We’ll first try to determine the validity of the report.
Has there actually been abuse?
SGM/CLC Family Meeting 2011
Patriarch Bartholomew, Patriarch Kirill www.kremlin.ru.
Mark Dever, 9 Marks influence on SGM
We have written a number of posts describing our concerns about the amorphous term "church discipline." Such discipline appears to be implemented, rather willy-nilly, in authoritarian based churches. Yesterday's post focused on 9 Marks and church discipline. Even more concerning, in other posts dealing with 9 Marks, we have pointed out that the organization emphasizes an elder driven support structure which seems focused on the authority of the pastors. Once again, this is merely our perspective.
It is important to note that Mark Dever has been a long-time, close associate of CJ Mahaney. This friendship goes far beyond the superficial. In 2011, when CJ stepped down, due to revelations of serious problems in SGM, he, in what appeared to be contradictory to his own rules regarding church discipline, hid at Mark Dever's church until he was "exonerated" link. Rules seem to be for the sheep, not for the so-called shepherd.
In order to understand SGM, we believe that our readers must recognize the influence that Dever has had on this organization. Yes, Dever recently signed the T4G "CJ is wonderful because we said so" statement. He is also a teacher at SGM's 9-month Pastor's College link. You can also read a post we did on Pastor's College here.
Instructors for these classes include Mark Dever, Wayne Grudem, Ligon Duncan, David Powlison, Jeff Purswell, Bob Kauflin, C.J. Mahaney …
To add insult to injury, this Sunday, Mark Dever will follow a long list of CJ admirers like John Piper and Bruce Ware and be the guest preacher at Mahaney's Sovereign Grace Church in Louisville. We believe that he has no idea how much pain his support of Mahaney is causing amongst the numerous alleged victims of child sex abuse. Or does he? He is not saying.
2011 How SGM approached reports of child sexual abuse
Joshua Harris, the pastor of CLC, which has left the umbrella of SGM has now revealed that he had been sexually abused as a child. He also now believes that child sexual abuse must be reported to the authorities immediately. TWW applauds him for revealing his painful past. That takes courage.
However, as recently as 2011, this policy was not so clear. TWW has been allowed to listen to an audio of a family meeting that took place on August 17, 2011, at CLC church to deal with the reports of child sexual abuse found at SGM Survivors blog.
This meeting featured Joshua Harris, Greg Somerville, and Corby Megorban who presented their policies on the implementation of John Loftness' 17 page paper which reportedly dealt with child safety as well as how to handle reports of child sexual abuse. The first part of the meeting revolved around the tender feelings of Gary Ricucci and John Loftness who believed they had been hurt when other pastors reached out to some of the alleged victims on the blogs. I found this exchange embarrassingly obsequious yet helpful in illuminating the pastorcentric culture of SGM. Here is a brief excerpt.
Looking back on this, I, I think we rushed this decision, out of the desire to quickly communicate, ah, with people on these blogs and the people who have been hurt. I think we rushed the decision. I take full responsibility for that. Um. Greg was interacting with Gary and John, um, about caring for these people and trying to contact these people, but in the process we failed to show them—Gary and John, Gary Ricucci and John Loftness–we failed to show them the final draft of the letter, that we posted on the blogs. And [sigh] this, this really, there, there’s really no excuse for this–it, it was an unintentional oversight. The way we viewed this letter was, was that we were not saying, that they had made mistakes, that they were at fault in any way, and yet the way in which that has played out on the blogs, has opened them up to much slander and accusation, um, and we feel that our actions have caused this grief for them.
In the following excerpt from the meeting, it appears obvious that the pastor is the one who gets to decide if child sexual abuse has occurred. Some of these men have gone to a 9 month Pastors College for their training and some, like Joshua Harris and CJ Mahaney, have virtually no education beyond high school. Yet they are the experts on this matter.
Remember, Mark Dever and 9 Marks have deeply influenced this denomination. The pastor is in charge and he gets to determine the validity of the report. Here is the actual transcript from the audio which was made available online to members of the church.
I’m mostly gonna touch on when sexual abuse is reported. And this is far less a policy than a pastoral practice because it’s like asking “what’s your policy when a hurricane strikes?” It’s complex. It’s grievous. There are so many facets. But I’m gonna give you kinda the simple guidelines, which is a condensation of, of John Loftness’ 17-page document. We, we follow these principles: we want to care for the members with wisdom and that includes: both the abuser or accused abuser and, and, the, the one that suffers. We want to ensure we follow the legal requirements of the State and we want to make sure we honor the Lord. [pause] Whenever a report comes, it comes as a report of potential abuse, because we need to confirm that. It can either be confessed by an individual. It can be reported by someone else or it can be discovered and seen by someone else. And in any case, here’s what we’ll try to do: we’ll first try to determine the validity of the report. Has there actually been abuse?
The pastors are the ones to figure out abuse has occurred.
Did you notice that they use the word "potential" abuse? The pastors are the ones to pronounce whether or not abuse has occurred. In other words, until they say so, it is merely an unconfirmed report. They appear to be saying that the victims and the families are not capable of determining whether or not they were truly abused. This seems dangerous, yet somehow not unexpected, from what appears to be a pastorcentric approach to ministry.
The next thing we do is we contact our legal counsel to get their assessment. Every case is unique, every case is different—every time—we call them and say what are our obligations as a church, and at times, yes, we want to protect. That is our responsibility to protect the church. That is our responsibility to protect the church from harm, and that includes a lawsuit against the church. So we want to make sure we are doing this wisely and well. We want to engage all parties to the extent that we are able to provide care. We minimize the number of parties involved. When there’s a case that pops up and there’s potential abuse, we don’t necessarily bring every pastor into the discussion because these are sensitive issues. We steward confidentiality. We want make sure that we are being wise about having helpful people involved, so we can confirm the information. [pause]
First, the chosen pastors validate. Then do they call the police? Nope, first they call their lawyers.
It is rather startling to me that they would say this in a meeting. Potential harm appears to be first defined as a lawsuit against the church. Most churches try to pretend that the reporting of sexual abuse to the authorities is a higher priority than lawyering up. At least they are honest!
Confidentiality trumps alerting all of the church leaders.
This is a rather curious statement. It appears that they do not believe all of the pastors are "helpful" in confirming the situation.
Then comes the reporting or does it?
If the actions were not on church property and they seem reportable—what we prefer to do—and it’s been confirmed, that it seems that it happened, is that the one abused makes the report. That is the preference of the Law. And then secondarily, since we’re getting the information second-hand, we may be compelled to report. But we prefer that the one actually abused or the family of the abused, makes the report. [pause] Uh, and then we provide different pastors to care for victim and perpetrator. In recent cases, where both have been in the church, we have assigned different pastors, just to insure that they can wholeheartedly care for that individual and not try to bounce back and forth between the two. [pause]
Confusing statement: If the actions were not on church property…
The rest of this paragraph appears to tie to this lead in statement. It does not say what would happen if the alleged incident happened ON church property. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt. But then what would happen if it did occur OFF church property? Either way, it's confusing.
The abused individual/family do not go to the "Law" until the "helpful" pastors have confirmed the abuse!
This is the crux of the matter. The pastors, and only select ones at that, are the ones to determine whether the abuse actually occurred. I presume from the reading of the chronology, the family is then released to go to the police. And the pastors just might report it, as well, but they do not prefer to do that. (Aside-If the allegations of the lawsuit prove to be true, it appears that some of these pastors might not "prefer" to make the reports.)
If what was said at this meeting is correct, it is patently obvious why SGM is being scrutinized. The system, as stated at this meeting, is ripe for trouble.
- Pastors are in charge.
- Pastors get to determine the validity of abuse claims.
- There is no mention that the church believes that the children and families are capable of determining if abuse occurred.
- Preventing lawsuits appear to take chronological precedence over the reporting of abuse
- There appears to be poorly defined parameters of when reporting should occur. Does it depend on the the location of the abuse?
- The report of abuse is quickly contained and not all of the pastors are told of the occurrence.
There are more troubling aspects of this family meeting but we will reserve that for another post.
Please, please please, if you or your child has been sexually molested, do not go to the pastors. Go to the police. They are actually trained in how to deal with this horrific crime. If your pastor claims that you must report first to him, leave your church. Something is deeply wrong.
Lydia's Corner: 2 Samuel 20:14-21:22 Acts 1:1-26 Psalm 121:1-8 Proverbs 16:18
Uhhh no. If there’s a crime, you call the cops. You do not stop at the pastor’s house to get his approval, you go straight to Johnny Law.
This organization (and so many others I can think of) are more interested in self-preservation and self-promotion as against the lambs and sheep they are supposed to be gently shepherding.
I have made a small word substitution for increased clarity.
“It can either be confessed by an individual. It can be reported by someone else or it can be discovered and seen by someone else. And in any case, here’s what we’ll try to do: we’ll first try to determine the validity of the report. Has there actually been [a murder]?”
“The next thing we do is we contact our legal counsel to get their assessment….That is our responsibility to protect the church from harm, and that includes a lawsuit against the church….When there’s a case that pops up and there’s potential [murder], we don’t necessarily bring every pastor into the discussion because these are sensitive issues. We steward confidentiality. We want make sure that we are being wise about having helpful people involved, so we can confirm the information.”
“If the actions were not on church property and they seem reportable—what we prefer to do—and it’s been confirmed, that it seems that it happened, is that the one [murdered] makes the report. That is the preference of the Law. And then secondarily, since we’re getting the information second-hand, we may be compelled to report. But we prefer that the one actually [murdered] or the family of the [murdered], makes the report. Uh, and then we provide different pastors to care for victim and perpetrator.”
It’s the new Fall series — “CSI:SGM”.
“we’ll first try to determine the validity of the report. Has there actually been abuse?”
This is the smoking gun, right here. Can this audio be used by prosecutors? If they had any knowledge of even potential abuse, and did not report it to authorities, they broke the law.
Most jurisdictions (e.g., counties) with a population of 200,000 or more, will have trained professionals who will interact with a child that has been abused, and there are protocols for that interview and for any medical exam that needs to occur. In rural ares, there may a region of several counties that are served by a center. It is important that the first interview and exam be conducted by a forensically trained person focused on both documenting what has occurred and on the well-being of the child.
There is NO EXCUSE for anyone else to get involved other than to assist in protecting the victim, and seeing that the trained forensic interviewer is involved and able to do the job for which they are trained.
Most major trauma hospitals also have trained staff equipped for this purpose.
Oh this is rich! Two of the defendants got their feelings hurt ?!?! [sarcasm off]
Remember that this is the John Loftness who in the lawsuit (paragraph 33) allegedly was approached by a 8-year-old boy who’d been molested, and then had that child re-enact the molestation in front of him. He also (para. 34) allegedly did not report the sexual abuse to the authorities. And even (allegedly) directed the little boy to forgive David Adams for the molestation. Then in later paragraphs he allegedly jumps into abusing kids himself in terrible ways.
There’s far worse allegations about John Loftness in paragraphs 59, 87, 88, 89, 90, 93… and on and on. These allegations are horrifying and graphic.
(David Adams was convicted of child sex crimes, but John Loftness has not faced a judge…yet.)
Gary Ricucci (Mahaney’s brother-in-law) allegedly began actively disseminating false and misleading information to the police and to church members… (para.100)
Read the whole thing here:
http://spiritualsoundingboard.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/2nd-amended-lawsuit-filing-may-14-2013.pdf
I was afraid the name Somerville would crop up eventually. Isn’t Greg the brother of Scott Somerville, who works for HSLDA and has said some really stupid things about child abusers?
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2013/05/hslda-man-who-kept-children-in-cages-a-her.html
That Bad Dod
I really liked that comment. I appoint you the Horatio of TWW.
Hester
I need to check into that. I have no idea.
So we have a recording of SGM/CLC pastors openly admitting that they reserve for themselves first right to question the validity (and presumably severity) of abuse charges. They admit they control the process.
We have a recording of SGM/CLC pastors openly admitting that they have a pattern and practice of covering up the sexual abuse of children to the extent that not even all the pastors know, let alone any other parents in the congregation. They plainly proclaim it.
We have a recording of SGM/CLC pastors openly admitting that they call lawyers to protect the organization from lawsuits and to determine the minimum that they are by law obliged to do before they even consider calling police. They protect themselves before they protect their members. They see the church as a corporate entity, not as a gathering of individuals redeemed by the Lord. A young victim and family are wounded and devastated, but they have to put corporate first.
We have a recording of SGM/CLC pastors openly admitting that as long as the incident does not occur on church-owned property, they consider it not their responsibility. Instead, they consider it a personal problem of the victim to report and deal with.
We have a recording of SGM/CLC pastors openly admitting that they view the perpetrator and the victim equally, providing both (theoretically, at least) with equal “wholehearted care” as members who will presumably remain in the same congregation together.
That horrible policy was written by whom? Oh, that’s right, John Loftness!
John Loftness who himself has horribly mishandled a proven case of pedophilia and has been alleged to have covered up even more cases AND to have personally committed physical and sexual child abuse!
John Loftness who was C.J. Mahaney’s close friend and supporter, who was chosen leader of SGM until recently, who is still an active pastor in good standing in SGM.
John Loftness who, together with Gary Riccucci, forced Josh Harris and the pastors of CLC to apologize publicly for offering kindness and support to victims because that would imply that they might have done something wrong or unwise.
And this was Josh Harris putting their best defense forward? This was offered to explain their supposed ‘strong’ child protection policies and give congregants comfort, reassurance, and confidence in their pastors?
Wow, they really are clueless in their insular blind pride!
No wonder SGM was so eager to smother the lawsuit in its cradle. Their only chance was that the real truth never come to light. The evidence and witness testimony would have rightly sunk them.
Dee, yes, Greg Somerville of CLC and Scott Somerville of HSLDA are brothers.
Hmm. The ‘CJ is wonderful because we said so’ letters never mentioned the other people within the lawsuit. IE: Loftness for one – and so many others. They basically left them out to dry, especially if they knew about this 16 page report, etc.
They can claim CJ was clueless, and it was everyone else’s fault. I mean OUR dear FRIEND had no idea about ANY of this …. he is much to ‘biblical’ to go along with it if he knew.
I see a plead of ignorance soon. The mighty group of kings will allow others to go under the bus it seems like to me. I can’t believe they didn’t know about this ‘report’, etc.
I say go ahead … dig the hole a bit deeper. No doubt they will – they are too insulated to care much. All these years they felt it would be the dreaded radical feminist’s that took down the church, and it won’t be – it will be group of ‘Godly’ brothers.
This makes me sick.
@ Hester:
Yes
What exactly does the law say about what pastors should do with reports of sexual abuse? Are they (like counselors) legally required to report it extremely immediately? Would it actually be illegal for them to wait and do their own investigation first? (Obviously it’s a bad idea, but is it illegal?) I’m just trying to get my head around how SGM’s policy stands up against the law.
Then again, if you’ve got a victim or the victim’s parents in your office saying it happened, it probably gosh darn happened!!! And you should report it regardless of what the legal repercussions will or won’t be.
The claim that C.J. was innocent because he was unaware of what was happening will not hold water.
If this had gone to trial, plenty of witnesses, including other defendants, could have testified to Mahaney’s direct involvement. In fact, I believe that the Fairfax pastors have already told about conferring with Mahaney in how to handle their abuse cases. (Answer: shamefully!)
Mahaney has to be either guilty of conspiracy if he knew or guilty of gross negligence and absolute incompetence if he didn’t, since he was the ‘apostle’ of SGM and senior pastor of CLC.
In either case, he is unfit to lead and indefensible.
Well, that transcript certainly shows how sick and cultish SGM was. It has to be their normal to utter such nonsense in front of a group. Seriously?
The “select” pastor is going to decide whether abuse occured and then call the church lawyer?
It is sick how they define “protect the church”. What they really mean is protect my position and income.
This is a bit off track, but maybe not as it plays into the hypocrisy that is ongoing with CJ, SGM, T4G, and TGC.
Louisville, where CJ pastors a new SGM church plant, has now had Piper, Bridges, Ware, and now Devers come to preach in the first six months. Meanwhile, there are many struggling, small SGM church plants. I just read over at Survivors that one such SGM church won’t be meeting on Sundays. How many other SGM start-ups had these men come preach at their new churches? I’m pretty sure no other SGM church plant has been showered with such names, ever. The way these leaders are propping CJ up shows favoritism beyond belief. Watching what is going on is leaving a stench. Who’s paying for all these guys to come in? SGM? Louisville? No one; maybe they are just coming to serve CJ?
I have mentioned here before (not that anyone should remember!) about Greg Somerville. There is a story there. Of a different kind of abuse.
Dee, is it of any use at this point?
Just a reminder, BIG Christian media continues to be silent.
Christian Post – Richard Land
http://www.christianpost.com/aboutus/policy.html
Christianity Today – Harold Smith
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/help/contactus.html
(Christianity Today has run 2 stories on their Gleanings blog but not on their main headlines site.)
For homeschoolers, this is one of their news sources —
WORLD MAGAZINE – Marvin Olasky
Email: mailbag@worldmag.com
Phone: 828-232-5415, Monday-Friday (except holidays), 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET
Fax: 828-253-1556
@ Bridget:
Bridget – I replied to a recent tweet from their Transfer conference last weekend. They were actually tweeting about church planting. That absolutely flabbergasts me. What in the world are they doing church plants when they had ~25 churches leave because they were not happy and an ongoing lawsuit? Hello!!!!! What more of a sign do they need that what they’ve got going on is NOT working?
Wow. This is just appalling. If this information gets brought up in a lawsuit, I have a feeling these guys are going to go down in flames, as well they should. Years ago when I was a teacher in the pagan secular public school system that many of these folks would probably rail against, we were mandated reporters. That meant if we even suspected that a child had been abused, we were legally obligated to report it to the authorities within 24 hours. No ifs, and or buts. Any determination would be made by people trained to investigate these things. The liability came from NOT reporting things. My wife remains a teacher in the public schools, and this is still the law today. Bottom line: your children are much safer in almost any public school in California than in a church run like those described above.
BTW, I also have an MA in theology and I don’t see any way these guys could claim to have a credible theological or biblical basis for their idiotic approach to this whole thing. It’s got to be one of the worst examples of church management and leadership that I’ve ever seen.
John wrote:
Personally I feel that much of this “Biblical” way of doing things comes from trying to pound a square peg into a round hole with a sledge hammer. In the 1st century AD, there was nothing like the government we have today. No real police or secular judicial system. There was Rome or it’s local equivalent and the soldiers and the local governors. What they didn’t get directly involved in was delegated to the local system. In Judea that was an odd mix of the priests and village elders. (Or the local warlord) If you were an observant Jew you took your “legal” issues to the Synagog. And the priest adjudicated things. If the local strongman/warlord allowed such. Rome seems to have allowed this to happen. Except when they didn’t.
But this is not the world we live in today. And I suspect more and more that SGM wants to try and implement this kind of 1st century experience within the US’s and other country’s legal systems. And are royally mucking things up.
And what they really don’t see is this is exactly what the hard core fanatical Muslims are also trying to do.
@ Lynn:
Christians who want a government under Old Testament law already exist, and they are known as Reconstructionists. They want people to be stoned to death for adultery, homosexuality, and other infractions.
For those of you on the last thread asking if it is significant that Jesus had/has a physical male body, and if so, how can women be expected to emulate or follow Jesus, you may want to read this:
A Jesus for Real Men -What the new masculinity movement gets right and wrong.
I wonder how males can accuse females of “feminizing” the church and/or Jesus when males control all the churches? (That point is mentioned several times in the article.)
Women have never been permitted to lead in most churches and most denominations; it’s been a boys in charge only situation, so aren’t the males responsible for making church more feminine, since they were in charge of the church?
And how is the proposed solution put forth by Driscoll and others, (to make church more manly), any better?
The author makes the same point I did on the previous thread:
“Through his obedience to the Father, Christ exhibited the qualities that should characterize all believers, both male and female.”
Daisy wrote:
Not my point. I think a lot of these folks want the church to be the first stop for things most of us want to be handled by the secular government. Not that they want to go back to OT laws.
@ Julie Anne:
Julie Ann, there is a church 3 miles from me that has been in existence for decades and is now entering into a “replant” with SGM – officially becoming an SGM church. One of the elders is a highly respected psychologist/counselor in this area … I have to wonder if he even knows about the lawsuit. I am sick over this.
Back to the audio. That audio, it seems to me, is evidence of criminal wrongdoing. I am wondering if the person who is in possession of that audio has considered turning it over to either Susan Burke or prosecutors.
It’s kind of ironic that people can subscribe to a doctrine of ‘Total depravity’ and then forget that this applies equally to the institutions they run and themselves most of all.
Re John:
“Bottom line: your children are much safer in almost any public school in California than in a church run like those described above.”
Delete “in California” and you’ve hit the nail on the head. This is a very interesting and important point…
@ Daisy:
The idea that the church has been feminized is very strange to me. Not only, as you write, have we had males in charge for ever and ever amen, but also God and Jesus are both male. Not even the Holy Spirit is designated female.
How would this not cause females to feel extraneous and secondary? In order to find position in the faith, women must revise words/concepts from the beginning. It requires an extra layer of attention, self-talk, and correction that men do not even have to consider. To say nothing of the perpetual dreary issue of having one’s gender be the first thing seen, every single time, as if it’s a big hairy wart on one’s nose.
Yes, whatever the problem, men have made it so. Moreover, when they analyze the situation in this way, integrity requires them to deal with the fact that the fruits of the Spirit are qualities we have labeled, culturally, as female.
When I hear this BS, I feel contempt because it is patently obvious to me that these speakers are just engaged in another round of trashing the “other” in order to feel better about themselves.
Someone (maybe Jesus Creed? Can’t remember) proposed that Driscoll has a point, but badly misses in his analysis. Perhaps, he said, the real issue is that the church skips over a blue-collar sensibility rather than “masculinity”. That sounds correct to me. Which would make it a class problem and includes women.
If that analysis is more correct, Driscoll is trashing an outside group (females) in order to include another outside group (low and low-middle class). Which is ignorant and immature.
One of the problems is that there are a lot of Christians today (from across the spectrum) who don’t like what Romans 13:1-6 has to say. Or they will think it doesn’t apply because today’s secular authorities aren’t Christian, forgetting that that was also the case the Apostle wrote those verses. Some have falsely tried to apply these verses to the church authorities.
The elder statesmen of the YRR movement seem to want the church to be the solution to everything:
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2012/06/06/al-mohler-is-his-concept-of-church-like-my-neighbors-porch/
http://eaandfaith.blogspot.com/2009/09/john-pipers-ignorance-is-killing.html
I’d like to have someone more knowledgeable discuss the “biblical counseling” or nouthetic counseling angle.
Sovereign Grace Ministries Churches are nouthetic, meaning that they strive to use the Bible only in counseling. They might send people to medical professional at times, but nouthetic pastors mock psychologists and psychiatrists, claiming to be vastly superior. But what do you do when you’ve confronted the child molester with sin and he doesn’t turn around? He keeps “repenting” and you keep forgiving and never elevate it to the authorities or get professionals involved. It’s a recipe for mass child sexual abuse and cover ups.
There are many posts on the Wartburg Watch on nouthetic counseling here:
http://thewartburgwatch.com/category/nouthetic-counseling/
Good news. Another news blog “The Aquila Report” discusses the story. The first paragraph is an excellent reminder.
http://theaquilareport.com/evangelical-leaders-stand-by-pastor-accused-of-abuse-cover-up/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=evangelical-leaders-stand-by-pastor-accused-of-abuse-cover-up
Again, these are politicians doing damage control. And regardless of political convictions, this all sounds a lot like a leader who claims to know nothing that is part of the scandal. And the accused investigating itself.
This is all about power and money.
@ Bridget:
This is actually very relevant and insightful.
The procedure referenced in the audio is pitiful for many reasons, but particularly for incest victims. (And I’d bet that is half the child sexual abuse in the Church.) Among other things:
1. When “determining the validity of the report”, both child and offending parent are interviewed. The interviewing process “lets the secret out” and will increase violation towards the child until someone intercedes for her protection. But this fundamental step isn’t even mentioned, leaving the duty of protection to civil authorities and who knows how long they’d take to decide to call them? I mean, what if designated pastors are on vacation or the lawyer has the flu? lol
2. Men interview the child. In the church, males not only generally have little practical experience raising children and thus don’t know childrens’ methods of communicating painful experiences, but it is likely that the abuser is a male, which adds difficulties for the child to divulge. Moreover, the interviewers are not only males but leaders in the community, and most kids will be well aware that the abuser has respect for those leaders, and will suspect that leader is on the abuser’s side.
3. When they “steward confidentiality”, they remove primary tools of defense from the victim because it is only by exposure and social confrontation that a child sexual abuser will cease offending (if only for a time).
4. They pressure the child or family member to do the reporting. But she is traumatized, inexperienced and immature, and one of the family members is the perp. Plus, incest takes place in deeply dysfunctional family systems.
There is no excuse for ignorance and callousness, much less the CYA character of the whole thing. These people are not protectors of the flock. They are illegitimate and usurpers.
Wow. Does it really matter if child sex abuse happened on or off property? Really? Sex abuse of a child….and it matters WHERE it happened?
Hmm, I thinking to myself, that if any other sins occurred, whether or not on property, would the church still step in with their disciplinary procedures? How about saying something in disagreement with the pastor? Gossip? Adultery? Un-submissive wife? I betcha all those issues would be dealt with firmly and without hesitation.
(PS. I do note that we’re reading only excerpts from one conversation that may not totally and accurately reflect the church policy. Unfortunately, many churches do not have good policy in place, and make this stuff up on the fly, usually with bad outcomes when they try to protect the church/ministers over the victims.)
For those who are new to The Wartburg Watch and/or are just learning about the Sovereign Grace Ministries child sexual abuse and cover up allegations, here is a good overview:
WJLA TV (ABC TV) – 2 TV news stories – from 5-16 and 5-17-2013
Overview + discussion of defendants that have already been convicted for other sex crimes (4 minutes) – http://www.wjla.com/video/2013/05/church-sex-abuse-allegations.html
AND
Update on the lawsuit(2 minutes) – http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/05/sovereign-grace-ministries-class-action-civil-lawsuit-involving-child-sex-abuse-88894.html
If I understand what they are saying, if a female child (say 12) comes to a pastor (who is to protect the flock) and shares that her father has been molesting her, he will investigate to see if the allegation is true. He will talk to the father, the mother, and the child. The father manipulates, the daughter is made out to be a liar by the father, the mother has been in denial since the daughter came to her and is in shock, not knowing what to believe. The pastor believe’s the father, because this daughter has been showing signs of rebellion for the last two years (wonder why). The pastor dismisses the whole thing as a wayward child. The victim is left revictimized. No one believes her, and she has gone to the very people she looks up to the most in life, her mother and her pastor. How heartbreaking. They are out of their minds! They have no business investigating anything.
If these pastors want the “authority” to decide and handle abuse cases for themselves on their own terms, they need to accept the liability that goes along with it. Plain. And. Simple. Authority and liability go together! It is laughable that they are calling foul when it comes back around on them!
If their biggest concern is not getting sued well then maybe they should…I dunno…follow the rules?? That’s always the easiest way to avoid a lawsuit, just follow the standard established by the LAW. DUH.
@ Never Again: Be encouraged. A new motion was filed. We will have it up with a post ASAP. Trying to get clarification on a couple of things first.
sad observer wrote:
You betcha!
Hannah Thomas wrote:
Real men know the buck stops with them. Yet many of them claim to teach us how real men act.
Anon 1 wrote:
I can’t believe that they said that in front of the people.
Bridget wrote:
It is interesting tht you should bring this up. Not only are SGM plants struggling, it appears that some Acts 29 plants have not only struggled but died. There is an interesting post over at Peter Lumpkins about this.
My, how such controversies make strange bedfellows. I will say one thing about Peter. He is no wuss. I may disagree with him a bunch but he knows when to stand for the children and I respect him for it.
Joy Huff wrote:
Deb and I discussed this a few minutes ago. If you have any info, could you get it to us. We will try to look into this in the near future.
@ Janey: Thank you for this info. This lawsuit is going to split the evangelical community. I suspect there will be fireworks at the SBC convention in a couple of weeks.
“But we prefer that the one actually abused or the family of the abused, makes the report.”…….ah, yeah right….I wonder how they define “prefer” because statements like “Do not call the police!” and “Do not take the child to a counselor or doctor because they have a legal duty to report to the police” are what they ACTUALLY say to the abused and family of the abused. “Do not…” is not a preference, it is an order and said with insistence and implied (and sometimes stated) consequences for noncompliance. As telling and as pathetic as what they say publicly is, it is relatively mild and misleading compared to the actual way they “handle” child sexual abuse situations that have been reported to them.
@ Leila:
I’d have to be one of those church “busybodies.” I’d present that elder with an SGM fact sheet with a boatload of links so he would be informed.
Ahhhhh, more fodder for the civil suits to come.
dee wrote:
Thank God! This needs to be pressed as far as it can go by every lawful means possible.
I was at that meeting and I can confirm that the transcript is accurate based on my recollection. I remember because I was shocked. After this meeting, my kids were never alone at CLC until we left.
CLC also has a policy of not alerting the congregation to the presence of pedophiles who attend. That policy is still in place. Note, not just that they don’t release the name. They don’t even tell the congregation of their existence in their midth.
These leaders are not simply mistaken or “in sin” but ignorant, callous, immature, swayed by power, self-righteous.
It is hogwash/sogwash to suppose that if these guys would repent and truly change their lives going forward, they could potentially return to the pastorate. God would never, in the first place, have called into leadership people with such profound character flaws, intellectual disabilities, and incapacity to love others as themselves.
They were never called! Their work is outside of God’s desires for His/Her people. The church (broad and local) needs to recognize its own foolishness for having allowed them to usurp what was never theirs, and not only that, but also for having encouraged them and approved of their work.
Dee –
A few days ago someone ar SGM Survivors posted exerpts from their current children’s ministry policies. The poster thought that these policies had been in place for 5-7 years. A few comments later someone mentioned that they thought these policies were probably put in play within the last year. The point is, they do instruct anyone who suspects child abuse to call the appropriate authorities (this may need to be verified since it is in a comment and not a link). This alleged current policy in no way
dee wrote:
Dee — Good post with an interesting case study.
@ Bridget:
. . . excuses the horrible ways they handled these situations the past.
IWasThere wrote:
Dear “I Was There” — Thank you for sharing this. This is sickening. I would never put a child — or even a middle schooler — in their care or send them to camp at a Sovereign Grace church. I’m glad you left Covenant Life Church.
@ dee:
The other problem with this is that I believe the CLC lawyers were also members of the church. It seems like this can become a huge conflict of interests for people.
IWasThere wrote:
Same at CrossWay Charlotte. http://thewartburgwatch.com/2013/03/06/psa-penitent-pedophiles-and-crossway-community-church-sgm-graphic/
@ Patrice:
And on the basis of their deliberate public moral failure, the following people need to be stepped down from their positions and their qualifications for leadership evaluated by broad church membership: Al Mohler, Mark Dever, Denny Burk, Ligon Duncan, Don Carson, Kevin De Young, Justin Taylor. I would also include the guys at Pyromaniacs (those who pastor). The church has other more ethical leaders who could take their place. There is nothing indispensable about any of them.
The USian church needs a national review board.
(Shaking dirt from sandals.)
So essentially the pastors “care for the needs of the perpetrator” by helping him avoid the consequences of his sin. One wonders if other types of “offenders”–gossips, for example–received similar pastoral care? Did the SGM pastoral care provided to those accused of gossiping shield them from negative effects on their personal relationships? Not according to the accounts on the blogs! So child molestors and pedophile are singled out for a special level of “care” not afforded to others. In reality, no pastoral care for the perpetrators could be more loving than calling the authorities and making sure that they get the kind of help they need–in the form of psychological services and in spending time in jail to reflect on the horrible things they have done.
Also, how odd that SGM distrusts secular law enforcement and counseling services, yet so obviously puts full faith in their (secular) lawyers and PR specialists.
dee wrote:
Doubtful. The “unity” statement came out yesterday. The big cheeses have decided that Al has no serious moral integrity problems nor has he drug the SBC through the mud in the media speaking for the SBC and has credibility to sign a unity statement.
But then most of the signers have nice incomes derived directly from donations of the pew sitters so gotta protect that. Little kids don’t matter. All that matters is that the SBC pretend unity with the YRR.
Bridget wrote:
“I don’t pay a lawyer to tell me if what I want to do is legal or not. I pay a lawyer to tell me how to get away with what I want to do!” — J.P.Morgan, late 19th Century
@ Julie Anne: There is an interesting tidbit to this. Apparently, there are a lot of church plants that start and die quickly. I would suspect there are some in SGM . Peter Lumpkins raised some good questions about ACTS29 fails.
Julie Anne wrote:
And then be Church Disciplined(TM) for Unbiblical Divisive Gossip(TM).
Proof Text, Proof Text, Proof Text, Proof Text…
John wrote:
Seems that way to me as well.
dee wrote:
To them, Real Men(TM) means “I CAN BEAT YOU UP! I CAN HURT YOU BAD!” plus exercising what hangs between their legs as much as possible. In other words, the same definition of Real Man(TM) you hear in Gangsta Rap videos, Except CHRISTIAN(TM).
Leila wrote:
I bet he does and he doesn’t believe it.
Janey wrote:
And Scientology is Dianetic, meaning that they strive to use Dianetics only in Auditing (counseling); Scientologists mock psychologists and psychiatrists, claiming to be vastly superior.
Leila wrote:
Just a quick note that this is not actually true, and is a good reason why you should consult an attorney.
The mandatory reporting standard in all states is “reasonable suspicion” (or some similar phrase). It is not allegation or “knowledge of even potential abuse.” In Maryland, the particularly wording is “reason to believe.” So while some may have a moral obligation to report based on “any knowledge of even potential abuse,” they have not broken the law until they have failed to report based on reasonable suspicion. Furthermore, in Maryland, clergy do not appear to be mandatory reporters (which are health practitioner, educator, human service worker, and police officer). Many states list clergy as mandatory reporters, except in cases of privilege.
In addition, Maryland appears to have no penalties (either civil or criminal) attached to failing to report. Apparently the most you can get is professional sanctions.
None of that is to defend anything SGM or anyone else has done, but simply to remind us all that the law matters, at least for legal issues. I believe that some in SGM has acted egregiously based on what I have read, and that the structure of SGM is appalling and unbiblical, so this is not a defense of them.
Calling a lawyer is a good and necessary thing. You want to make sure you do it right. Don’t go it alone. There are people who actually know what they are talking about, and you should involve them immediately if not sooner in the process, particularly if there are any questions.
Lynn wrote:
I see it as a spectrum disorder, Lynn. The Reconstructionists (aka the Christian Taliban) are just the extreme top end of the spectrum.
Lynn wrote:
“YOU’LL FIT! YOU’LL FIT!! YOU’LL FIT!!!”
And what they really don’t see is this is exactly what the hard core fanatical Muslims are also trying to do.
See above re Reconstructionists.
Never Again wrote:
“I KNOW NOTHINK! NOTHINK!”
— Sgt Schultz
Geno wrote:
Geno, I was digging around online last night and I didn’t find anything that disagreed with what you’ve just posted. I think the voters of Maryland should work on this. What advice do you give to the children, parents, and to caring adults who discover a case of child sexual abuse?
Bridget wrote:
I agree
@ Bridget: That is why I posted what Josh said recently. They would be fools to continue the policies of the past in light of the lawsuit.
@ Geno: Great comment. We discovered the law is a bit wishy washy here in NC as well.
Patrice wrote:
Patrice, interesting point. One of the (few) things you can commend the Gospel Coalition for is its racial diversity. But it seems that in including black men, they’ve created another underclass: women. And the arguments agains enfranchising women are the same sorts of essentialist arguments that were used against blacks–often by the church.
Trying to understand this stuff without being consumed with frustration. I appreciate the sensitivity and integrity of this online community.
@ dee: That was the case in PA as well – has been changed since the Sandusky trial (or possibly even prior to it).
Meanwhile, we’re *still* waiting for the results of the PA grand jury investigation… [:disgust:]
If interested, I just posted “Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider Filed with Court.”
http://abrentdetwiler.squarespace.com/
Anyone notice that the Girltalk bloggers have been suspiciously quiet? They havent posted a new entry since May 21, and they usually post a few times a day. Only 1 tweet in that period too and it was a Transfer retweet
@ PhillyInDC:
Sorry, I meant to say “they usually tweet a few times a day” – they tend to post blogs 3 or 4 times a week
@ Patrice:
Well, Jesus was a male because he was incarnated that way. But God the Father is not male; he is beyond gender, as is the Holy Spirit, and as was the pre-incarnate Second Person. “Father” designates the relationship to the Son, not gender. That’s hard for us to get our heads around, I know. We talk about God as “he” because, in English particularly, there is no pronoun to designate a personal being without biologic sex. These thoughts are not new; the first question Christians had to elucidate was Jesus’ relationship to God, and it took them a couple of hundred years to articulate it, and explain it to the point it could not be improved upon. All the old questions are new again… and we still keep trying to re-invent the wheel, theologically speaking.
Part of the problem regarding much of the nonsense going on is that “theological” teaching in churches that despise formal acquisition of knowledge is usually anything but theological. Roger Olson has just put up an interesting short series of 3 posts on theology/theologians.
@ PhillyInDC: I have no idea what is going on. Perhaps they had a nice vacation in Kiawah?
Geno wrote:
My research has also come up with the same info that Maryland clergy are not mandatory reporters and face no criminal penalties for failure to report, which is appalling and needs to be changed.
No doubt if this motion to reconsider passes muster and this lawsuit proceeds through the courts, that argument will be SGM/CLC’s fallback defense.
However, I still think conspiracy to cover up is not the same as failure to report.
Their defense of not being mandatory reporters might get them off the hook by the letter of the law. But I cannot see it garnering them any favor with a jury awarding damages, nor with the general public who will mock their hypocritical, self-serving efforts to avoid accountability.
I think it is very telling that in his Josh Harris’ sermon he seemed to equate leaving the church with being “drawn away from faith in Jesus.”
I have great sympathy for Josh. It’s possible that the reason he got involved with a rules-oriented church/theology is also connected with his trauma and how he (and the people around him, if they knew) dealt with it. We tend to stay in sick systems, even after we begin to see that they’re sick, because they’re familiar, and on some level they enable us to survive. It takes our life becoming unmanageable to realize that we can – must – make a change.
dainca wrote:
He grew up in that system in a very small bubble as that is how his family made their living and they were big homeschoolers.. It is all he knows.
He has never operated in the real world.
@ PhillyInDC:
Dear Carolyn Mahommy (MaMommy?)
i know u read here and comment sometimes. Here’s a topic u can talk with the girls about— August 2011!!!
What might things b like now, if back then, you’d said something like:
‘Honey, U know I luv U bushels and pecks! I luv u lots more than ur friends do! DON’T LISTEN TO THEM! They’re beholden to u! U endorse their books, speak @ their conferences, and make them laugh. They WANT U to b qualified for ministry rite away! But Take it from Me and Take all the time off U need and Take me on vaction or sumthin! PS Me and the girls LIKE it in Gaithersburg!’
@ dee:
Kiawah! That’s the spot I was wanting Carolyn to ask CJ to take her 2 years ago, but I was too lazy to look it up!
@ dainca: Yes – it’s all too easy to confuse gender in language/grammar with gender = physical sexual characteristics.
I think it becomes a little less confusing (for some) when dealing with languages that have masc., fem. (and neuter) in their DNA. At least, that’s been the case for me, in some of my admittedly cursory language study. (Romance languages, mostly – German is cool, but there are things about it that I find *very* difficult to wrap my head around.)
Apparently, this meeting has already been mentioned in the Second Amended Complaint:
“Paragraph 177: In August 2011, the conspiracy was discovered. On or about August 17, 2011, Defendants admitted during a meeting that they placed protecting the churches from lawsuits over and above the safety of children. This admission revealed that Defendants were not merely making a series of poor judgments in good faith, but rather, acting for financially-motivated reasons, had designed and agreed upon a plan to obstruct justice yet permit predators to continue to have unfettered access to children in church and school settings.”
Wow. I get on a phone call for an hour and look at what I missed!
Janey wrote:
Without intending to be terribly detailed or comprehensive (so please don’t pick this apart too much): Offer care and support for the victim. Listen, take it seriously. Do not accuse or blame the victim. Take note of what is said. Contact a lawyer so you know exactly what notes and documentation needs to be gathered/kept/reported. Depending on the age, either report for them, or go with them to report. Care for the family. Give them a safe place to talk, to worship, just to exist. Maintain their dignity and privacy as much as possible.
With regards to perp, report, offer to go with them to turn themselves in and confess. Remove immediately from any and all ministry roles. Make sure all parties in ministry roles know of the situation. If the perp wants to continue in church, then they need to find another church where (1) they agree that all things will be made known to the leadership, (2) that they will continue in regular spiritual counseling and accountability, (3) that they will admit and own their crimes and sins both in the church and in the legal system, and (4) that they will willingly submit themselves to constant supervision. (I am probably in the minority on this, but I do not think just sitting out of church is a legitimate option for a believer. It is also one reason why I disagree mostly with the previous posts on church discipline. If churches aren’t sharing this kind of information, there is nothing to prevent the perp from going to another church, hiding everything, and starting over, and we have seen that far too often. That cannot happen. He is under discipline at his current church; he cannot go to another and pretend like nothing happen. Yet without robust biblical discipline, there is no way to prevent that.)
Support both families (though separately). The victim should not have to leave his or her church. His or her victim status should not be made public in the church against their will. Remember also that often the perp has a wife (occasionally husband) and kids that are not guilty (and perhaps do not even know). Their lives are being ripped apart as well, and they need care. It may often be better for them to find another church where they can have some privacy. Again, they should be encouraged to inform the leadership though this is not mandatory, IMO, since they are innoocent of wrongdoing.
Re: New Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration.
Fantastic. I’m just reading it now. It looks promising. I won’t steal Dee and Deb’s thunder by sharing anything…yet.
Geno wrote:
Janey wrote:
This is a very valid concern, and this is the type of scenario where I would support formal church discipline and even excommunication. A person who harms other people should be reported – not out of vengeance but in order to protect other people!
The scenarios listed in previous posts were leaving over dispute about doctrine, or financial decisions, or being displeased with the leadership. Authoritarian churches are quick to discipline those who don’t fall in line with pastor a** kissing, but when it comes to an issue that could “make the church look bad” instead of being open and following through on real discipline they sweep it under the rug in the name of “protecting the gospel.”
Sick stuff.
Sorry above post should reference Geno’s post not Janey’s.
Janey wrote:
Think it’s promising enough put a damper on all the SGM/TGC celebrations?
They’re just getting to the 4852nd chorus of “O COME LET US ADOOOORE HIM, CEE JAY THE HUMBLE….”
Anon 1 wrote:
i.e. “A fish doesn’t know it’s wet.”
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
HUG — I’m not an attorney. I’ll leave that evaluation to those who specialize in it!
@ Janey:
Thanks for bringing up your comment to Geno, Janey. I was going to express the same.
It really does appear that the churches proposing the draconian discipline processes have no idea what “real and legitimate” discipline is for.
They give three ways that they may become aware of abuse…”confessed by an individual” implies that it is brought forward by a guilty party. A victim wouldn’t “confess,” a victim would report. But that option isn’t given. Why isn’t it given? Be ause SGM doesn’t believe there are victims in this or any situation…only sinners.
dainca wrote:
That sounds a lot like a theological version of Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, and Ray Kroc (McDonalds) — self-made, self-educated men who HATED anyone with more formal education than themselves. Could a similar dynamic be at work?
Bridget wrote:
Except for Cartman from South Park:
“YOU! WILL!! RESPECT!!! MAH!!!! AUTHORITAH!!!!!”
Lynn wrote:
It looks like pretty much the same thing to me.
Reconstructionists are very controlling, and they want everyone living under a theocracy (based on Old Testament Law).
Whether such churches want to bypass all government / secular authority to deal with things internally or have a government that mirrors their church and how their church handles disputes and sin, seems similar. Just two different ways of accomplishing the same thing.
numo wrote:
Depends on how many of the PA grand jury are Penn State Football fanboys.
Chris E wrote:
It’s like when I used to ask Calvinists how they can I be sure if I am one of the elect or not, many of them said, “I don’t know.”
But when I asked them, “What about you and your family, are you the elect?,” most of them were sure they and their family were the elect.
They make special exceptions for themselves. The rules apply to everyone but them.
Sorry I’ve been mostly off-line on TWW and other spiritual abuse survivor blogs for many weeks while trying to complete the first draft of a book … just now catching up.
FWIW, I did a guest on Julie Anne’s blog in November 2012, offering some analysis of the August 17, 2011, meeting mentioned in this post. There might be some additional input there for those interested.
http://spiritualsoundingboard.com/2012/11/12/sovereign-grace-ministries-analysis-of-clc-members-meeting/
dee wrote:
The people whose only role under their God-Anointed leaders is “to swallow and follow”?
Daisy wrote:
Just like that one neo-Nazi type I ran into in my college days. When he divided all mankind into “Master Race” and “Subhuman”, guess which classification he put Himself into? (And so many of these “Master Race” types are such LOSERS…)
A leading advocate for victims of clergy sex abuse says it is hurtful and irresponsible for evangelical leaders to rally around an accused colleague before all the facts are known.
http://abrentdetwiler.squarespace.com/brentdetwilercom/survivors-network-of-those-abused-by-priests-snap-leader-sha.html
@ Patrice:
The Bible says God the Father is spirit – God the Father does not have a physical body, so technically, He’s not even a male in that sense.
Christians are supposed to emulate all of Jesus, as I said on the last thread.
That means Christian males are supposed to not just be tough, manly, he- men, willing to express anger because Christ was, but also display Jesus’ meek, gentle, compassionate, sensitive side as well.
Christian women are called to emulate all of Jesus too, from his tough, angry, assertive, manly, he-man side, to his sensitive, loving, gentle side.
Aspects of American Christianity have been influenced by secular culture, and very much so in regards to gender roles and gender expectations.
American women are socialized by secular culture to be meek, mild, quiet around men, passive, and to make themselves the objects of other people’s lives (usually a husband).
American Christians pick up those secular message of what a woman’s role is supposed to be, and along with a horrible misapplication of two or three verses in the New Testament, read those secular expectations back into the church, resulting in Christian women being stripped of any value or role in the church, outside of babysitting in church nurseries.
Brent Detwiler wrote:
Brent — Amen. And I thought this paragraph at the end was telling…
@ Geno:
You are absolutely right, and I jumped the gun with my comment on this. I live in Maryland, and at one time I knew clergy were not required to report sexual abuse; I should have remembered that. It chaps my hide, though, that the perpetrators could wiggle out of this based on the letter of the law. Sigh.
@ Nicholas:
Sometimes Non Christians / secular society is more competent and compassionate about handling things than Christians are, that’s for sure.
In regards to solutions and practical help and guidance for domestic abuse victims and people who suffer with mental health problems, often, Christians fail, but the secularists have practical, workable, effective ways of dealing with these issues and others.
I’d rather go to a Non-Christian for empathy. If you go to most Christians for empathy, you’ll get a sin lecture or some type or bible quote cliches. Most are more interested in trying to fix you or blame you (discussing what sins you must have going on) than extending a helping hand.
I have seen some Non Christian individuals or groups who are just as bad at providing assistance or giving compassion, but it seems to be more common among most Christians.
Brent Detwiler wrote:
How about seeing your pastors rally around an alleged perpetrator while you, the victim, are hushed to the side because you might be lying or mistaken about what happened? This is all under the guise of protecting an alleged perpetrator from possible false allegations (which are proven minimal) which could be devestating to their life, while the victim is often not believed and their story minimalized. The thought of what this does to a victim is sickening. And I know many of you here can attest to this from the victims perspective.
Kristin wrote:
Very good point.
It’s the same way in secular work environments. I had to read a lot of books about workplace abuse to learn from experts in this area that if you’re abused by a boss, the human resources department won’t care.
Their priority is to defend the company from lawsuits, which means they will protect the abusive boss and try to force you (the victim) out.
Public schools handle bullying the same way: the kid being picked on gets blamed, while the bully gets off scot free.
IWasThere wrote:
Which is horrible, but…
I’ve also read of stories online where church members knew that a new guy was a pedo, but the church members naively felt that because the pedo guy was “nice” or had repented, it was okay to let their kids around him.
That resulted in some of these stories of those children being victimized.
Christians need to stop being so trusting and gullible all the time. God never said he would always protect you or your children (if you have any) from molesters, health problems, or other tragedies in life.
@ Geno: What Geno said is true. I think SGM violated moral and right common sense in failing to report these crimes. Whether the violated the law is another matter altogether. Geno sounds familiar w/ MD law. I am familiar w/ VA law, where clergy are not mandatory reporters by virtue of their profession either.
Also, it is not necessarily out of line for someone to review whether the situation is a re-portable one, whether a pastor, leader or other responsible party, so long as this review does not delay the reporting beyond the legal deadline. In a state where the standard is “reasonable suspicion” that child abuse or neglect has occurred for example, an organization could have a checklist for what “reasonable suspicion” looks like. A good standard I have heard for this is that what is described might be abuse or neglect and could have happened.
That said, pastors or other church officials are no more qualified to actually investigate child abuse / neglect than daycare workers are. Investigating is a law enforcement task.
@ Brent Detwiler: I am so glad to see SNAP getting involved. I have spoken with David in the past. They will take to the streets to protest errant churches and organizations. I look forward to seeing how they approach this situation.
Kristin wrote:
Which is maybe why denominations should have a data base of offenders.
Some people have been wounded by churches or by self professing Christians, and don’t want to return to a church or are afraid to or are hesitant to hang out with Christians (I’m one of them), and after seeing how controlling some of these churches are, even wanting to rebuke over minor issues, I am even more hesitant to return to church.
I don’t want to get mixed up in a spiritually abusive church should I ever return.
I would like to share the following video that I just found on Youtube. It’s off-topic with respect to this post, but considering that it deals with issues of abuse, especially against women and children, I thought it was interesting and probably appropriate… And since I understand that Dee is a fan of Star Trek, I thought that was a good enough reason to share it! 🙂
It’s the answer Sir Patrick Stewart gives to a fan at Comicpalooza 2013. She first thanks him for a speech he gave at Amnesty International, which was very helpful for herself, and asks what he’s most proud about besides acting. It’s less than 8 minutes long and I think that what he said was very interesting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqFaiVNuy1k
Martos,
Thank you for posting that video above of Sir Patrick Stewart. I have so much respect for this man of courage and compassion. Wonderful video.
@ Happymom:
@ Martos:
Ditto to that Happymom! What a wonderful man and example.
Daisy wrote:
JMJ/Christian Monist related how the church of his childhood took that one step further (down): The church members not only knew the guy was a pedo, but protected their own children from him by steering him towards the new members’ children. (i.e. “Rape their kid, not mine!”)
Daisy wrote:
And the lesson is learned: BE A WINNER. BE THE BULLY.
Someone at another blog posted that the author of The Shack book molested kids.
The only thing I found about it so far was this video interview, where he says after being molested at age 4 by tribe members (his folks worked as missionaries), he began to molest kids his age, or tried to.
Paul Young – Pt 1 – Sexually Abused Missionary Kid
.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
That seems even more depraved to me than the guy raping kids to begin with, in a sense. It’s bad enough he’s preying on kids but that adults would toss victims his way to spare their own is very warped and evil.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Something close to that I had to learn the last few years: fight back, be assertive.
From reading volumes of books and blogs about codependency, I learned that if you don’t want to be singled out for abuse or bullying, you must have good boundaries, which includes standing up to people if necessary.
I was taught the opposite by one parent: I was taught to never defend myself, always please others, be passive and really nice all the time.
The books I read by counselors say that is the wrong approach, because once abusers see you won’t fight back, they seek you out all the more.
Abusers and bullies prefer “easy” targets. Targets who fight back, verbally or physically, are too much trouble, so they seek ones who won’t push back.
Unfortunately, a lot of churches and Christians misunderstand the teachings in the Bible about how and when to love others, and be forgiving, etc, to twist it into meaning you are supposed to be a doormat. Being a doormat invites more abuse, and it’s not, well, biblical.
Jesus did not always behave like a passive doormat.
Jesus frequently stood up for himself and others, and argued and fought back with people, but most American Christians only recognized his loving and compassionate side.
Another good article. “C.J. Mahaney Supporters Struggle to Find a Sympathetic Following” by Peter Lumpkins.
http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/2013/05/cj-mahaney-supporters-struggle-to-find-a-sympathetic-following-.html#.UakPumc8a1M.email
@ EMSoliDeoGloria:
Virginia has wacky mandatory reporting laws but in Maryland, everyone is required to report child sexual abuse unless they fit they fit into a group (e.g. rape crisis counselor, doctors working in some capacities) specifically exempted from reporting.
So Maryland Pastors aren’t specifically listed as individuals who must report abuse but they can and usually do fit into the “other category,” to my knowledge.
There is a narrow clergy exemption for confessions made in a confessional setting. I believe Susan Burke said that none of the lawsuit complaints fit into that category.
My understanding is that the confessional exemption is designed to help clergy with situations in which reporting alleged abuse might do more harm than good because there’s no way to follow-up on it.
For example, if a 94-year-old confesses molesting someone, on their deathbed, and the clergy-person has no idea if that’s a real confession or an illness-induced delusion, and doesn’t know who the victim might be, he/she can use his/her own judgment in reporting that deathbed confession or keeping it confidential.
The allegations against SGM are as different from the scenario above as “moonbeam from lighting or frost from fire.” (Wuthering Heights, Emily Bronte)The SGM and CLC Pastors are still arguing that they have the moral and legal right to cover-up sexual abuse because they operate under a religious umbrella.
In addition, obstructing justice is never okay. Not reporting is one thing. Telling people, “we’ll excommunicate you if you do call the police” isn’t kosher in any context.
Maryland’s broad mandatory reporting requirements also mean that Care Group leaders and ordinary CLC members, who didn’t report abuse, could be sued or charged with crimes, in theory. This is significant because given the magnitude of the problem, it sounds like CLC Pastors probably weren’t the only ones covering up alleged abuse at CLC.
Daisy wrote:
It’s actually very common for young children to mimic the sexual acts that were or are being perpetrated on them. Engaging in this behavior is actually one of the tell-tale signs a child is being abused.
@ grieving:
Grieving –
I just posted that same response elsewhere. Many people don’t realize this. It is more common than we think. If you can’t figure out why a young child is behaving in sexual ways that they should not understand, it would be wise to ask questions, and/or take them to a psychologist who is versed in dealing with these behaviors. A child who is molesting, or attempting to, may have been sexually abused by someone older. It is sad.
Brent Detwiler wrote:
Brent — Thanks. Peter Lumpkins says it so well. Definitely worth reading.
@ grieving:I believe that Paul Young was the victim of horrific abuse as a young child. His parents were missionaries and he was abused by men in the village.
Bob
Thanks for the great comment. Welcome to TWW
Brent
Thanks for all of hte info.
dee wrote:
I believe the same.
The children who act out in these ways often don’t even realize they are doing something wrong. it’s like monkey see monkey do, for lack of a better phrase. So sad. I fully blame the adult that started it all, rather than the child who copies it in childhood. While this child needs swift intervention, to be steered in the right direction and taught or re-taught healthy boundaries, he or she also needs to be treated with much grace and much care throughout. As any child ought to be treated.
Ugh, honestly, it makes me so mad at adult abusers. They have NO idea (nor do they care) about the ripple effect their heinous actions cause. It’s all I can do to keep from sobbing.
Unless these ‘pastors’ have previous experience in some kind of profession that involves training in high level safeguarding involving children they have no place in deciding what is & isn’t abuse. And if they did have that experience this ploicy would never have gotten off the ground. Children are not safe with these amateurs, & God help them.
@ dainca:
Yes, English has no gender-inclusive pronouns/articles and the gender-exclusive “it” denotes lack of life. But so what? Language is fluid and bends to necessity. Christians have obviously not found it necessary to create gender-inclusive pronouns/articles for God, the One All-in-All. Nor have they found it necessary to affirm that the male cast of scripture was intended as an address to broad humanity.
Yes, seminaries sometimes train badly, and other leaders have inadequate training, and we humans seem to keep reinventing the wheel. But our awful understanding of authority is a common two-headed monster: leadership as power-over, and the primacy of the male gender. It is that two-headed monster who talked so callously through the men’s words transcribed in this post.
Patrice wrote:
As a longtime SF litfan, I can attest there have been many attempts to add a gender-inclusive animate pronoun to English — “s/he”, “hir”, “sahn”, etc. NONE have ever caught on; the track record is zero-for-whatever.
And the most widespread attempt — “global replace string ‘man’ with string ‘person'” — is so awkward it can only be compared to Legalese and/or Marxspeak.
Classical English defaults mixed-, unknown-, or indeterminate-gender to male.
grieving wrote:
It’s like (in the words of Stephen King): “To an alky, the Constitutional Right to My Next Drink must be protected at all costs.”
Bridget wrote:
Could this be what was REALLY intended by “Visiting the sins of the fathers upon the children” and the reality behind the Christianese idea of “The Generational Curse”? Nothing supernatural, just being sinned against messing up someone to the point they sin against the next generation and mess them up? And a destructive behavior gets passed on as baggage from one messed-up generation to the next? No supernatural explanation necessary, just poetic language?
Daisy wrote:
I don’t think this socialization is drawn from “American secular”. It’s been inside the church from way back. And while US Evangelical women originally rallied for the vote, the church has since consistently lagged general culture in promoting a broader and overlapping understanding of gender. In the last decades, it has deliberately regressed.
I think it’s a bunch of male leaders (and their deceived counterparts) in the church who cause women to stumble in their imaging of God, by clinging to ideas of male headship via God the Father, with no corresponding generous metaphors regarding the feminine. Also by defining females from the fall and/or their supposed helper-essence, and by general authoritarian views of leadership—all of which creates a tendency to one-directional submission.
I think the problem is a pervasive sensibility for which those few ratchety verses are mere touchstones.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Yep, and it’s because we do not feel the need. That is how entrenched it remains.
@ dee:
Followed by abuse in the missionary boarding school.
@ grieving:
Yes, it was in the context of the profoundly abusive boarding school he attended that kids also abused each other, which he did too. I’ve not heard that he perpetrated child sexual abuse in adulthood.
Not many abused kids grow up to be abusers. For the majority, passing it on would be the absolutely last thing they’d do.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Quite possible, HUG. No weirdish cursing of anyone necessary. It’s just the natural outcome when little ones are exposed and harmed in ways that were never intended by Father God. 🙁
Let’s Celebrate — LOOK at the number of stories that have flooded the Internet in the past 24 hours. Two weeks ago, in the days just after May 14, the day the (alleged) victims filed their amended lawsuit replete with names, locations, and descriptions of sexual acts performed on children, there was hardly any mention of it. Only a handful of independent bloggers. No big news media. Now the Internet is exploding with a mix of sympathy and outrage.
Let’s keep going. There are still people who haven’t heard, and others who need to see that their hard-heartedness is not acceptable for anyone claiming to belong to Jesus, the One who cared for the least of these.
Hester, I think what SGM calls planting churches is much more akin to gerrymandering!
grieving, yes, sobbing. Sobbing for the child and the perpetrator, even though the perp thinks what they’ve done/doing, is actually normal/loving. But now, THEY’RE in control. So, so sad, but the evil of it is infuriating, and it needs to be fought, whether they were molested as children themselves, or not!
Beakerj, very good point!
HUG, I totally agree with you. I really think that’s what God meant when saying that about the sins of the fathers and the sins of the sons. It wouldn’t be just to punish an individual for a crime they didn’t commit. Learned behavior.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
The weak are the meat which the strong do eat.
HUG, elsewhere in multiple places in Scripture, God says that the individual is culpable for their sin, and no one else, so in context, that is the only interpretation which makes sense to me.
I really love the literal interpretation, and believe that if it’s figurative, God tells us that. I think a LOT has been misinterpreted and misapplied because of that fundamental error. But then, we now have paraphrases and theologies, and we don’t read our Bibles as much as we did 50 and 100 years ago. We also aren’t reading for context. We pull verses we like out and make whole doctrines out of 1 or 2 of them, and bag others which would keep them in their proper perspective, if we believed they were also God’s words.
Guess I’m old school, but I don’t see the Bible as simply historical/literature/spiritual constructs of humanity. Given the fulfillment of prophecy and the archeological accuracy of the Bible alone, it’s mind boggling to consider the odds. Have heard that if only 8 of the about 300 prophecies just concerning Messiah, (most of which have been fulfilled, some to minute detail) were indeed fulfilled, it would be like covering the state of Texas with 1 layer of quarters, marking only 1, blindfolding a person and expecting them to pick the marked quarter out on the first try. And if Jesus is indeed the Messiah, that leaves a handful of prophecies left to be fulfilled, and they all reference the second coming and the new heavens and new earth, etc., if looked at from a dispensation perspective. Imo, humanity has just complicated and confused what was meant to be common sense and simple enough for a child to understand.
Hester, sorry if I thought you had said something about gerrymandering. Was that in a previous thread?
@ Patrice:
I see it as being secular influence in part because some of the very extreme ones romanticize American society of the Civil War era, while the remaining ones romanticize the 1950s.
There is some very nasty weather in Oklahoma tonight and that horrible weather, complete with tornado activity (or potential for is) going to St. Louis, Missouri next.
Oklahoma City got a tornado, lots of flooding, some deaths, and Tulsa got a tornado last night with some damage of physical property.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
It can make for some funny reading though.
Did you ever read the Politically Correct Bedtime Story books? There was also a Christmas story edition. If I remember right, in one of them the author wrote a story about “Frosty the Snowpersun.”
I’m fine with using gender inclusive language to a point, but where very stalwart feminists do things such as suggest “her-story” for “history,” I roll my eyes.
@ grieving:
Someone on another blog accused Young of molesting kids, and wanted to know why someone blogging against the SGM situation was not also condemning Young.
I had not heard that Young had molested anyone, and when I did a web search, the only thing I found about it was that video where he explained he had been sexually abused as a child.
I didn’t see anything suggesting that as an adult he sexually abused kids.
@ Daisy:
Good morning, Daisy. Yesterday, I was tres irritated, having been visited by my conservative Reformed aunt/uncle with their subtle demeaning of my gender as well as disability. *Even while they are also very kind to me in other ways!* Arg!
Some of that frustration got slogged into my gender comments. Our actual points of disagreement are negligible. Thanks for your patience.
Generational sin. We tend to “inherit” our parents’ worst snares. Alcohol, abuse, bad relationships, anger, drugs, whatever. The difference is whether you believe God is the instigator behind this bondage or if he is wanting to deliver families from this kind of bondage.
@ RB:
Yes, I was the one who mentioned gerrymandering. No worries.
@ Patrice: Thank you for reminding me. The missionary boarding school scandal has been sickening. The numbers of reported abuse have been growing.
Kristin wrote:
Well stated. I agree with your assessment on this matter. I am not big on family demons except for the esoteric ones.
In the following excerpt from the meeting, it appears obvious that the pastor is the one who gets to decide if child sexual abuse has occurred. Some of these men have gone to a 9 month Pastors College for their training and some, like Joshua Harris and CJ Mahaney, have virtually no education beyond high school. Yet they are the experts on this matter.
And some have Ph.D.s in theology but describe the subject of what to do about a report of child sexual abuse by one of his own staff members as “uncharted waters.” And kept it a secret for over 6 months and never contacted the authorities. He described the incident as being “under the blood” and would have likely never dealt with it if the story hadn’t been leaked and he was forced to have to deal with it.
It’s always puzzled me why educated people who profess to be Christians find this so difficult… 1. pick up the phone, 2. call the police… when any adult “heathen” or for that matter any 10-year-old child you encounter “in the world” would immediately know what you’re supposed to do. It may be “uncharted waters” for you personally, but it’s not rocket science.
And then there are those who simply continue to ignore the elephant in the room and demonize those who dare to expose the truth while showing zero concern for the victims. Jack Graham at Prestonwood is a good example of that.
Bob wrote:
I agree.
I’m sure Ms Burke has checked but does anyone know if those broad reporting requirements were in place at the time of the victimization / alleged abuse?
Just to be clear, even if there isn’t a clear legal mandatory reporting obligation based on profession, I believe that clergy and others have a moral obligation to report reasonable suspicion of child abuse or neglect when they learn of it, especially if it is a situation where a child might currently be endangered.
EMSoliDeoGloria wrote:
If the comments on this blog are any indication of the clergy view on reporting only when required, then we have a serious problem. I know of one pastor who “proved” his innocence in a pedophile situation by “proving” the law did not require him to do so. I bet he has a hard time sleeping at night.
@ dee:
Yeah, it’s awful. A wretched commingling of discipline with the authority and will of God with pain and sexuality. It’s about as evil as it gets. That vile combo is seen in the SGM stories too, and is echoed in what I experienced when a kid as well as many others who post here.
Severe child sexual abuse is monotonously similar wherever it is found. Like the actions of Dr Weston on Perelandra in CS Lewis’ sci-fi trilogy, the acts are small-minded, derivative, repetitious. And that’s a useful thing to remember when introduced (and re-introduced) to the shocking perversity.
It helps me, at any rate, to cut it down to size.
Just to be clear, and I worry that maybe I wasn’t previously, I actually am really grateful Young was willing to share his very painful story. I grieve all he went through. And I often grieve at the really misinformed comment that I, too, saw on another thread. Young seems like an authentic person. I’m grateful for the risk he took in sharing about his experiences. Anytime someone who’s experienced abuse is willing to talk about it makes it safer for others of us. I wish more people understood about sexual abuse. And knowing many people don’t “get it” makes me so frustrated, angry, sad, etc.
Thanks for making this forum a safe place to talk about these things.
*another thread on a different site
@ dainca:
“But God the Father is not male; he is beyond gender, as is the Holy Spirit, and as was the pre-incarnate Second Person. “Father” designates the relationship to the Son, not gender.”
++++++++++++++++
Hi, Dainca.
Then why wasn’t the word “mother” chosen?
(i have my own thoughts on the subject, which come down to the generally male-dominated culture out of which the OT writings came. just interested in your take on the question.)
Once the church launches its own investigation, interviewing the accused perpetrator, the victims, witnesses and so on, the official police investigation is corrupted and hindered. Is it something a pastor said to the victim that the victim is now remembering? That claim can always be made, you see. The church’s duty is to protect the victim. Initially, this means informing the accused perpetrator that he/she cannot come to the church for the present time nor be around the victim. I also believe that the accusation, at some point, needs to be announced to the entire church for the protection of others, and for the identification of perhaps additional victims. One of the greatest allies of sexual offenders or domestic abusers is the perversion of Scripture to keep people silent about these matters. It is not gossip to state the facts.
And pastors as investigators of criminal offenses? Uh, I don’t think so. Someone needs to go back and read Romans 13 again, and get a dose of common sense.
@notastepfordsheep
What situation are you referring to? (Having a Ph. D. In theology and keeping a report of abuse hidden for 6 months?)
This is my first time commenting here (this and one short comment a few minutes ago). I am a member of CLC and I attended this meeting. Thank you TWW for posting this excerpted transcript. Where/how did you obtain the audio or transcript, if you can share? The reason I ask a that I had wanted to find this so I could re-listen to it, but it did not seem to be available on our members website as members’ meetings usually are. It is possible I just wasn’t looking for it in the right place.
In any case, I remember being really shaken up when the reports of mishandled abuse cases began to surface on the blogs, which was around this time and that is why the pastors were addressing it at this particular members’ meeting. Then, (this is a little embarrassing to admit here) I remember feeling reassured by their words. Am I really that naive/trusting, or are they really that slick at communicating? I didn’t even flinch at the part about first determining whether abuse occurred, then contacting lawyers. They just said it in such a way that it all seemed wise and logical.
In the second amended complaint, I remember getting to the part at the end where it claims that in August 2011, the pastors admitted they prioritized protecting the church from lawsuit over and above the safety of children…when I read this, I thought it was hogwash and there was no way our pastors would have ever said that! But now, reading the excerpted transcript here, I can see how Ms. Burke came up with that argument. It still isn’t a direct quote, more of an inference, but their failure to really accent “call the police” as a primary step allows room for this argument to be made.
Sorry for a long-ish comment…I just wanted to share the progression of my thoughts on this, and like I said, this comment and the short one prior (a question for notastepfordsheep) are my first posts here. Thanks for reading.
@ seeing the light:
Hi, Seeing. It is sooo hard/painful to find out that what one thought was so, isn’t. It’s happened to a lot of us.
I went through something similar, but not via SGM. It helped to remember that wisdom is learned through my mistakes as much as through what I get right.
I wish you well.
@ seeing the light: Welcome to TWW. CLC is blessed to have such a supportive member. Things go up and down on the internet all the time. Dedicated members will, just like you, download it and keep it to be encouraged in their day to day lives.
Jeff Crippen wrote:
Correct! Beginning to end, this proposed process protects the institution and those who run it.
Does anyone know if it was made into policy-on-paper?
seeing the light wrote:
seeing the light — Don’t be embarrassed. A lot of us have been idealistic and naive about church leaders. It takes a long time to realize that something is very wrong. And it’s never too late to realize the truth and start questioning, and telling others about your concerns. You are very welcome to be here.
@ Jeff Crippen:
The pastors I’ve talked to recently don’t understand this at all. They seem to believe that they have a duty, ecclesiastically speaking, to care for their congregation. In their minds this means pressing forward to find out details to determine how to care for the alleged perpetrator and alleged victim. They are assuming innocence, because it would be devastating to be falsely accused
@ Bridget:
Sorry. Wasn’t finished.
. . . They really don’t understand how this could pollute an investigation, nor how it can harm and shut down a possible victim. They feel that what they are called to do, as pastors, is separate from the government’s role. They don’t see how their role is connected, maybe even subservient, to the government’s role. There is concern that the government agency needs to be watched to make sure they handle the process appropriately. I’m wondering how the pastor would know how to do that! It’s possible this is just in reference to a report falling through the cracks.
@ Jeff Crippen:
In short, how do you get them to understand that it IS there job to support the alleged victim. Many feel they have an “equal” duty to the alleged perpetrator and alleged victim.
@ Bridget:
Perhaps the pastors think they need to apply the order to the jury, to presume innocence til proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If so, it is a misapplication of court-of-law principle. It is also misapprehension of a pastor’s job.
What *do* they teach them at school these days? I ask that seriously. What do they perceive their job to be? It sometimes seems that they think their job is to know/do it all, for all aspects of life. I am glad they don’t also assume they can build skyscrapers, but the assumptions they make regarding their expertise in other areas are just as ludicrous and damaging.
People go to school for years to become lawyers. A few among them gain enough experience to be made judges. People do years of on-the-job training to become good detectives. People go to school for years to become psychologists and a few among them gain enough experience to be capable of helping both traumatized people and perpetrators.
A child in the congregation says, “He did that and I feel awful.'” How hard is it to google statistics on children lying about sexual abuse? And to google about the personality/methods of a pedophile? How many sites there are that clearly list proper procedures for accusations of child sexual abuse? How difficult is it to stop by any police station and enquire about local policies? It is *easy* to learn what needs to be done. If the pastor won’t take these simple actions in light of such a serious accusation, what can you rely on them to do?
When I was nine years old I was cornered by a Deacon in the back stairway of my church. He told me he loved my ponytails and put his hand up my skirt. I was nine!!! I grew up in this church knew this man and felt completely alone, my grandma who was my best friend told me to be quiet and not to tell. So this man walked by me everyday smiling, and talking with my parents and I had no one to keep me safe. He shadowed me everywhere, and I had to make sure I was never alone. I lived scared for the rest of my growing up years in this church. I don’t know how many others walked around there like me. I don’t want to know. I am praying for the abuse survivors like myself. I hope they receive help and find peace. I am 40 years old now and I still panic in dark stairwells, have moments of extreme anxiety and major trust issues with men in authority over me. I love God but experience has taught me to be very careful of his shepherds, deacons, and elders. My daughters were never allowed from my sight in church for this reason. I do not know how anyone could foster such a unsafe place for children and refuse to stand up and take the responsibility for such actions. Shame on Cj and the abusers, the elders and deacons who stood by and let the rape of children be silenced. Shame on you CJ for NOT helping them. It is YOUR godly responsibility to take action, and I fear for you sir. Your actions will held accountable by God if not in this life. I think the milstone stone around your neck will be quite heavy, don’t you?
seeing the light wrote:
Welcome to the club~
Whoever thought they could not trust pastor? It is a new day because too many pastors protect the institution (and their income) over the people (and children). They should never investigate themselves. How ridiculous.
The problem is we trusted when we should not have. They have to answer for that and now you are wiser.
@ Rebecca Lynn:
Rebecca Lynn, Thank you so much for sharing your experience as a young child. This is much more common than folks think and it makes childhood so very scary for NO reason but some perverts sickness. And it is chilling to know that he could smile and act like nothing was amiss, isn’t it? That is how good predators are and what so many people are missing in all this and why institutions should NEVER investigate themselves. Heck, they would probably have that deacon on a committee! I am sorry your grandmother said not to say anything. That was very common back then, too. Almost as if women expected it and just to avoid such a person. They grew up in a time when very little was done about such things.
Bridget wrote:
A few years back when perusing some SBC pastors site and this subject came up there were adament about false accusations being a real problem and they were very sympathetic to anyone accused even hypothetically in a blog comment section. I was shocked.
@ Patrice:
I’m not sure what they are thinking. It really is beyond my ability to understand why they wouldn’t lean toward a victim — always. Likewise, it’s absurd for a pastor to believe that they could get to the truth of every situation without doing harm or polluting an investigation. I certainly don’t know what drives that type of thinking. FYI – I wasn’t implying that they wouldn’t report. In this state they are mandatory reporters and they know that. It’s just the idea that they might try to figure out the validity of an accusation which, in the case of a child, they have no right to question a child without a parent’s permission. A child protection agency has much more leeway in such a situation, not to mention the training and skill necessary to do so.
@ Anon 1:
Do they know nothing about the statistics regarding false accusations? It certainly appears that many pastors don’t.
Bridget wrote:
My experience with this came from a project I did 20 or so years ago when I was on the board of a rape crisis/spouse abuse center. I accompanied some folks who were interviewing pedophiles in prison. I was stunned. The ones we spoke to were in for life (early on good behavior) and admitted to having anywhere from 50-100 victims. When convicted they were only tried for an average of 3-4 victims. Some could not even remember the names of their early victims even though they had groomed them.
I had NO idea and was stunned. And they were not your typical creepy trash types either. Some of them were well educated and almost all of them were outgoing. This was a state prison and we were able to get about 15 to agree to be interviewed. Of course, they could have been lying about victims but stats bear this out.
I think more pastors should do some hard core prison ministries. But then again, we keep thinking “if only they knew” and that is the wrong way to think. The way to think is: They don’t want to know because they don’t care. They have big fish to fry. We keep giving them the benefit of the doubt even when they continue to prove they don’t deserve it.
Ichabod.
The best thing we can do is warn folks. I am watching a whole blog of YRR gushing over the Calvin/Non Calvin Unity statement (SBCVoices) for the SBC with both Dever and Mohler as signatories from the committee AND it was released a few days after the T4G statement defending Mahaney.
Dever was in Louisville last Sunday gushing over Mahaney at SGM Louisville saying SGM church has the fruit of the spirit.
Ichabod. Seriously. You realize they are taking a whole denomination down with them into this mentality where good is evil and evil good?
Anon 1 wrote:
^^This^^ They are not stupid and they are (basically) educated. They are healthy and alert. The moment they heard rumor, they could easily have clicked onto the internet and gone down the list on Amazon Books. There’s tons of material out there these days.
As Bridget says, they knew they were mandated reporters and since they knew that, then they also knew the essentials of why and when. Moreover, they have experts of all sorts they can call at any time.
But they did none of that. They didn’t even set their secretaries or assts to do the research (if they were just too dang busy lol). They did nothing correct about one of the more critical issues that can take place in a community, and since, it’s been CYA all the way, with dribs/drabs of partial confessions and tears from minor members among them.
These are illegitimate leaders. From all indications, looking at the broad history of their pastoral behavior, God never did call them. As long as they remain in their positions, pain/grief will continue to occur.
@ Patrice:
“The moment they heard rumor, they could easily have clicked onto the internet and gone down the list on Amazon Books.”
Yes, it’s pathetically easy to do research these days… A few key words for your starting search string and in five minutes you’ll usually have enough to at least alert you to the potential problems.
For instance, when my mom came home after hearing the guest preacher my ex-pastor brought in, a few of the things she said tripped my radar and I Googled the guy. His name, simple search string, little else. Five minutes later – he’s a Reconstructionist, no question, full of red flags. When my ex-pastor was confronted with this information, he claimed he couldn’t find the guy on the internet at all. I’m still not sure what to make of that because even putting only the guy’s name into Google turned up several audio sermons and a couple papers.
@ Hester:
What was that preacher’s name? Reconstructionism is poison and I want to be on the alert for it in my denomination.
@ Rebecca Lynn:Rebecca Lynn, I am so sorry for what you endured. No little child should have to endure that kind of terror and the subsequent years of suffering, while that evil man smiled and talked as if nothing had happened! As a parent of one of the SGM victims, my heart and prayers go out to you — for your continued healing and for protection for your children. Besides wanting some semblance of justice for the sex abuse victims of SGM, other formerly-silent victims like you are why I personally chose to be a part of our lawsuit. Thank you for adding your voice publicly about what you suffered. May God continue to rock the Church, as a whole, about this issue and may pastors and leaders all over wake up and STOP the cover-up of pedophiles in our congregations.
@ Patrice:
Actually, pastors/clergy are not all mandatory reporters. It’s a state by state requirement. Sad but true.
@ Bridget:
Let me add, IMO, they are “all morally responsible” to report.
@ pcapastor:
Henry Krabbendam.
http://www.covenantpcawv.org/DrK.html
I read a paper of his (which I don’t have anymore, unfortunately) in which he said that contributing over 10% of your income was a sign of the “work of the Spirit” or similar wording. In context, the only meaning I could get out of it was that a failure to tithe is a sign of unregeneracy. (My ex-pastor also got real freaky when confronted with the idea that Christians could disagree on whether tithing was mandatory. He wouldn’t even defend his position, he just insisted that it was MANDATORY.) Also the paper was loaded with “dominion” language and other Reconstructionist code words. If he isn’t actually Reconstructionist, he’s at least dabbled around in it a lot and it’s leaked into his language. Warning Will Robinson!
And oh look – he’s on TGC too! I didn’t know that before…
http://thegospelcoalition.org/resources/name-index/a/Henry_Krabbendam/category/sermons
@ Hester:
Thanks. I googled him and on a “rate my teachers” website came across this funny comment from a former student:
“Doesn’t like you unless you like Uganda. Has his own personal Theology. Will insist you do something irrevelant to class work until you just want to knife yourself. Make almost every scenario awkward.”
@ pcapastor:
My ex-pastor has taken trips to Uganda since we (and he) left the church. Krabbendam was also involved somehow in the PCA church in West Hartford and to my knowledge that’s how he met my ex-pastor. (My ex-pastor was the same guy who posted “we all need a little conversion every day or we will not be fit for heaven” on his FB the other day.)
Pam Palmer wrote:
Pam — We’re standing with you, your daughter, and people like Rebecca Lynn.
Rebecca Lynn wrote:
Rebecca Lynn — What happened to you was terrible and shameful and cruel. Thank you for sharing your story.
Anon 1 wrote:
Anon 1 — It’s so difficult for “normal” people to get sociopaths and extreme narcissists. Normal people have a conscience, but sociopaths and others far down that scale don’t. They have no empathy or feelings for anyone but themselves. They are the center of their universe and make all the rules. So you — the accuser, the troublemaker, the tattletale — are evil. They use this to justify lying to you, taking advantage of you, ignoring you, gossiping about you, and blaming you. Of course, to your face they are bright and charming. They are master manipulators who act as if they are really into you. A few are creepy; but the ones who get away with it for years are high-functioning, smart, and charming. They know exactly what to say.
Christians have no trouble accepting that there are financial con-men. We understand the Ted Bundys of the world, but when the same sociopath traits are exhibited in a church leader, our brains shut down. We go into denial. It’s hard for us to accept that sociopaths love leadership and they are often in high places. They choose churches because we’re so naive. They have no consciences; they never feel ashamed. It’s all a game; and they are very believable. (I know 2 of them. They confidently maintain their innocence in spite of hard evidence. They never admit anything, and they secretly get a thrill out of tricking you.)
This is why Jesus gave the test: How you treated the “least of these,” was how you really felt about Him. Jesus didn’t care about words; he cared about actions. He predicted there would be lots of psychopaths in Christian circles who would say “Lord, Lord” but wouldn’t do what he said.
Hester
As I have learned, some pastors will lie as quickly as the next guy if it prevents them from having to admit to what they are doing.
Janey wrote:
I’m not an expert, but I did have several seminary professors (one with a PsyD) warn us very strongly against nouthetic counseling. My wife, also a trained psychologist, has also expressed alarm at the theoretical and methodological principles behind nouthetics.
In my opinion, the nouthetic approach is just one more way to make the church more pastor-focused and to increase the control that a pastor has over his church. Keeping issues in the realm of “sin” and “repentance” means that the pastor has control over that situation. Once an issue is identified as a medical/clinical issue (including mental health), the pastor’s input and control is drastically decreased, if not eliminated altogether.
I’d be interested to see a study that looks at the correlation between pastors who identify as (a) Neo-Reformed and (b) Elder-rule, and their use of the nouthetic approach.
@ Dee:
I had no proof of deceit so I chose to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he was just negligent (which granted isn’t much better). He could have been lying but I have no way of knowing that.
elastigirl wrote:
There’s no way this can possibly get me into trouble. 🙂 Anyway, try this.
Suppose Jesus’ reference to the Father, not the Mother, was not just a function of the masculinist culture of the time, but expressed something timeless. This isn’t too wildly unrealistic – Jesus taught for us as well, not just a few thousand people in first-century Judea. And let us accept also that God is indeed One, and beyond gender in the sense that he fully contains everything that both male and female could ever be. (Consider: In the image of God He created them; male and female he created them. I’m not claiming to have the only “obviously correct” interpretation of those words; I simply submit them as a reason for believing what I believe.)
When a baby is born, it is helplessly dependent on its mother. None of its senses is particularly well developed, it has few behavioural instincts and it can’t even digest food. So in the absence of modern-day bottled milk, only its mother is even capable of feeding it; its father can’t. In fact the baby can survive without its father being present at all – he might have left or even died almost nine months before. The newly-born human baby is just about the most helpless and incapable living thing on earth.
But God, if Jesus represented him aright, doesn’t want helpless, passive puppets, eternally suckling infants or womb-dwelling foetuses. He wants adult sons and daughters to whom he can give the keys of the kingdom, and who can take charge of great things in eternity. And I think that’s why Jesus used the anthropomorphism of “Father”. The human father can do relatively little to bring a baby into the world; he comes into his own only when it comes to helping that baby grow up and become independent. A mother can do so too, of course, but a father is handed an advantage in the job because he can never remember what it was like to carry or breast-feed the baby.
Just a thought.