Today, and yesterday, I am comforted to know sisters like you exist Dee! You and the TWW community are often in my prayers.

I think a charge of conspiracy to enable child sexual abuse would be an interesting one to hear presented. Conspiracy to facilitate a crime generally carries the same penalty and Statute of Limitations as the crime itself. Don’t know Maryland law, however.

I really hope that these men are ready to take responsibility for their inaction, but I’m not holding my breath. The damage done to the victims and their families can never be underestimated. If they were really concerned, why wait until now to take a leave of absence? Why not resign? After all they are all clearly not above reproach and as such are not fit to serve.

I’m very confused by Joe Carter. Factually incorrect assertions, vague threats of legal action, a general lack of grace or Christian character – what is going on here? I would think that any reasonable non-sociopath, Christian or otherwise, would be appalled at Morales’ crimes, and appalled that it was covered up. And I imagine that good people everywhere rejoice that justice was served even as they mourn with the victims. What idol has been erected that empowers some to act like assclowns online in the light of these weighty matters?

Dern, deb beat me to it. I found that “True Beauty” review as well. So I contented myself with playing Bon Jovi. So much hair! So young! I was in law school when “You Give Love a Bad Name” came out.

Remember how surprised people were a few years ago when C.J. basically abandoned CLC, moved off to Louisville and started up a new church almost immediately? My thought at the time was that C.J. was trying to make it harder to reel him in for testimony in Maryland-based cases. It’s not that he couldn’t be compelled to testify, but removing oneself outside the state and over 500 miles away could serve as discouragement to anyone seeking to compel testimony. Prosecutors don’t have boatloads of cash with which to make their case, and if they can get the crucial testimony they need with, say, a lower-level pastor named Grant Layman who is still living (according to his LinkedIn) in Maryland, then they will.

Just as a thought…it’s my understanding that the culture of CLC was such that it seems unlikely Mahaney didn’t know about the Morales child abuse in 1993 or 2007. However, what if these guys were more devious than we think and C.J. was insulated by plausible deniability? That Grant Layman took this information and did NOT pass it on to C.J. to keep C.J.’s hands clean? In some ways that almost makes the situation worse, because people would have known to keep C.J. above the fray.

mirele fka Southwestern Discomfort wrote:

Joe Carter is an adjunct professor of journalism at Patrick Henry College.

Jeebuz, speaks volumes about PHC’s standards for academic integrity.

Carter claims to be neutral on SGM? News for you, Joe, there is NO SUCH THING AS NEUTRAL when it comes to sexual abuse. If you aren’t vehemently opposed to it and supportive of measures to keep abusers out/hold abusers accountable for their actions, then you have decided to stand away from the victims.

FSGP wrote:

Now for all you Game of Thrones fans: would you rather buy a used car from CJ or Varys?

🙂 For any Honor Harrington fans here, what would a treecat’s reaction be to CJ’s mind-glow?

Dee, Deb, Julie Anne, and everyone else who stands up to bullies like Joe Carter, thank you. I know it is not easy to constantly be fighting these battles and there are days when you grow tired. Your hard work is not in vain.

Loren Haas wrote:

My

“Why”

Mara wrote:

Dee, I guess I’m surprised that you ever thought you could ever get anywhere with anyone at TGC.

Never underestimate the arrogance of God’s Speshul Anointed Elect.

Mandy wrote:

Dee, Deb, Julie Anne, and everyone else who stands up to bullies like Joe Carter, thank you. I know it is not easy to constantly be fighting these battles and there are days when you grow tired. Your hard work is not in vain.

I had meant to post this, thank you so much for pointing this out. I could not have said it any better.

All I can think of is, let’s be sure to hold up the arms of Moses through this entire battle, lol!

Not to get all of my scriptures mixed up, because Moses was old, a man, and he was with Joshua then, but I just like the idea that people held up his arms because he grew tired. As long as he raised his arms high to God, things went well.

I leave this as an exercise to the reader to look up the exact story, chapter and verse.

Thank you again and again to the Deebs for all of this hard work, especially the Twitter battle. That sounds just infuriating.

Some of us have been waiting for many years to see justice. There really isn’t justice because how can you get years of your life back from the hands of abusers?

T4G and TGC have shown their true colors for a long time.
But believe me when I tell you that the party is just getting started. Some of us have never spoken up because we cannot. I will be careful of what I say but I want to encourage everyone that the truth will prevail.

Ardiak wrote:

PAID leave? Seriously?

I listened to the audio, then watched the video, and unless I missed something, there was no mention of whether or not the leave was paid or unpaid. However, I’m not familiar with what the term “administrative leave” actually means in this circumstance. In the past, I understood that Harris did not receive money during the church’s difficult transition time. Perhaps his best-selling book provided him with a comfortable financial base so that he was able to do that.

What a nightmare. If these men are sincere believers — and I think most of them are — can you imagine their sleepless nights at realizing their erroneous & illegal mishandling of this perp enabled two more decades and God-only-knows how many more victims? His marriage to a woman who now knows he molested her precious sons would never have happened. He couldn’t have skipped across the country from church to church, leaving a trail of broken lives in his wake. Morales appears to have been horribly prolific, and, as pedophiles are known to be, a master manipulator. He groomed the church, he groomed the parents, the pastors, his targeted victims — everyone in his life, apparently, so that they’d not only disbelieve the victims, but protect and enable the perp. Twenty years ago, not so much was known about pedophiles. Thanks to Boz and netgrace.org, there are many more materials available. Having been a ‘friend’ (read groomed parent) to a perp in a different SGM church, I sure wish I knew then what I know now. Thankfully, that perp spent the last 20 years in the state pen. Everyone, please avail yourself of those materials, and get educated. The next Nate Morales may waltz into your church next Sunday, charming the defenses off everyone he meets. Be on the lookout. Take notes. Watch carefully, and trust NOBODY.

It looks like Tullian Tchividjian may have been given the left foot of fellowship by TGC. He posted on his Twitter several hours ago: “To all those asking about why I’m no longer listed as a contributor @TGC, I will post something brief @TGC before I go to bed tonight.” It doesn’t look to have been posted yet.

That is George LeRoy Tirebiter to you!

2 observations from a lawyer who has taken a few depositions and tried a few cases. These are mere guesses. I wasn’t in the court room to see the build up, the demeanor etc., and I don’t know Joe Carter. But here’s my take:

1. Grant Layman was overcome by the truth. I don’t think there is any way he could deny having received the information, and there was no way he could claim that he reported the incident.

2. Joe Carter is one angry man. This has not turned out as he had hoped, and he snapped at you. Dee, you are in about as much legal trouble as Aunt Bea. For him to have said that – twice, just shows his weakness.

3. I am really guessing here, but I suspect that the Maryland prosecutors are going to keep Morales and the abuse at center stage and leave CLC, Mahaney, Layman et al. to their own fate. If the Catholic Church litigation history is any example, Layman’s testimony just formed the basis for the writing of a big check to every child who was abused by Morales after the confession and failure to report by CLC and its pastors. I don’t know how that fits into the existing civil lawsuit, and whether the appeal can be won. it seems to me that the failure to report is actionable only to people who were abused later. The legal issue is whether CLC and its pastors had a civil legal duty to the late, future victims to report the abuse and whether the failure to report was the proximate cause of the later abuse. If so, that’s a basis for liability. I can’t remember how many of the plaintiffs in the current civil suit fit that description. There are some people in Arizona, New Mexico etc. who clearly do.

I suspect (and it’s just that, a suspicion) that the prosecutors are going to let CLC and its pastors suffer in the civil courts for their failures and that will be punishment enough.

But I have been wrong before.

The hyper-defensiveness when questioned, the sudden resignations, the shifting statements. All of these are red flags to me. They seem like the reactions of people who don’t have much of a plan but to try and avoid the probably inevitable scrutiny and consequences. Gut feeling: something is very wrong here, and what is known so far probably only scratches the surface of it. Also, speaking of gut feeling (and I’ve learned to trust mine because it has a good track record of accuracy in my fairly considerable life experience), I got through a little over a minute of that first video and had to shut it off because my weirdness meter was peaking well into the red zone. Mahaney just comes across to me as creepy, and anything but plainspoken and genuine. I try to stay far away from this kind of thing.

@ Janet Varin:

Perhaps it would have been better for those involved at CLC and their defenders to experience the “blessing of repentance” before all the facts started coming out.

Warwick wrote:

He can’t preach for 20+ years on the importance of that tree, then suddenly disavow any responsibility for the fruit of that tree when the fruit is revealed to be rotten.

Warwick, this is what Chuck Smith -founder of Calvary Chapel- did when he was faced with lawsuits towards the end of his life. He formed an association of churches and sometimes exercised church discipline and kicked people out of the association, while others were removed due to having Reformed Theology (Don’t ask, I still don’t get it.) But he suddenly started saying he never had any authority over the other churches and didn’t want to. It was a boldface lie, but he was advised to do so by a lawyer because of the lawsuits Chuck was facing.

The loss of money and/or freedom will make grown men lie, no matter if everyone can see it’s a lie. They just grit their teeth, close their eyes and hope it goes away. As long as the people want to worship them, they will not give up their idol. That’s how these men survive this.

I just wanted to weigh in & repeat huge thanks to Dee & Debs, the survivors who have told their stories & anyone else, like Julie Anne who has been beavering away for justice. Bravo people! The moral spinelessness of these ‘leaders’, the ‘shepherds’ looking the other way as the lambs are brutalised needs to be dug out of the church.

I hope to God that each one of these ‘men’ is having a ‘holy sh*t, I covered up child abuse & children got raped’ revelation that shakes them to the core. In my job I’d be fired, prosecuted & rightfully imprisoned for exactly what they’ve done. Yes guys, you helped a predator ( & remember there are often 100’s of crimes before anyone speaks out), I hope you are proud.

All those hints of legal action against you Dee… what are they going to claim? Dee is guilty of caring for abused children? Well, yes, her & Debs are definitely guilty of that.

Muff Potter wrote:

On a more serious note though, sooner or later these organizations will start to howl ‘persecution’. It’s already been bandied about on conservative Christian talk radio in my area.

Yeah, US Evangelicals who call “persecution” are childish. It works like a backward version of crying “wolf” – claim it often enough and it might come true simply because people get tired of hearing it.

One wonders why they want it so bad.

Has anyone obtained the transcripts of the Morales trial? Can they be obtained?

Janet Varin wrote:

TGC has officially weighed in with an essay by Wendy Alsup: http://thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-trauma-of-abuse-and-the-blessing-of-repentance

Ugh, some of the comments. And the reluctance to call rape by its name. Not to mention the poor girl subject to public shaming that would have been inappropriate even if the sex had been consensual. Ugh.

Loren Haas wrote:

I believe Layman may be rolling over on his brother-in-law and others. His attorney may have made a deal with the prosecution, hence Layman’s attorney eliciting the incriminating response from his own client.

Oh, yeah. It’s got that written all over it. Or, perhaps the prosecution was just trying to sew up the case and the defense was either inept, or had agreed to “help us get him like this and we will agree to ask for a lighter sentence? Either way, I wonder if Morales knew that his own lawyer was going to twist the knife? Would Morales have had to agree to a deal, if there was one, which did not require him to publicly repent on the stand? Whichever, I do note this: lawyers cut more deals than used car salesmen, be it civil or criminal, or so I observe from the peanut gallery.

@ dustin germain:
Surely, being such a stickler for concrete facts, you have some examples of baseless reputation assassination from this blog?

Warwick wrote:

He can’t preach for 20+ years on the importance of that tree, then suddenly disavow any responsibility for the fruit of that tree when the fruit is revealed to be rotten.

Warwick – Thanks for this comment. It says in one sentence what iI have been feeling and couldn’t put into words.

Katie wrote:

How does a man in charge get to a place where he’s denying easily discoverable facts…

Regardless of whether it’s Joe Carter, Joe Soap, GI Joe or Nick Bulbeck, I think it tends to happen in one of two ways.

The more overtly shocking occurs when, like Judas Iscariot, one is dishonest from the very beginning, as the last few verses of John 6 strongly imply, and does not at any stage repent and allow oneself to be crucified with Christ. Right from the outset, a man like that sees church life as an opportunity to get something he wants – it’s true in secular walks of life too, of course, but we’re talking about church life here. And at no stage does he care who or what has to be sacrificed to get it.

The more subtle way is: one step at a time. Bear with me while I quote the most-misquoted verse in the Bible:

For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

To me, that word “wandered” is instructive. That kind of man doesn’t wake up one morning and think, stuff the Kingdom of God, I’m off to get rich and influential at others’ expense. The pursuit of success that can be measured by numbers, the steady drip-feeding of statistics from all sides creating an atmosphere in which those numbers really matter; and so on. All of these steadily erode a man’s discernment, conscience and integrity (in approximately that order, I guess) until he starts to pursue them instead of the still small voice. Before long, he loves only those who love him, and/or from whom he can gain advantage. Necessarily, he despises little people and outsiders, and respects only those to whom he can tip his hat without losing face.

Katie wrote:

How does a man in charge get to a place where he’s denying easily discoverable facts, like Joe Carter?

Ummm. You mean like the upper level government people who testify before congress regarding IRS, VA, Benghazi, HSA, ObamaCare et al?

Nancy wrote:

dustin germain wrote:
vaguely related
Were that the case, and if indeed that proves to be the case, not withstanding sworn testimony to the contrary which seems to indicate otherwise, then your comment would have more credibility.

I am not referring to CJ or Harris, if that’s what you’re asking.

As it were, however, I would suspect that even if someone like Harris is completely exonerated, it would not stop the comments coming and no apologies would be forthcoming to him, his family, or his congregation members.

dustin germain wrote:

I am not referring to CJ or Harris, if that’s what you’re asking.

I asked. What are you referring to, specifically.

@ dustin germain:

Proud of yourself for writing an attack piece with no specific examples. Pitiful.

dustin germain wrote:

burn: i would be referring to the many members of the TGC who have been tar and feathered by association

if you read the article, you’ll notice that I gave about twenty

@ burnrnorton:

I guarantee you he will not even be able to point out even 1 lie and back it up with facts.

@ dustin germain:
Wow, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. LOL!

Marsha wrote:

If you click on his name, you will go to a blog post that Germain has written about TWW and all of us.

But, of course. What else would you expect from a Mohler fan.
By the way, I don’t believe it was TWW who covered the comment about Sproul, Jr. spanking his wife.

I left this comment on Tullian’s post at TGC. http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tullian/2014/05/20/ive-come-to-set-the-captives-free/:

The Gospel Coalition preaches the “gender gospel” and has elevated the complementarian view of gender roles to the status of an essential. The bad fruit of this position is becoming more and more clear.

Patti wrote:

You are funny Dustin. You look a little scruffy in your selfie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a14vFqlYigc

As Brent Detwiler reported it at http://www.brentdetwiler.com/brentdetwilercom/the-criminal-trial-of-nathaniel-morales-report-on-day-1-2.html …

**
Under cross examination by the Defense Attorney Alan Drew (which was surprising), he was asked “Did you have a responsibility to report” the crimes committed against Samuel Bates and Brian Wolohan. To this Layman said, “I believe so.” Drew responded, “Did you report” to police? Layman answered, “I didn’t do it.”
**

The moment I heard of Grant Layman’s admission under oath, I had a gut feeling that this was “THE” loose thread sticking up that, when pulled on, would unravel the fabric of the whole thing that’s been woven together over the past 30+ years in the CLC/SGM case of alleged failure to report and refusal to report and telling/ordering others not to report known/suspected sexual abuse.

But I’m still trying to put the pieces together on that admission and make sense of it, and link it with the statement from the prosecuting attorney in the news report video on this thread, and link all that with what An Attorney has said about a *criminal* trial on conspiracy to enable sexual abuse and implications it also has for *civil* lawsuit for survivors.

Could someone with a legal background help me understand why the defense attorney drawing out this information has increased significance for the admission? Do Mr. Morales and/or Mr. Layman and/or Covenant Life Church share the same attorney? Does it have any legal implications for potential future criminal or civil cases that it was the defense attorney instead of the prosecution that brought forth this admission in court?

Thanks …

And The Deebs, many thanks for keeping a flow of information going, and especially for periodic summaries — you’ve helped helps greatly in keeping up with the geyser gush of details …

@ dustin germain:
Dustin, it is clear you are happy and in the fold at xyz Baptist Chruch wherever you live. My guess is you have always been in the in crowd in that world and have no reason to question where you are. I myself am troubled by this over authoritarian group known taking over conservative evangelicalism. This is part of a mechanism of the right wing politicians to keep middle America in line to keep voting in yes men for big corporations. The Gospel Coalition is a group promoting ignorance among conservative evnagelicals. You stay in a narrow intellectual bubble and only read blogs by the approved authors they tell you to read. It is really sad but most Americans are sheep and want vaunted leaders to tell them how to think. Finally, I think you lack a sense of humor if you can’t laugh at the quotes in your blog posts. I recommend taking in some real humor like Carlin or Hicks and then reading some Zinn. Who am I kidding that will never happen and I dont want you to lose your spot with jocks at the SBC.

Nick Bulbeck wrote:

All of these steadily erode a man’s discernment, conscience and integrity (in approximately that order, I guess) until he starts to pursue them instead of the still small voice. Before long, he loves only those who love him, and/or from whom he can gain advantage. Necessarily, he despises little people and outsiders, and respects only those to whom he can tip his hat without losing face.

Probably so. There are also those who never gave a hoot in the first place. Not from the get go. My (former) husband was a pre-ministerial undergrad at Baylor back in the day. He and a couple of his buddies apparently had them a little preaching and singing student evangelistic group of sorts. There was a lot of this at Baylor apparently at that time. Many such little groups going out on weekends to various churches. Said (former) husband used to tell spine chilling accounts of the crassness and chicanery and deceitfulness and money-soliciting behavior of some of his compadres out on the weekend “missions” they were invited to at various churches. I heard no evidence of any early period of idealism or even innocence in the people he was describing.

This kind of stuff is one of the reasons I hesitate to hop on the good-old-SBC-days bandwagon.

I should have put a break after the second paragraph, that ended Dustin’s bio then I started talking about myself in the third paragraph.

BTW – Dustin and so many like him make the job of a blogger easy. We don’t have to say much because their own words and behavior reveal their heart.

@ burnrnorton:

Oh, I’m quite willing to say mean things about Albert Mohler. I’ll confine myself to two items.

* First, Mohler is a proponent of early marriage. This despite the fact that studies indicate early marriages are more prone to failure, in large part due to financial issues. A cursory review of Mohler articles on the subject indicates he doesn’t give a fig for sociological studies. Rather, it’s “d*mn the torpedoes and full speed ahead” in encouraging young people to marry despite their financial situation.

The second is related: Mohler calls “deliberate singleness on the part of those who know they have not been given the gift of celibacy is, at best, a neglect of Christian responsibility.” (August 20, 2004) Mohler still held this view as recently as last year when he again extolled marriage over singleness and predicted dire consequences for single women because we do not marry. (October 4, 2013)

In my opinion, this is all part and parcel of Mohler’s patriarchy. Too many single adult women are out from under the protective cover of a male headship. Marriage will take care of that problem, in addition to shutting up a bunch of uppity women who do not properly respect God’s order as expressed through male leadership.

And here’s another thing– Mohler is doing the world no favors by pushing this junk in his columns and at his seminary. He’d be of more use working the overnight shift at the local Circle K, preferably with a female manager. Then he might understand first hand what his teachings can do to the people who follow them.

So there you go–mean.

Nick Bulbeck wrote:

Patti wrote:
You are funny Dustin. You look a little scruffy in your selfie.
Yeah, but so do I.
Though to be fair, my selfie was taken at 7am on a remote Scottish mountain I had climbed that morning after a 4am start. I defy anybody to look good under those circumstances.

I was pretty vague. But actually I did just find a scruffy photo of him on pulpitandpen but I would never pick on someone’s real looks.
I was referring to the wolf photo here on his blog http://thepaperthinhymn.com I didn’t want to draw too much attention to his blog because I think he is trying to get a lot of hits from us. Oops, there I go again making him right about commenters asserting motives of ‘leaders’ and being snarky.

Nancy wrote:

Do you think that it would make any difference one way or the other how things were said, or is the issue simply that they were said?

Nancy, I’m not quite sure I understand what you are asking, but let’s see if this works 🙂

I’m not a fan of squelching free speech. I do, however, believe that we as Christians should use our words thoughtfully and with purpose. For a guy like Dustin and many others like him, we hardly need to use our words to describe them, their words reveal everything.

I think it is important when someone is in a position of leadership and has a set of guidelines they expect others to follow, yet follow their own set of rules for themselves in communication/behavior, it’s good to identify it. Christ’s reputation is on the line.

dee wrote:

I have decided to deal with him via slow moderation. It will drive him nuts.

LOL. I had my “resident artist” 11-yr old son draw me a picture of as SSB doghouse. When we encounter someone like Dustin, they get to visit the doghouse = slow moderation.

In other news, a certain Doris Long has cemented her place in the Guiness Book of Records as the oldest person to abseil. She celebrated her 100th birthday by abseiling Portsmouth’s 320-foot Spinnaker Tower.

Judging by the foties in the article, her technique today is not as good as it was at 94. But hey.

This news item was brought to you as part of my continued effort to fit in with

… essentially a free-for-all wasteland where personal attacks reign supreme and are seemingly actively encouraged , and where they’ll give long, rambling detailed psychoanalysis of anyone who they feel deserve it. Half the time its the most wildest, nonsensical excoriation of motives and intent heaped on with snarky and angry assertions.Honestly the closest thing to compare the combox commenters to are the deviants at the lowest recesses of 4chan. Its a sick, toxic environment, and its a shame because on the rare occasion they’ll bring up something worth talking about, but everything they say is so bent towards bitterness, vindictiveness and plain old nastiness, that it makes all their words covered with metaphorical poison.

🙂 Gaw bless ‘im, as The Simpsons think we say here in Blighty.

dee wrote:

@ E.G.: Problem: Tim Keller was at the 3 day meeting of the TGC Council on which he sits. It is my opinion that these recent actions were discussed and approved behind closed doors.

If Keller stays with this group, he is culpable in that he is sharing in these actions by not speaking up. So, he either approves or stands by them with his silence. I can only hope that he will speak out. Real™ men would do so.

[emphasis added]

I have used the word culpable more times in the last 10 days in my writings than in perhaps the previous 5 years all together — and that’s actually been a lot, considering how many profiles I’ve written about situations of spiritually abusive and misuse of power.

I wonder if that word will trend, given the multitudinous situations of silence on the Church horizon where much has apparently been talked about in the darkness but may well leak into the light. (Actually, the light might break through onto it, in more cases than not.)

SeanR wrote:

@ dustin germain:
Dustin, it is clear you are happy and in the fold at xyz Baptist Chruch wherever you live. My guess is you have always been in the in crowd in that world and have no reason to question where you are. I myself am troubled by this over authoritarian group known taking over conservative evangelicalism. This is part of a mechanism of the right wing politicians to keep middle America in line to keep voting in yes men for big corporations. The Gospel Coalition is a group promoting ignorance among conservative evnagelicals. You stay in a narrow intellectual bubble and only read blogs by the approved authors they tell you to read. It is really sad but most Americans are sheep and want vaunted leaders to tell them how to think. Finally, I think you lack a sense of humor if you can’t laugh at the quotes in your blog posts. I recommend taking in some real humor like Carlin or Hicks and then reading some Zinn. Who am I kidding that will never happen and I dont want you to lose your spot with jocks at the SBC.

Sean, I don’t mean to disabuse you of your theorizing and assumptions, but I do not attend a Baptist Church. I just moved to a new city, but before that I attended a Lutheran Church. Also, I have not always been in the “in crowd” I come from a Roman Catholic Background, and then attended for about 5 years a hyper-charismatic Church that my all measurable standards would be considered a cult, replete with a controlling leader who told me that he doesn’t need to preach from the Bible, as the Holy Spirit speaks to him directly.

I also am concerned about Evangelicals “Top Men” who refuse to respond to legitimately concerned people and who function like a club and protect people in that club who are acting and embroiled in controversy. As to what I read- I read a varying array of blogs and books, many come from reformed sources to varying degrees, but not all of them do.

I deny that “The Gospel Coalition is a group promoting ignorance among conservative evangelicals” though certainly I believe that some people within the organization are behaving in ways that I do not care for or appreciate.

As far as “being able to laugh at the things in my blog post” I don’t think they’re funny. Am I as a Christian supposed to sit back and laugh when someone is being insulted and called vicious names? I don’t think so, and I find it curious that you do.

In any case, if there is anything else about me that you would like to know, please don’t hesitate to ask

E.G. wrote:

One wonders if the Tullian Tchividjian is just the start of the flood.
One also wonders if the flood will include the likes of Tim Keller.

No, Tim Keller is co-founder and right at the top. So is D.A. Carson. I’ve met Don several times and it always grieves me to see what he is now responsible for and what he signs his name to (support of C.J. among other things). These men will have a lot to answer for. They have ‘wandered’ from their first love, to echo a comment above.

dee wrote:

No one reads Dustin’s blog. He is using Julie Anne and us to attempt to propel himself into the spotlight. Do not feed the troll.

And then she also wrote:

Dustin has made his presence on the Internet known by his over the top comments. He has a habit of going to blogs and causing uproars. He has been successful, once again.

Hmm… two things.

There’s been some comment traffic, but actually I see no uproar here. I beg to differ over how successful he’s been; in fact, he’s provided a golden opportunity for how dissent-tolerant this community actually is, compared to many who conceal vindictive hearts behind the carefully-chosen, faux gracious language of the trained rhetorician *.

Secondly, Jesus said that we are blessed when people heap insults on us for his name. If the trolls are going to keep flinging blessing around (whatever they themselves think it is) then I don’t mind a bit of it from time to time.

* “Rhetorician” is not actually a word, but it should be. It’s better than “rhetoricist”, which is also not really a word.

dee wrote:

To our readers
No one reads Dustin’s blog. He is using Julie Anne and us to attempt to propel himself into the spotlight. Do not feed the troll.
Any person who would compare our discussion to abortion has lost touch with reality.

I know saying this for the third or fourth time probably won’t make any difference, but I have never suggested that you are personally pro-choice, or that your blog is as evil as planned parenthood, or a host of other similar accusations.

What I have said is that your blog as an organization like planned parenthood IN THAT abortion is only 10% of what they do. they do a lot of other good and noble things for women, and yet they are overwhelmingly known as THE ABORTION GROUP and the symbol for abortion.

Similarly while 90% of what this blog may do is good, your reputation is that you slander and destroy other peoples reputations, and the much of the vitriol on your combox serves as evidence for this.

There is no hint of thinking the best of people, and giving them the benefit of the doubt, or assuming best intentions of fellow believers, but rather any slight or action or even inaction is used as proof of evil intent and nefarious motives, and then that person gets blasted.

Oh, and in further other news, a British pensioner has just built the world’s fastest toilet. I can only assume Colin Furze’s earlier powered toilet did not exceed 70, unlike his mobility scooter.

Rule Britannia!

Nancy wrote:

@ Julie Anne:
Do you think that commenters need to tone down the language a tad in order to lessen any possible validity to such criticism, or do you think the way things are going is okay? Let me restate that idea for clarity. Do you think that it would make any difference one way or the other how things were said, or is the issue simply that they were said?

I think it would help the issue. Speaking as a “troll” It would remove 90% of my objections to this site

I suppose I should say “near-universally scoffed at.”

Julie Anne wrote:

Dustin’s comment above was pretty mild compared to the stuff he tweets about TWW and me. Take a look: https://twitter.com/paperhymn/with_replies

Can anyone else access this. I’m having trouble . . . says page doesn’t exist? Could be me though since I don’t have a Twitter account.

SeanR wrote:

Dustin, it is clear you are happy and in the fold at xyz Baptist Chruch wherever you live. My guess is you have always been in the in crowd in that world and have no reason to question where you are.

i.e. “The Lure of the Inner Ring.” — C.S.Lewis

“I Got Mine,
I Got Mine,
I DON’T WANT A THING TO CHANGE
Now that I Got Mine…”
— Glenn Frye

In some charismatic and Pentecostal circles, controversial pastors or their supporters frequently responded to critics with something along the lines of “Touch not Mine anointed.” It appears TGC, SGM, CLC and their supporters are simply following in those footsteps.

May wrote:

To answer your question, it seems that doctrine has become a god. It trumps everything else. It certainly trumps love and compassion.

Purity of Ideology, Comrades.
Purity of Ideology.

(May, Dee, everybody: When the jokes and analogies to the Soviet System and its derivations in the works by G.Orwell come so easily, that is NOT something for these MenaGawd to brag about.)

@ Nancy:

Not only choosing bad associates, but aggressively defending them by calling those who question bad names and alleging that the questioners are not Christians.

Great new post by Jonathan Merritt on this general topic: http://jonathanmerritt.religionnews.com/2014/05/20/troubling-trends-americas-calvinist-revival/

I was in some of that Twitter exchange on Sunday night with Joe Carter initially claiming that Mahaney and Harris were not on the council. To be the senior editor of the TGC, he sure is inept at his job. After he checked with “someone” and corrected his earlier denials, he tried to excuse his error, saying, “I don’t really keep up with the council.” I replied to him and pointed out the fact that Mahaney is listed as a speaker at The Gospel Coalition Arizona conference in June. It’s listed as an event on TGC homepage: http://arizona.thegospelcoalition.org/events/event/9/anchored-conference/2014-06-20

Joe Carter’s reply about Mahaney speaking was that “Regional chapters/conferences are independent entities.” (sound familiar? Local, Baptist autonomous polity ring a bell?https://twitter.com/joecarter/status/468201477249331200

So CJ is no longer on the council, but he’s still one of TGC speakers?

dee wrote:

To our readers
No one reads Dustin’s blog. He is using Julie Anne and us to attempt to propel himself into the spotlight. Do not feed the troll.
Any person who would compare our discussion to abortion has lost touch with reality.

You do not need me to say this, but NONE OF THE REGULAR COMMENTERS AT TWW HAVE ANYTHING TO APOLOGIZE FOR. Everyone carry on and keep being who you are. The “Young, Restless, and Reformed” are a disgrace. One great thing about my small, boring, and backwards denomination (though we try to market ourselves as anything but) is that it is not cool enough to have attracted too many of the “Young, Restless, and Reformed.” Personally, I don’t want people like Dustin to even worship with us, let alone have any platform at all within my church. Dustin, God bless you, but please stay away from normal churches and normal Christians, until you are prepared to become one.

@ Dr. Fundystan:

This will be harsh but this is how I am feeling right now.

In fairness to Dustin, I think he quoted this from Eagle and didn’t say it himself. Your point still stands, however.

@ Nick Bulbeck:
I had to look up abseiling. We call it rappelling here in the Colonies. Thanks for teaching me a new word!

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:

In Scientologese, Suppressive Person Declares have been issued on the official goldenrod paper, but the SP isn’t allowed to see the Declare. Instead he is given to believe that he is a degraded and aberrated person whose only terminal (avenue for recourse) is the International Justice Chief.

My only question is, who has the ability to “un”farewell a person in Calvinista circles.

mirele wrote:

I had to look up abseiling. We call it rappelling here in the Colonies.

Indeed – neither of us has an English word for it, tbh, because “abseiling” comes from the German abseilen (to lower by rope), whereas “rappelling” comes from the French rappeler (to call back).

@ dee:
Dee you will have to forgive me, I had to go take a peak. All I can say is “unreal”. This guy created a blog post, and did the exact same thing he accused you of doing. I sure hope he at least gets a Christmas card for Al Mohler.

Interesting point made over at SGMSurvivors that got me thinking.

I had always thought that C.J. would be pretty p***ed off that CLC opted to leave SGM. Original, flagship SGM church, he was pastor there for 27 years, etc. But now I’m wondering if in fact he wanted, orchestrated the whole thing. How convenient is it for him now not to be associated with the church, and for the church not to be under SGM? Even more conveniently, he lives thousands of miles away.

I’m starting to feel a tad sorry for Joshua Harris who I believe has been manipulated and cowed by C.J. for decades.

C.J. is as slippery as an eel. He reminds me of Gerry Adams. Everyone knows he’s guilty but no one can pin him down. What gets me is how the Calvinist BigDogs can’t see through him. I’ll have to add discernment to the list of godly qualities that are so sorely lacking (along with love and compassion).

@ May:

I agree with you on that. The intellectual rigor that exists among the scholarly few in that crowd has definitely left very little imprint on the rest of the bunch.

I wonder will Piper and Grudem et al continue to line up to speak at SGM Louisville??

mirele wrote:

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
In Scientologese, Suppressive Person Declares have been issued on the official goldenrod paper, but the SP isn’t allowed to see the Declare. Instead he is given to believe that he is a degraded and aberrated person whose only terminal (avenue for recourse) is the International Justice Chief.

Has Directive R2-45 LRH been invoked by Flag yet?

Or disappearance into RPF and/or formal Overboarding?

In any case, Fair Game Law is now in effect and the GO is eager to enforce.

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:

More assumptions on your part. I have no “leaders” who are aware of me, or who i am posturing for.

Sara wrote:

burnrnorton wrote:
Janet Varin wrote:
TGC has officially weighed in with an essay by Wendy Alsup: http://thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-trauma-of-abuse-and-the-blessing-of-repentance
Ugh, some of the comments. And the reluctance to call rape by its name. Not to mention the poor girl subject to public shaming that would have been inappropriate even if the sex had been consensual. Ugh.

Man, I wish I had saved the two comments I made under this blog! Because they were in moderation and now they are gone. Sigh.
I basically said that true consent is enthusiastic and continuous. The moment a person objects, and that objection is ignored, it’s rape, Period.
I also shared a comment in which I stated that as someone with a very, very traumatic history, my road to healing has been complicated and complex. And that the best thing a person can do when a victim opens up is to listen, not saying anything or say, “I’m so so sorry. This was NOT your fault.”
Perhaps this comment sounded too feminist? I don’t know.

Looks like my comments did make it through moderation at the TGC article, for which i am grateful. Few things make a survivor feel worse than being silenced. That’s why I am so so grateful for this blog. Thank you for giving so many of us a chance to make our voices heard.

@ dee:
I must be way further south than you, cause down here we say. “This guy needs and old fashion southern *** whipping. Don’t print this Dee, this was just for you.

Dee: ‘TGC posted a puff piece on Carolyn Mahaney’s new book True Beauty. This action appeared to demonstrate a lack of concern for the seriousness of the abuse charges.’

And I thought the British were experts in understatement! Given the circumstances the Carolyn Mahaney piece is unbelievably crass in the current context. It’s almost a dark sitcom parody subplot but … but… oh no.. I can’t…. it’s for real!

Having read the exchange with Joe Carter I can’t believe how inept he is being for someone representing an organisation. Honestly Joe, if you read this, which you should, go into a dark room sit there and think… think …. think….think… and then you will see what fools you are making of yourselves and of the Gospel.

And oh yes – of course we should use the internet to speak out. I imagine if Martin Luther had access to it he would have been the first to post / twitter/ facebook his criticism of corrupt church leadership, the lies and the hypocrisy that brings the Church into disrepute.

And yes … CJ …. he wouldn’t have had a cosy chat with you to help be sensitive to your non-verbal communication (see his video) – he would have nailed his comments on the doors of your church.

Keep it up Wartburg Watch….

Julie Anne wrote:

Dustin’s comment above was pretty mild compared to the stuff he tweets about TWW and me. Take a look: https://twitter.com/paperhymn/with_replies

Grr, it was removed. How do we find it again?

@ Patti:

That is a good example for the question I was asking. I am sorry that happened to you. The religiously ultra-correct are impossible, especially when they are in the wrong it seems.

Bradfuturist guy:

I am not certain why the defense attorney would elicit this testimony from Layman. It seems irrelevant to the prosecution of Morales. Here are some possibilities – all of which seem far fetched to me:

1. Defense Counsel was probing whether a confession was made and use that for sympathy at some point (e.g. Morales was seeking help? Perhaps? In the sentencing phase.

2. To deflect or create shared responsibility from his client onto others for later molestations?

3. Morales hates the CLC guys and instructed his lawyer to obtain such an admission.

4. To probe the truthfulness of the allegations? After all, if a person doesn’t report to the police maybe it’s because he doesn’t believe the allegations.

5. Does Morales want his victims to get a financial settlement from CLC and others and he is helping to lay the groundwork for that?

That’s the best I can do on guessing. I have to confess to ask that question makes no sense in the context of this criminal trial.

As to the effect of the answer, for Layman, it could be huge. Layman may have just admitted under oath that he broke the law for which he can be punished.

If the reporting statute in Maryland has criminal penalties for failing to report and the statute of limitations has not run, then Layman just admitted in court to committing a crime for which he can be punished.

On the “conspiracy” end, I am not as clear. An Attorney mentioned that above and said that he doesn’t believe Layman and the others intended to foster child abuse by failing to report. I agree with him. My understanding, however, is that engagning in a conspiracy usually requires intent. I don’t think that Layman and the others wanted Morales to go out and commit some more crimes. I think they wanted to do things “biblically” and their warped understanding of that took them down a horrible road. I also think that since 2007 on, they were concerned for their own skin, and it had nothing to do with being “biblical.”

Those are my thoughts, for what they are worth.

@ brad/futuristguy:

Thank you Mirele! I also just saw that Julie has it available on the Spiritual Sounding Board Facebook page.

“Give me a break. These people, they’re family. Of course he knew,” Tchividjian told The Christian Post. “C. J. was, for many years, the micro-managing head of the organization and nothing happened under the umbrella of Sovereign Grace that he wasn’t made aware of, so for anyone to say, ‘Well he didn’t know,’ that’s totally naive.”

Tchividjian added that he was “pretty disturbed” when Don Carson, Kevin DeYoung, and Justin Taylor published a statement on TGC website in May 2013 which defended Mahaney, saying that it looked “like the good-old boys club covering their own.”

@ Deb:

Reminds me of the Coneheads on old SNL way back in the day.

mirele fka Southwestern Discomfort wrote:

C.J. KNEW
ABOUT THE
CHILD ABUSE

Two words: PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY.
Traditional foundation of Russian/Soviet Bureaucracy: If it wasn’t written down, It Never Happened and You Can’t Ever Prove It Did.

jackleeknows wrote:

@ Jeannie E. Hess:
This website and its constituents are completely bonkers. Your platform could be described as feminism disguised as Christianity. Glad your site doesn’t attract much visitors…when bitterness takes root, sites like TWW come into being. Joe Carter aptly described you both as character assassins. There’s a difference between airing dirty laundry and transparency. TWW has been doing the former in spades. Great job!

doubleplusgoodthink, comrade!
doubleplusgood doubleplusduckspeak!
pat on the head and cookie from CJ himself!

@ Eagle:
@ dustin germain:
@ dee:
@ Ken:

Okay – generally, I think the use of calling people ‘Nazis’ is overused and over-the-top. Here’s why I don’t think that is true in this case. (I just spent an entire weekend immersed in WWII history, so….)

I’ve stood by and seen common sense vanish from these people. They have lost touch with the Bible, God, humanity, and decency.

This is absolutely true. They have elevated a specific sub-doctrine above all things. It does not matter what you do – what crimes against humanity you commit (and child sex abuse is a crime against all humanity) or cover up – if your Doctrine™ is the correct one and you stay lock-step (goose-step? sorry…), then you will be defended and the propaganda machine will be in full swing on your behalf.

I have had up close and personal experience with this tactic, as have many on the blog. It is my opinion that some of these people, if given the platform to rise to the level of power and authority to do so, would behave in the same fashion as any other tyrant you would care to name in history. They have already proven a willingness to sacrifice the ‘weak’ and purge the ‘impure.’

As to the comparison to Joseph Goebbels…teach them what to say, what to read, who to associate with, what to think…do this when they are young and impressionable, and when they grow up they will be your propaganda fodder, spreading the lie with zeal. Hmmm…a very ugly twist on ‘teach your children the way they should go, and when they are old…..” And that is what we have with this group…they have had a generation or two to groom the young ones. Those that don’t revolt and flee often become more rabid than the teachers. And it really becomes more about saying the right things at the right time and quoting (as HUG would say 🙂 )’the Party Line’ than being about Jesus.

Yeah….I have seen this in action. You see, the followers will imitate the leaders to curry favor – to get noticed. And become just as morally bankrupt. Just as much as the brood of vipers in Palestine 2000 years ago….

@ Anonymous:
My bet as an attorney who never practiced criminal law I’d he was trying to elicit testimony that the Layman hadn’t found the allegations credible or that they didn’t meet the standard of criminal action. Pretty stupid, but you have the case you have.

“Bless his little heart.” is a very strong insult to the person to which this refers. A normal heart is a good thing. A “big-hearted” person seems to be one who carries out the second commandment Jesus gave us, to love and to share with those in need. But a person with a little heart — suggests a lack of caring or compassion and a need to psychological or psychiatric heart therapy. In some instances, it could mean someone is not brave but chicken, as in “chicken-hearted, which for a human is a tiny little heart — flutters and clucks and flees.

@ Stunned:

Thank you 4 ur encouragement here, it means a great deal to me!

I don’t agree with everything Tullian teaches, but I have to respect him for saying his peace about SGM. I’m wondering if TGC caught wind that the article was being printed and that is part of what drove the quick boot of fellowship? They’ve been sticking up for CJ nonstop.

Tullian also mentioned in the article that he was told by a friend on TGC that men at TGC had been discussing him for a year, but no one had said anything to him regarding his wtiting. I guess it’s okay for the men at TGC to gossip then?

jackleeknows wrote:

This website and its constituents are completely bonkers. Your platform could be described as feminism disguised as Christianity. Glad your site doesn’t attract much visitors…when bitterness takes root, sites like TWW come into being. Joe Carter aptly described you both as character assassins. There’s a difference between airing dirty laundry and transparency. TWW has been doing the former in spades. Great job!

I am overcome by the depth of thoughtfulness and strength of intellect in your poignant comment.

jackleeknows wrote:

@

This website and its constituents are completely bonkers. Your platform could be described as feminism disguised as Christianity. Glad your site doesn’t attract much visitors…when bitterness takes root, sites like TWW come into being. Joe Carter aptly described you both as character assassins. There’s a difference between airing dirty laundry and transparency. TWW has been doing the former in spades. Great job!

Oh my goodness, you are calling us feminists! Well yes, we believe that women deserve equal social, economic, and political rights. Don’t you or do you actually think that women deserve to be discriminated against? Can you cite any Scripture where Jesus mistreated or disrespected women or treated them as inferior to men? I can’t find any. Perhaps you believe that Jesus died to save men and women just get in on their husband’s, father’s or older brother’s ticket?

dustin germain wrote:

It was Julie Anne in a flurry of tweets. If you want I can link you to them. That would serve however as an example of attacking and accusing someone without any proof, except on the charge from one Anonymous Concerned Citizen,

The person I spoke with regarding Sproul, Jr. revealed their identity to me. I was able to easily verify this person’s identity due to pictures/videos online.

Nickname wrote:

Having been a ‘friend’ (read groomed parent) to a perp in a different SGM church, I sure wish I knew then what I know now. Thankfully, that perp spent the last 20 years in the state pen. Everyone, please avail yourself of those materials, and get educated. The next Nate Morales may waltz into your church next Sunday, charming the defenses off everyone he meets. Be on the lookout. Take notes. Watch carefully, and trust NOBODY.

Thank you for your wise words of caution. I hope that everyone reading here takes them to heart.

JeffT wrote:

I almost think that if one of the TGC ‘luminaries’ were to sacrifice a virgin on the alter TGC wouldn’t allow discussion of it.

Well, of course, they wouldn’t. They probably wouldn’t even be surprised.

Spoken like a Wartburg-ette. Going waaaaay overboard with that passage in Ezekiel. Really? TWW is because of false shepherds? lol. wow… I would strongly suggest you listen to yourself. GOD is the judge. Not TWW. Or you. Or me. The heart is deceitful above all else. Not my words, God’s truth.

As for having no facts on my side — this BLOG is my exhibit A, your honor. B I T T E R R O O T. Listen…our discernment is not 100% but accusing and calling out virtually everything and everyone in the Evangelical world is not doing any good. TWW is the site that cried wolf too many times that most of us in reformed cirlces just shake our heads at TWW and their “e-Church.” E-church…really? (can you see me shaking my head — wait, I’m doing it again for dramatic effect).

G’night and goodbye.

Jenny wrote:

jackleeknows wrote:
This website and its constituents are completely bonkers. Your platform could be described as feminism disguised as Christianity.
Constituents? Platform? Deebs, are you gals running for public office or something?
Glad your site doesn’t attract much visitors…
Sir, might I suggest you spend some quality time with Mr. Strunk and Mr. White?
when bitterness takes root, sites like TWW come into being.
Sites like TWW have come into being because of false shepherds.
Then the word of the Lord came to me saying, “Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel. Prophesy and say to those shepherds, ‘Thus says the Lord God, “Woe, shepherds of Israel who have been feeding themselves! Should not the shepherds feed the flock? You eat the fat and clothe yourselves with the wool, you slaughter the fat sheep without feeding the flock. Those who are sickly you have not strengthened, the diseased you have not healed, the broken you have not bound up, the scattered you have not brought back, nor have you sought for the lost; but with force and with severity you have dominated them. They were scattered for lack of a shepherd, and they became food for every beast of the field and were scattered. My flock wandered through all the mountains and on every high hill; My flock was scattered over all the surface of the earth, and there was no one to search or seek for them.”’”
Therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the Lord: “As I live,” declares the Lord God, “surely because My flock has become a prey, My flock has even become food for all the beasts of the field for lack of a shepherd, and My shepherds did not search for My flock, but rather the shepherds fed themselves and did not feed My flock; therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the Lord: ‘Thus says the Lord God, “Behold, I am against the shepherds, and I will demand My sheep from them and make them cease from feeding sheep. So the shepherds will not feed themselves anymore, but I will deliver My flock from their mouth, so that they will not be food for them.”’” ~ Ezekiel 34:1-10
Joe Carter aptly described you both as character assassins.
Ad hominem is the last resort of people who don’t have the facts on their side.
There’s a difference between airing dirty laundry and transparency.
Why is it that when church leaders publicly expose the sins of congregants it’s called “holding brothers accountable to the word of God”, but when congregants publicly expose the sins of church leaders it’s called “airing dirty laundry”?

@ JeffT:
Now you’ve reminded me of Calvin, the little blond tyke with a tiger, not the dead theologian:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_iRE1f7T37Zk/TU-5oC0SsXI/AAAAAAAAAWU/dLEaih26TR0/s1600/9a.+Slimy+Girls.gif

@ gus:

What a really great statement!!!!

@ gus:
Hear, hear!

Complementarianism becomes an easy subterfuge for individuals like Betsy Ricucci, Carolyn Mahaney, Nancy Loftness, Denise Griney, Valerie Maresco, Karin Layman et al to hide behind. “We’re just all poor women, unequal in responsibility to that of the men whom we follow & obey. Even though we knew, we don’t have minds of our own, and only act when our husband’s give us permission to. We knew our husband’s covered up a lot of things, but we knew and used that information to become vigilant ourselves, acting, as we did, as though our vigilance was something proceeding from our superior parenting skills when it fact it developed as a result of what we were told, but then withheld that information from others who had the right to know as well. But we used all the information we gathered to beef up the lordship we exercised together with our husband, acting as we did, on the basis of the knowledge we obtained but hoarded, that we were somehow more righteous. We know others would have benefitted from knowing what we knew, especially about Nate Morales, but knowing made us stronger and gave us the leverage we needed to be in control. Plus, we liked knowing everybody’s secrets. It made us feel special as those on the Inside, with “insider” information.”

Complementarianism will not be a valid defense for any of these women before God. Perhaps it would be if there was any truth in it, but as you say, men and women are equal, and equally responsible to report to the police criminal activity.

Grant Layman is always referred to as “CJ’s brother in law.” I suggest we start saying “Grant Layman, Carolyn Mahaney’s brother.”

Am I the only one who thinks that the parents of the children have some responsibility here? I mean I’m glad that the pervert finally got convicted and I hope that SGM gets sued into non-existence. But, if the parents didn’t go to the authorities because leadership at the church said not to – then aren’t they part of the conspiracy?

@ Nick Bulbeck:

Good thoughtful analysis. I wish it were more simple than that, but I believe you are absolutely correct.

Acg116 wrote:

This all feels a bit like the conservative takeover of the sbc some years ago…what I find interesting is that you have arguably the biggest dog in the pca on the counsel (and a founder) in keller, and another pca pastor gets the boot? If he was too far off the reservation, should he even be allowed to remain a pca pastor? Seems like tgc might be trumping denominational lines…

From what I read (I was not there) the church that Tullian started was evangelical presbyterian. They then merged with Coral Ridge (PCA) and at the time there was some sort of dust up about the level of influence of the smaller group and its people. So, maybe Tullian and Keller are not, at heart, the same kind of presbyterian on some issues which TCG deems crucial. Like the current issues concerning the relationship of grace and law in which Tullian leans toward grace more than the rest of that bunch. It seems to be that that they think that unless law is seen to trump grace then the whole hyper-authoritarian system would crumble, especially for the ecclesiastical elite. It seems also like their understanding of the genesis origins stories requires the curse to trump the promise, even after fulfillment of the promise, or the same hyper-authoritarianism would go up in smoke for males in general. If you thought that hyper-authoritarianism was your hill on which to die, you sure would not want somebody on the level of Tullian hanging around shooting your ideas down.

Melissatheragamuffin wrote:

Am I the only one who thinks that the parents of the children have some responsibility here? I mean I’m glad that the pervert finally got convicted and I hope that SGM gets sued into non-existence. But, if the parents didn’t go to the authorities because leadership at the church said not to – then aren’t they part of the conspiracy?

You are not the only one. I am with you on that.

What I really cannot understand is why, in the face of a primitive and strong biological urge to protect the young of the species, some parents still do not do it? What can they thinking/wanting that supersedes biology itself? Reminds me of some of the ancient Israelites who took up child sacrifice to Moloch and how God reacted to that. Reminds me of some form of worship of the leaders perhaps bordering on similar idolatry, for something to be strong enough for parents to fail their children this miserably.

@ Nancy:

Let me clarify. Not knowing on one thing, with the exception of willful ignorance. Knowing and then doing nothing is entirely different.

Christian Post article appears to be back up this morning as of 5:49 am.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/tullian-tchividjian-blasts-sovereign-grace-ministries-handling-of-sex-abuse-scandal-prematurely-departs-the-gospel-coalition-120062/

Am checking old version that disappeared yesterday with this version. If there are any differences, I’ll note them in the reply comment to this one …

Melissatheragamuffin wrote:

Am I the only one who thinks that the parents of the children have some responsibility here? I mean I’m glad that the pervert finally got convicted and I hope that SGM gets sued into non-existence. But, if the parents didn’t go to the authorities because leadership at the church said not to – then aren’t they part of the conspiracy?

Hey Melissa,

Few thoughts in response:

Not all parents complied with the Pastors. There are stories of some parents who reported the abuse of their child(ren) to police upon discovery (and when church leadership found this out, the leaders expressed disapproval and dismay i.e. John Loftness for one).

The Pastors put direct pressure on the parents in an effort to take control of situation, suppress the truth and exchange it, implicating the victims themselves. Also, the defense church leadership has used was, “We were complying with the wishes of the parents.” I say this is a lie. The right thing to have done for everyone would be to have reported it, embarrassing as it was. The Pastor’s pressured the parents to comply with their desires to not report it and manipulated them into agreeing with them in doing so. Think about it: reporting the abuse immediately would have cleared their children of any sense of involvement. The blame would have rested entirely on the perpetrator in the minds of everyone. The fact the Pastors manipulated the parents into keeping it quiet and covered, makes the parents took bad, as well as the churches statement that they ‘complied with the wishes of the parents.’

If one were to look closely at the motivation behind the kind of pressur these guys and their wives put on members to silence them and to insist upon unquestioning trust and conformity they would see revealed an evil spirit at work. There was a spirit operating amongst these people that was not the Holy Spirit. And this spirit operated throughtout the ministry and manifested itself in various different ways, but the most vicious manifestations were the immediacy in which those in leadership lashed out and attacked members whom they took advantage of, and suppressed any and all efforts made in challenge of their manmade agenda. “This wisdom does not come from above, but is earthly, sensual, demonic.”

You’ve probably read the stories of victims and their parents who recognized the deception (“they purposely told us the wrong court date, deceived us, and supported the perpetrator”*) or who were manipulated by the suggestibility contained in the messages to members: submit, be a joy, don’t ask questions, trust us, we are called by God to watch over your souls, etc. The result of all this was that people were trained to feel afraid of stepping out of line, and they were so brow-beaten with ‘indwelling sin.’ You might as well forget bringing an ‘observation of sin’ to anyone in leadership as your motivations would be immediately questioned and you were considered to “proud.”

Some parents may have been compensated for their silence in some form. Others who were not cooperative were forced out of the church and, in one case, a mother was told the financial hardship she ended up suffering was because she had left her husband (who had been sexually abusing the children) against the counsel of the pastors (Gary Ricucci, John Loftness), who didn’t lift a finger to help her or her children – but they certainly didn’t hesitate to spend church money that should have been used to support these people on trips to Disneyland for themselves, right Gary and Betsy? From the Sovereign Grace Church of Louisville’s website: http://www.sgclouisville.org/sovereign-grace-church-louisville-our-pastors

Gary Ricucci

Drawing on over 35 years of pastoral experience, Gary serves Sovereign Grace Church of Louisville primarily through pastoral care. In his day job he serves as Director of Student Care for the men and families in the Sovereign Grace Pastors College. He is married to Betsy and they have two daughters, two sons and four grandchildren. This is the second church Gary has planted with C.J. If you can’t find him in the office, he probably surprised Betsy with a trip to Williamsburg, Walt Disney World, or to visit the kids and grand kids!

I don’t know how all the parents of the victims responded. I do know Marcia Jo Griffeth, who used to be married to Nathaniel Morales, upon finding out about his after his arrest and discovering some of her sons has been molested by him, moved to divorce him.

I just want to say that this woman stands in stark contrast to women like Carolyn Mahaney, who continues to stand by her husband, and who stood by him all along.

Carolyn Mahaney is to the SGM Sexual Abuse Scandal what Dorothy Sandusky is to the Penn State Sexual Abuse Scandal.

Thank you Marcia Jo Griffeth. I have admired you from afar. I think you’re amazing. May God heal and restore your life and the lives of your wonderful sons.

There is one parent who I hope, after all these years, has realized the seriousness of his mistake and that is Richard Wolohan. Why on God’s Green Earth would he have traveled to visit Morales after he was sent to Teen Challenge, along with Leader(s) of Covenant Life Church, and together with his son whom Morales had molested? What is the story there? And why isn’t he talking? It would seem to me the Wolohan’s should definitely be amongst those who would go public with their story of how the leadership of Covenant Life Church manipulated them. Did the church compensate them? We know the Wohohan’s left the church, but what were the reasons? It seems to be that these people should be willing to go more public with their stories, unless, of course, their stories will be part of upcoming (let’s hope) criminal trial against CLC. I think, however, that something seems very peculiar to me about these people if they are forced to testify rather than willingly come forward with the information that they know sheds light on the truth of all these allegations.

*I think I read that Covenant Life Church also provided financial assistance to the perpetrators and for their defense. If this is true, it should surely be part of the criminal investigation. And for these reasons, it not only proves a cover-up, but that darker, more devious forces were at work.

@ brad/futuristguy:

IN REFERENCE TO THE CHRISTIAN POST “MISSING ARTICLE,” THIS JUST IN FROM JULIE ANNE SMITH:

https://twitter.com/DefendTheSheep/status/469108671587180544

My concerns answered by the article writer, Morgan Lee, herself. Also, the fact that the version are identical other time date and time published seems good enough to go on to confirm that it was just a fluke. (Uhh … who hasn’t hit the “Publish” button too soon at least once on their blog …)

Thanks Julie Anne and Morgan for clearing that up.

brad/futuristguy wrote:

Also, the defense church leadership has used was, “We were complying with the wishes of the parents.”

I can’t help but wonder: in what other matters would they have deferred to the wishes of the parents (or anyone else) in the organisation?

Probably not many.

In what way did they defer to the parents who wanted Morales to face criminal proceedings?

My favorite comment under Tullian’s article at TGC:

32 joe May 20, 2014 @ 6:57 am

This is the best thing TGC has posted in a long time.

Made me laugh out loud lol

Melissatheragamuffin wrote:

Am I the only one who thinks that the parents of the children have some responsibility here? I mean I’m glad that the pervert finally got convicted and I hope that SGM gets sued into non-existence. But, if the parents didn’t go to the authorities because leadership at the church said not to – then aren’t they part of the conspiracy?

This is where I think the whole concept of “bounded choice” is relevant. The entire system of control is geared to remove the legitimacy of personal discernment and decision-making, and transfer it to the “leaders.” There is pressure to conform to the group’s expectations, to obey the authorities as God’s spokesmen to the flock and protectors of the flock, perhaps strong beliefs about dealing with issues “in house” instead of going to the world, etc. It creates a series of lose/lose situations about whatever you say, do, or are.

* Don’t behave in the way expected, and you’ll be pointed out and punished.

* Don’t obey the leaders, and you are disobeying God!

* Go to the world for it’s judgments, and you must not really be a Christian.

When you’ve been fed the equivalent of toxic faith drugs that condition the conscience, deaden discernment, and squash decision-makings skills … rather like the drugs given in daily doses to all of Libria’s citizens in the movie, *Equilibrium*. What would we expect but that some parents might succumb and not put up much or any fight at all? That’s the overall effect of “bounded choice.”

So … were the parents part of the conspiracy? I’m not sure a “yes/no” question is the best way to examine this. Bounded choice might suggest a spectrum of awareness, understanding, intent, willing participation, etc. I guess I just see it as more complex than that because of how life at SGM churches seemed utterly prescribed and circumscribed: Here’s the boundaries of how far you can go, and what you must/mustn’t say, do, feel while you’re inside “our” territory.

For some helpful material on bounded choice and how these kind of “totalist systems” work themselves out, you might want to check out Cindy Kunsman’s guest post series at Spiritual Sounding Board. Three parts are up already, and a final part is forthcoming.

http://spiritualsoundingboard.com/2014/05/12/lourdes-lifeboats-and-bounded-choice-part-iii-raised-in-a-totalist-institution/

Paula wrote:

I’m going to answer this only because I’m the one that said it

My bad!

Melissa:

You are right about the parents’ responsibility. They, even more than Layman, would be liable criminally if they knew of abuse of their kids and did not report it to the authorities. I am not aware of a legal exception to that obligation that is based on the parents being taught something different by their church.

But we do recognize that the parents were in a system where they were educated to believe that involving the secular authorities was wrong. And the church bears moral responisbility for that.

Also, as Paula mentioned, some parents did involve the police. And from the stories I have read, the church leadership criticized the parents, became involved in the prosecutions, and pleaded for leniency for the molester. I believe in those cases the molester(s) were juveniles.

Every time I hear about churches insisting or suggesting that parents attend youth functions I want to gag.

I became serious in my faith as a teenager in the mid 70s. On Wednesday night, the youth met separately, in the gym, and had a service with a band etc. Our youth pastor was a phenomenal speaker and later went on to become nationally known and a teacher of youth pastors. The church was large (for that day), but the youth ministry could hold an event and have 500 or more students, many of whom were unchurched or troubled. We did not have a “hot dog supper and youth choir” type of youth ministry. It was intense and very real world.

When I hear of parents being added to the youth group it makes me believe that the church is just trying to create a safe place for the teenagers. The church is not creating teens who are going to impact their schools and those around them, and perhaps bring some of their friends to Christ etc.

It’s a closed, cradle to grave, system.

@ Anonymous:

I found your comment very helpful, Anonymous. While the whole bounded choice/totalist system helps us understand the constraints that *everyone* who’s an underling in these kinds of organizations is under, that’s more about the personal-moral-ethical-faith side of things. It doesn’t release them from the legal ramifications. And since we are both citizens and saints, it’s important to look at both sides of that coin.

@ Pam:
I am a feminist also. A couple of years ago I was chatting with some complementarian family members after a wedding. They were making snide remarks about the bride’s grandmother being a feminist. I asked if the grandmother was a Christian. My sister-n-law snootily snapped in my direction with “noooh! We just told you! She’s a feminist! I said, “I’m a feminist AND a Christian.” It was the first time I was brave enough to label myself and announce to the clan that I, too, am a feminist! That side of my husbands family hasn’t gotten together with us since. It hurts, but not enough to recant.
I used to think that they all hatedfeminists because they thought that feminists want to reverse the gender abuse and that all feminists are pro choice, so I would avoid the label for myself. I have been appalled to find out that the feminist haters know that feminism is about equal rights, but they don’t want equal rights. For the record, I am a pro-life feminist. There is even a Feminists for Life activists group that I support. I don’t think that it has a particular Christian label. They believe as I do that we need to have more support for the pregnant and babies in our schools and work places.

@ burnrnorton:

From the article that you linked: “In an effort to clear up any confusion about what it means to “repent,” a leader from Harvest Christian Fellowship’s student ministries spells out the “5 R’s of Repentance” in a recent blog representing the church-led evangelistic youth movement, Uprising.”

Harvest Christian Fellowship is a Calvary Chapel church. This is another organization with an authoritarian, hierarchical structure. CCs also have a track record of abuse and cover-up thereof.

Nick Bulbeck wrote:

yes, occasionally I think we do make accusations here which go beyond the evidence we have. And occasionally, when we do have evidence, we push it home using over-the-top language. And sometimes, when new commenters have come along and asked us to tone it down without actually disagreeing with us, we have not welcomed them graciously.

Firstly, as ‘new’, I haven’t experienced much that could be considered ungracious as far as I am concerned.

I have no problem at all with D & D allowing comments evangelifish might not want to hear, nor bluntness, nor showing strength of feeling. We are commanded to discern and expose evil. I do however think that there are some parameters laid down in the NT as to how we express ourselves.

Just emoting though, or unwise commenting where ‘the tongue’ has got out of control can be counterproductive in getting those who need to hear about abuse or other error from hearing it. That is a great pity.

I’m sure the shepherding error did indeed often create an ‘elder-type system of little Hitlers’. But invoking the Third Reich (and breaking Godwin’s law), the holocaust and comparing authoritarian pastoring with that era is a good example of unwise commenting.

I had the privilege together with my eldest daughter of hearing a Polish Jew now a pastor in Israel give his testimony here in Germany. Lost all his family, was hidden by Catholics, beaten to pulp twice by the SS who didn’t know he was a Jew, later a messenger during the Warsaw uprising, who had to wade through the sewers. “When I came out, I didn’t exactly smell of roses” – that’s Jewish humour for you. Goodness knows what suffering he endured and saw, though he didn’t overly dwell on it. Yet he was there blessing the very country who formerly perpetrated such horrors.

Now my point is that this mass suffering is demeaned by comments calling pastors Nazis or similar. I’m not in any way belittling suffering that has gone on in churches (so-called), but trying to argue for some perspective. I certainly got some perspective on my own church hassles that night without going down a guilt trip or denying the less savoury aspects of my Christian experience.

@ burnrnorton:

This is fascinating.

Of course, the OT law is replete with examples in which restitution must be made to a wronged party other than God. This from Exodus 22:

If you lend money to one of my people among you who is needy, do not treat it like a business deal; charge no interest. If you take your neighbor’s cloak as a pledge, return it by sunset, because that cloak is the only covering your neighbour has. What else can they sleep in? When they cry out to me, I will hear, for I am compassionate.

I quoted that one because God explicitly undertakes to hear the person who cries out, not to rebuke them for sinfully craving answers, gossiping, or slandering the lender, or just inconveniently rocking the boat when we’ve got more important things to do than sort out these annoying little people and their petty somebody done me wrong‘s.

Then, Deuteronomy 24 commands Israel not to deny justice to the foreigner or the orphan – the ones with little corporate standing, in other words.

If a community of people can’t treat each other properly, what right do they have to claim that they’re treating God properly? And I’m not making that up, of course; it’s spelt out in 1 John.

@ Anonymous:

No I did not say that that I believe Layman and the others intended to foster child abuse by failing to report. I do believe that that is the effect of what they did, partly because the whole lot of them chose to be willfully ignorant of the nature of child sexual abuse and pedophilia. And willful ignorance of the likely effect of what someone does (in this case repeatedly) can substitute at law for intent.

Patti wrote:

I am a feminist also.

That’s how I identify myself as well. Christian feminism is a Christ-centered ideal that seeks to restore a godly partnership between men and women. They are not afraid to confront all forms of violence against women in all cultures—wife beating, emotional cruelty, sexual molestation, rape, female genital mutilation, sexual harassment, male dominance and machismo (male pride).

When the word is used negatively in an effort to silence women, we should not be afraid to confront that manipulation as well.

burnrnorton wrote:

The writer doesn’t even mention the human victims of someone’s sin. Oh no, God is the true victim. Absolutely disgusting and inadvertently revealing of the mindset of these people.

i.e. “See How SPIRITUAL *I* AM?”

The Gnostics of old were also into “More SPIRITUAL Than Thou”. In more than one Gnostic cult, the goal was to become “Pneumatic”, so SPIRITUAL that you ceased to be physical.

I’m so thankful Tullian spoke out. However, I have to ask, why wait to speak publically until he was given the “left boot of fellowship?” I know that the crickets, snide remarks, flat denials, and baldfaced lies coming from TGC are a stark contrast to Pastor Tullian’s condemnation, but if those *weren’t* there to contrast it, how highly would we hold Tullian for waiting to speak out until Grant Layman was caught on stand?

I have some words for Joe Carter…but they would offend most folks and make children cry and I’m sure they’d get modded, so I’ll just think them 🙂

Patti wrote:

One of my father-n-law’s favorite lines to his kid’s confrontations about past abuse. “Well God has forgiven me so so should you!”

If that is representative of a person’s level of repentance, then exactly how much forgiveness has been received is a grey area to say the least.

Eagle wrote:

Ideology is ideology…Joe Carter legally can’t kill someone here in the United States like John Calvin murdered Michael Servetus. But if these people could, they would, and they would do it in the name of ideology. The Nazis killed people in the same manner.

And Stalin racked up at least twice the body count of Hitler. And Mao racked up at least twice the body count of Stalin. Then there’s Ideologically Pure Comrade Pol Pot, who still holds the record for democide as a percentage of the original population.

When the goal is pure ideology you use whatever means are possible to get there…and all means are justified even murder. In Joe Carter’s case its demonizing and threatening. Those means are acceptable.

Just ask Pol Pot’s spiritual mentor — Citizen Robespierre and his Republique of Perfect Virtue, beckoning from the other side of the “Regrettable but Necessary” Reign of Terror. (The Jacobins of the French Revolution even had Pol Pot-style depopulation programs under serious consideration — including one proposal for “Mass Asphyxiations by means of Gas”. Since according to Plato’s Republic the Perfect State could not have a population greater than 15 million and France had a population of 25 million….)

Estelle wrote:

@ JeffT:
Now you’ve reminded me of Calvin, the little blond tyke with a tiger, not the dead theologian:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_iRE1f7T37Zk/TU-5oC0SsXI/AAAAAAAAAWU/dLEaih26TR0/s1600/9a.+Slimy+Girls.gif

Out of the mouths of babes…
(Or at least six-year-old rowdies…)

HUG, Teen Challenge has a lot of satellite houses/ministries. Where was your writing partner located?

Anonymous wrote:

Melissa:
You are right about the parents’ responsibility. They, even more than Layman, would be liable criminally if they knew of abuse of their kids and did not report it to the authorities. I am not aware of a legal exception to that obligation that is based on the parents being taught something different by their church.
But we do recognize that the parents were in a system where they were educated to believe that involving the secular authorities was wrong. And the church bears moral responisbility for that.
Also, as Paula mentioned, some parents did involve the police. And from the stories I have read, the church leadership criticized the parents, became involved in the prosecutions, and pleaded for leniency for the molester. I believe in those cases the molester(s) were juveniles.

There was at least one case where the perp was an adult and leaders of the church supported him and offered no help to the victim and the rest of the family.

There were also many cases where women and children were not given proper care, counsel, and protection due to the warped teaching of male headship and submission of women and children to husbands and fathers and husbands and father to male leaders of the churches.

@ mirele:

Good information. I did not know that.

Sara wrote:

Man, I wish I had saved the two comments I made under this blog! Because they were in moderation and now they are gone. Sigh.

I made a comment (on TGC blog post) that appeared briefly after about 10 hours of moderation and then disappeared again.
I pointed out that the first sentence that said “an elder” testified needed to be corrected and filled in the positions “the elder” held at CLC and his relationship with Mahaney. I also asked why the downplaying of the role and position of “the elder” and asked that they please, for the sake of the victims, be up front about the levels to which the alledged cover-up reached.
Oh well…it remained up long enough for at least half a dozen people to read and click the “up” button.

@ Nancy:

Not sure… I believe the character is killed in an air-raid, certainly.

muzjik wrote:

Sara wrote:
Man, I wish I had saved the two comments I made under this blog! Because they were in moderation and now they are gone. Sigh.
I made a comment (on TGC blog post) that appeared briefly after about 10 hours of moderation and then disappeared again.
I pointed out that the first sentence that said “an elder” testified needed to be corrected and filled in the positions “the elder” held at CLC and his relationship with Mahaney. I also asked why the downplaying of the role and position of “the elder” and asked that they please, for the sake of the victims, be up front about the levels to which the alledged cover-up reached.
Oh well…it remained up long enough for at least half a dozen people to read and click the “up” button.

I saw that comment! It was excellent. And true.

Nancy wrote:

I got to thinking, some of these women have some sort of self hatred. I could have been wrong. I hope so.

Nancy, I think there may be many reasons for female resistance to the idea of equality. One, may be a reluctance to accept responsibility and/or to make serious decisions. Another might be learned behavior; i.e. the “princess” mentality that shouldn’t have to do the things required of those women who are “burdened” with heavy things. Another might be training in Christian “roles” and the “equal, but different” teachings absorbed from an early age. And last, but not least, sermons that equality is likened to that nasty word “feminism.”

Just some of my guesses.

An Attorney:

I thought that’s what I said you had said. Sorry if I got that wrong.

I personally don’t think they were even wilfully ignorant. I don’t believe they were that knowledgeable when the matter first surfaced.

From 2007 on, they were operating to keep what they had known and done secret. But it initially, I believe it was their view of the Bible and ignorance to try and deal with this by sending Morales to Teen Challenge and by not reporting the abuse.

Sara wrote:

I don’t understand his motivations and I won’t even try to speculate. I can, however, speak to something that occurs within certain types of environments. I don’t know if it occurs within the TGC camp. Sometimes the pressure toward groupthink is so incredibly strong that it doesn’t feel safe for a dissenter — personally, spiritually, financially — to step out and speak up.

I understand there’s also an 80/20 rule in effect with most organizations or tribal groups. Once a consensus reaches aroung 80%, the groupthink hits critical mass and the 20% dissenters either conform or get expelled.

Eagle wrote:

That’s what makes this so evil. That is why Joe Carter is so evil. He’s not some immature 17 year old shooting off his mouth who is going through puberty and hasn’t through it through. No he’s a grown man teaching journalism who is attacking, attacking, attacking. And he’s getting paid to do it. That’s what is so frightening. He accepted the job and the responsibilities and is going to continue to do this.

It is really bizarre to me. He is getting paid. If I behaved like this for my employer, I would be fired (and yes, we have had people fired for their behavior on social media). It can only be seen as TGC endorsing foolishness, bullying, and immaturity. I’m not sure what he hopes to gain, but I can tell you what he has lost: the respect of me and any other reasonably mature adult human.

Nancy wrote:

to confess my sins, to do penance and to amend my life.

Say what you want about Catholics, but the sacrament of reconciliation is pretty decently thought out. You confess and get counsel from a priest, do appropriate penance to show sincere repentance and be held accountable (e.g., you won’t get absolved, generally, until you confession that murder you committed to the authorities or start repaying the money you stole), then you rejoin the faith community. You’re supposed to do all the internal work, too, but you have to show externally that you are sorry and accountable. A priest would never leave restitution/penance off the list of markers of true repentance.

Patti wrote:

Ohhh that’s awful, breeding another youth generation that will declare their repentance was enough for God so it should be for everyone else they have hurt. One of my father-n-law’s favorite lines to his kid’s confrontations about past abuse. “Well God has forgiven me so so should you!”

Film maker Ridley Scott has a knack for probing religious questions and their ramifications for real life. Is karma and comeuppance all of a sudden negated because one’s theological doctrines seem to say so? I think not. Watch the film clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5XPClOckPs

Marge,

I have placed a call to Tullian. I have sent a message to Justin Taylor at TGC. If I find out that the Gospel Coalition, Tim Keller, Don Carson, Justin Taylor and the whole group of men who run the network removed Tullian because of his criticism of TGC’s leaders for prematurely speaking a word of support and defense for CJ and Josh in the sexual abuse cover-up several months ago, then I promise to use barrels of ink (or type) to go after The Gospel Coalition. That’s not a threat. It’s a fact. I am waiting for some response, but I saw the same article to which you linked and very few things make my blood boil, but that article did. They say, “it’s a ‘doctrinal’ matter’ that caused them to remove Tullian, but to my naked eye and with a ton of experience in “Hardball Religion” it sure seems retaliation for the criticism Tullian sent TGC’s way for blindly supporting CJ and Josh and denigrating the victims. I’m waiting….. but I feel compelled to do something … hoping somebody straightens me out and tells me where I’m missing it.

@Marge Sweigart:

Both Joshua Harris and C. J. Mahaney were Council members who resigned their position, but though they came at the same time, it would be mistaken to think the reasons and processes for these decisions were the same. C. J. had been considering stepping out for a good while—both a year ago and a month ago he offered to do so for a variety of reasons, including a major move and change in his role, the responsibilities of a new church plant, and other issues. Joshua has spoken publicly about his reasons for resigning. In light of the ongoing civil suit against his church he felt it best for TGC if he stepped down.

(from http://thegospelcoalition.org/article/on-some-recent-changes-at-tgc )

Spin. Politics. Halftruths. Lies.

Spin. Politics. Halftruths. Lies.

Spin. Politics. Halftruths. Lies.

Because there is obviously no connection between the “the ongoing civil suit” against Joshua Harris’ church and CJ Mahaney. In fact, CJ Mahaney isn’t even sure he has met Joshua Harris apart from a few tgc council meetings 😉

Muff Potter wrote:

Film maker Ridley Scott has a knack for probing religious questions and their ramifications for real life.

Artists of all sorts tend to have a knack for doing that.

Maybe that’s why they often get driven out of their churches.

Several years ago on Internet Monk, there was a free-for-all over the role of artists among Christians, with special emphasis on the abysmal propaganda pieces churned out by the Official Christianese Publishing/Film-making/Arts. And one comment in the thread piqued my interest:

He claimed a special word from God. Coming from a church where “Mary Channeling” is the preferred way to flake out, I’m normally skeptical of such “Private Revelations”, but this one intrigued me. For what it’s worth:

He said that God was removing his mantle from the Official Christianese “Art” Machine and placing it on secular artists/writers/filmmakers. (“Mene, Mene, Tekel, Uparshin…”) Henceforth secular art/fiction/movies would begin to say and show what God wanted said, since Christianese art/fiction/movies had dropped the ball so bad.

@ Marge Sweigart:

Now I am really confused. If the issue is basically doctrine, and if as he says it is difficult to maintain a coalition of evangelical pastors (my words-his idea) and if there is a history of this causing some problems/bad feelings in the past, and if they currently disagree on so many questions, why do it? What is the purpose of the organization in the face of that many negatives?

@ burnrnorton:

I hope I have not given the wrong impression here. You will seldom find a protestant with more good things to say about catholicism than I. None the less, I do think that there is a shared emphasis between the act of confession and the guy’s article on repentance on the issue that sin is sin against God, not just against society or fellow humans.

You have written a good defense of the sacrament of reconciliation. I was neither defending nor condemning anything but rather pointing out one point of similarity.

IIRC, CS Lewis wrote in one little book (Can’t remember the title, and I have it no longer), that Christian artist shouldn’t strive to make “Christian” art, only good art.

The goal was to be as good as possible as an artist, not to make it specifically “Christian”. He also said that most purportedly Christian art wasn’t worth a lot.

Once sentence I can still quote from memory: “Even holy shoddy is shoddy.”

gus wrote:

IIRC, CS Lewis wrote

This was in reply to HUG HUG

linda wrote:

Let’s be careful about assuming all women who choose traditional roles do so because they hate themselves, or refuse to accept responsibility, or don’t want heavy burdens.
Heavens, I never figured fostering, adopting, or raising a special needs child in addition to a gifted one, while growing our own food and preserving it, serving in the church, and teaching voluntary simplicity in addition to part time work in a library and school was for weak willed, timid sissies who didn’t want responsibilities.
Many times I thought how much easier a paid full time career would have been.
It wouldn’t have been any easier, of course, just different. Just as my life wasn’t any easier, just different.
Now if we can just get women to respect women…..

Who assumed that???

@ Nancy:
Oh, I didn’t think you were. I do find it amusing they take all the authority/hierarchy stuff and skip the counter balancing doctrines and practices.

@ Nancy:
Second. Feminism isn’t about forcing women into a different kind a box but about freeing us to choose our own roles.

@ Nancy:

It occurs to me that one thing I said in the original comment may have been misunderstood. I used the term self hatred. That is a term used within a particular religious/ethnic group to describe individuals of that group who seem to hate not only themselves but mostly the group of which they are a part. It is patly self (I) hatred but mostly self (we) hatred It has been postulated that oppressed groups do this. That is what I was referring to. Perhaps some women feel that way about themselves by virtue of and because of being female.

I can’t think right now of any more ways to say it. This will have to do.

For some reason the Keller/Carson TGC piece will not open on my computer. Not sure if it’s a glitch on my end, a glitch on their end, or a pulled article. In any case, the Google Cache saves the day (and I’ve Evernoted it too):

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:6Yhemh8TGQEJ:thegospelcoalition.org/article/on-some-recent-changes-at-tgc+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca

Alex wrote:

I have some words for Joe Carter…but they would offend most folks and make children cry and I’m sure they’d get modded, so I’ll just think them

You’ve made me curious. Are you able to put together a bleeped-out or watered-down version? Or are you able to pass on a few choice highlights or reasons why you have “some words” for Joe Schmo Carter?

@ Nancy:

On the sidelines of this generation’s Mommy wars, I think a lot of women were and are very ambivalent about their choices and a lot of women felt and feel like they didn’t really have choices or opportunities. Some women handle these feelings well, some let it plunge them into depresion, but some direct their own negative feelings outward. The only way they know how to feel better is to elevate themselves at the expense of women who made different choices. If they can find a group to validate them and help them do it, so much the better. Self loathing and jealousy play a role, but a lot of it is basic in group-out group behavior of the kind we like to think we left behind in high school.

Myself, I have children and a career and like it. I think, for practical reason, that it’s best for most parents to continue working to provide insurance against death, disability , unemployment, or abandonment by the other, but that’s not a moral judgment and I have friends who made a different choice. Heck, if I made more money or my husband did, we might have made a different choice. I have regrets and unfulfilled dreams, but I live a pretty happy life and the fact that someone in my peer group has more of what I wanted doesn’t make me want to put her down or attack her. I have zero patience for people who want to attack me for the same reason. Ad little as I care tof fight the Mommy wars, though, being surrounded by a media that spews constant judgment about women’s choices wears me down. I’m just glad I don’t face people in real life who act that way.

@ numo:
I know of whom you speak. Do not speak her name lest she appear.

@ Nancy: I was just a teenager when the ERA was being debated – and when it was scuppered. It seemed that an awful lot of adults were SO frightened of the idea that they made up God alone knows what reasons for not supporting it, and assumed that all hell would break loose upon the earth if it was passed.

The fury and the crazy ideas being touted as fact in rants against the ERA never struck me as coming (maybe) from multiple parallel universes!

I know that doesn’t answer your question, but it’s what my young, bemused self was thinking at the time. (I was in favor; it seemed like a no-brainer to me!)

@ burnrnorton: It’s not them, but someone else, secular, actually.

This recent D.A.Carson/Tim Keller statement is I think the last straw for me.

I need to think on this for a stretch, but I am close to speaking out with my real name here and perhaps elsewhere. I have done what (little) I could behind the scenes, but this defense from the two “Senior Statesmen” and co-founders of The Gospel Coalition comes close to rendering the whole project not just somewhat meaningless (which is how I have viewed TGC to this point — the real work of God happens in Methodist Churches and Catholic Churches and Lutheran Churches etc. etc.), but as positively DESTRUCTIVE, in which case I will feel compelled to use my little voice to speak out.

My one (and really only) concern — perhaps you all here at TWW can help me with this — is that I do not want to complicate things for the normal and good brothers and sisters in Christ in my own congregation. No one needs a pastor who is distracted by other things or seen as a blowhard, and so my relationship with my own congregation must be my chief concern. No one needs to come to church on a Sunday wondering if their pastor has really been thinking about and praying for them all week long. That is why I have remained anonymous here at TWW for the past several years. Anyway, I am going to reflect on things moving forward.

But I must say again how deeply, deeply disturbed I am by who D.A.Carson and Tim Keller have shown themselves to be with today’s statement. The whole TGC enterprise has not just been “much ado about nothing” (which would be bad enough), but has provided safe harbor for positive evil.

One of the saddest things is that I could point to any number of passages in Tim Keller’s Center Church or Carson’s book on 2 Corinthians, or probably any of their other books, that would militate AGAINST doing exactly what they did with this statement today….

I don’t expect them to listen to me. But I did and do expect them to listen to themselves. And they have not been.

Failed SGM Stepford Wife wrote:

That piece from TGC not only tiptoes carefully around C.J. Mahaney, but it also backhand slaps Tullian Tchividjian pretty smartly.

Assuming anyone with a brain takes that propaganda seriously – which I doubt. If they really -if they really – gave Tullian the boot because of his views on sanctification, then they are no longer a Gospel Coalition. They are a “perfectly parsed theology” coalition.

This whole thing is so troubling! I understand all to well the manipulations of those in pastoral leadership. I just don’t understand in all of this where was the parents responsibility to go to the police. Don’t you think Responsibility for the future victims rest on their shoulders as well?

@ Eagle:

I don’t believe enough people are to blame here. Carson and Keller are the public faces but they couldn’t have been the only ones to sign off on this fiasco.

pcapastor wrote:

This recent D.A.Carson/Tim Keller statement is I think the last straw for me.
I need to think on this for a stretch, but I am close to speaking out with my real name here and perhaps elsewhere. I have done what (little) I could behind the scenes, but this defense from the two “Senior Statesmen” and co-founders of The Gospel Coalition comes close to rendering the whole project not just somewhat meaningless (which is how I have viewed TGC to this point — the real work of God happens in Methodist Churches and Catholic Churches and Lutheran Churches etc. etc.), but as positively DESTRUCTIVE, in which case I will feel compelled to use my little voice to speak out.
My one (and really only) concern — perhaps you all here at TWW can help me with this — is that I do not want to complicate things for the normal and good brothers and sisters in Christ in my own congregation. No one needs a pastor who is distracted by other things or seen as a blowhard, and so my relationship with my own congregation must be my chief concern. No one needs to come to church on a Sunday wondering if their pastor has really been thinking about and praying for them all week long. That is why I have remained anonymous here at TWW for the past several years. Anyway, I am going to reflect on things moving forward.
But I must say again how deeply, deeply disturbed I am by who D.A.Carson and Tim Keller have shown themselves to be with today’s statement. The whole TGC enterprise has not just been “much ado about nothing” (which would be bad enough), but has provided safe harbor for positive evil.

do you have any idea how much, if any of a PCA church budget goes into the local presbytery?

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

TIME OUT!
Morales the Molester was stashed in Teen Challenge?

I remember one of my writing partners telling me a horror story about a preacher he knew who forcibly committed his son to a Teen Challenge halfway house for playing Dungeons & Dragons. If there was a Morales in that halfway house at the time…

Hmm….during the process these last few years of facing and investigating my childhood abuse/abusers, I made the disturbing discovery that the man who molested me when I was 2 1/2 was later sent by his church/family to be a counselor at Teen Challenge as some sort of attempt to rehabilitate him (he had also become an alcoholic). All of this happened long before I began investigating, but I have to say that finding out that was a pastor’s idea of rehab – send a pedophile to Teen Challenge? Really? It boggles the mind…..
Of course, my opinion of Teen Challenge is a whole other issue – but it is akin to sending you kid to Christian™ reform school….with all the attendant built in abuses…

Nick Bulbeck wrote:

If that is representative of a person’s level of repentance, then exactly how much forgiveness has been received is a grey area to say the least.

It is my contention that if the repentance does not include the understanding/belief that nothing whatever may be demanded of the victims, including God, then it is not true repentance. Any time someone says that they have repented and therefore you have to forgive them, that is not true repentance. That is manipulation and/or self-deceit.

I remember the day I walked out of my former church – during the 2 1/2 hour session spent in the pastor’s office, one of the things he said concerning his standing after having preyed on one of the women who came to him for marriage counseling: “I have been spanked by the Great Shepherd, and there is no one west of the Mississippi that is more righteous than me.” The tone and body language added that I needed to back off and treat him with due respect because of this. My mind kind of went on ’tilt’ and I didn’t even know how to respond…..

burnrnorton wrote:

Some women handle these feelings well, some let it plunge them into depresion, but some direct their own negative feelings outward. The only way they know how to feel better is to elevate themselves at the expense of women who made different choices. If they can find a group to validate them and help them do it, so much the better. Self loathing and jealousy play a role, but a lot of it is basic in group-out group behavior of the kind we like to think we left behind in high school.

I think Paul Simon put it best when he wrote:

I know a woman, (who) became a wife
These are the very words she uses to describe her life
She said a good day ain’t got no rain
She said a bad day is when I lie in the bed
And I think of things that might have been

Slip sliding away, slip sliding away
You know the nearer your destination, the more you slip sliding away

Bridget wrote:

@ pcapastor:
I would say pray and talk to a few people in your congregation who will give you honest feedback about the direction of your thinking. In the end, of course, you need to be bound by your conscience.

Thank you! Very helpful.

acg116 wrote:

pcapastor wrote:
This recent D.A.Carson/Tim Keller statement is I think the last straw for me.
I need to think on this for a stretch, but I am close to speaking out with my real name here and perhaps elsewhere. I have done what (little) I could behind the scenes, but this defense from the two “Senior Statesmen” and co-founders of The Gospel Coalition comes close to rendering the whole project not just somewhat meaningless (which is how I have viewed TGC to this point — the real work of God happens in Methodist Churches and Catholic Churches and Lutheran Churches etc. etc.), but as positively DESTRUCTIVE, in which case I will feel compelled to use my little voice to speak out.
My one (and really only) concern — perhaps you all here at TWW can help me with this — is that I do not want to complicate things for the normal and good brothers and sisters in Christ in my own congregation. No one needs a pastor who is distracted by other things or seen as a blowhard, and so my relationship with my own congregation must be my chief concern. No one needs to come to church on a Sunday wondering if their pastor has really been thinking about and praying for them all week long. That is why I have remained anonymous here at TWW for the past several years. Anyway, I am going to reflect on things moving forward.
But I must say again how deeply, deeply disturbed I am by who D.A.Carson and Tim Keller have shown themselves to be with today’s statement. The whole TGC enterprise has not just been “much ado about nothing” (which would be bad enough), but has provided safe harbor for positive evil.
do you have any idea how much, if any of a PCA church budget goes into the local presbytery?

It varies from church to church, and from presbytery to presbytery. I have seen it be anywhere from 0% (roughly half of PCA churches give nothing to their Presbytery) to, perhaps 1.5% of the overall budget at the most. There may be churches and presbyteries with higher numbers, but that has been my experience.

Per the Keller-Carson piece, was that a diplomatic way of saying that Tullian “vilified” them and that he shouldn’t have? And then they tack on a thing at the end saying that graciousness should be present in saved people, i.e. Tullian was not gracious? Take that to its logical conclusion, and if we’re inclined to be really uncharitable, they could be calling Tullian’s salvation into question. I hope they’re not, but I’ve think we’ve all read a lot of backhanded “you might not be saved because X” or “you’re barely saved because X” statements, and this sadly isn’t all that dissimilar. It reminds me a little too much of John Piper implying that agreeing with him about divorce is a mark of salvation. It would be really sad if Keller stooped to that level, esp. since theological differences about sanctification should in no way get you there.

@ pcapastor:

Either they were not forthcoming with the real reasons for giving him the boot — in which case they are now liars (according to my reading of the Larger Catechism, anyway). Or, as you said, they gave him the boot because he doesn’t “perfectly parse” his theology in a way they approve of — in which case they are utterly sectarian know-it-alls who elevate themselves and their judgements above the visible church of Jesus Christ (of which, Tullian’s presbytery – which officially approves of Tullian’s theology — is most certainly a branch).

Yeah, as someone who never reads TGC and thus hasn’t followed this sanctification debate that’s apparently going on, I don’t see how a difference in doctrine about sanctification should get you booted from an organization that’s ostensibly united around the barebones Gospel (i.e., Jesus died for you, believe in Him). Heck, in a way we could call just about anything a difference in doctrine about sanctification. For example, you think Christians can drink? You don’t understand sanctification because if you did you’d agree with me about practice, and as it is you’re encouraging people not to be fully sanctified, so get out. Now replace drinking with just about anything else – divorce, birth control, violent video games, etc. However, I know that’s probably not what was under discussion here.

Nancy wrote:

So, yes, I think they differ on some doctrine.

TGC has baptists, presbyterians, Reformed Church in America, etc. There have always been doctrinal differences (RCA, for example, ordains women, and of course there is the whole baptism thing). Furthermore, Tullian’s position on sanctification is wholesome, orthodox, and in concordance with the majority of the protestant creeds – his position is that sanctification is an act of God that works out in a believer’s life when they draw near to God and are overcome by his grace. Some of the other council members believe rather strongly that sanctification is the result of our hard work to please God. So the only thing in that whole blurb that makes sense would be kicking him for “divisiveness” – which is pretty rich considering the recent buffoonery (stole that one!) of Carter, e.g. Something is rotten in Denmark.

mirele wrote:

Off topic, but I would require the prayers of those TWW readers who pray as my father is in the hospital again. He has advanced Alzheimer’s. Please pray that God’s will be done. Thank you.

You got it.

@ Hester:

In this case, I don’t think it is about practice. If you look at the comments on the thread about TGC Changes you will see that Joe Carter uses the word Gospel when he seems to mean justification. He then says that most Christians believe that the Gospel is tied to the doctrine of sanctification. I would never say that justification is tied to our sanctification. That would be justification by works instead of by faith in Christ alone. I would say that sanctification is a result of, and flows from, being justified in Christ.

I will.

mirele wrote:

Off topic, but I would require the prayers of those TWW readers who pray as my father is in the hospital again. He has advanced Alzheimer’s. Please pray that God’s will be done. Thank you.

@ Robin:

Interestingly, I heard a podcast from a Lutheran minister who was critiquing a Calvinistic Baptist who was denouncing Luther as a heretic and was discouraging his congregants from following anything he said.

This is really ironic because I know I once read Charles Spurgeon reference Luther favorably. Spurgeon being the Calvinist Baptist giant that he is, that could be hard to explain for these guys.

Bridget wrote:

Who assumed that???

You might want to check out my old post here:
My previous post on another thread

mirele wrote:

Off topic, but I would require the prayers of those TWW readers who pray as my father is in the hospital again. He has advanced Alzheimer’s. Please pray that God’s will be done. Thank you.

I’m very sorry.

Awmj3rd wrote:

This whole thing is so troubling! I understand all to well the manipulations of those in pastoral leadership. I just don’t understand in all of this where was the parents responsibility to go to the police. Don’t you think Responsibility for the future victims rest on their shoulders as well?

Ummmm….I do hear you, but I think it is hard to understand what these parents might have been going through – the intense pressure that the SGM system creates is extremely difficult to describe. I have every feeling of sadness possible for those parents – I am sure they are wracked with guilt for what happened, and don’t need any more.

Here is hoping that people start pressuring the powers that be for more stringent pastoral reporting laws on a national level.

burnrnorton wrote:

Nancy wrote:

to confess my sins, to do penance and to amend my life.

Say what you want about Catholics, but the sacrament of reconciliation is pretty decently thought out. You confess and get counsel from a priest, do appropriate penance to show sincere repentance and be held accountable (e.g., you won’t get absolved, generally, until you confession that murder you committed to the authorities or start repaying the money you stole), then you rejoin the faith community. You’re supposed to do all the internal work, too, but you have to show externally that you are sorry and accountable. A priest would never leave restitution/penance off the list of markers of true repentance.

That’s true, and it’s a really important point here, because there is a tendency for those of us on this side of the Tiber, to gloss over the fact that the confessional is not where you go to get a “get out of jail free card”. It’s where you are made to come to terms with the damage that your sin has done.
And if some of these guys with the big names & the big attitudes to match had been required to do a penance (of whatever kind), they wouldn’t have been able to develop the sense of “Me-me-me-me” that makes them so toxic. They would have to actually DEAL with sin, not sweep it under the carpet.
Indeed, I have long suspected that the irrational, kneejerk anti-Catholic sentiments that ooze from the pores of so many of these super-entitled uberpatriarchs.
But, hey, that’s me, & I’m one of the cranky old ladies who get snarled at (in absentia) by many a patriarchal donkey’s hindquarters in that camp.

anon for a good reason wrote:

“Dennis HC • 4 hours ago
Putting TGC’s and TT’s statements regarding this issue side-by-side, it seems clear which one is more gracious and less accusatory. Perhaps it’s just because Pastors Carson and Keller have more years of walking in the faith than TT. Or, perhaps it’s because Christian maturity and bearing fruit in accordance with salvation are benefited by a proper and biblical view of sanctification. My best wishes to both TGC and TT.”
The shot at Tullian is bad enough. The follow-up comment is way worse; it implies those who DO not have the commenter’s ‘proper and biblical view of sanctification’ are not mature and not bearing fruit in accordance with salvation.

I particularly dislike comments such as the one you highlighted there, anon. The old “God bless” trick at the end of a snide, venomous put-down. As Paul pointed out to Corinth: love builds up, but knowledge only puffs up, and the comment typifies what happens to a person who thinks he has the proper and biblical view of anything.

Someone has to push back on this. I’m not that person, but surely someone with sufficient pastoral and theological training and experience who is a regular on this blog could be.

I know what you mean, but I wonder. We’ve all seen what happens when movements fall for the “perfectly parsed theology” delusion (to paraphrase Dr Fundystan’s comment earlier). But if I think I’ve seen something wrong with this, it’s (duh…) doubly important not to walk into the same trap.

Not sure how clearly I’m expressing this, but what I mean is, I think someone with more love needs to push back on this sort of thing. Theological training and love aren’t mutually exclusive, of course, but theology can be gained without God; whereas the love we’re talking about cannot.

What is happening to the other SGM alleged abusers? e.g. Loftness and Griney? I don’t understand why they haven’t been arrested yet? Or if they’re innocent, why aren’t they doing everything they can to clear their names?

@ Joe2:
There wouldn’t be a deadline per se, they just wouldn’t be absolved and technically wouldn’t be permitted communion until they compelted their penance. The confessional is sacrosanct, so a priest can’t report what they hear in it to the authorities.

Forgive me, I’ve been reading in order and playing catch-up for a few days. I now see that my question has been raised in the comments on the newest post.

Oops. That’s wondrousness, not wodrousness. As much as I believe that spellcheck is of the devil, I am a singularly horrible typist…..

If you love them and respect them as equals in the Kingdom of God, then you will do well as their pastor. Just as we love God because of his great love for us, as shown by Jesus, so they will love you because you love them and are not about being the “boss” of the church.

dustin germain wrote:

burn: i would be referring to the many members of the TGC who have been tar and feathered by association

So…you’re upset that men who chose to defend alleged liars/criminals are now looking bad because of their association with these alleged liars/criminals?

This is the real world. Decisions have consequences. If you defend someone who allegedly covered up sexual abuse, and then the cover up is exposed in a court of law, you are going to look bad. So what is it exactly that you want?

@ Mr.H:

Amen to that.

Nick Bulbeck wrote:

But then, some regulars here have spent years on the receiving end of the nastiest personal attacks possible, in settings where they had no chance to fight back or defend themselves.
I hesitate over the word “victims” because there’s always something slightly demeaning about it, IMHO, but TWW is about giving a voice to the voiceless. It would be selfish and unjust to expect the voiceless to have only nice, comfortable things to say. Anyone posting here has to bear that in mind.

I wonder what the tax collectors and sinners hanging out with Jesus had to say about the religious establishment of their day, and how Jesus responded to them.

Patti wrote:

I have been appalled to find out that the feminist haters know that feminism is about equal rights

I disagree. I think a lot of gender comps and social conservatives conflate the term “feminist” to mean things such as pro-choice, bra-burning, pro homosexual marriage, anti-traditional values, anti-Christianity, etc.

I don’t use the term “feminist” to describe myself or my views in part because the term has been co-opted by a lot of secular, vehemently left wing types, who do in fact usually vote Democrat, hate Republicans, scoff at Christianity, hate traditional values, etc.

And yes, contrary to some comments I got here, I have been on feminist sites where the feminists do not approve of women choosing to be stay at home mothers.

A couple of these feminists at one site I was on a few years ago even went so far as to say (in the comment section) that any women who receives a college education but who chooses to marry and have a kid and stay at home and be a house wife is “wasting” her college degree.

I am right wing and a social conservative. While I reject gender complementarianism, I also reject much of far-left type feminism.

When I am talking to other right wingers on political sites, the moment I disagree with gender comp type views, the other conservatives start dismissing me not because I support female equality, but because they automatically assume rejecting gender comp = I am pro-choice, I hate men, love the Democrat Party, believe the US govt (tax payer) should buy birth control for women, that I voted for Obama, I must burn bras, hate traditional values.

I always have to preface my anti-gender comp views on those sites by establishing my right wing cred on such sites, otherwise I get accusations of being a liberal, an Obama supporter, an abortion supporter, a hater of traditional family units, etc.

Many of these same people, though, are opposed to extremist Islamic treatment of women (i.e., the honor killings, gm, forcing them to wear burkhas, not allowing women to receive an education).

mirele wrote:

The second is related: Mohler calls “deliberate singleness on the part of those who know they have not been given the gift of celibacy is, at best, a neglect of Christian responsibility.” (August 20, 2004)

P.S. on that part of your post.

I’ve wanted to get married for years. Wanting to be married does not make it happen.

I hate how so many married people (and Christians seem even more prone to this), engage in fairy tale thinking, that they think “if you want to be married, it will just happen.”

No, if you are single over 35, getting married does not “just happen” because you want it to, or pray about it. You have to join dating sites and look around.

There is nothing easy about getting married in your 30s and older, unless you have zero standards in men and want to date the unemployed, dope smoking, long-haired guitar player at your local bar and have sex before marriage, then you lots of options

(This is what one of my family members does, sets the bar very low, so she is never short on boyfriends and prospects but after she catches them she complains about how terrible they are).

If, however, you want a guy who is at a minimum average across the board – a guy who is employed (does not need to be wealthy, but just able to pay some bills), trim and in shape and okay looking (not Clark Gable handsome, but not grotesque to look at), someone who is not a drug addict or a jerk, it’s much harder landing a catch.

Guys like Mohler do not appreciate any of this, and I suspect Mohler probably met his wife from the age of 18 to 21, when they were high school or college kids. After you get out of college, your chances of running into suitable mates (even with dating sites) is slim to none.

You can sit there and lecture me til you are blue in the face I am shirking my Christian duty by not marrying, but how do you want me to get a husband, wave a magic wand? God did not give me a wand, sorry.

Also, there is no such thing as a “gift of celibacy.”

I have refrained from sex my whole life because I made a choice to do so and used self discipline. Anyone can do it but most chose not to.

There is not “gifting” in this area by God (and that Christians further equate it to God supernaturally lowering the libido of the single adult), I wish Christians would stop teaching that, because it is not true. I, a single adult, experience the same sexual urges as married people, only I am not acting on them because I chose not to.

@ Patrice:

I just do not like to use the term to describe myself, it comes with so much baggage, and I don’t like having to spend 45,675 posts convincing fellow right wingers on other sites I am a right winger as they are, I just am not in total agreement with them on gender roles for ladies.

There is a lady on this site who assumes I am a far left, man hating, family hating feminist liberal all because I don’t like gender complementarian, cannot fathom why some women choose to have more than three kids, etc.

She chooses to characterize my views as being anti-motherhood, which they are not.

It’s the same thing. I tire of having to explain to people on either side of the debate that I am not a man- hating, child- hating, pr-o abortion, anti- stay at home mom type, but I am also opposed to some on the right (including Christians) who insult any and all women who choose to stay single and childless, or who are so by circumstance.

My view is, if a woman of her own free will wants to be a wife and mom, and chooses to do so (she is not conditioned or pressured into either one), that is fine.
But if a woman wants to stay single, or finds herself single because she can’t meet an eligible bachelor, that is okay too.

@ Daisy:
Yeah, I totally understand not wanting to take the label because of the baggage. I’ve had that internal debate about the label “Christian”, too, actually, and for the same reasons. And ISTM, it’s largely because we do not know the rules of proper critique. When we misuse the extremes of a stance, we make it a caricature, thus the debate is degraded and all those involved are dehumanized.

And when someone does it this way, everyone eventually does it. Thus you get the crazy from extreme complementarians as well as from extreme feminists. As you say, it’s endlessly tiresome. I have had to quit listening to poor criticism because it’s a complete waste of energy. I wish so much that we’d work it differently.

And yes, I completely agree, women who are single, who are married with or without children and who stay home or don’t stay home—it’s fine or not, depending on the hearts involved. My best to you, Daisy!

dustin germain wrote:

burn: i would be referring to the many members of the TGC who have been tar and feathered by association

Good heavens!! You really MUST stop reading National Enquirer, yean; we haven’t tarred & feathered a single TGC member around here.
(Now that Dustin has mentioned the subject, however, I know where we can get some tar. Has anyone any 😉 fowl to offer up?)

May I ask a question these full grown men expect an abused kid to sit in the same room with the person that molested them and listen to the molester say he/she is sorry then said kid is suppose to forgive them and reconcile?

That is one of the stupidest things I have ever read. Seriously is this what they actually expect and they call that bible leadership. Gag.

brian wrote:

O wait that does not count. Some of us had no choice in being single we were too busy caring for family members one after the other and really did not have time.

With me, it was “Growing up Martian” as a psychologically-isolated kid genius and getting the emotional/social retardation side effect HARD. By the time the rest of my personality had grown up, I had aged well beyond any marriageable age.

Oh and in most evangelical singles groups you better have your 1040 form ready if you’re a guy and your doctors note saying you are a virgin if you’re a woman.

I’d like to see someone reverse those two (requiring a doctor’s certificate of virginity from the guy) and see what happens.

By “have your 1040 form ready” do you mean all they’re looking at in a guy is his money? Like some gold digger? I wasn’t a giant brain in a jar, and I’m not going to be a bottomless ATM.

zooey111 wrote:

Good heavens!! You really MUST stop reading National Enquirer….

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gW2vVM2WAc

brian wrote:

… I am utterly convinced the unpardonable sin is to actually really need Jesus.

Which is a major problem in a “church” organisation, of whatever kind, that – for all its fashionable doctrine or other spiritually worthy façade – does not actually have Jesus. Somebody once said that a church can be as straight as a gun-barrel doctrinally and just as empty spiritually. The person who comes in needing Jesus just exposes the emptiness of the organisation.