad. If you want to hear some serious gossip and/or slander, have lunch at a restaurant near Prestonwood on a weekday. I actually blushed at what I was hearing at the tables nearby.

It seems like Viola and Zen are taking 10,000 words to repeat the adage “If you don’t have something nice to say, don’t say anything”. What a waste of time and energy. If they want to encourage their readers to be kind, then say so. But they also need to understand that there is a time and a place for negative reports and criticism. Nobody has the right to compromise the safety of others. Prestonwood and SGM have followed Viola and Zen’s advice a little too well and so many innocent children have been harmed as a result.

Eagle, That is how narcissist think. Say it is so and it is so. (Nevermind all that other stuff. You are bitter and unforgiving for even thinking about it…cos you know I say I am the biggest sinner I know)

You ever wonder why CJ said just about nothing in the SGM wikileaks docs but vague platitudes that communicate nothing? Cos he cannot acknowledge anything and keep his stories straight for 30 years. The guy is repugnant.

Dee,

I’m so glad you brought this topic up here. I have a personal experience with these “definitions.” Once upon a time my family started going to a new church. The elders wondered why we left our previous one, so they asked. We were hesitant to give our story because of many problems that were never resolved at our previous church, but they wanted to know anyway. So we told them why we left. Some months later in a meeting they called with us, they told us that we had gossipped about and slandered our former church! Truly amazing. We simply answered the question they wanted to know, and were accused of sin months later!

Anon 1 wrote:

Eagle, That is how narcissist think. Say it is so and it is so.

i.e. The literal meaning of “Abracadabra”…

Okay, off topic here but I’m trying to remember something that came up a few days back and who said it. Somebody on here said either that they had helped, or their friend had helped, young women escape from Scott Brown’s church and that none of them had ever been to the OBGYN, etc. Who said this? I ask because this week’s Big Box lecture is by Scott Brown and more info is good info.

I’d like to know this one too.
@ Hester:

Okay….I justleft a comment on Viola’s post – it is in moderation. We’ll see if he has the guts to post it….

“Frank, I have to speak up on this. This post has caused me to lose respect for you.

As a survivor of childhood sexual abuse who grew up in church, the attitude is dangerous. If any of the people that I have recently discovered suspected abuse had actually done something, it might have been stopped. Do you understand the lifetime damage this does to the child? Do you understand that pedophiles are expert liars and manipulaters that present as good, upstanding people – they have to to get away with it? Do you understand that they target churches because of these kinds of attitudes that make it easy to get away with it? Do you understand that the average pedophile will molest approximatley 145 children before they are caught? Would you be willing to look into the eyes of a child who was molested and explain to them that the man who molested them was free to do so because you didn’t have proof of the allegations and didn’t want to ‘slande’ him by telling the authorities?”

Yes. Perfectly! 😀
@ Eagle:

@ Sovereign Grace Docs:

I didn’t realize sexual abuse or endangerment of a minor had a time-barr (or whatever they keep referring to)! Aren’t pedophile crimes immune from time lapses, as victims need to be emotionally capable of testifying, something they may not be able to do for years. Weird that this could all get tossed out due to time lapses. Would a civil suit against a murderer also be time-barred? Seriously?

*typo – “remember/tell”

@ Val:
The statute of limitations applies to criminal charges. I don’t think it would apply to this civil suit.

Anyone see John Piper’s Facebook status today? https://www.facebook.com/JohnPiper/posts/288138631316231

It’s ‘You shall not spread a false report (Exodus 23:1)

No context given. SGM has been mentioned in the comments.
A friend of mine posted a link to it.

dee wrote:

That is why I tend to use the word “rape” to describe what is going on. It is more “in your face” and tends to rattle people.

Exactly! Which is why I use the terms “child molester” and “sexual predator” rather than “pedophile” – they more clearly speak to the horror of the acts and don’t make it sound so clinical.

I stumbled across a blog post this morning by a “reformed” guy who appears to be just becoming aware of the SGM debacle and is understandably perplexed. He first heard about it from Tim Challies Feb. 28th post “Thinking Biblically about CJ Mahaney & SGM”.

He concludes with this:

Message to SGM:
I don’t even know if anyone remotely associated to SGM will read this, but here is what I have to say anyway.

Please, for the love of Christ and the glory of God, be authentic. I realize that giving ground on constitutional issues is a slippery slope, but for Heaven’s sake, you’re supposed to be a network of Reformed churches who confess a God who is Sovereign over all. Act like it!

If you haven’t done anything wrong, you don’t have anything to fear. Be open, be authentic. Trust God to protect you from false accusations, and repent if the allegations are true.

The world sees enough CYA nonsense in politics. What the world needs to see is Christians being real and authentic. They need to see Christians who aren’t afraid to admit they make mistakes, and not just from a pulpit or in a blog, but fleshed out in real life. They need to see us prepared to take the earthly consequences for our actions. More importantly, they need to see Christians live life as though they really trusted in the power of God and the forgiveness found in the blood of Jesus.

Anyway, I thought maybe some of us might like to pay him a visit and affirm his observations. Here’s the link: http://www.transformingwords.org/wordpress/2013/03/20/gods-people-and-battling-injustice/

@ Deb:

“You shall not spread a false report.” (Exodus 23:1) 

hmmm…

The scriptural interpretation in John Piper’s pulpit apparently becomes:

“You shall not spread a report.” (Exodus 23:1, modified of corse)  

Wartburg takes the ‘scriptures’ (correctly) ta mean:

“You shall report ‘false’ [stuff] 

Is John Piper mis-representing the truth of Sovereign Grace Ministries?

http://mattbredmond.com/2013/03/07/the-silence-of-the-reformed/

…think someone is referring to the ongoing lawsuit over sexual abuse there @ SGM?

http://www.sgmsurvivors.com/

huh?

There is aparrently ‘always” a godly reason for a Neo-Calvinist to mis-represent the truth?

Watch for it.

(grin)

Sopy
___
P.S. Remember, these individuals will ‘steal’ your faith, with twisted scriptures…If U let them.

—-> see if you can catch the subtle errors here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HyhT93qEM3Q

Just another crazy example clearly demonstrating –You will need to think for yourself! And Read.The. Scriptures. –remember also, something worth having, is worth working for. Faith comes by hearing the Word of God.  Accept no other substitute!  It is your ‘soul’ remember?  You Matter. 🙂

—

@ Sopwith:

thenewmystics.com is their blog ? ? ? ?

Nick Bulbeck wrote:

Pastor and people are two different species, with the latter having no relationship with God.

Isn’t this a known HERESY called CLERICALISM?

Katie wrote:

I agree that the Evangelical culture often churns out people addicted to sermons in place of reading their Bibles, themselves. I found studying, asking questions and theological education were discouraged in CC.

I agree, but I wouldn’t that this happening is a purposeful divide between shepherds and sheep.

There is a lot of pressure for pastors to be “relevant” in 30 min on Sundays which has led to the application based sermon. Since most application sermons are a real stretch to what the scripture is actually saying the average person looks at scripture, doesn’t see those same applications, and concludes the Bible is closed to them to understand and they need pastor to “open” the Bible to them. Nowadays a lot of folks don’t understand the joy in reading the scriptures if there is no personal, tweetable application derived from it at face value. I find this all very sad. I enjoy leading small bible studies where we learn how to read scripture and helping people find joy in reading the Bible for themselves.

I’ve been reading here for a while, yet never commented before. I appreciate the work that is done by the authors to protect and defend victims. Although a long-time follower of Christ, I’d been out of the American Evangelical loop for some time and had never heard of many of the “leaders” and issues (SGM, Mark Driscoll, etc.)until reading here, and I have to admit, it’s been quite a shock. I found you by initially researching patriarchy and Vision Forum, and was sad to find that it is not just the fringe movements that have gone terribly off course, but the mainstream as well.

Anyway, I felt compelled to comment on this post concerning Zens and Viola. I’ve never interacted personally with either one, but I have read their work extensively (articles, books and blog posts). Both have been outspoken (and soundly criticized for it)about the current state of the institutional church- mainly it’s American form of authoritarian leadership and inhibiting the congregation from fully functioning. As has been noted in many comments elsewhere on this blog, removing a “bad” leader from a church (ie.Mahaney from SGM)is not enough. The culture and whole structure of the church must change if it is to be healthy. Viola and Zens have much wisdom on that cultural/structural change that would ultimately inhibit such gross abuse of authority that we are now seeing.

I point that out to say that, when you know more about someone’s work and philosophies, you can more accurately understand where they are coming from and what they mean to convey. I read this post on Viola’s blog when it came out, and I never would have taken it to be addressing criminal behavior, suspecting such behavior, or anything that would be putting vulnerable people at risk of any harm. However, coming from another perspective: such as one who isn’t familiar with who the authors are, who has been accused of slandering (such as was done in that ridiculous, passive-aggressive article by “Fabs”, who was most definitely addressing this blog’s authors), or who has been a victim of abuse and tried asking for help or who is desperately trying to protect innocents; I can see how another meaning could be construed.

I guess what I want to convey is that the spirit of what Jesus said in the famous (or now maybe “infamous”) Matthew 18 is to protect and build up the body of Christ. Clearly, ignoring or shielding child molesters does not protect or build up the church. However, the many misuses of the teaching (let me count the ways!), does not negate the truthfulness of it when applied appropriately. I understand the need to call out erroneous teaching that contributes to the culture of “non-questioning” that is so prevalent. I also understand the need to ask someone if you properly understood their meaning before publicly criticizing it, or drawing conclusions about who they are. This does not apply to child abusers and criminals. I think it does apply to authors of blog posts.

I know many (most?)of the the big name Christian bloggers would never respond to such a request, in a comment or email. The oft overlooked part of the Matthew 18 passage is “tell it to the church” (not “to the elders” as many would like to posit). When a harmful teaching is being espoused (such as what many felt was happening with the Viola/Zens post), and an attempt has been made for further explanation or defense that has neither been acknowledged or is unsatisfactory to dispell concern, then a public refutation of such teaching is in order, in my opinion. (Interestingly, even in the secular world, the author being critiqued is given a chance for a refutaion or clarification before a critique is published.)

In my opinion, when many, many, many witnesses speak out about what someone believes, teaches, or has done (and their own writings may bear witness against them in regards to beliefs and teachings) and many others have attempted to correct such teachings or actions, then I don’t necessarily feel obligated to also contact them and ask for clarification. For example, if I were to write a refute to Vision Forum’s Pillars of Patriarchy (or whatever they call their doctrine), I’d hardly feel the need to try and contact Doug Phillips for his defense. Waste. Of. Time. There is a harmful, anti-scriptural teaching that has been harming people, the author has been refuted numerous times by other believers and the false teaching needs to be spoken against. It seems appropriate for public, mass communicated teachings to be also refuted publicly for the good of the church.

Conversely, when an author has a history of publicly defending women and children (see Jon Zens books and articles on the “restrictive” scriptures about women, That Mom’s podcast series on patriarchy, and his sermon series at Wade Burleson’s church), and of speaking out against authoritarian leadership (see both author’s writings and Viola’s podcasts on this topic), I feel like they deserve at least a chance to clarify or respond before conclusions are drawn or criticism made public. I know I would like the same kindness and love extended to me.

For what it’s worth, Jon Zens actually has his (day and evening) phone number published on his blog, for anyone who has questions, along with the an email address. And Viola has responded on his blog to the post in question, with a new comment this morning regarding the pedophile incident to which he referred. It is worth noting that, in retrospect, he did not defend the actions taken by the church, but rather agreed that he stood corrected about what should have happened. He has also indicated that he will give the issue further examination. So both men seem open to thoughtful discourse (which seems to be a rarity).

So my main point (Finally! I know!), lets not allow the misuse of Matthew 18 to rob us of what the Lord’s intent for it was. Let us be “wise as serpents, and innocent as doves”, protecting our children and community from those who would do harm, and not rushing to judge others without due diligence. Let us continue to be Bereans, who take the time to search out the truth and then proclaim it unashamedly.

If anyone here actually made it through this whole essay, er, comment, I appreciate your patience. I apologize for it’s length, and I hope that it properly conveys the spirit of love and edification in which it is meant.

Btw, Zens posted an article on his blog this morning http://www.searchingtogether.org/blog/ that addresses Piper’s “Christianity is masculine” nonsense. He apparently isn’t against speaking out about untruths being taught in the church or calling the teachers out by name. It’s worth a read.

If you all haven’t watched the videos of Sam Vaknin on narcissism, they’re worth it.

Here’s a 6-min “The Narcissist and his Relationship with God”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xpreyXw1-E&list=PL25076B089230EAB3&index=9

@ Patrice:

It is a good series, though you should consider that Sam considers himself to be a malignant narcissist. At least he’s redeemed himself somewhat by warning us all about other narcissists.

Hi Leah, Great comment and I am so glad you took the time to write it here. I read Zen’ piece on gossip at his blog when it first posted there and was disappointed. When I saw it on Viola at Patheos, I was even more disappointed. Reason? I have read most of their stuff, listened to them for a long time and followed their blogs. They are very well aware of the problems in the institutional church and the authoritarian paradigm that is not biblical. I was suprised they did not include those caveats in the article on gossip. I was surprised it was not defined better due to their vast knowledge about the problems in the institutions. Viola is internet savvy and uses it quite a bit to market himself and his books. It is not like he is isolated from this use of “gossip” card to shut folks down.

Then when Viola was questioned about it on the blog, he first responded that an accusation of child molestation would have to be “credible”. Well, who decides that? He does not tell us. He did not respond with, “call the authorities” and that concerned me.

That is all he said at first until others chimed in for more clarification. When others commented, he relented somewhat but seemed agitated that this was even being brought up.

Since both are well aware of the problems in the institution and authoritarianism, I was a bit shocked that neither one mentioned pastors using the “gossip” card for negative truths they wanted to hide from other members.

In fact, I started to wonder if there was some “gossip” situation that prompted the article, the repeat and its myopic focus.

I really thought they, of all people, should have known better. And it was just more proof we should listen to Christ more than men.

Dave Miller wrote:
You said, “(As an aside, in fact, we want to commend SBC Voices. In one post here, they revealed their relationship to Cruciform Press and Kevin Meath’s former relationship to SGM.)”

I hope the other facts you present in your article are more accurate than this. First of all, SBC Voices does not have a relationship with Cruciform Press or Kevin Meath. SBC Voices is a collaborative blog which represents the wide range of Southern Baptist views. ”

I really do not understand his comment. One of the SBCV contributors has a relationship with Cruciform press and promoted his book in an article on SBCVoices. You simply commended them for being open about that. So why does Dave Miller think that is inaccurate?

I disagree that SBCV allows a wide range of views. Miller has deleted many over the years. Especially if they disagreed with any YRR leaders. There was a time he would delete for disagreeing about Mark Driscoll. And now over there, you hear NOTHING about Mahaney on that blog but lots of promotion of Reformed conferences, leaders, etc. It is as if the Mahaney debacle is not happening in their wing of the SBC. Or perhaps it is a sin to mention the public lawsuit? Miller was also elected 2nd VP at the last convention.

JeffT wrote:

Katie wrote:
Never Gossip” from Calvary Chapel’s primer for Assisting Pastors
Found here: http://c317808.r8.cf1.rackcdn.com/TheMinistryOfAssistingPastor.pdf
That is one of the most frightening documents on ministerial roles I have ever read. Botton line – the Gospel, the Bible, the teachings of Jesus are all subordinate to the senior pastor. Associate pastor=lackey. Chuck Smith uber alles.

Every time I hear someone acknowledge this I feel more sane. Thanks, JeffT!

Katie wrote:

Out of a couple dozen leaders, I was the only one with a theology degree, the only one who could explain hermeneutics, and the only one with formal Bible teaching experience … but I was singled out and removed.

Katie, your academic qualifications exceed those of CJ Mahaney, did you know that?

Lunatic Fringe: “Da Mystics are coming?”

@ Bridget:

Bridget:  Lunatic fringe huh? Someone posted that YouTube link on John Piper’s Twitter account. I thought it interesting. Ha! ha! Go figure? I thought it a comic travesty of a directional disaster. (that these bright boyz would take even your very ‘faith’ away, and attribute it to ‘some mystic Jesus’, that somehow believes in you. Quack, Quack!) Just goes to show you that the Wartburg hasn’t even scratched the surface of the pervasive cesspool that western Christianity has fallen into. It would seem Wartburg will never be without work. High ho!

…come together?

what?

da calvinestas endorsing and build their widdle — 21st century style (fame). Tower of Babel, are they now?

hmmm…

‘Together.to.trash.the. Gospel’ ?  (T4-G)

hmmm… (figures)

 they will forever be?

(how do you answer dat?)

It all sounds pristine until you get a whiff of what their gospel produces? 

huh?

They will be known by their fruit?

(Oh! that is simply so old fashion?!? -snark- )

They must all be wearing “sovereignly” gas masks for protection?

…keeping out a ‘certain stink’, 

whatz dat smell?

Are they affixiating the rest of us with the gas of their supreme doctrine?

hmmm… could b.

Like the most dangerous of religious gases, it is lethal and odorless?

Oh! Ize hope notz…

Thank God fo Kind Folks like Wartburg, that are rescuing da victims with da fresh air, huh?

Whistle while you work…hum, hum, hum, hum-hum-hum-hum!

(grin)

R we runn’in low on 402 spiritual ‘surgical suture silk’…ta patch um?

(sadface)

I’m ‘calling out’ for pizza! Ahem! more…402

Sopy

—

@ dee:
Dee, no worries! I detected the humour intended. I actually didn’t see your other comment (about the phone number) until after I posted. But now that I know that’s an option….jk.

I was really referring to how I could have at least asked in a comment if you’d clarified before telling you you should have clarified. Clear as mud, right?

Yes blogs with closed comments are annoying. Its asking someone to listen to you without being willing to listen to them.

Thanks for conversing 🙂

“I guess my hope in posting was to remind us that there is still that better way.”

Leah,

I read your comments twice and am not sure what you mean by a better way? Could you be more specific?

Have y’all heard the story about Jack Schaap (former pastor of First Baptist Hammond) getting convicted? Here’s the local Chicago ABC story:

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=9034733

@ Rafiki:

Rafiki, Youze can thankz  Bridget fo dat one… 

-snicker- 

Yahoooo!

http://spiritualtyranny.com/begging-the-cool-crowd/1/

(grin)

Sopy

—

@ Anon 1:

Sorry I wasn’t clear- I’ve been multi-tasking too much today. I think I was just referring to the intent of my original post being about handling possible misunderstandings in a way that builds up the body rather than tearing it down – which I think is the spirit of the Matthew 18 admonition.
This was in reference to giving Zens and Viola a chance before coming to conclusions. I appreciate the graciousness of Dee’s response to my concern.

Re Prestonwood and Graham on “slander”:

http://www.abpnews.com/ministry/organizations/item/8308-pastor-says-let-god-judge-accusers#.UUrbvhyTgtg

Apparently thinks asking a civil question about a past failure is slander.

Arce wrote:

Re Prestonwood and Graham on “slander”:
http://www.abpnews.com/ministry/organizations/item/8308-pastor-says-let-god-judge-accusers#.UUrbvhyTgtg
Apparently thinks asking a civil question about a past failure is slander.

Sorry to talk so much – one more post before I have to go out. I read the article you linked to, Arce, and – perhaps like you – I am confused about one thing. When Jack Graham says that we should keep silent when we are falsely accused or slandered (which, incidentally, would certainly be an answer against those accusing him) was he referring to:
a) What he, Graham, intends to do regarding Chris Tynes’ accusations (if indeed they are such) against him, or
b) What he is counselling Tynes to do with the church’s allegations against him that he is a “suspicious person, possibly violent”?

@ Nick Bulbeck:

Neil, The irony is that the Reformed pastor/leader response to Mahaney covering over for pedophiles is exactly the sort of thing that will lead to this sort of government intrusion. They don’t connect dots. They are their own worst enemy simply because they want to protect their conference buddies/icons instead of doing the right thing.

And keep in mind, Americans see all these tax benefits of being a church including no labor laws,no reporting of budgets etc, and then they protect pedophiles calling it grace?

If pastors cannot be trusted to do the right thing, then who can we trust? That is usually how it ends up. When the laws become that intrusive they only have themselves to blame but they won’t, of course.

@ Anon 1:

Firstly, I’ll forgive you for getting my name wrong! 🙂 (You’re not the first person to call me Neil, oddly enough.)

Despite my own misgivings about “big government” as it’s become known over here, I can’t say I blame Them for legislating thus. It came on the back of a succession of high-profile and very tragic cases of deaths through abuse or neglect, and a broader background of abuse surfacing from many different settings and organisations, both large/public and small/private. Moreover, successive governments have quietly recognised that a false allegation (whether malicious or honestly over-zealous) can destroy lives – including those of children – just as abuse can. Thus, a good child protection policy actually protects everyone. (There are bad policies, and complications abound – e.g. whether a teacher is allowed to put a plaster on a child’s cut knee, for instance, because that would inevitably involve touching the child’s knee, etc etc. But let’s keep this post brief…!)

If indeed the professional clergy of America cannot be collectively trusted to look after children, then perhaps state intervention would be no bad thing. Perhaps the First Amendment itself now needs amending, in recognition that times have moved on from when it was necessarily introduced; that it has now become too convenient a haven for the power-hungry and abusive who wish to operate outside the law.

Sorry Nick!!!!

Leah, The more you explain, the more concerned I become. I expect those who make their living communicating the things of Christ to the public to realize they can have their words analyzed publicly. I am not sure why that is considered unloving. I hear that a lot. And it is usually from folks who like that particular celebrity and are uncomfortable with any conflict they deem as “unloving”.

Building up the body also means there must understanding and we are allowed to disagree.

If I take your words as the process for building up the body then John was in sin for writing what he did about Diotrephes which was a public rebuke! Same for Paul when he wrote about publically rebuking Peter for all to see for 2000 years.

See, your explanations using certain proof texts just don’t hold water in practice.

There was nothing unloving in the comments that asked him to clarify. He was asked publicly to clarify. Not sure why you cannot see that?

The “spirit” of Matt 18 starts in Matt 18:1…. in context. And I am not sure why you describe “love” as contacting Viola in private about his very public words unless it is to protect him from any public analysis? I kind of figured that his propelling himself into the public light gave him a much thicker skin than that especially considering he markets himself as being against authortarianism. We are all equals in Christ.

His first reaction to lmalone was concerning. Others asked him to clarify further. He said he changed his mind. Fine. That is good. Now perhaps when they write articles about gossip they will have a larger view of how such blanket teaching concerning gossip keeps child predators happy and will take such things into consideration. Remember, SGM taught that speaking of your molestation by another member was gossip. Many are now teaching various forms of this in other situations to hide evil. We are not enablers to evil deeds.

I am very sorry if you think that is unloving. I hear such thinking a lot in certain circles and find it perplexing as if Christians have to have this underground communication for very public words. Frankly, I am much more concerned about children than of Viola’s public words being analyzed. I think he might even agree. At least I hope so.

Leah wrote:

About Viola, you wrote, “He’s off my list now.” To be honest, that really seemed like jumping the gun without even giving him a chance to respond. The only reason I even felt strongly enough about it to comment is because I really believe that the culture that has allowed people be to be abused in the church and the abuse to be covered up stems from our ideas about authority and leadership. We can get rid of the bad leaders (which does need to happen),

One of the things I am concerned about in a lot of Christendom is how we define what is loving or not loving. We seem to reserve special love for public Christians. I see this often. I long for a real special love and compassion for victims of child molesters who are in our midsts!

I differ with Dee and that is ok. I thought his response was confusing and snarky. He basically said if we do not agree with his definition of gossip we do not believe the NT. I think he dug the hole deeper. Then he seemed to contradict himself in saying they asked a pedophile to leave the church (no mention of calling authorities) but later says we should call the authorities…all in the same comment. So, color me confused still. I think public communicators, those who make their living by the written word, should be clear on such an important topic that right now is ravaging the church.

I might not “write” him off completely but I think he blew it with most of his responses, espcially his first response to lmalone. That one blew me away.

Perhaps I have seen too much of this when a minor Christian celeb is questioned about their writing/sermon, etc. I have watched Viola’s trajectory, read many of his books, etc and see more and more what I have seen with others who start becoming a bit famous. Being a minor celeb can be agitating as being questioned/analyzed/disagreed with increases with every book/sermon, etc. It comes with the territory and the royalties.

But it seems many of their followers want more love for them than they do of those questioning and in this case, those they are questioning FOR. The victims who cannot be discussed because it MIGHT be gossip if you do not have clear evidence of molestation. (most molesters have 50-100 victims before they are caught)

So, Those who question or don’t question in the way people like are unloving. That is also a typical response.

I think his straight talk to pastors is one of the best resources out there teaching on the Body of Christ structure/authoritarianism, etc. I still share it with people.

I think we have beat this one to death! We can agree to disagree but when one is indirectly challenged on being “unloving” to a minor celebrity, I felt the need to defend those who have been violated and the molester is thrilled that pastors would call such a concern, gossip.

I hope this is not off topic but I can’t stand how anyone who criticizes something they see that they feel is wrong in the church is automatically a trouble maker or not a true Christian etc. I think you deciding to become a pastor or put into some leadership role automatically will put you under watch by all. It comes with the job. Everything critical is automatically considered slander which it is not! I think we have a moral obligation to be a watchman. Recently at a local church I attended a pastor read a letter someone wrote him anonymously to the congregation and said that they were a coward and stabbing him in the back and not giving him a way to defend himself or reply so was his excuse when he read this letter infront of his congregation. I immediately felt sorry for this person and was angered by the pastor. I have attended church most of my life and I know why this person sent a letter anonymously. We in the church are expected to come, pay our tithe, particpate when necessary and otherwise shut up and go home afterwards. There is not comment box or questionaire on our opinion or how we feel and asking of the congregation’s input But our moneys are used for their purposes. I do believe most church’s don’t consult God and the congration has no valued input on anything. There is a staff for that and they are usually paid handsomely along with the pastor. Now this same local church is starting to want to pattern themselves off of a big local mega-church maybe some are familiar with called “NEWSPRING” and all I hear of late is about building bigger buildings but yet the church is silent about these hard economic times and what’s going on in present day world affairs and how it affects us as Christians and I wonder are these the same ones that are 501c3 (with their mouths and hands tied). Why would I even want to tithe to these types of churches which fund nice lifestyls for pastors while their members are struggling to make it…do they really care? We fund their lifestyles and they don’t even care about our input and when we say somthing that “disrupts” them they want to call it slander and gossip. I am sick of it all and one day they will stand before God and have to answer for all of this

My husband told me about a year ago that he did a study on the Torah and that he always understood that to bear false witness was to not lie. He said that the study went much deeper in that it actually meant to give a false testimony about someone else.

Anon 1 wrote:

Not only were they read but combed through for clues on things that should be handled before they became too embarassing. Many times the anonymous letters were an important heads up for the staff.

Were they also combed through for clues to the sender’s identity for purposes of reprisals?