"If anyone is aware that there is child abuse taking place, they need to report it immediately to police. It's a crime if you don't report child abuse. It's a crime if you don't report a felony."
Cpl. Steve LeSueur, Odessa (Texas) Police
As our readers know, child abuse has always been a hot button issue here at TWW. Churches should be the last place where children are abused. Tragically, there have been far too many cases of molestation and cover-up within the 'house of God'. As the above quote indicates, law enforcement is now taking a strong stand for the children who have been hurt, and for that we are extremely grateful!
Last week's arrest of Don and Gina Haislett may be an indication that the police are really cracking down on people in positions of authority who fail to report child abuse. The Haisletts, who together pastor Life Church in Odessa, Texas, were arrested and charged with failure to report child abuse – a Class A Misdemeanor.
According to court documents obtained by NewsWest 9, the married couple allegedly knew that Angel De Los Santos (one of their volunteer youth ministers) was sexually assaulting multiple underage girls from the church and did not notify authorities within the mandated 48-hour period. Furthermore, arrest affidavits indicated that
Gina Haislett sent a text message to the minister's then-wife, telling her she "should not volunteer any information" when questioned by Odessa Police Department detectives.
Here is how the local media reported the news.
KWES NewsWest 9 / Midland, Odessa, Big Spring, TX: newswest9.com |
Odessa Police indicated that the Haisletts had taken matters into their own hands by conducting an internal investigation regarding an alleged sexual relationship Angel De Los Santos had with one person and the inappropriate text messages he allegedly sent to others. They relieved De Los Santos of his youth pastor duties and took three weeks to investigate during which time officials were not contacted.
As the news clip indicated,
De Los Santos was arrested in September and charged with six counts of sexually assaulting a child, a second degree felony.
"Investigation revealed [Angel De Los Santos] had been having a sexual relationship with a teenage girl," said LeSueur.
"They were having sex once a week for a two and a half year period, which began when she was fourteen."
De Los Santos pleaded guilty and received a 20-year sentence.
With the many stories of child sex abuse we have shared over the years, we wholeheartedly agree with the Odessa Police spokesman – this goes on far more than people realize. We must continue to call attention to these horrific situations and stand up for the victims!
We will be following this case and we will let you know the outcome. In the meantime, we hope these pastors will serve as a example of what happens when people in positions of authority fail to report alleged sex abuse. It is not up to pastors, etc. to decide whether the abuse occurred – that is the responsibility of the police!
Lydia's Corner: Genesis 32:13-34:31 Matthew 11:7-30 Psalm 14:1-7 Proverbs 3:19-20
It’s still unbelievable to me how these pastors care more for their brand, than for the care and safety of the most innocent among us. It’s just so sad.
Good ol’ Watchdog has been covering this too. Latest from him is here http://fbcjaxwatchdog.blogspot.com.au/2014/12/social-media-exchange-in-church.html
Same story as always – lots of of “love” from the congregation for their pastors, no mention at all of the victims
Praise God!
Dave wrote:
The blind loyalty is sad. Hopefully they’ll have their eyes opened and realize that their pastors aren’t the law.
Not shocked.
I have had to go around school administrators to report suspected sexual abuse to the sheriff/DA’s office. ( You don’t know the grief I took on that one…)
Schools are somewhat like churches, ” nothing bad going on here….”
It’s all about the ” brand.” Nothing bad at this school, nothing bad at this church…
Sorry, but I trust preachers and school administrators as far as I can throw a Kansas City Southern locomotive…
I am so touched by the Haislett’s deep concern for the children that were sexually assaulted on their watch. Not. One. Word. The Haislett’s have failed to meet any of standards set by Jesus that defines his followers yet have blinded so many people into believing that they are Christians. Now that is satanic.
It is encouraging to see law enforcement go after ‘ministers’ like this who seek to cover up child abuse simply in order not to disrupt their personal gravy train. Sadly, their failure to report is only a misdemeanor, but I do hope that civil lawsuits follow – it has become quite clear that the only way to stop these so-called Christians from creating a hunting ground for sexual predators is to hit the only thing they really care about – their money. It’s certainly become clear that the Haislett’s and others like them have no conscience that will ever trouble them.
@ JeffT: Well said.
Tom Rich, over at FBC Jax followed a number of social media responses by people reacting to this story, Here is one.
http://fbcjaxwatchdog.blogspot.com.au/2014/12/social-media-exchange-in-church.html
“I don’t know either of u..u n ur husband are my brother n sister in Christ..that’s all I need to know. That being said u both have my complete support n my prayers! We serve a wonderful n mighty God n u are absolutely right ..He will vindicate u. He doesn’t take kindly to His kids being mistreated! God bless u both!”
Isn’t that interesting? This individual doesn’t know these pastors but assumes, because they are Christians, that the report is false.
And the pastors are denying that they did anything wrong.
“Gina Taylor HaislettYesterday at 5:15pm · Odessa, TX · I don’t care what the court documents say, it’s not the truth. We have integrity and did exactly what we knew to do. I SOOO wish that I could respond to the news media, but cannot comment on the investigation. I also ask all of our friends to please refrain from commenting on the news reports. God will vindicate us. Please just pray that the REAL TRUTH will prevail.— with Don Haislett.”
dee wrote:
I’m calling BS.
Aaaarrrrggghhhhhh!!!!
What is wrong with people? How can they sleep at night, knowing that children are suffering because of their neglect?
Good on the police for arresting these so-called ‘pastors’.
dee quoted the pastors as follows:
Interesting… BTW, that's my prayer, too.
Corbin wrote:
Or they’ll close ranks behind their ManaGAWD and play the “PERSECUTION!!!!!!” card.
zooey111 wrote:
What are molested kids compared to Saving Souls and/or Correct Theology?
This is horrifying. Full stop.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I think we need to be inclusive and call them ManaGAWD and WomanaGAWD since they are both pastors.
Joe2 wrote:
I think “hirelings” is a better fit…
(See John 10:12)
So I have a gripe.
One ministry that does excellent work in regards to abusive behavior by Christian churches holds that abusers cannot be Christians. The Spirit of God inside of them would cause them to repent of abusive behavior. They could be correct. But that also means we would have to consider a lot of influential “Christians” as non-Christians. For example, slavery is certainly abusive, but a number of prominent American theologians and pastors held in high esteem by evangelicals today, owned and promoted slavery. Why didnt the Spirit convict them of their abusive behavior?
The flip side of this is that logically, if you believe someone to be a Christian and specially “anointed”, they cannot be an abuser. Hence, “the police were wrong to arrest the Haislett’s because I go to their church, I have experienced God working there, so they could not have enabled this sexual predator and covered it up. It is religious persecution!”
Fill-in the blank with the prominent abuser/enabler pastor of your choice: Driscoll, Mahaney, Jack Graham, etc. They can do no wrong, because the Spirit of God would not have convicted them of their abusive behavior. It creates a Catch-22.
@ Loren Haas:
Win-Win Situation for the Abuser.
“OPEN SEASON!”
There is no excuse for willful failure to comply with the law. This is a disgrace.
I am wondering, also, since this was going on for so long, and involved a number of people in one way or another, how many other people knew what was going on and looked the other way.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
They already are, did you read the Facebook comments? They’re being attacked by Satan.
Loren Haas wrote:
“TOUCH NOT MINE ANOINTED! DO MY PROPHET NO HARM!”
— Benny Hinn’s favorite verse
Which is exactly what Mike Warnke’s fanboys claimed when Cornerstone exposed Warnke as a complete fraud. “But he $aved lot$ of $oul$!”
@ Nancy:
Bingo! Did the parents know and decide to obey the pastor?
@ Loren Haas:
these are questions worth wrestling with. these are questions that also produce a lot of political correctness so they are not easily discussed.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
That could be an evangelical bumper sticker.
So how long before they start to holler ‘persecution’ because the authorities won’t let them handle it ‘in house’?
Loren Haas wrote:
Maybe they fall into the “I never knew you” category. That is one of the scariest portions of scripture for me. False teachers can be very convincing and self-deceived. Makes me think about how I’m deceived. I don’t want to hear those words from the Lord on that Day.
Nancy wrote:
You’re right about that, I think. People over-identify with a group or a group leader, and any criticism of the group or the group leader becomes criticism of them. And that goes for the people who didn’t even know what was going on. The ones who did have no excuse whatsoever. The others need to wake up.
Gram3 wrote:
My thoughts exactly. we must actually work at not being easily deceived. a painful but freeing business that never ends.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
And there you have it. The logical end of the whole lot of them.Nauseating hypocrisy. Absolutely nauseating.
Loren Haas wrote:
I agree with you on this point.In fact, it is one that often troubles me as I look over the history of the church and its endorsement of slavery, Inquisitions, militaristic incursions, colonialism, etc. Jonathan Edwards owned slaves.
If one looks at David, who was specifically chosen by God as a young boy, one sees a womanizer who made sure to kill the husband of Bathsheba. Yet, he was considered a man of God. So, can a murderer and womanizer be saved if they do those things when they are Christians? I would say yes if the story of David is to be an example.
Maybe these stories help us to understand the nature of our sin and the absolute necessity for a Savior. I gave up trying to figure out if people were Christians or *saved* a long time ago. I leave that up to the Almighty. The only thing I know for sure is that I am a Christian.
What is wrong with these people? In California where I live, a lot of professions are classified as mandated reporters. What that means is that if you even suspect a hint of child abuse, you are required by law to report that suspicion to the authorities within something like 36 hours. You don’t conduct your own investigation; you don’t get to worry about your organization’s reputation; you report it and get the authorities involved. End of story.
Whether Texas requires the same or not, for any person with a trace of humanity and any shred of compassion for kids, especially people who claim to follow Jesus, reporting a suspicion of such heinous acts immediately should be a no brainer. Again I ask, what is wrong with these people? They certainly don’t have the ethical qualifications or character to be spiritual leaders.
Related question: Who is following and funding such people and why? I’m dumbfounded.
Loren Haas wrote:
If behavior is the litmus test by which eternal life is decided, then we are all doomed are we not?
They may not be “followers of Christ”, (in the practical sense and from a discipleship perspective), which as you know is the sense of the word “Christian”, but if that ministry is intending to say that abusers are not saved because of their behavior then I would have to disagree. I do not believe that Scripture teaches that their abusing behavior is the litmus test by which they are to be judged fit for eternal life.
If it is true that a person is born again by the Holy Spirit the moment they believe, and they receive eternal life which they can never lose, then the abuser(s), (and the people who fail to report abuse), could be born again children of God who have committed heinous sins for which they are forgiven.
That is not to say that they are not disqualified from ever being in ministry in a church again. I think that should go without saying, but sadly needs to be shouted from the mountain tops until people hear it.
Whether or not my own abuser was born again I will never know. He was disqualified from being involved in the ministry of the church at any level, imo, because he remained unrepentant for his crimes against me. That did not, however, relieve me of the responsibility to forgive him as I have been forgiven. And I am not obligated to have anything to do with him or his church.
As to why the Holy Spirit did not convict him of his sin is answered, for me at least, in John 14-16. I believe that the Holy Spirit did convict him of his sin, but that he refused to respond to the conviction. He resisted the Holy Spirit just as I did prior to being born again.
As for men of old, I think there is plenty of evidence, from the Scriptures and from the historical record, why those “respected theologians” should be ignored. Again, I think that the case for their resistance of the Holy Spirit’s convicting work comes from the Scriptures, (from what we know about the Holy Spirit), and from the historical record of their fruit. Their fruit screams loudly that they were ignoring the Holy Spirit. It’s up to God to decided whether or not He knew them at all. I choose to ignore them, and their followers today, and am well within my rights as a child of God to do so.
Behavior disqualifies from ministry in the church, but it does not disqualify one from receiving eternal life. If it did, we are all “toast”. My two cents.
That said, what these two hirelings did is inexcusable. What the abuser did was also inexcusable, and addressed specifically by God Himself. Think millstone.
What should be happening in that church is a denunciation of the hirelings and the abuser. Period. And, love and support should be overflowing to the victims. As one who never received either love or support, or justice, I can assure you that it is impossible to over support the victim.
I have zero sympathy for the hirelings. Less than zero for the abuser.
At the same time, I am thankful that I have come to be known by a God who has forgiven me, and extends that same forgiveness to those who I struggle to forgive.
Sorry for the ramble.
zooey111 wrote:
Because if there is one thing I have learned over the years it is that Christianity absolutely flat out doesn’t work if we don’t love people.
Personally, I think it’s going to take a few more MenaGAWD (or a high-profile CELEBRITY one) suffering such PERSECUTION(TM) for the church to finally get a clue about Mandatory Reporting re suspicion of child molestation.
Too many of them have been pointing fingers and going “I THANK THEE, LOOORD, THAT *I* AM NOTHING LIKE THAT ROMISH PEDO-PRIEST OVER THERE!” At which point, it’s going to take a sledgehammer to get their attention and give them a clue.
Muff Potter wrote:
Perhaps this will be their defense.
Deb wrote:
It makes me wonder how far “religious freedom” legislation will be taken. So far – as far as I’m aware – it’s just been freedom to discriminate against kinds of people that you (generic “you,” not referring anyone here) think God wants you to shun, and freedom to not pay for types of medication that conveniently started being against your religion after the Affordable Care Act passed.
But if churches actually start to protest that they should be able to handle child abuse internally, what makes them any different from a certain group of extremists who follow another religion and want to practice Sharia in place of the laws of the land (mind you, I suspect this is greatly exaggerated by Faux News, but assuming it for the sake of argument, the point stands…).
Doug wrote:
“Criminals who covered up and thereby aided and abetted sexual abuse of at least one child!”
Corbin wrote:
Actually they probably are, but not remotely in the sense in which they think they are.
Loren Haas wrote:
Excellent analysis of the leadership/salvation doctrine issues, Loren.
Doug wrote:
We sure would be, Doug.
@ Josh:
Your first two examples concern moral issues, where the church should rightly resist the secular culture around it if that culture want to sanction wrong-doing.
Child abuse is both a moral issue and a legal one, you are not comparing like with like.
Ken wrote:
In my case the perp was well known by the church and the community. And the parents. No one did anything. No reporting. No discipline. No action by anyone what so ever. No protection. And it was against the law, even back then.
Tired wrote:
I agree.
If or when their legal problems go away in cases like this, the church celebrates by having cookies and tea. They don’t support the victims, they celebrate that the lawsuits by the victims have come to an end.
That is noted in one of the last pages in this very long article:
Grace Church in Broken Arrow
http://thislandpress.com/05/23/2012/grace-in-broken-arrow/
And notice how many times, and over a period of years, that the preacher and various teachers/principal at the church- backed Christian school were notified that the guy was molesting kids, but they kept covering up, year after year after year.
The fact that such an arrest is news is very, very sad.
oldJohnJ wrote:
With all due respect, no it is not sad. Not to the victim it’s not. It is the beginning, hopefully, of justice.
oldJohnJ wrote:
Also, it serves as a warning to others who would cover up such abuses. That is a very good thing, imo. I echo whoever said “Praise God!”
Daisy wrote:
I noticed this on the first page:
Grace’s leader, Bob Yandian—“Pastor Bob” as everyone calls him—wasn’t there: no need, he had people for this kind of thing. Pastor Bob’s time was better spent sequestered in his study, writing books and radio broadcasts.
Sound familiar?
Daisy wrote:
And this, a couple pages later:
Fall of 2001 was the grand opening for Grace’s new children’s building, a real beauty, the pride and joy of the whole church. “Grace is the place for kids” was the church’s slogan back then. The new, 56,000-square-foot building had two stories of classrooms, plus amenities like a Chuck-e-Cheese-style room with tubing and a ball pit, “Bob and Loretta’s Soda Shoppe” (an old-fashioned ice cream parlor named after Pastor Bob and his wife), and the crowning glory: an antique carousel beneath a vaulted glass pyramidal ceiling. Bejeweled with big amusement park light bulbs, the carousel’s gold and aqua paneling positively glowed: $125,000 well spent. Grace took out a $7.5 million loan to finance construction of the children’s building, and when all was said and done, the whole thing was worth nearly $10 million—over half the value of all their buildings combined.
Again, sound familiar?
(And according to the article about Tulsa’s geography, this was the South (White and Well-off) end of town. Any widows eating out of dumpsters in North Tulsa?)
Oh, and Pastor Bob’s son Pastor Robb is inheriting Daddy’s church.
Ken wrote:
Who? The pastors or the congregation? They’re saying that these accusations against the pastors are Satan’s doing. Maybe you could say that Satan enjoys the public ridicule of the church that this feeds, but that’s about as far as I’d go.
Doug wrote:
It depends entirely upon whether or not one agrees that all infractions of behavior are equally egregious and deserve the same ‘punishment’– namely the forfeiture of a goodly inheritance in the afterlife. I for one believe no such thing, there was a time when I did, but that time is past. It violates reason, common sense, and most of all, my conscience as a human being.
Ken wrote:
You are not making sense.
Obviously, while you benefit from legal protection against discrimination based on religion (assuming you’re in the US; I can’t speak for other countries), I understand that many people who share your views wish to enshrine in law the ability to discriminate in employment, housing, and other areas against people who don’t fall into the straight, cis-gendered majority box. Thankfully, there are enough people out there who will hire and/or rent to people such as myself that people who hold the aforementioned view are becoming increasingly irrelevant from a legal point of view. Now, on to the real issue here, which is churches covering up child abuse…
We have seen, thanks to painstaking documentation by our blog hosts and their friends, that there are churches who flaunt the mandatory reporting laws and believe that they should handle child abuse cases in-house. The failure of such churches to handle such cases justly has been colossal. Their lack of any attention to the victims and their giving the abusers at most a slap on the wrist show that they lack the judgement to be given the rights that they desire (i.e. to treat these matters in-house). Yet, the fact that it is common today for many Christians to go attempting to legislate special exemptions for themselves the second they feel winds of “persecution” blowing their way (and the fact that they have been successful numerous times already in other endeavors, as I’ve stated previously), shows that this is not merely idle speculation. Now, mind you, I think the outcry would be great if anyone were to try this with child abuse cases, but I still wouldn’t be shocked if they tried.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Another thing the article mentions is that one of the church’s Christian school’s other teachers (I think his name was Mike?) knew early on that the other, younger teacher (Aaron) was acting inappropriately with kids.
Teacher Mike was supposed to put the copy of the inappropriate printed out e-mail from Aaron to a ten or 12 year old student in Aaron’s permanent employment record but, again, IIRC, claims he lost it or misplaced it.
Mike also, if I remember right, had other opportunities to report Aaron and protect the school’s kids but did nothing, zero, zippo, nada.
The cherry on top is that Mike has been the preacher of his very own Tulsa area church for some years now, and it’s not too far from the Grace church, which had the school where Aaron molested children for years.
Mike has a weekly TV show on local Tulsa Christian channel, and he sometimes hosts the local Tulsa TBN “Praise the Lord,” show or whatever it’s called.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
P.S. there is another church in Tulsa, called Victory Christian Center, that is by ORU (Oral Roberts University). There was a janitor there, and I think a youth pastor, who molested and raped children at the church.
Some of the church staff – the church is mainly run by family, the Daughertys – got into legal trouble for not reporting it in a timely manner.
Their church has a large in-door merry go round, so too does the Grace church I linked about above. I don’t know what it is with churches wanting to put merry go rounds inside. There is also a shopping mall in Tulsa that has an in-door merry- go- round. Maybe the churches were copying the mall?
Victory Christian Center Abuse Scandal
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/25/victory-christian-center-abuse-scandal-chris-denman-_n_1914175.html
Muff Potter wrote:
the moral equivalency argument. all sin is the same. this is the argument SGM used with those who were abused/molested. you are a sinner like your molester is a sinner.
@ Corbin:
The Satanic deception going on here is rather that abuse is covered up because to expose it to the public domain would ruin the churches’ witness. It’s an understandable, but wholly unjustifiable, temptation. I’ve known of this in the UK where abuse was covered up.
In the end it has precisely the opposite effect, as the church is seen to condone evil. It may also be helped by the myth that God condemns sin in the unbeliever, but condones it in the believer who always has access to forgivenness and is loved unconditionally. Christians who carry on sinning deliberately should perhaps be warned to check themselves to see if their faith is genuine and they really are in Christ. (I’m not talking about sinless perfection that none of us has, but rather long-term serious moral failings.)
I hope things have changed and this would no longer happen, as the bible points to God having appointed government to execute his wrath on the wrong-doer.
@ Josh:
I’m not sure you know my views, not in any detail!
Adultery is a moral failing and serious sin against both God and man. So is practicing homosexuality. From a European perspective, I’ve never heard anyone in a church advocate discriminating on the basis of such moral issues, nor mistreatment of those involved.
But the church cannot turn a blind eye to such things amongst its own membership, and needs to deal with such problems. The church is in the business of bringing forgiveness for such things and putting right what has gone wrong. But it can’t say yes to what God has said no to.
It also needs to deal with child abuse, which is a moral failure and sin, and should be subject to church discipline, but which is also a crime, unlike the sexual immorality. That is the difference I was getting at.
The state has a legitimate role in dealing with sexual crimes, but it doesn’t have a right to legislate on forcing churches to accept adulterers or homosexuals just because it sees nothing wrong with such behaviours. Nevertheless I think this may be coming, and pleading ‘separation of church and state’ now by evangelicals will not stop it.
Doug wrote:
Sad in the sense that bringing abusers to justice is so rare that it becomes news. I absolutely agree that it is good for the abused.
Daisy wrote:
In the article that started this sub-thread, they mentioned the local DA refused to prosecute. Said DA is an ORU graduate whose classmates and best buddies included that church’s big dogs. (Conflict of Interest, anyone?) Said DA also plugs The Ten Commandments every chance he gets. Think he’s Christian(TM)?
Maybe they’re Keeping up with the Joneses in Dallas and San Antone. Remember that Life-size Animatronic Noah’s Ark? And on-campus amusement parks?
While pastors’ widows still have to eat out of dumpsters.
Daisy wrote:
Plausible Deniability.
These guys should have worked for the USSR.
Josh wrote:
Try “freedom not to answer questions in a deposition by Department of Labor investigators looking into child labor abuses in the Fundamentalist Church of Latter-day Saints.”
I wish I was kidding.
http://fox13now.com/2014/11/24/judge-wont-reconsider-flds-hobby-lobby-ruling/
I’d love to tell the owner of Hobby Lobby that he’s encouraging child labor. Except that then I remember Hobby Lobby buys a lot of Chinese junk and no doubt some of that is made with child labor as well.
@ dee:
And Methodist pioneer George Whitefield *reintroduced* slavery to the then-colony of Georgia.
Yes, you read that right.
I have to just throw up my hands when i see such disturbing behavior and outright advocacy of things that are clearly wrong. Because it is beyond my ability to process. As in, Whitefield literally advocated slavery and “owned” slaves, yet he was this *huge* figure in early Methodism here in what became the US.
I just don’t understand…
Loren Haas wrote:
The cognitive dissonance works its way right up there with the best Russian radar jamming techniques no?
Voltaire had this to say:
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.”
numo wrote:
You’re not alone numo. Is there a kind of mechanism in religion itself (any religion) that makes it easier for people to ignore their conscience in favor of collective and tribal will?
Muff Potter wrote:
One of my Mormon lawyer friends is having a big discussion on her Facebook page right now about how one of the psychologists who designed the CIA torture program is Mormon. He and his partner got $80 million to run that program (and the contract could have provided up to $180 million). So far as anyone knows, Bruce Jessen has never said that what he did was wrong. At one point in 2012, Jessen was called as a bishop (Mormonspeak for lay leader of a congregation) but he was “released” (let go) after it became news in the Intermountain West. Too embarrassing.
So no, I don’t know that there’s a mechanism in religion…
@ Muff Potter:
I don’t think it’s confined to religion, unfortunately – and why George Whitefield didn’t go through his own Great Awakening re. the innate value of *all* people is beyond me. That someone with his pulpit cred was responsible for overturning the abolition of slavery in a colony is deeply troubling (talk about an understatement).
Whitfield wasn’t the major player in Methodism as much as George Wesley. The former was a Calvinist, the latter Arminian. But yes, Whitfield lobbied in favor of slavery.
__
“Low hydraulic Pressure Lamp Is Lit?”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaIbpSaEoYc
hmmm…
There is a much larger ‘picture’ of abuse going on at this church than just ‘two pastors’ remaining silent, and possibly silencing others as well?
(Krunch)
As always, these church victims are always ‘welcome’ to come to Wartburg Watch and tell their story.
(sadface)
Sopy
__
Inspirational relief:
Kathleen Battle – “His Eyes Are on the Sparrow”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIVt44JkIBU
🙂
—
@ numo:
Correct me if I am wrong here. I have not specifically studied the history of thinking regarding slavery. Was it not that most? many? of the people did not think that slavery was wrong for several reasons, one being the argument that the condition of the slaves was (in their mind) much better here than their conditions had been and would continue to be in Africa? And one argument, I think, was the opportunity to convert them to christianity? Was there not an argument that they did not know how to take care of themselves and needed that done for them? What I am saying is, they came up with reasons which at least some of them thought were good and even humane reasons.
And there was the argument from scripture about the curse on Ham which was thought to be ethnic/racial.
I have no clue how prevalent these ideas were, and I think the ideas simply were to justify what they wanted to do for totally other (financial) reasons, but I do think some people (how many?) bought into the ideas themselves.
If people were even at some level thinking that what they were doing was for the best, then we need to keep that in mind, since it was that sort of thinking that got the German medical establishment to condone some of the horrors of what was done to the chronically ill and the mentally ill and those thought to be genetically inferior, or so I see in Dr. Lifton’s book. It plays into social darwinism, and if people are susceptible to that then we must not forget it lest we fall into the same pit.
oldJohnJ wrote:
I agree. It is frustrating to me, after all of the hoopla with Sandusky, SGM, Langworthy, the Catholic church, and on and on to see that people still don’t get it.
Josh wrote:
I think the tendency to conceal child sex abuse is found in many institutions in which morals, values, etc. have been espoused. That’s why we saw the concealment in the Sandusky case.
It is rather interesting to consider that people conceal this so that people won’t think badly of an institution. Yet the mere concealment of the situation means that the institution is corrupt. Amongst Christian we claim that Christ cares about our hearts but we act as is He cares only about our outward appearance which is a repudiation of what He taught us.
@ Ken:
Speaking of what is only a moral issue and what is both a moral and a legal issue, let me say this.
Both adultery and homosexual acts used to have potential legal consequences in the US. A relatively recent court decision, in Texas if I remember, de-criminalized homosexual acts. Adultery came into play before we had no-fault divorce laws. Recent laws and court decisions have been at the front in making certain kinds of discrimination against certain groups (including sexual identity groups) illegal. This is still working itself out in the US. So, Josh is correct in his statements about how things are in the US.
In the churches there is difference of opinion regarding homosexuality and homosexual acts though as far as I know most people do not condone adultery, though a lot are very willing to excuse it under certain circumstances. And a showdown between the state’s interest in what it perceives to be the common good and the church’s interest in what it perceives to be religious freedom seems to be in process.
You say it is different over there? I believe you. Like I say, the north atlantic is very wide.
oldJohnJ wrote:
Agreed!
@ Nancy:
Yes, you’re right. In fact all the “Side A” folks I’ve read (Side A = people who believe God blesses same-sex marriage) are extremely anti-adultery and anti-promiscuity because they believe in committed monogamous relationships. Nevertheless they’re often misrepresented by their opponents as being all for boundary-free sex, just because they take a different view of the verses regarding homosexual behavior. (And just to clear up any potential confusion or forthcoming assumptions from anyone, I’m not Side A, nor am I implying that any misrepresentation of the type referenced above occurred in this thread.)
dee wrote:
Didn’t this Rabbi from Nazareth have something to say about “Whitewashed Tombs”?
@ Nancy:
Just a general thought, and I appreciate how you brought out the perpsectives of the pewpeons who bought into a bad system. People with an agenda which benefits them recruit influencers in various ways to push the agenda. The influencers find a way to make the agenda seem good and beneficial and pre-empt objections. That’s the way sales are made, after all. The pewpeons hear the “good” that is being pushed and tune out their possible personal objections. It’s even better when the pewpeons can be made to feel superior to others.
This is how “comp” and other aberrant doctrines like shepherding are pushed and why it is accepted by people who should have used study tools and studied their Bibles enough to know better. At least with the slavery issue, a lot of people were not literate, and the only Bible those folks knew was the Bible someone taught them or at least read to them. Unlike the folks who could not read, there are some highly literate folks who want their Bible in a sippy-cup prepared by their spiritual Authorities, and they want no personal responsibility for studying to show themselves approved. Those who can study and yet accept these doctrines are without excuse.
Ken wrote:
I agree.
Reading Watchdog’s account, I was interested in his copy of Gina Haislett’s FB page. Especially the potentially lengthy comment by Lisa Peek Harris (at the very bottom of Dog’s screen capture). I wanted to see the rest of it on FB, but (surprise, surprise) it’s been purged.
Part of Lisa’s statement of unflinching support for her pastors:
To which I would say: Their intentions, in this case, aren’t nearly as important as their actions.
Sensitivity? You mean sensitivity to the notion of underage girls being manipulated and violated in a church? And to the pastors failing to carry out their legal duties to their own flock? Well, I’m pretty sensitive to that, yeah. You may actually have a point there, Lisa.
@ Gram3:
Good point. There used to be a recognized level of academic achievement at the end of third grade. At that point people were thought to be able to read and write and cipher sufficiently for a certain level of functioning. I was totally surprised when that was pointed out to me on somebody’s medical records under “educational level completed” the response was “graduated third grade.” When I asked I was told that there had been a time when one did indeed graduate at the end of third grade, ceremony and certificate and all. I believer they said that quitting at that level was optional–not the end of the line for everybody.
When my dad was in school prior to WWI there were no schools above 8th grade in their entire county. If you wanted to go further in school you had to move elsewhere. They did.
We take a lot for granted any more.
@ Nancy:
believe, not believer
further? farther?
I knew I should have gone beyond third grade.
__
Push- Back: “Continuing Da Silence?”
hmmm…
“One in four women, and one in six men have been sexually abused as children.”
huh?
“Yet sadly the Christian community has largely ‘ignored’ the sin of child sexual abuse and its ‘prevalence’ within the Church.”
What?
“Even more disheartening: The evangelical church has often unwittingly contributed to the suffering of victims because of its failure to protect children and adequately respond to disclosures of sexual abuse.”
(bump)
“Additionally, the Christian community often overlooks the many needs of those within their congregations who are adult survivors of child sexual abuse.”
~ Boz Tchividjian; executive director of Godly Response to Abuse in the Christian Environment (G.R.A.C.E.)
🙁
—
Nancy wrote:
Nancy, that type of rationalizing in favor of slavery – even going so far as to say it was good for black people in America – is still being taught by some prominent Christian leaders today.
@ Nancy:
Whitefield advocated slavery as a Biblically-sanctioned means of having labor performed. Outright chattel slavery. He was not the only on.
When supposedly good xtian people no nly condone but advocate for moral evils like chattel slavery, it makes me wonder if God even exists, because he clearly isn’t able to get themto accept the innate wrongness of their poitions. This has major ramifications today, just as it did under Jim Crow, which was actively pursued by many good xtian white people.
Anyway.
@ numo:
Only one.
Chris wrote:
And Wesley was violently opposed to slavery. John Wesley’s last letter was written to William Wilberforce, who had been converted under Wesley’s ministry and was a member of Parliament and was the driving force to outlaw slavery in England. In it he said:
I see not how you can go through your glorious enterprise in opposing that execrable villainy which is the scandal of religion, of England, and of human nature. Unless God has raised you up for this very thing, you will be worn out by the opposition of men and devils. But if God be for you, who can be against you? Are all of them together stronger than God? O be not weary of well doing! Go on, in the name of God and in the power of his might, till even American slavery (the vilest that ever saw the sun) shall vanish away before it.
It’s a stain on Methodist history that so many Methodists, North and South, conveniently forgot this fundamental application of the Gospel of Wesley’s.
@ Tim:
I read your post. Good work. If it helps anybody at all to know this, I have heard people defend the civil war based on what it was their great, great granddaddy did (fought when we was called upon to do so) but I have never hear anybody defend the institution of slavery. I have heard people say that most of the people in the south at the time were themselves poor and barely owned a pair of shoes (mostly an exaggeration) much less owned a slave. Some of that is apparently true, there was malnutrition and in some areas malaria and TB and like gram3 noted illiteracy, and tenant farming and I have heard it said that some slaves were better off than poor whites. Don’t know is that was true, but that is the closest I have heard anybody say anything good about slavery. And I have been in some situations where people coulda woulda said it if they had had it to say; but they did not have it to say. So that is encouraging I think.
@ Nancy:
I don’t think chattel slavery could EVER have made anybody “better off.” For one thing, such people could be – and certainly were – sexually asssulted and abused on a very regular badis. Their children were not their own, and both spouses and children wrre frequently sold away from each other.
A little less food and clothing is likely preferable to being treated as a non-humanmobject, with zeto rights – and, in the eyes of many at the time, no soul. Literally: no soul. Which = not truly human.
Nancy wrote:
Homosexual acts between consenting adults over 21 were de-criminalised around 1967 in the UK. Up to then they would generally have been considered both immoral and illegal. Adultery ceased to be a feloney in Victorian Britain oddly enough.
So the current situation is such activities may be and still often are considererd immoral, but they are not illegal. Adultery does have legal ramifications if a divorce is being sought if it has led to the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.
The sexual abuse of children is still amost universally considered immoral, indeed evil, and is at the same time illegal.
Whilst I don’t doubt the sincerity of non-religious Brits who are dead opposed to paedophilia, having largely rejected pretty well every other aspect of the Judeo-Christian sex ethic you have to wonder why they still draw the line at this. The onset of the permissive society entailed the rejection of almost any regulation or restraint put on personal sexual behaviour.
Yet when very popular and well-known children’s entertainers and charity workers are now found to have a history of abuse sometimes covering decades, as has happened several times now in the UK, people are still surprised by this. Such abusers were only following the ‘if it feels good do it’ mantra to its logical conclusion, a predictable result of ditching self-control and the idea of abstinance.
Whitefield was in good company with Boyce. Broaddus wrote a bio on Boyce championing his pro slavery views as in: God sent them here so we would have a captive audience to teach them the gospel. A very determinist view.
SBC Reformed circles here associated with al Mohler/Russ Moore’s church, High view, started a private Christian school named after Whitefield. I have asked a few parents with kids there if they know much about Whitefield and I always hear the sanitized version.
@ numo:
Zero.
Lydia wrote:
Assuming they did some research before picking the school name, what reason do they cite as to why they chose that name? What I am wondering is why this would be popping up now among evangelicals?
@ Nancy:
Whitefield was very Calvinistic…
numo wrote:
Yes it did. THE SLAVEOWNERS in the Big Plantation House.
@ Ken:
I think you’re making a big mistake here in attributing the kind of sexual ethics you lament as being something that only xtians subscribe to. It just isn’t so, and you are doing a grest disservice to people of other faiths – and no faith at sll – who hold to good moral and ethical standards.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
She was talking about the justification that many cite that some slaves were “better off” than many poor whites, though. That’s what i wss addresding, because it’s a total fallacy.
Lydia wrote:
I understand there are similar pro-slavery arguments in Islam today, usually ending in the trump card “It Is Written!” Islam seems to be about 1-200 years behind us on the issue, handicapped by the dominant “plain reading” interpretation of the Koran.
One Orthodox priest on the Net (after the usual claims of Eastern Rite superiority over Western Rite) commented that the Protestant Reformers “Islamized their Christianity” with Sola Scriptura, turning the Bible into their Koran, recited word-for-word by God in final form instead of accreted and canonized by church councils and tradition. Very plausible, as the Bible had already reached its final form long before the 16th Century AD.
And Calvinists always struck me as the most “Islamic” of the reformers, sharing with Islam an extreme view of God’s Sovereign Will and Predestination and Iconoclasm (Calvin whitewashing the churches of Geneva just like Wahabi do to mosques).
Especially when you get later-generation fanboys More Calvinist than Calvin (YRR, Calvinistas) or More Islamic than Mohammed (Taliban, ISIS, Boko Haram). Same point of doctrine, same side effects of that point.
Tim wrote:
Yeah, that Cult Leader and his “kirk” in Moscow, Idaho. Also a Reconstructionist looking forward to the takeover and Christian America.
In this Restored Christian America (with its 200-year-plans for YOUR Quiverfull dynasty including ESTATES and HOUSESERVANTS), think these guys see themselves as Massa Holding the Whip in the Big House at Tara?
Because in a slavery-based society, you either Hold the Whip or you Feel the Whip. And “gaining your freedom” becomes defined as “Now *I* Get to Hold the Whip!”
@ numo:
Did your read “Slave” by John MacArthur? I did but can’t remember too much about the details except that he said we are slaves to Christ and that the word has been apparently mistranslated in the NT as something more acceptable (I think I read bond servant somewhere). Anyhow, he discusses what some of the advantages of slavery are?were?could be? in NT times?–hard to remember the details. I do remember he said that the slave owner had the responsibility to provide food and clothing and such and he was saying that this is an advantage to being a slave of Christ–that he assumes responsibility for us.
I don’t recall that he got into any justification of slavery as practiced in the US, but he did not totally dismiss the idea from back in NT times, if I remember correctly. Anyhow, I remember thinking that he probably went farther in that direction than I had heard in any conversation while living in the south. Now, this was not a treatise on slavery–just an analysis on the believer’s relationship with Christ; I want to make that clear.
My apologies to JM if I have misunderstood, but I just checked a review of the book on line, and I think I am correct that he tried to explain some aspects of slavery in a somewhat different fashion that I am comfortable with, given this nation’s history.
Nancy wrote:
Nope. Just the opposite. Should read: in a somewhat different fashion than I am comfortable with…
than, not that
This is how stuff gets started. Phooey.
It’s good to see law enforcement taking this seriously.
Also, if you know anything about the history of the slavery and the South, Calvinists and people who followed Reformed theology were not the only, or even the primary founders and supporters of slavery.
It’s a Western problem, and a common human problem, really. Not just Western.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
It weirds me out that Doug Wilson is so accepted by such influential pastors.
@ Nancy:
People who are enslaved are *always* subject to abuses of all kinds. To say otherwise – whether of the 1st c. A.D. or the US system of vhattel slavety – is to be, at vety leadt, a revisionist. Like all those “historians” who claim that the Holocauet never happened.
McArthur’s bookmsounds like it’s intellectually (and factually!) dishonest, and i have zero interest in reading it. I think he’s spent too much time reading the work of pro-slavery apologists. Who knows, maybe his next “historical” work will be on biblical polygamy? /sarcasm
Ken wrote:
Because they are condoning evil. By definition!
numo wrote:
Why settle for innate value, when you can put a dollar figure on it (at least the black ones)?
I always think that people should put themselves in the position of imagining they were the victims. How far do you think these guys would get if the pastors’ daughter was molested???
numo wrote:
Every time I say this sort of thing may be coming I get hollered at as if I thought it was a good thing. None the less, I do think we may live to see a resurgence of the idea from some segments of the religious scene. And I think that partly because some Americans practice religions which permit it. Maybe I am wrong, but it looks like that discussion may be coming.
@ Nancy:
I’m sure the hardcore patriarchal crowd will go public about it. The way they live, and the religion they claim to believe, they are almost identical to many FDLS already.
I think some commenters have congirmed that it goes on in patrio cirvles, albeit in a limited way, but it’s been a good while since we had thst discussion.
@ Nancy:
I bet some of yhe Moscow, Idaho crew are in favor, fwiw.
numo wrote:
They’d better be careful, lest they disarm one of their favorite arguments against marriage equality (“It’s a slippery slope to polygamy, etc.!”).
numo wrote:
Joseph Smith’s Biblical justification for “plural marriage” WAS citing the example of the OT patriarchs and kings….
dee wrote:
Anyone think THAT’s what’s meant by “be not conformed to the world”?
Daisy wrote:
See how Good Little Boys get their Reward?
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
I know…
To not report known criminal activity to the police is a crime in and if itself. Law enforcement needs to be involved in order for offenders to be charged and hopefully brought to justice, and the information becomes public which alerts the public. When church officials take the law into their own hands and deal with criminal misconduct behind closed doors and then work to cover it up, perpetrators continue to operate in the dark and more individuals end up victimized. That’s the pattern.
When it’s discovered an organization engaged in a decades long conspiracy to cover up, for example, the sexual abuse of children, as in the case of Covenant Life Church under the close watch of CJ Mahaney, and in the midst of all the stories that came forth along with the conviction of Nate Morales, you still have the Mahaney’s sitting there in Kentucky pretending to be these godly people in full denial, you have to wonder how deep the corruption runs in their lives. Because, let’s face it, no honest God-fearing man or woman would refuse, like the Mahaney’s have steadfastly done, to come clean – especially after convincing people for years they were all about living the Cross-centered life. The Cross-centered life? The light of Truth exposed that lie, didn’t it?
At the end of the day, despite the unfortunate fact that the Mahaneys escaped justice and have not been officially charged for their knowledge & personal involvement in the conspiracy to cover-up the sexual abuse of children that occurred at Covenant Life Church, everyone knows they knew what was going on and that they’re liars. And lying isn’t a very Cross-centered thing to do. Liars purposely avoid the Truth. Liars lead dishonest lies. Liars aren’t authentic people. Liars escape living in the reality of the Truth, defined by the finished work of Jesus Christ. And who can respect someone who blathers on, week after week from the pulpit, preaching to others about being a Christian and living lives true to the Gospel, when you know their own testimony is full of fraud.
And while I seem to be on the topic of Mahaney, specifically, and our Christian testimony, one of the key aspects of Mahaney’s testimony is that he was arrested for drug dealing and that his arrest, and the fact his criminal activity came to light, caused him to repent and turn to God. So, you’d think he, of all people, would understand from his own experience how God works through the criminal justice system to expose the sins of sinners. CJ Mahaney didn’t have his “come to Jesus” moment in church. It happened in court, standing before a judge. That’s what put the fear of God into him, at least, in that moment. From there it seems he turned his new-found faith into a drug that he manufactured in his own formulation, and got people so hooked that they couldn’t even complain or ask questions about the side effects or the dosage they were receiving. He was the kingpin of his little kingdom, and his pastors worked like pushers. The gospel they were dealing wasn’t legal, and if Mahaney had truly turned to God back in the day he was called to account, he wouldn’t have ended up at the center of an organization like SGM that delivered a degenerate form of the gospel. Bad people – hirelings – disregard the law or moral code for the sake of monetary or social gain. Mahaney may have avoided another appearance before a judge in a Maryland court, but we all know lies don’t set anyone free. But don’t try and tell CJ Mahaney that or he’ll degift you this Christmas.
“…with liberty and justice for all!”
Nancy wrote:
You raise a very good point. And slavery was not just confined to the southern colonies, but rather it was widespread throughout the colonies. The last slaves were freed in Pennsylvania in 1847, New York outlawed slavery in 1827, New Jersey freed the last slaves 1865. New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Connecticut outlawed slavery in the 1780’s. All of these actions took place well after the death of George Whitefield in 1770. There doesn’t seem to have been a groundswell of public conscience and will opposing slavery in the colonies in 1751, the date it was legalized in Georgia.
__
“Incoming?”
Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of ‘church’ pastoral predators?
hmmm…
Paula ,
Calvinesta church officials with ‘absolutely’ no accountability excaping justice with the assistance of many ecclesiastical ‘friends’ ?
(bump)
So what else is new?
***
Dear friends, this is a certainly a desperate church hour; and as you have heard that the wolf has come amonst the fold, even now many church predators have come. This is how we know it is a desperate hour.
Alarm !
Therefore, Arise! Wake friend from your slumber, and be alert, least you and possibly your children be torn asunder as well.
(tears)
…religious lunatic fringe ‘out there’ killing da laughter?
Yep.
Dear friends, do not believe everyone who ‘claims’ pastoral authority, but ‘test’ them by the word of God, to see whether they are ‘really’ FROM God, because many ‘false’ 501(c)3 proverbial pulpit pounders have gone out into the ‘church’ world…
(sadface)
Sopy
__
Inspirational relief: “Good Night”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlEWnaFTYrA
—
Ken wrote:
Are you assuming that the only way to feel bound by moral standards is to be a Christian or possibly a Jew? As a nonreligious person I’ve found that the Golden Rule, which shows up in some form in culture after culture, without reference to a Bible verse, pretty much takes care of it.
I’ve managed to live a pretty long life so far without committing adultery or sexually abusing anyone. I’ve never done those things because I see other people as my equals and I wouldn’t want them done to me. I have plenty of flaws, but I’m not amoral just because I’m not a Christian. I cared for my mother through years of illness. I give to charity and I volunteer regularly for organizations that serve the needy. I taught school for years in a high poverty community, and I worked very hard to serve those kids. As a teacher I was a mandated reporter and I took that responsibility seriously. None of this makes me stand out among my circle of also mostly nonreligious friends. Maybe behaving reasonably doesn’t seem like such a big, hard task when you don’t believe in a Satan prowling around trying to trip you up.
As far as I understand it, Christianity is about belief in salvation through God’s grace. In that domain, it’s beyond logical argument and none of my business to critique. What it has to do with handling sexual abuse investigations in-house is unclear to me.
@ John:
@John,
Spot on comment, John! Thank you. I am in California and inadvertently found a fellow (new) church member on Megan’s List of sex offenders while I was doing a legal research project for a former sex crimes prosecutor.
I reported the sex offender to my church’s pastors. They had me in several meetings and screamed and yelled at me. They defended the guy as a long-time friend who could never hurt anybody. (His conviction was child porn, but many of those guys the research studies show also confess to on-contact child sexual abuse of children.) My pastors said it was fine for this sex offender to touch children, whose parents had no idea he was a sex offender on Megan’s List.
The four pastors/elders threatened me at the end of the meeting, read me a Scripture that I was deceived, factious, destined for hell, and an unbeliever: And that’s for being concerned about the safety of children!
The pastors/elders followed that threat up with another: The chairman of the elder board contacted me and told me that I was to never have contact with law enforcement again about this sex offender, either his supervising law enforcement agency or the California Attorney General’s Office.
I said, “Sure”, just to get them off my back. I didn’t mean it. Honestly, I didn’t. I will report any suspected child abuse and any mandated reporter who I believe hasn’t reported.
The senior pastor also told me in the meeting that any church husband has “the final authority over his family”, that if the husband decides to have the sex offender touch his children than that’s fine, and that his wife “is to obey him” and “to submit to him” and that his decision is final.
No, no, no, no, no.
The wife is commanded by the Lord to protect her children and by California criminal law. If she fails to protect her children, SHE can be arrested and prosecuted for misdemeanor or felony child abuse or neglect, she can get up to 1-year in jail or up to 6-years in state prison, Child Protective Services can take away her children and put them in the foster care system!!
And finally, my church’s pastors recently ordered that I be banned from church property, stripped of my church membership, and shunned because I refused to apologize to them because the California Attorney General’s Office said that “it was a total lie” and that this convicted sex offender was NOT coming off Megan’s List. The pastors/elders refused to meet with the sex offender’s supervising law enforcement agency.
The pastors/elders told me that I was to never reveal the name of the church I was a member of to law enforcement, the names of the pastors/elders, or ever have contact with this sex offender’s supervising law enforcement agency or the CA Attorney General.
The Sheriff’s sex offenders task crime force demanded to know what kind of church I was going to that threatened me in to silence and that refused to meet with them. Great question, Sheriff’s!
@ Doug:
I was just kicked out of my church and ordered to be shunned (Silicon Valley, California) for discovering a convicted sex offender on Megan’s List who is a fellow church member. I discovered him while doing a research project for a former sex crimes prosecutor.
The pastors/elders defend this sex offender to the hilt, say he’s a good friend of theirs, and the parents at church have no idea he’s a sex offender. The pastors/elders threatened me with being unsaved, deceived, destined for Hell, and should be shunned — at the end of a meeting about child abuse prevention at church!
They had the chairman of the elder board call me at home several days later and tell me that I was to never have contact with the California Attorney General’s Office again, never have contact with this sex offender’s supervising law enforcement agency (the Sheriff’s), never reveal the name of the church I was a member of to law enforcement, never reveal the names of the pastors/elders to law enforcement, and never call law enforcement again because I was “to obey their authority as [my] elders”.
The senior pastor also told me during the meeting that it was fine for this sex offender to touch children in the church, that any of the father’s could permit it, that the father’s word “was final” over his family, and that his wife had no say and was to “obey her husband” and to “submit to her husband”.
That’s criminally wrong in California. That mother is REQUIRED by law to protect her children, and if she doesn’t she can be arrested and prosecuted for child abuse/endangerment/neglect, face up to 1-year in jail or up to 6-years in state prison, lose her children to Child Protective Services who would place them in foster care!
@ Michaela:
Would you like to write a post for TWW about this situation? Please contact us.
@ Michaela:
Absolutely despicable! Thanks for sharing your story with us. Praying for you.
@ Michaela:
Please report what has happened to you to the police and also make a report to CPS if you are concerned that this man has contact with children. It may be that he has not been restricted from children if it was ONLY online porn that he was prosecuted for.
@ dee:
Hi Dee,
I would be happy to write it for you. I also owe an article about it to Julie Anne over at Spiritual Sounding Board.
@ deb:
Thanks Deb.
You know I have been a Christian for about 12 years and in this church for about 8-years. At my most recent church, I thought I had gotten in to a church with solid theology. (About 150 people, church plant, senior pastor was a graduate of John MacArthur’s The Master’s Seminary, and the senior pastor knows Hebrew and Greek. It all “seemed” solid. I didn’t realize, however, that this whole loving shepherd ideology was mutually exclusive from this domineering patriarchy beliefs that they were proclaiming.
dee wrote:
The pastors/elders at my (recently) former church even invited the convicted sex offender on Megan’s List to volunteer at our church’s summer basketball camp for children (1-week long), unbeknownst to the parents who entrusted their children to us (believers and unbelievers) and to another church’s/denomination’s school gym/grounds which we rented. Would they have even rented their air-conditioned school gym to us if they’d known a convicted sex offender on Megan’s List was invited by these pastors/elders to volunteer with children? (The sex offender couldn’t show up because of a scheduling conflict, he was out of the area.) But if a child had been harmed by him at our evangelistic outreach camp for kids, that other church could have been sued as well and had their reputation harmed! Just the arrogance of these pastors to go behind their backs.
Michaela wrote:
As far as these MenaGAWD are concerned, you’re Predestined for Eternal Hell. After they destroyed your life like that, may as well take some of them with you.
Like leaving them a little “legacy” with the Sheriff’s Sex Offenders Task Force, the Probation Department, the Attorney General, and the Media. Names, dates, everything.
Many thanks to you both for your faithfulness to truth.
B.R.O.
Bridget wrote:
Hi Bridget,
Will do. My concern about his conviction for child porn, which landed him on Megan’s List of sex offenders, is that the research done by the FBI, District Attorneys’ Association, and The Mayo Clinic says that the majority of those inmates also confessed to having ‘on contact sexual abuse’ of children that they were never caught, arrested and convicted for. So there’s that issue and the whole issue of child safety at church and having safeguards in place.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Yes, according to the four pastors/elders (two of them who work for software companies here in Silicon Valley, California) I am surely destined for Hell because I had the temerity to bring up the issue of child abuse prevention at church. They closed the meeting with that Scripture…that I was factious, deceived, an unbeliever who should be shunned. No joke. No jive! In their sick and twisted world a convicted sex offender on Megan’s List is given carte blanche to the church and the children and I’m threatened over and over again for protecting children and for being “unsubmissive” (which means I have two working brain cells and a working mouth.