Bob Jones University, Boz Tchvidjian, and GRACE: An Unprecedented, Historic Report on Sex Abuse

I find that when you open the door toward openness and transparency, a lot of people will follow you through. – Kirsten Gillibrand link

https://www.google.com/search?q=boz+tchividjian+and+public+image&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb#client=firefox-a&hs=5CR&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&channel=fflb&sclient=psy-ab&q=boz+tchividjian+and+photo&oq=boz+tchividjian+and+photo&gs_l=serp.12...4816.7975.0.10059.15.14.0.0.0.7.170.1625.4j10.14.0...0.0...1c.1.16.psy-ab.8uxUuagDxnA&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.47534661,d.dmg&fp=bcd960042f9073dd&biw=1440&bih=606
Boz!

*Trigger alert* some content may be graphic/upsetting

[[[ UPDATE: 12/13/14 There are reports that South Carolina will look into the BJU situation to see if laws were broken. LINK ]]]

History

In 2011, a group of brave, intelligent and awesome (yes, we are biased in this regard) students at Bob Jones University(BJU) called Do Right BJU began to openly discuss a climate of secrecy and repression when it came to dealing with sexual abuse on the campus as well as in affiliated churches. During that time, they also protested that Chuck Phelps was on the Board of Trustees. Remember him? He was the pastor who made a teenage girl confess that she had sex with a church member (read: rape) and became pregnant. The rapist did get sent to jail through no help of Phelps. Phelps resigned due the efforts of the students.

For those who not aware, BJU is a school which is part of a network of Independent Fundamentalist Baptists(IFB). The IFB promotes a strict view of the Scripture and a jaundiced view of anything that appears to be modernist incursions into the church.

It is also relevant to note that we wrote a post called Is The Independent Fundamental Baptist Church Any Different Than the Southern Baptist Convention and Sovereign Grace Ministries? in which we reviewed the book by Jeri Massi called Schizophrenic Christianity. (Yes, this is the Jeri Massi of Dr Who fandom. She is a reader of our blog, and we ate lunch with her which officially makes us cool!) This startling book portrays the rather sordid history of the IFB when it comes to sex abuse and reporting.

In 2012, BJU, in a stunning development, hired Boz Tchvidjian's G.R.A.C.E. to investigate complaints on how BJU handled sex abuse reports. Why stunning? The IFB, along with other groups like the SBC, have been loathe to allow outsiders into their controlled world. An uproar ensued when BJU suddenly fired GRACE. That's when the New York Times took notice. The subsequent pressure led to the resignation of the the President of BJU along with, eventually, the reinstatement of GRACE.

As an aside, it is helpful to note that Boz Tchvidjian is a grandson of Billy Graham. Billy Graham attended BJU for one semester and left over disagreements with university policies. TWW was delighted to have former BJU professor Dr Camille Lewis (quoted in the NYT article), write a history of BJU for our readers. Unfortunately, some pressure was brought to bear on Dr. Lewis, as documented in this post.

Current Events

BJU Responded ahead of the GRACE report

BJU President responded ahead of the GRACE report. For those of you who are not familiar with the IFB, this statement is truly a departure from business as usual. Please understand that I am NOT saying it is a perfect response. I am saying it is a change. Here are some excerpts.

On behalf of Bob Jones University, I would like to sincerely and humbly apologize to those who felt they did not receive from us genuine love, compassion, understanding, and support after suffering sexual abuse or assault. We did not live up to their expectations. We failed to uphold and honor our own core values. We are deeply saddened to hear that we added to their pain and suffering. 

To them I would say—we have carefully listened to your voice. We take your testimony in this report to our hearts. We intend to thoroughly review every aspect and concern outlined in the investigation and respond appropriately.

We are all awakening to the depth and breadth of this societal problem. Colleges and universities across the country are reassessing how they handle cases of sexual abuse and assault. We want to be part of that solution. To do that, we must first address our own failings, and the GRACE report helps in that effort by identifying specific areas of concerns. Some of those concerns include the following: 

The report stated that BJU officials were not adequately prepared or trained to counsel victims appropriately.
University staff members were perceived by some to be insensitive to their suffering and sometimes rushed to resolve their negative feelings without adequate concern for their pain.

  • Some victims reported that the counseling offered by the University was inadequate, insensitive and counter-productive.
  • Some felt a number of staff members at the University tended to blame victims for the abuse or sexual assault they experienced and that this implied blame left them feeling more traumatized.
  • The report found that counseling sometimes overlapped with disciplinary actions.
  • Victims felt counseling should be separated from BJU’s discipline process and a clear procedure of confidentiality should be established.

…In a final note, we are thankful for GRACE and Boz Tchividjian. They are devoted to the cause of preventing sexual abuse and their contributions are significant. 

GRACE

*Trigger alert*

Here is the link to this remarkable report. It is almost impossible to do justice to the tremendous work that went into this endeavor. For those of you who have followed TWW, we believe you will discover that the comments in this report bear a resemblance to a number of other reports by victims in other churches within evangelicalism. In other words, there is nothing here that has not been alleged in a number of SBC churches and SGM churches. Please see my assessment at the end.

One point made in the report needs to be emphasized. This was not a court proceeding, and those who spoke with GRACE were not cross-examined. They were there to share their stories and concerns. Please put the word *alleged* before all reports (for the lawyers). As readers will note, many of the experiences were remarkably consistent, which lends credence to the reports. Several of the respondents expressed their reservation at sharing such details.TWW congratulates them for their bravery in forging ahead in detailing very painful episodes. One comment:

Please know that these people are extremely scary. You will be dealing with a lot of people who are fearful to speak. Even I am fearful to fill out this survey, but I want my friend to get the justice that she deserves. I cannot bring justice. I can only seek it. Your involvement gives so many peace and hope.

The report included reports from those who attended BJU and those who attended BJU's Christian Academy. Some incidents did not occur on campus. There were allegations made by those who were abused by family members as well. A comment:

I felt swept under the carpet. I felt that I had no right to my feelings, that I should just get over it instead of facing it, that I had to respect the person who abused me because they were my father [sic] and I felt like I was being scolded, that I had to hide my feelings and shut up about it. I felt like I did not matter as a person much less a victim of any abuse and that anything I was feeling or experiencing was chalked up to me being sinful.

Here are some highlights from the report.

Victims felt unsafe in reporting abuse.

The reports seemed to indicate that those with a history of sex abuse did not consider BJU a safe place to discuss their abuse. Here is an example why.

I was abused from the ages of 6-14 by my grandfather. When I went for counseling I was told, “Did you repent for your part of the abuse? Did your body respond favorably? If it did, then you need to repent. You’re bitter and care more about your pain than the salvation of your family. You should have never gone to the police because it tore your family apart and that’s your fault. You love yourself more than you love God and that’s why you’re struggling.” And, on and on it goes.15

I would like to add that the vast majority of those who reported sexual abuse of any kind were immediately disbelieved until it was proven, and many times even then, they were viewed as having suspicious motives for seeking justice.16 

BJU allegedly discouraged reporting to authorities.

It appears that that BJU officials may have discouraged some from reporting sexual crimes to the proper authorities.

Victims heard, consistently, from chapel speakers and faculty/staff, that abusers should be forgiven, that they bore the sin of bitterness, and that they should not report abusers.17

Its [sic] best not to make a big deal out of this for the good of the school.19 

Some victims believed that they were to blame for their abuse.

A number of individuals indicated that various BJU representatives such as counselors, teachers, and chapel speakers blamed victims for the occurrence of abuse they suffered. Some of these complaints included:

BJU admin definitely held the view that a victim was always at least partially responsible, even if just a tiny part, and had the greatest obligation to deal with that tiny responsible part, as well as repenting of hatred for the perpetrator.3 

If a girl is raped she must have done something to provoke it. It was ALWAYS made to be the woman’s fault. We were “stumbling blocks” to the men.9 

There seemed to be confusion amongst the students as to whether or not sex abuse was ever addressed publicly.

One of the more intriguing findings in this investigation is the degree to which recollections about BJU teachings on the topic of sexual abuse differ among former students. Students who apparently heard the same sermons and lectures seemed to come away with vastly discrepant perspectives on what was communicated. Some former students reported, for example, that comments on sexual abuse were rare, if they occurred at all:

I don’t remember it ever being discussed. However, all my personal experiences with administration were dealt with lovingly and compassionately.16 

The canary example

GRACE explains:

In more concrete terms, abuse victims may be able to detect toxic victim blaming/perpetrator exonerating attitudes in highly diluted concentrations that non-abused individuals may lack the sensitivity to detect. A canary illustrates this concept well. When miners go to work down in the depths of their mine, they often bring a canary with them. The canary detects and begins choking on toxic fumes before the fumes reach sufficient concentration to be detected by the miners. Like the canary, victims of sexual abuse detect toxic messages of blame before others who have not experienced abuse detect these messages. 

Different perspectives are to be expected.

No one should discount the investigation participants who shared positive experiences at BJU (most of whom did not identify themselves as victims of sexual abuse). Without question, many alumni, students, faculty, and staff had wonderful experiences there. Likewise, no one should discount the investigation participants who shared about pain and suffering they experienced at BJU and how those experiences negatively impacted them.  (p.47)

Some women believe they were blamed for their attack by the way they dressed.

There appeared to be lots of emphasis by faculty and administration on how a woman dressed. If they dressed in a certain way, it caused their brothers to lust which  presumably led to an unwanted sexual encounter with a woman! At BJU there is a strict dress code.

1. Triggering Abuse

A number of individuals, including some current and former faculty and students, expressed concern that BJU administrators and faculty have placed the onus of responsibility for men’s lust upon women.24 These investigation participants reported that these messages shift the responsibility for abuse from a perpetrator to a victim,25 and some investigation participants reported hearing messages about how a woman somehow triggered her abuse.26 

A former student explained that she took a class in BJU’s criminal justice department in the mid-2000s and one of the articles the class read was written by a female professor who had traveled to France and “had been severely raped and almost killed…the consensus of the male students in the class was that the woman must have done something to deserve it. Not one student stated otherwise. I tried several times to enter the discussion after this point was made, but was put off from being able to speak several times until the bell finally rang. I 

However, administrators claim they did not believe they put the blame of men's lust on women.

Individuals who were sexually abused were shamed into believing they were damaged goods.

Moreover, when an environment exalts virginity as the ideal, the failure to address sexual abuse is a damaging omission for victims. Talk that only exalts purity reminds victims that they are relegated to the status of a second-class citizen by definition. In such an environment, there is no hope for a victim, because the damage is done.79 

Counseling revictimized the abused individual.

Many individuals who were counseled at BJU believed they were revictimized by the process. GRACE reviewed the counseling beliefs at BJU. This section is both fascinating and troubling. We would like to look at it as a separate post in the near future.

I know there are people who went to school there that are okay and have healthy lives. But I don’t think anyone that went through their counseling for anything significant are okay and fine or have healthy lives.86

I had nightmares for years. What happened to me was terrible. What the people at Bob Jones did to me was worse. I asked for counseling. It was one of the worst mistakes I ever made.87 

Did the abused get pleasure from the abuse?

Yes, you read that right! One particularly troubling aspect of the counseling is that the victims were asked whether they got any pleasure out of the abuse.

Another individual also explained hearing this message in a counseling session with a BJU counselor. She stated that she had been the victim of childhood sexual abuse before coming to BJU in the late 2000s. When she came to BJU, she sought counseling at BJU. The former student related that the issue of “pleasure” came up when discussing her abuse with the counselor. She said that her counselor said, “that if I had ever experienced pleasure, that was sin that I needed to repent of.”156 The victim stated that these comments left her very hurt and confused.157 In an interview with GRACE, the counselor denied asking the counselee about pleasure or telling her to repent of it. She stated, “I have never said that to my class and I haven’t counseled that way.” 

Symptoms and effects experienced by those traumatized.

GRACE heard witnesses describe a heartbreaking array of devastating symptoms and effects from the sexual trauma they endured:

  • feelings of blame, shame, and worthlessness;
  • difficulty with forgiveness, fear, anger, and depression;
  • denial, powerlessness;
  • memory loss, blackouts, nightmares, sleeplessness, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
  • nausea, flashbacks, panic attacks, eating disorders;
  • substance abuse addictions;
  • loss of trust and personal relationships, loss of employment, loss of libido, loss of
  • pregnancy;
  • pornography addictions, compulsive masturbation, sexual confusion, sexual
  • deviance;
  • prostitution, physical abuse;
  • cutting, hair pulling, attempted suicide. 

Some victims said they were accused of being bitter. (There is a reason that it is a banned word on TWW!)

“Anyone who still struggles with pain or hurt from a past event has not forgiven and is bitter. They see the victim of abuse automatically as bitter and unforgiving. There can be no other explanation for their pain, their confusion, their nightmares, PTSD symptoms, etc. It can only be the fault of the victim.”10 

They were allegedly told that their inability to forgive quickly was sinful.

As one such victim reported, a BJU representative told her, “You should call your abuser and tell him you forgive him, witness to him.” Reference 16.

Grieving the abuse was seemingly discouraged.

 I was told to forgive, but I was never truly allowed to feel angry, or to allow myself to reflect on the hurt that I should feel. It was as if [the perpetrator] had called me a mean name or lied to me. There seemed to be very little recognition of the fact that child sex abuse leaves feelings of shame and confusion. These types of feelings were never addressed. 

Justice for the victims seemed to be downplayed.

 The victim stated that she was sexually assaulted by a BJU student in the 1990s. After the assault, the offense was reported to BJU authorities who interviewed the alleged perpetrator. The alleged perpetrator minimized the extent of his actions, but he admitted to touching her inappropriately without her consent while he believed she was sleeping.

The university expelled the alleged perpetrator but readmitted him a year later.70 The victim reported that after being readmitted, the alleged perpetrator harassed her by coming to her home and leaving notes on her car. BJU authorities also reportedly asked the alleged perpetrator to lead the student body in prayer during a chapel service while he was on probation.71 The alleged perpetrator also reapplied for his job at the location where the offense reportedly occurred and where the victim was still working.72

The alleged perpetrator graduated from BJU and now serves overseas as a missionary.73 BJU permitted the alleged perpetrator to return to campus as a mission organization representative in 2011.74 In 2012, the victim reported the offense herself to law enforcement,75 and later received a letter from the alleged perpetrator requesting forgiveness.76 

Victims were reportedly told to utilize Matthew 18 and confront their abuser.

Another victim of sexual abuse reported that her Dorm Counselor in the late 1990s advised her to confront her abuser. She explained, “[I]t was treated like a Matthew 18 thing and told that I needed to confront him of his sin.”141 She explained that the Dorm Counselor told her that she “needed to deal with the mandate to offer forgiveness, and because it is sin, he needs a chance to repent.”142  

Counseling ethics were questioned.

Apparently, some victims felt unsafe in disclosing their abuse due to fears that they would be discussed with others without their permission.

 A childhood victim of physical and sexual abuse stated that she came to BJU as a student in the 2000s. Because her parents had forbidden her to seek counseling after she left home, she explained, “[t]he very first appointment I had with [the counselor] I stressed how absolutely important confidentiality is because in fundamentalism, everyone knows everyone.”48 Despite her expressions of fear, “After the first session, less than a week later, I got a call from the pastor’s wife of [the victim’s former church]. [The BJU counselor] called her to ‘confirm my story.’ That is a big thing with them. I feel like I spent half the time trying to prove to them that this happened.”49 The victim reported that her pastor’s wife was “very upset [that] I was in counseling [because discussing the abuse] was ruining my parents’ ministry and [I] needed to be quiet.”50 

TWW Assessment:

Both Deb and I are truly astounded by the scope, depth and thoughtfulness of this GRACE report. We are even more astonished that BJU allowed this investigation to occur and accepted its public distribution. Given the history of BJU and the IFB, this is truly an unexpected occurrence. It is amazing that BJU allowed an outside entity, which is not IFB related, to have unprecedented access to the students, faculty and employees, knowing that these issues would be brought to light.

Of course, there is much work to be done at BJU. But, then again, what happened at BJU occurs over and over again in today's evangelical churches. There are many churches and groups that should hang there heads in shame as they, too, have utilized such tactics in dealing with the horrors of sexual abuse.

The students at BJU should be given a standing ovation because they stood up in the face of negative consequences. DO Right BJU made the difference.

GRACE and Boz Tchvidjian have demonstrated for the entire evangelical population how to look into accusations of child sex abuse. They wrote a report which should become a template for all evangelical churches dealing with sex abuse. Thank you Boz!

The administration at BJU did something that frankly stunned me. I believed they would find a way to squelch this report. They did not. They took it on the chin and have set a precedent for handling such accusations in the future.

There are a number of educators at BJU who supported and loved the students. Dr Lewis, thank you for your testimony.

Finally, the victims…I cried as I read some of this report. You are courageous, strong and godly. I stand in awe of you all. TWW is here for you should you ever want to tell your stories.

This story is just beginning. Please join with us in praying that this report will be the first of many which results in a change in the evangelical church and its sad history of covering up child sex abuse. The hard work of reconciliation, restitution, and change starts now. 

Evangelical churches and institutions, take notice. Your responses in the future will be compared to this report. There is a new standard in town.

Lydia's Corner:  Genesis 37:1-38:30 Matthew 12:22-45 Psalm 16:1-11 Proverbs 3:27-32

 

Comments

Bob Jones University, Boz Tchvidjian, and GRACE: An Unprecedented, Historic Report on Sex Abuse — 224 Comments

  1. I never would have thought, in my wildest dreams, that an IFB institution would set an example for the evangelical world to follow. Good point, Deebs.

  2. I read the whole report. I am impressed by the carefulness and thoroughness that produced it and by the courage of the victims. BJU is a judgmental, oppressive environment and I couldn’t breathe there. The system of having students assess and inform on each other could have been developed by the KGB

  3. I still cannot wrap my brain around the idea that any human being would blame the victim of a sexual assault. It's a CRIME, people.

  4. nmgirl wrote:

    I still cannot wrap my brain around the idea that any human being would blame the victim of a sexual assault. It’s a CRIME, people.

    Amen! A crime indeed!

  5. XianJaneway wrote:

    I never would have thought, in my wildest dreams, that an IFB institution would set an example for the evangelical world to follow. Good point, Deebs.

    Exactly. This is nothing short of stunning for me. I’m thankful for the bravery of these students as well.

  6. Have to say that I’m surprised but pleased that BJU did the right thing here. I read the statement and think it is a good start.

    Victim blaming and shaming simply must stop. It is ungodly to make the victim pay twice via the abuse and then the subsequent shaming and blaming from people who claim to be spiritual authorities and who should be trustworthy to protect the vulnerable. The bit about “pleasure from the abuse” is beyond description with words suitable for a Christian blog. These leaders need a course in anatomy with emphasis on the nervous system. The ignorance of those foolish “counselors” is beyond description, too.

    The worldliness that has infested our churches is disheartening, but I hope that this will cause many to re-think how they mistreat the marginalized while elevating and protecting the powerful. May Kingdom thinking return to the church and may many leaders be brought to repentance and become examples to the flock instead of lords over and above them.

  7. As a former BJU student, I’d like to add that I was also amazed at some of the recommendations at the end of the report. To recommend disciplinary action against Bob Jones III is, as one post on Facebook put it, the same as asking the Catholic Church to discipline the Pope! Maybe since a lot of you here aren’t from BJU circles, you don’t fully understand the ramifications of the report. Some big names in BJU circles are targeted and criticized. To suggest that Dr. Jim Berg should never counsel again is an attack on their poster boy for counseling. I will be shocked if the university follows those specific recommendations.

    Dee and Deb – Could you possibly put on your radar again the whole nouthetic counseling movement? This report is really an indictment against that form of counseling which in my opinion is very dangerous, and not just when applied to sexual abuse. I found one post that you wrote on nouthetic counseling and Jay Adams a while back, but I think you got sidetracked by the SGM controversies at the time. Nouthetic counseling is the preferred method in both IFB and Calvinista circles by my experience. It needs to be exposed for the damage that it does.

  8. Former Fundy wrote:

    Could you possibly put on your radar again the whole nouthetic counseling movement?

    You are reading my mind. We plan to look at this movement in light of the report. We need to write several more posts on this whole subject!

  9. dee wrote:

    We plan to look at this movement in light of the report. We need to write several more posts on this whole subject!

    Excellent! I look forward to it. Also, as a lurker on your site for a while, let me say how much of a blessing it has been. You have opened my eyes to a lot of things recently, and I thought my eyes were already open!

  10. nmgirl wrote:

    I still can not wrap my brain around the idea that any human being would blame the victim of a sexual assault. It’s a CRIME, people.

    In my experience, many people default to this position. I don’t know why they do, but I have had very few people who did not hint that I was at least equally to blame. Hmm…even concerning the event that happened when I was 2 1/2, it has been suggested to me that it was my fault because I shouldn’t have gone into his room. I was 2 1/2. Anyway, yeah. Blaming the victim is pretty standard in my experience. I still fight those words in my head that blame me….

  11. The report is out, and those worms can never be squished back into the can. But I wouldn’t give BJU too much credit yet. I’d not be surprised if they issue a generic statement that “We’re taking the report into consideration” and proceed to change nothing at all. I’d be shocked if they fixed anything at all.

    And yes, nouthetic counseling’s dangerous side needs more exposure. I’ve heard people wish that there was a Christian (i.e. nouthetic) counseling center in the area. I try to conceal my satisfaction that there aren’t any; I’d like for it to stay that way.

  12. Josh wrote:

    And yes, nouthetic counseling’s dangerous side needs more exposure. I’ve heard people wish that there was a Christian (i.e. nouthetic) counseling center in the area. I try to conceal my satisfaction that there aren’t any; I’d like for it to stay that way.

    I completely agree. One thing I’m thankful for is that my church mostly stays away from this type of thinking. A few weeks ago, a therapist who co-writes sermons and counsels other church members, besides people not in the church, taught a sermon. This therapist is also a woman……need I say more?

  13. I’m pleased that the report is out and people are commenting on it here and elsewhere. I’m so happy that news organizations such as the NY Times are picking up on this. I’m thrilled that the victims are being heard for the first time and that BJU is being held accountable. The report deals fairly with the victims; it does not add to their hurt. It also puts BJU in a more positive light when considering the material provided.

    That said, I’m not so pleased with BJU’s response to the report. The day before the report was released, Steve Pettit, current president of BJU, made a statement full of legal weasel words which stopped short of an actual confession of sin and asking forgiveness.

    On behalf of Bob Jones University, I would like to sincerely and humbly apologize to those who felt they did not receive from us genuine love, compassion, understanding, and support after suffering sexual abuse or assault.

    I promise the victims who felt we failed them that the GRACE report is an extremely high priority that has our immediate and full attention.

    We do not take the concerns of the victims who believe we failed them lightly.

    All quotes taken from http://www.bju.edu/news/2014-12-10-grace-report-statement.php. Emphasis mine.

    They also have put off enacting any of the suggestions GRACE has given them. A statement made after the release of the report states they have doubts of GRACE’s methodology. Some of those discussing the matter feel it’s a hook for dismissing the report.

    I guess I’ll rejoice more when I see BJU actually repent (turn from their behavior), confess their sin, and ask forgiveness of each victim. I’ll be over the moon if they sanction Bob Jones III and pull Jim Berg off all counseling duties.

  14. Gram3 wrote:

    The bit about “pleasure from the abuse” is beyond description with words suitable for a Christian blog.

    Sounds to me like a Church Lady type finding ways to get off vicariously and cop a Moral Superiority attitude at the same time.

  15. Josh wrote:

    And yes, nouthetic counseling’s dangerous side needs more exposure. I’ve heard people wish that there was a Christian (i.e. nouthetic) counseling center in the area.

    Nouthetic Counseling(TM) is like Dianetics with conventional Christian terminology.

  16. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Sounds to me like a Church Lady type finding ways to get off vicariously and cop a Moral Superiority attitude at the same time.

    Dear LORD HUG, why do you always make me laugh and then feel guilty about it afterwards?

  17. Well, it’s really a good start isn’t it? Even though the weasel words do jump out.

    I also have to say that I have rarely, if ever, read words more horrifying than those about asking an abuse victim if their ‘bodies responded favourably’ because if they did this was a sin. Words almost fail me. I cannot even imagine what this would do to the heart & mind of an abuse victim/survivor, & my heart goes out to those who heard this vicious evil bile. I’m going to have to end here because I am so incensed.

  18. I understand many have an ax to grind against BJU, but BJU administration’s response may be a more constructive response as opposed to the reaction of some neoevangelical organizations such as the AWBE or the SBC. AWBE fired GRACE from an investigation GRACE was conducting. And of course everyone has heard Page Pattersons accusation that organization such as Stop Baptist Predators are “evil doers.” We will wait and see what happens.

  19. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Yo – 22nd !!

    Evening Nick,

    I know you’re near the bottom of the comments at the moment, but give it 48 hours and I’m fairly confident you’ll find you’ve moved into the top 10%

  20. Beakerj wrote:

    I also have to say that I have rarely, if ever, read words more horrifying than those about asking an abuse victim if their ‘bodies responded favourably’ because if they did this was a sin.

    I found this sickening. But, did you know that there are a number of people running around evangelical circles who have said this to abuse victims? We have mentioned this in conjunction with other abuse scandals.

  21. K.D. wrote:

    But….I wonder, a year from now, will anything have really changed?

    I don't know. One thing has changed, however. The next time a church refuses to open up on an abuse situation, they will have to explain why they won't do what BJU did.

  22. Mark wrote:

    Page Pattersons accusation that organization such as Stop Baptist Predators are

    You mean the Paige Patterson who told a woman to return to her abusive husband and rejoiced when she showed up with two black eyes because her husband came to church?

  23. Tikatu wrote:

    They also have put off enacting any of the suggestions GRACE has given them. A statement made after the release of the report states they have doubts of GRACE’s methodology. Some of those discussing the matter feel it’s a hook for dismissing the report.

    i would not be surprised if this is what happens. I am going to give them kudos for allowing the report to be released. They could have stopped the process. How many churches would never have allowed such a report to surface?

    The report is out. BJU now has to live with those words which are indelibly inked.They now have to walk into the future with these accusations. Their counseling methods have been exposed to the world.

  24. 1- To ever claim either implicitly or explicitly that a victims uncontrolled biological response to abuse makes them in any way complicit in the crime committed against them is evil.

    2- In my experience, adult abusers/addicts(unhealthy sexual) often experienced traumatic abuse as children. The trauma coupled with the confusing and destructive nature of uncontrolled biological responses can create a distorted psyche that later willingly seeks out recreating the behavior later in life. It is also a survival mechanism—by recreating the memory of the abuse experience a victim can say, “it wasn’t that bad”. Not that this is a true feeling, but it is a coping mechanism. To then, as a counselor, conflate the abuse with the later response to and perspective of the abuse is a travesty of epic proportions.

    Even if the adult survivor of abuse acts out in unhealthy ways, or, abusive ways, it is important to separate the abuse experienced as a child from the choices as an adult. I don’t mean ignoring the sources of a troubled mind, but recognizing that there is no defense and justification of what happened to one as a child based on what they MIGHT be doing as an adult.

  25. @ K.D.:

    Bingo. they would have to change their foundational beliefs.

    and I thought they did fire GRACE but there was a lot of bad PR as a result. I am also wondering about some of the perps. Has BJU followed through with reporting them and providing proper counseling for the victims?

    I hope this report will warn people off from attending there and it goes out of business, but I sincerely doubt it.

  26. Yesterday i got through about 2/3rds of the report. It’s taking me forever because I keep reading most of the footnotes in addition to the text. A couple of things stick in my mind.

    As far as blaming women’s clothing for any abuse or harassment, this thinking within BJU apparently goes all the way back to the original Bob Jones, Sr. There was a quotation of a sermon he gave to a group of women sometime in the 1920s, I think, where he complained about modern women’s dress and how he despaired of men’s virtue and their ability to control themselves as long as young women were dressing to attract all the mashers in town. It ends with him warning the women about sending men to hell by their temptations toward lust.

    A couple of other footnotes I read had to do with the influences listed by Jim Berg, and Drs. Fremont and Wood. Some book about Dispensationalism and God’s plan for the ages was cited regarding their ideas about Trinitarian Man or Triune Man, illustrated with concentric circles representing the parts of Man–body, soul, and spirit. Sounded like something out of the Four Spiritual Laws. Anyway, at least one of these guys was on record, during a discussion with students studying the counseling of sexual abuse victims, referring to the human body as the least important part of a person, or “the throwaway part”. (Made me wonder if these guys are a bunch of neognostics.) They did mention the future Resurrection of the dead when our bodies will be perfected, so perhaps it’s hey, who cares what happens to the body? But add that to the belief that what happens in a person’s soul is completely under their control, and what happens to the body can just stay with the body. Suffering with PTSD symptoms? Read these Bible verses and call me in the morning. Don’t forget prayer, and quickly forgiving your abuser. Suffer too long, and you may have a bitterness or unforgiveness problem. In fact, you need to use Matthew 18 and confront your abuser yourself, maybe even witness to him. If that doesn’t work, tell your pastor—just don’t call the cops. Above all, hurry up and get past this so you can be of service to God. Sorry, I’m ranting…

  27. This is off topic, but this Christmas season so far has seemed very difficult for myself and those around me. I have rarely heard more stories of struggle and suffering around the holidays. So this morning I was listening to some songs on youtube by our friend Matt Redman. They brought such encouragement and the ability for me to refocus. I’m going to try to paste a link in which he discusses the story behind the song “Never Once”.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=de6M5iu3Ez8

  28. @ Lydia:

    I have some of those same questions, and I can’t get the timeline straight. I just read TWW post in 2011 linked above. Very interesting post which highlights the way that the internet has changed the ability to hide our garbage. And the comment thread mentions Driscoll and SGM, and we all know how the web changed those stories. A *lot* of dirty church water has passed under the bridge since then. Wonder where Seneca is now that the report and acknowledgment has been issued.

  29. Also, every one of these clowns needs to be replaced and not allowed to counsel anyone ever again, but Jim Berg is the poster child for why this profession ordinarily requires licensure after completing a graduate degree in the subject. Maybe he meant well and tried to do the best he knew how, but at the very least it was a case of he didn’t know what he didn’t know.

    It is also mind boggling to me that these guys didn’t know about the mandatory reporting laws until the 1990s at the earliest. Were they really that isolated in their own little bubble, or are they stretching the truth more than salt water taffy? Either way, I would support legislation requiring even private institutions to have properly staffed, independent counseling departments to achieve or keep their accreditation. If any Christian institution could but will not take these steps, let the rest of the Body of Christ be warned about them.

  30. dee wrote:

    Mark wrote:
    Page Pattersons accusation that organization such as Stop Baptist Predators are
    You mean the Paige Patterson who told a woman to return to her abusive husband and rejoiced when she showed up with two black eyes because her husband came to church?

    Awful story. I don’t see him every apologizing for any of this, and Southern Baptists would traditionally shake their heads at IFB shenanigans? Patterson probably thought he was saving her husbands soul by getting him into church to listen to Mr. Patterson ‘s annointed message, and that the wife was doing a sacred duty staying in that abusive relationship, which was to “get the husband saved.” I have heard sermons in which SBC pastors counsel abused women to stay in an abusive relationship, and it isn’t just Patterson.

  31. NJ wrote:

    Some book about Dispensationalism and God’s plan for the ages was cited regarding their ideas about Trinitarian Man or Triune Man, illustrated with concentric circles representing the parts of Man–body, soul, and spirit. Sounded like something out of the Four Spiritual Laws.

    I remember the “Triune Man” teachings during my time in-country in the Seventies. All over the place in Christianese AM radio and every Gospel(TM) tract. Strongly-implied claim of TRUTH dating back to 33 AD. Couldn’t get away from it.

    Is that where and when said doctrine originated?

  32. NJ wrote:

    Anyway, at least one of these guys was on record, during a discussion with students studying the counseling of sexual abuse victims, referring to the human body as the least important part of a person, or “the throwaway part”.

    “So what if I rack him ’til he die? For I shall have Saved His Soul.”
    — “The Inquisitor”, Mark Twain’s Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court

  33. dee wrote:

    i would not be surprised if this is what happens. I am going to give them kudos for allowing the report to be released. They could have stopped the process.

    They tried to. Fired GRACE when they found out GRACE’s report wasn’t going to tell them what they wanted to hear. Caused a REAL BIG STINK all over the blogosphere and they ended up rehiring GRACE.

  34. Lydia wrote:

    @ K.D.:
    Bingo. they would have to change their foundational beliefs.
    and I thought they did fire GRACE but there was a lot of bad PR as a result. I am also wondering about some of the perps. Has BJU followed through with reporting them and providing proper counseling for the victims?
    I hope this report will warn people off from attending there and it goes out of business, but I sincerely doubt it.

    From what I’ve heard, GRACE informed law enforcement on some of these cases.

  35. dee wrote:

    Beakerj wrote:

    I also have to say that I have rarely, if ever, read words more horrifying than those about asking an abuse victim if their ‘bodies responded favourably’ because if they did this was a sin.

    I found this sickening. But, did you know that there are a number of people running around evangelical circles who have said this to abuse victims? We have mentioned this in conjunction with other abuse scandals.

    I’m not sure I remember reading this before, but either way it struck me as so obscene I really didn’t know what to do with it. Where do they get this utter sh*te from? Whose head does that stuff enter? ‘Competent to Counsel’ my *rse.

  36. NJ wrote:

    Also, every one of these clowns needs to be replaced and not allowed to counsel anyone ever again, but Jim Berg is the poster child for why this profession ordinarily requires licensure after completing a graduate degree in the subject. Maybe he meant well and tried to do the best he knew how, but at the very least it was a case of he didn’t know what he didn’t know.

    Nouthetic or “Biblical” counselors don’t need that degree, it seems.

    It is also mind boggling to me that these guys didn’t know about the mandatory reporting laws until the 1990s at the earliest. Were they really that isolated in their own little bubble, or are they stretching the truth more than salt water taffy?

    Yes, they are that isolated and by choice. No intercollegiate sports until the last couple of years. Even their local “orbital” churches are this way; they only fellowship with each other and even that is infrequent.

    Either way, I would support legislation requiring even private institutions to have properly staffed, independent counseling departments to achieve or keep their accreditation. If any Christian institution could but will not take these steps, let the rest of the Body of Christ be warned about them.

    Oh, me too! (Though this report may put a spanner in the works as BJU attempts to get regional accreditation through SACS. Right now, they have only national accreditation, which is barely better than nothing. Even that came after my husband and I got our degrees there; as far as the world is concerned, those degrees aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on.)

  37. Okay. I’ve had a little time to think. I have a question: Why is it when mens’ bodies respond to ‘external stimuli,’ it is never the man’s fault – it is the woman’s fault for doing whatever she did that stimulated him; but when a woman’s body responds to unwanted/unwelcome physical contact, it means she must have really wanted it? I’m calling bull***t.

    On a somewhat related note, this always reminds me of the story of King David’s daughter Tamar who was raped by her brother, Amnon…and David’s response, or lack of one. Amnon destroyed Tamar life and David didn’t do anything about it, even when his son Absolom came to him demanding justice. (What followed from that is tragic, but another story.) And for me, knowing that David is described as a man after God’s own heart really paints a disturbing picture of what God’s heart is toward his daughters who are raped by his sons.

    And you may think that saying this destoyed Tamar’s life is a bit extreme. Let me ask you a question. How would you feel about a young woman if you found out she was the victim of incestuous rape? You may pity her, but would you want to date or marry her? In my experience, not. Life ruined.

    Okay…deep breath and back to my corner.

  38. It is good that the report has come to light, and that is a step in some direction. But I doubt that they will change some of their beliefs about situations such as this, and if they did I am wondering if their status at or near the top of the ladder of IFB schools might crumble away with decreased enrollment and such. In my limited but sad interaction with IFB people it is not just the school that believes some of these things but also the people. Or at least such was the case a couple of decades ago in the ones I knew.

  39. Jeannette Altes wrote:

    Okay. I’ve had a little time to think. I have a question: Why is it when mens’ bodies respond to ‘external stimuli,’ it is never the man’s fault – it is the woman’s fault for doing whatever she did that stimulated him; but when a woman’s body responds
    to unwanted/unwelcome physical contact, it means she must have really wanted it? I’m calling bull***t.

    On a somewhat related note, this always reminds me of the story of King David’s daughter Tamar who was raped by her brother, Amnon…and David’s response, or lack of one. Amnon destroyed Tamar life and David didn’t do anything about it, even when his son Absolom came to him demanding justice. (What followed from that is tragic, but another story.) And for me, knowing that David is described as a man after God’s own heart really paints a disturbing picture of what God’s heart is toward his daughters who are raped by his sons.

    And you may think that saying this destoyed Tamar’s life is a bit extreme. Let me ask you a question. How would you feel about a young woman if you found out she was the victim of incestuous rape? You may pity her, but would you want to date or marry her? In my experience, not. Life ruined.

    Okay…deep breath and back to my corner.

    I couldn’t agree more with these thoughts. I struggle with the same thing RE David’s response to Tamar and God’s response to David’s character. Thank you for stepping out of your corner!

  40. Jeannette Altes wrote:

    And for me, knowing that David is described as a man after God’s own heart really paints a disturbing picture of what God’s heart is toward his daughters who are raped by his sons.

    I have head people say this before, so I want to comment on this.

    I looked up Acts 13:22 on Bible Hub and read the somewhat lengthy comments under Gill’s exposition of the Entire Bible on that same page. It is more complicated that it looks. Luke says that God made the statement about the man after his own heart, and about that man doing the will of god (variously translated) but in the OT Samuel was the one who said the man after the heart comment about God, not quoting God, and it was said when Saul died and was about making David king. Samuel did not say thus says the Lord, he gave his own opinion apparently, stated how he saw things. And the rest of the statement in Acts ( about doing he will of God) gets really complicated in saying where did Luke get that (not from Samuel) and what did it mean, because it seems not to be in the original record of the statement by Samuel in the OT. The whole thing is very interesting. The commentary ends by saying “the apostle seems not to have any reference to anyone particular passage of Scripture, bearing a testimony to David’s character, but to what is to be collected from them in general, as a divine testimony in favour of him.”

    In other words, there is no record in the OT that God himself actually said any of it. This is Luke’s testimony to his general understanding of David. Or so says that particular commentary.

  41. @ Nancy:

    I do understand (now, after years of therapy and conversation with God) that what is said of David may not be what God said, exactly. However, having David held up by preachers (and he is) as the example to follow does create a problem as I described for those who are victimized. Would love to say more but I have to run. Will check back later.

  42. @ Nancy:

    I think that Luke did not quote Paul’s sermon to make a point about David but rather to explain God’s redemptive plan and David’s place in it. Paul said God said that David would do the entirety of what God wanted him to do as king of Israel. I don’t think it necessarily follows from Paul’s words on that matter that God approved of everything David did, only that he *did* do the positive things God intended for him to do as king.

    David suffered grievous consequences for the way he handled the rape of Tamar and his own (my opinion) rape of Bathsheba. We don’t know much about Tamar after that, but we do know that David failed to call Amnon to account for it. Obviously there was all kinds of dysfunction and sin in David’s household. The women in David’s life suffered, David suffered, and his sons suffered as a result of sin. Nevertheless, God’s redemptive plan was not thwarted by human failures and unfaithfulness. I think that was the point of Paul’s citation.

    An Israeli tour guide (who was not a Christian) speculated that the record of David’s huge failures are intended to be a contrast to the ultimate Davidic King to come–the one who would be a faithful King and a faithful High Priest. That doesn’t make what happened to Tamar and Bathsheba and Esther and every other woman who suffered under that system anything other than horrible.

    ISTM that this is another instance where we are faced with the Problem of Evil, and that is very tough. I think we can only view the Problem of Evil through the lens of the Cross. And even then it is really, really hard, at least for me.

  43. @ Gram3:

    Also, the translation does not need to be “after God’s heart/intention” in the sense of David’s heart being God’s heart. It might well mean that God had raised up David according to God’s intention, not any human’s intention. The story of David’s calling indicates that David was not considered by any of the humans a likely candidate for king of Israel. Yet it was God’s intention and *his* choice which determined that David would be king and not the intentions of humans. The story of redemption is the story of God’s plan being worked out despite human failure and Satanic effort.

    IMO, this is a better understanding, considering all of the information we have, of the actual words of the text. I don’t see how we can say that God would approve of David’s sin or of David’s inaction toward Amnon. That part of Paul’s sermon makes a lot more sense overall in context if we take this view of Paul’s quote, ISTM, rather than the sense that David’s heart reflected God’s heart.

  44. @ Gram3:

    Maybe. It makes more sense to me to think that is somebody is going to do a misquote it would be Luke rather than Paul. If Paul was as educated as he claimed it is hard for me to think that he deliberately presented something as a quote from God when he knew or should have known it was not. It is not hard to think that Luke, however, did not get it right since this is not the only potential problem with something written by Luke. Like, after Paul's conversion did he or did he not immediately go to Jerusalem–apparently Luke seems to tell it one way and Paul seems to claim something different. (I recently read this but have not looked it up for myself.) And the commentary certainly leaves room, though not outright saying it, that perhaps it never should have been presented as a quote in the first place in Acts.

    Now I know that is off limits for evangelical thinking, so there is no need for us to go back and forth on this excessively. None the less, there is something to be said for folks who are able to see "problems" with some scriptural statements, knowing as I do that does not fit with what your are saying about the "conservative hermeneutic" to which you adhere. Nonetheless, I do not feel so constrained, so to speak.

  45. Gram3 wrote:

    @ Lydia:
    Wonder where Seneca is now that the report and acknowledgment has been issued.

    Dee and Deb have made sure that many of my posts get buried IF THEY’RE ALLOWED AT ALL. I’m not popular Gram3 – dryly, or didn’t you notice?

  46. @ senecagriggs yahoo:

    Jimmy, Jimmy… Did you get eighty-sixed again? When a known heretic, socialist, and all-round contrary dissident like Muff Potter is allowed to comment at TWW, how do you manage to get yourself thrown out on yer’ keister?

  47. @ Jeannette Altes:

    I think most pastors do not study any deeper than the particular English translation they prefer and maybe their favorite commentator. That’s why it is such a blessing to have online free study resources available.

    Just a couple more thoughts regarding this idea of “after God’s heart.” David’s choice by God is in contrast to Saul who was tall and handsome, the very image of a king. The people of Israel wanted a king like the pagan nations, and Saul was from central casting. David was a shepherd and not particularly attractive, regardless of what Michelangelo imagined. In Saul, God gave them the man they wanted and intended, and it worked out just like God told Samuel it would.

    In David, God gave them the man he wanted and intended, and through whom he would fulfill his covenant promises. God intended to bring Messiah from the stump/root of Jesse, and David was Jesse’s son and Judah’s son. Saul was Benjamin’s son. Regardless of the fickleness of the people, God put in place the man he desired to fulfill his promise.

    I can’t imagine the distress it must cause you to think that God approved of David’s or Amnon’s conduct. I just think that this verse has been mistranslated and misunderstood. In modern English usage, “heart” has emotional connotations, but to Paul’s audience, “heart” had connotations of “will” or “intent.” That change in the meaning of a word can lead to great misunderstanding. In context, Paul says that God removed Saul, the man the people loved who was the picture of a human king, and installed David, the man God intended or willed, according to the promise made to the patriarchs.

    The other parallel with this thought is the Incarnation which was the culmination of God’s promise to the Woman. The conception of Jesus was according to the will/intention of God, not according to the intention/will of a human. That’s another reason I think Paul had intent/will in mind rather than David being like God or God approving of David’s sin.

  48. @ senecagriggs yahoo:

    So, what do you think now that all this info has come out about Driscoll, SGM, BJU and who knows what else? Especially in light of your previous comments on the thread several years ago?

  49. @ Nancy:

    I don’t think it is necessary to say that either Luke misquoted Paul or that Paul misrepresented what God said about David. My point was that the expression in Koine Greek translated “a man after God’s own heart” in English has alternate translations which make a lot more sense in context, and further that the connotative meaning of “heart” has changed from the first century til now.

    If there is an apparent difficulty with a text and no good reason to assume the text is incorrect, then I’m inclined to believe the problem lies with the people who handle the text. But again, the view that one takes of the textual material is a point of faith.

  50. Headless Unicorn Guy,

    footnote 27:
    Dr. Wood described the nature of man in terms of a “trinity,” and Dr. Fremont described man’s nature as being “triune.” Both reference various biblical passages as evidence of man’s trichotomous nature: body, spirit and soul. Dr. Wood pointed to Clarence Larkin and a book he authored entitled, Dispensational Truth, or God’s Plan and Purpose in the Ages, as being highly influential upon his thinking of man’s nature and he explained that numerous biblical passages attest to man’s trichotomous nature. Dr. Wood and Dr. Fremont diagram their models of man as concentric circles with the spirit being in the inner circle, the body being in the outer circle, and the soul existing between the body and the spirit. Both Dr. Wood and Dr. Fremont note that the body has five gates (sight, smell, taste, touch, and hearing). In Dr. Wood’s diagram, the gate between the body and the soul is the memory. However, in Dr. Fremont’s view, the gate between the soul and the body are “the perceptions that are determined from the sensory input to the body. Song of Solomon 1:7, II Samuel 5:8, and Colossians 3:2 refer to emotional attitudes that are manifested in the body as certain feelings.” See Fremont and Fremont, 44. Dr. Wood and Dr. Fremont each appear to agree that the inner spirit of man is either self or is Christ, depending on whether or not the person has accepted Christ as Savior. Their two models describing the gates between the soul and spirit appear to differ according to intellect and character. However, one may note that Dr. Wood’s model of “The Trinity of Man” is similar to Dr. Fremont’s in that access from the body to soul appears to be through the conscious mind, or through aspects of the conscious mind.

  51. @ Nancy:

    I do adhere to a conservative hermeneutic, but I’m certainly not going to yap at you if you don’t. That’s between you and God, and I don’t feel like getting into the middle of that particular conversation. Not qualified and none of my business.

    I *do* yap a lot at people who claim to be using a conservative hermeneutic and upholding the authority of the text but who are *not* doing that and who are putting their own ideas and words or somebody else’s ideas and words into the texts that we have. Seems to me if it’s okay for them to do that, then it’s okay for anyone to do that, and then what is the point of even having a Bible and saying we have a conservative hermeneutic to interpret it if we can just make stuff up?

  52. Ok, I can’t resist. The section titled Zone of Safety goes into great detail on why abuse victims didn’t feel safe telling anyone what they had been through. There are simply Certain Subjects that must not be even hinted at. The pervasive climate of tattling and spying that went on included this gem:

    “Another former student noted, “One time [my friend] and I were eating in the dining common, and discussing the merits of car accidents involving deer versus moose, and we were interrupted by two men sitting down the table who asked what we were talking about. Apparently it sounded inappropriate to them when I described how the high central mass of a moose would definitely go through the windshield when hit head-on
    because moose have such long legs, so they butted in and demanded to know the topic. I explained but was annoyed. People were always watching and listening. Everything was scrutinized. Demerits were the visible sign of sinfulness.Everything on the internet was monitored…. Their rules were meant to keep students from sinning or making mistakes,but when you left, you didn’t know how to make your own responsible decisions…. The year I went to [another school], I read 1984 and it made me very angry, because I got what Winston felt like being watched all the time but I didn’t want to believe that could happen in the world, or that it had happened at Bob Jones.” Reference 453.”

    Obviously, the guy’s big mistake was using the phrase “long legs” in public, which must mean he was making a sexual comment, right? Maybe he should have substituted the word “limbs” instead. For that matter, I hope all the tables in the dining common have skirts over their legs, so the male students don’t have any impure thoughts invading their minds.

  53. @ Nancy:
    Well, i am willing to bet that some of the confusion is coming from the fact that the Septuagint (Greek translation of the OT) is what NT writers were quoting from, rather than the original Hebrew and Aramaic. The fact that we’re dealing with a translation of a translation compounds the issue, and makes for some unusual variant readings. One of the big ones is the quote from Isaiah 7:14 (in the NT), but there certainly are others.

    I don’t find this surprising, as ancient manuscripts were hand-copied, and scribes worked with what they had. Mistskes were – like typos in print/on the web – inevitabel. And the further away one gets from the languages of the sources, the harder it is to understand, let alone translate, many, many things. (I found this out while assisting someone who was translating a whole bunch of material from their mother tongue into English. The texts were relatively short, but the amount of cultural background packed into them was just staggering – and often hard to convey in a simple, straightforward manner in English.)

  54. This is not funny at all. I just ran across another footnote quoting a female student describing why she was afraid to honestly fill out a BJU survey on what she had been up to over the summer, after she had been in a sexually abusive situation involving an adult. She then mentioned this unbelievable incident:

    She also related an incident that multiplied her fears that BJU officials would not understand the complexities of sexual abuse. She stated that she broke her arm while
    at BJU and had difficulty obtaining permission, “…to go off campus after hours just to go to the hospital for a broken arm. The struggle I had to go through for something physical and the questions I was asked and got in trouble for something so outwards and physical, it made me think about how would they respond to something that was happening on the inside in my heart. A broken arm was not personal to me, but what about something personal? I just do not think that they understood. The
    counseling made it a bigger deal where you would just get in more trouble and it would not help you.”

    I mean…a BROKEN ARM. I don’t know if somebody thought she might be faking the injury, or what. I’ve never had a broken arm myself, just a broken leg which may be more serious, but I’m pretty sure nobody needs to be put through 20 Questions before anyone calls for an ambulance. If we needed further evidence of just HOW effed up BJU is, this would do it.

  55. dee wrote:

    Former Fundy wrote:
    Could you possibly put on your radar again the whole nouthetic counseling movement?
    You are reading my mind. We plan to look at this movement in light of the report. We need to write several more posts on this whole subject!

    Woot! Good deal!

  56. Beakerj wrote:

    Well, it’s really a good start isn’t it? Even though the weasel words do jump out.
    I also have to say that I have rarely, if ever, read words more horrifying than those about asking an abuse victim if their ‘bodies responded favourably’ because if they did this was a sin. Words almost fail me. I cannot even imagine what this would do to the heart & mind of an abuse victim/survivor, & my heart goes out to those who heard this vicious evil bile. I’m going to have to end here because I am so incensed.

    Beaker, truly…. 🙁

  57. dee wrote:

    Mark wrote:
    Page Pattersons accusation that organization such as Stop Baptist Predators are
    You mean the Paige Patterson who told a woman to return to her abusive husband and rejoiced when she showed up with two black eyes because her husband came to church?

    Speaking of which, I still want testimonies from both the allegedly repentant husband and the wife in question that the alleged repentance actually happened. We only have the word of Patterson, and as a sermon illustration at that.

    I ain’t believin’….

  58. There is a GREAT IRONY in the accusations against Bob Jones University and the care of its co-eds.
    In 1960, what were the odds that a young, virginal BJU co-ed would suffer being sexually molested or assaulted by a male student?
    *
    Damn near None!
    *
    They never let the boys get that close. ( I remember, as a young callow freshman at a strict West Coast Christian institution being instructed the first week of school by the Student Body President that “inter-digital intercourse was not allowed.” That’s a quote people )

    BJU’s understanding of Scripture told them young men (future preacher boy or missionary – didn’t matter) was born under the curse of satan and probably had raging hormones, from which the co-ed population should be protected. BJU’s understanding of Scripture also told them their co-eds were likely to be naïve and more easily fooled. Therefore, they needed protection from the boys.

    BJU went all out to do that very thing with very stringent rules put in place to limit the opportunities for sexual sin. Of course the world and much of more liberal Christians circles/churches despised them for their rules and went all out to “modernize” their subculture to modern, looser standards. The world was ultimately successful.
    The rules under which male and female students now function are light-years away from the rules of the 50s and early 60s.
    If you were a young, sexually interested male and you were caught pinching the behind of a co-ed, suspension or permanent expulsion was in your future. While I’m sure it’s still not approved, there are certainly more opportunities for boys to engage in that kind of behavior. BJU, under duress, removed the handcuffs so to speak. Now we have numerous incidents of female students being molested/assaulted. BJU has come full circle.

  59. Former Fundy wrote:

    Dee and Deb – Could you possibly put on your radar again the whole nouthetic counseling movement?

    As Dee indicated, we definitely plan to discuss in greater depth nouthetic counseling, which is now called 'biblical counseling'. 🙁

  60. @ numo:

    That certainly sounds reasonable. I am thinking that whatever the explanation, if this thing about David is causing a problem for people who have previously been abused, and if there is evidence that apparently God did not say that, or least no evidence that he did, then that needs to be dealt with in a straightforward manner. No need to let people struggle with something as painful as that just to defend some theory of inerrancy of the bible when the actual arguments may be the inerrancy of the current translations or punctuations or former marginal notes which may have crept into the text or scribal errors or whatever. But it still remains that somebody made a mistake somewhere in this case because Luke says that Paul said that God said, and that is not accurate. If it is translation, OK, but lots of things can go wrong. If somebody has actually pinpointed what happened, if there is evidence of what happened, good. In the meantime I am not averse to saying Luke was perhaps the one who misunderstood, but if that makes people uncomfortable then they should not think that.

    Meanwhile, we are thawing a pecan pie at my house, and tomorrow we are cooking that baby and all going into some sort of sugar overload in the process. I can’t wait.

  61. Josh wrote:

    And yes, nouthetic counseling’s dangerous side needs more exposure.

    We are certainly open to publishing testimonies of those who have had negative experiences with so-called 'biblical counseling'.

  62. @ Nancy:
    Very much agreed that it is highly problematic,ad needs much more clarification.

    I would love to join you for some pie!

  63. @ Nancy:
    I don’t have the same feelings as Jeanette does, but the way he is portrayed in the OT (everything that she mentioned plus his vengeful love of bloodshed) bothers me tremendously. He seems pretty amoral, once he gets to be king.

  64. numo wrote:

    He seems pretty amoral, once he gets to be king.

    And perhaps that is the point. Absolute power doesn’t end well, and maybe great power should not be vested in mere humans. God did not approve of his bloodshed because he did not allow him to build the temple due to that. Once he became king, he started acting a lot like the pagan kings. We should not be surprised, I think.

  65. @ numo:
    Which is a universal thing, regardless of religion or lack thereof.

    I think David’s advisors left a lot to be desired, too.

  66. Nancy wrote:

    But it still remains that somebody made a mistake somewhere in this case because Luke says that Paul said that God said, and that is not accurate.

    We would have to assume that every utterance of God is recorded in the OT or NT to conclude that Paul or Luke is being inaccurate.

    Young’s Literal translates “according to My heart who shall do My will.” Strong’s says the word translated “heart” can mean “the heart; mind, character, inner self, will, intention, center” I think it makes more sense contextually to read “heart” as “intention or will” since the point Paul is making is not about David as a person or about how he ruled. The point Paul is making is about how God has advanced his redemptive plan through various events and persons in Israel’s history. It is pretty clear, though, that some people have yanked this expression out of its context and made it about David’s supposed conformity to God’s preferences or as if David’s character resembles God’s character.

    Appreciate your mention of the fact that there is no punctuation in the text. So, we have to keep the possibility that punctuation choices made by the translators can change meaning just like their word choices can. That’s why context, immediate and in the book, as well as canonical context is crucial in getting to the most likely meaning. Greek and Hebrew particularly are not scientific languages with that kind of precision.

    Hope you enjoy your pie!

  67. Jeannette Altes wrote:

    In my experience, many people default to this position. I don’t know why they do, but I have had very few people who did not hint that I was at least equally to blame.

    This also occurs in relation to workplace abuse (where one adult is singled out for harassment by one or more bosses/ co-workers), and it can happen in school yard bullying.

    In books I’ve read on those topics, the reason people blame victims is that it’s easier to assume the victim did something stupid to “deserve” whatever happened than to believe the very same scary thing can happen to anyone, including you (whether we are discussing sexual assault, being targeted for workplace harassment, whatever).

    People don’t want to think they can equally fall victim to being picked on, raped, etc, so they rationalize in their head, “it happened because that person did X, or Y. If I avoid doing X or Y, it will never happen to me.”

  68. K.D. wrote:

    But….I wonder, a year from now, will anything have really changed?

    I read about 35 or more pages into the report a couple of days ago, and I doubt things will change unless BJU changes its views about things like modesty and other common Christian faux paus regarding sexuality.

    Like, for example, their idea that women are responsible for men’s sexual failings, or that men are incapable of controlling their thought lives or (sexual) actions.

    Teachings which translate into a woman must not wear skirts that are too short or blouses that are too revealing because wearing such items will supposedly ’cause’ a man to attack her.

    I think some of these assumptions are rooted in gender complementarianism, and I’m afraid most of them are never going to give up on gender comp.

    They don’t seem to realize that giving up on gender complementarianism will not automatically mean or necessitate that they must accept then accept abortion, secular feminism, or homosexual behavior.

    That is one reason why they feel deeply holden to gender complementarianism, because they see the only other alternative to gender comp. is to have to compromise, or cave in, on certain social issues they feel strongly about.

    But a lot of their sick, victim-blaming, backwards, sexist (some of these views are insulting to men too, not just to women) perspectives are at least (IMO, anyway) partially rooted in gender complementarianism.

  69. David certainly had his flaws and his sins. But on the other hand it does seem that God chose him in the first place no doubt knowing what he was. And by the time Saul died it was quite evidence that David was first and last a battle hardened warrior and a man who could hold a pack of tough men together as mercenaries. Yet Samuel did not back off his position that God had chosen David for king. Nor do we see some prophet showing up every few months on a regular basis to threaten David in the name of the Lord. Was God okay with what David was doing as far as ruling? Well, if you believe the stories this would be the same god who drown Pharaoh’s army in the sea, shortly after the massive deaths of the first born in Egypt. Or who ordered utter destruction of whole cities during the conquest of Canaan. Or, again if you believe the stories, who almost wiped out our entire species at the time of Noah’s flood. All of that is disturbing, but David does not bother me as much as that other stuff does.

  70. Gram3 wrote:

    We would have to assume that every utterance of God is recorded in the OT or NT to conclude that Paul or Luke is being inaccurate.

    Well, let’s see. Since we do have in the OT the statement attributed to Samuel, if Paul was using an extra-canonical source in which the statement was attributed to God, then those two sources, the OT and the extra-canonical source would be at odds with each other. Then to resolve that problem the idea might be promulgated that God and/or Samuel went around saying this several times but not always the same way. So if Paul knew about both sources and chose the extra-canonical source rather than the OT, what would that say about Paul’s opinion of the relative reliability of the OT. Sorry, that line of thinking is way too convoluted for my comfort.

    Let me say it straight out: any reasoning as to biblical inerrancy based on assumptions concerning original manuscripts which no one has and which may not even exist is bad reasoning. And that is what they did in Chicago and then demanded that everybody agree with them. In fact, I think both the Orthodox and Catholic adherence to tradition makes more sense than that.

    So you see, we have no meeting of the minds on this basic assumption. We cannot discuss in parallel (I made that up but it seems descriptive) because we do not agree on the assumption.

  71. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    dee wrote:
    i would not be surprised if this is what happens. I am going to give them kudos for allowing the report to be released. They could have stopped the process.

    As HUG said, they tried to but the firestorm of criticism made them scramble to rehire GRACE under the original terms of the contract–one of which was making the report public. Had they not allowed the report to be released, the firestorm would have been twice as hot with accusations of deception rightly flung at them. For an institution that considers itself to be righteous, God-fearing, and fundamentally Christian, this would have hurt their cause immensely, giving fuel for those “disaffected” among their alumni and making potential students wonder what they had to hide.

    In my opinion, you can see BJU’s real thoughts about the report in a small, possibly Freudian slip, made by current president, Steve Pettit. I’m taking the quote from here.

    “We are all awakening to the depth and breadth of this societal problem. Colleges and universities across the country are reassessing how they handle cases of sexual abuse and assault. We want to be part of that solution. To do that, we must first take the mote out of our own eye and address our own failings. The GRACE report helps in that effort by helping us identify areas of concern.”

    I didn’t emphasize the slip so you all can find it for yourselves.

  72. senecagriggs yahoo wrote:

    In 1960, what were the odds that a young, virginal BJU co-ed would suffer being sexually molested or assaulted by a male student?
    *
    Damn near None!

    You obviously have not read much about the IFB. I suggest you puck up a copy of Schizophrenic Christianity and see what happened to young, virginal girls/boys in the IFB,

  73. dee wrote:

    senecagriggs yahoo wrote:
    In 1960, what were the odds that a young, virginal BJU co-ed would suffer being sexually molested or assaulted by a male student?
    *
    Damn near None!
    You obviously have not read much about the IFB. I suggest you puck up a copy of Schizophrenic Christianity and see what happened to young, virginal girls/boys in the IFB,

    Better yet, Seneca, read the GRACE report, if you dare.

  74. dee wrote:

    Bless your heart, Seneca.

    I somehow missed his longer post the first time, and after going back and reading it, I think a…

    “Bless your little heart!”

    …might even be appropriate. Wow, just… wow! 😮

  75. Beakerj wrote:

    I also have to say that I have rarely, if ever, read words more horrifying than those about asking an abuse victim if their ‘bodies responded favourably’ because if they did this was a sin.

    I’m not sure I remember reading this before, but either way it struck me as so obscene I really didn’t know what to do with it. Where do they get this utter sh*te from? Whose head does that stuff enter? ‘Competent to Counsel’ my *rse.

    I couldn’t agree more strongly, and in fact I *allege* that a counsellor who continues that line of questioning is a lascivious pervert.

  76. Muff Potter wrote:

    When a known heretic, socialist, and all-round contrary dissident

    I think this is a brilliant job description – I want to put it on my CV! (I need some fancier words for ‘anti-establishment non-conformist ratbag’)

  77. Gram3 wrote:

    In modern English usage, “heart” has emotional connotations, but to Paul’s audience, “heart” had connotations of “will” or “intent.” That change in the meaning of a word can lead to great misunderstanding. In context,

    Yes!

  78. @ Nancy:
    It ALL bothers me a great deal. I don’t see Saul as such a baddie, either, though i don’t think he was exactly a great guy, either.

    There is, to my mind, a huge disconnect between the brutality of David and the beauty of the psalms ascribed to him, and/or written in the style of David. I don’t see him or his court or advisors as being especially different than others of that time, and if anything, there is something of a promotion of David’s violent mercenary years.

    But then, i have serious trouble believing that God commanded anyone to extetminate the inhabitants of Canaan. I also accept the view that Joshua was is post-exilic.

  79. @ numo:
    The violence depicted in much of the Bible is really hard for me. I used to be able to keep some emotional distance from it, but now it just hits me as being brutal and pointless.

    I’ll take the ethics that have developed as a result of Judaism and xtianity, but anyone who carries on about Islam really needs to take a good, lomg look at their own scriptures and how they read to people of other faiths before making such sweeping judgements.

  80. Jeannette Altes wrote:

    Okay. I’ve had a little time to think. I have a question: Why is it when mens’ bodies respond to ‘external stimuli,’ it is never the man’s fault – it is the woman’s fault for doing whatever she did that stimulated him; but when a woman’s body responds to unwanted/unwelcome physical contact, it means she must have really wanted it? I’m calling bull***t.

    I agree.
    I have had the extreme misfortune of hearing the first Bob Jones “preach”. My impression then was that he was as crazy as a ****house rat. My present estimation is considerably worse than that.

  81. Nancy wrote:

    If Paul was as educated as he claimed it is hard for me to think that he deliberately presented something as a quote from God when he knew or should have known it was not.

    I think Paul had a lot of mental & emotional problems that bled over into a lot of his writings. I read all of his letters through that lens, or I wouldn’t be able to read him without snarling/harrumphing/spitting tacks. (Choose one).
    Maybe–and this only occurred to me as I was typing–maybe this was his “thorn in the flesh”?

  82. senecagriggs yahoo wrote:

    Gram3 wrote:

    @ Lydia:
    Wonder where Seneca is now that the report and acknowledgment has been issued.

    Dee and Deb have made sure that many of my posts get buried IF THEY’RE ALLOWED AT ALL. I’m not popular Gram3 – dryly, or didn’t you notice?

    Awwww….poor baby.

  83. dee wrote:

    senecagriggs yahoo wrote:
    Dee and Deb have made sure that many of my posts get buried IF THEY’RE ALLOWED AT ALL
    Bless your heart, Seneca.

    If you were on the premises of the school Dee, it was very tightly [ though never perfectly ] controlled. Now off the premises, that was a different matter in many cases.

  84. dee wrote:

    senecagriggs yahoo wrote:

    Dee and Deb have made sure that many of my posts get buried IF THEY’RE ALLOWED AT ALL

    Bless your heart, Seneca.

    OH THE TRAGEDY, HE’S DONE NOTHING WROOOOOOONNNNNNGGGGGGGgg you heartless hags.

  85. Mark wrote:

    A human being is not as resilient as supposed and it is not worth sanity or life to stay in this kind of relationship.

    To say nothing of the example this type of treatment sets for the children of such a relationship. They will most likely perpetuate abuse in their own relationships since that’s the model they grew up with.

    Physical, emotional, mental, or financial abuse indicates an unhealthy, controlling personality and the victims of such do the abuser no favor by staying. He (she) needs serious help and will likely not get it if the partner continues to allow the abusive behavior.

  86. zooey111 wrote:

    I think Paul had a lot of mental & emotional problems that bled over into a lot of his writings. I read all of his letters through that lens, or I wouldn’t be able to read him without snarling/harrumphing/spitting tacks. (Choose one).

    Given the list of things that he endured including jail and beatings (five I think?) and shipwreck and constant opposition from those who did not agree with him, and his chosen celibacy which I assume was not easy and his commitment to earning his own living by tent making I am thinking that we have to rethink the whole idea of PTSD or else we have to cut Paul some slack because of what he endured. No way he went unscathed by all of that.

  87. @ numo:

    So what is wrong with saying that some things are wrong whoever does them, including if we do and including if they do?

  88. Deb wrote:

    Former Fundy wrote:
    Dee and Deb – Could you possibly put on your radar again the whole nouthetic counseling movement?
    As Dee indicated, we definitely plan to discuss in greater depth nouthetic counseling, which is now called ‘biblical counseling’.

    Anyone calling nouthetic counseling “Biblical counseling” is engaged in false advertising. There is nothing “Biblical” about it.

  89. @ numo:

    I think it is perfectly OK to make judgments about what is being hailed as pure Islam today. it is barbaric especially for women.

  90. Gram,

    years ago I read several things (not religious) about how the heart was understood in that day and time. I wish I could remember the sources. it really stuck out to me that the heart would have been understood as the place where decisions were made. it really changed how I understood many passages. they made much more sense to me.

    another problem with understanding the David angle is that I think we tend to forget freewill existed in the Old Testament too.

  91. @ Nancy:

    I’m missing something in our discussion. What is the quotation from Samuel you are talking about. I’m talking about Luke’s record of Paul’s sermon. Is there a quotation from Samuel (the prophet or the book?) in Luke’s record? Or is there something else I’m missing?

    I don’t care for contrived explanations, as hopefully I’ve shown re: compism, so that’s not what I’m saying, though I guess it may appear contrived to someone else. I’m merely saying that Paul uses all sorts of sources, even pagan ones, that are not in the canonical texts. And he reports on visions he has seen. ISTM that is part of the territory when someone is a Prophet like Samuel or an Apostle like Paul. Borrowing from William, maybe God’s testimony that Paul reports was part of the tradition he received as a rabbi. I don’t know.

    Not sure why you brought up the Chicago Statement. I wasn’t making a claim about a particular view of biblical inerrancy. That, to me, is a complicated subject. My foremost concern was to vindicate God’s character which I believe has been damaged in the eyes of some due to a particular translation of words that have legitimate meanings which would not create that bad impression of God’s character and which would better fit the contexts. I had hoped to relieve the distress this bad (IMO) translation and teaching has had on some abuse victims.

  92. Lydia wrote:

    another problem with understanding the David angle is that I think we tend to forget freewill existed in the Old Testament too.

    Yes, there is certainly that. Also, God basically warned the people that a human king would rule over them rather than shepherd them, provide for them, and protect them as God had done as their King. David, the shepherd king, was a move forward in God’s plan to provide the Shepherd King he promised in Genesis 3, but David was still a sinful human who had greater opportunities to sin in very big ways than some of us do.

    Also, Nancy mentioned Paul possibly having something like PTSD which I had not considered. That seems plausible since he participated in the murder(s) of Christians with all the flashbacks and guilt that must have entailed. Yet God used him for his own purposes without approving of his sin. I think that much of the troublesome teaching ascribed to Paul is due to a misunderstanding, deliberately or otherwise, of what he was teaching.

  93. Gram3 wrote:

    My foremost concern was to vindicate God’s character which I believe has been damaged in the eyes of some due to a particular translation of words that have legitimate meanings which would not create that bad impression of God’s character and which would better fit the contexts. I had hoped to relieve the distress this bad (IMO) translation and teaching has had on some abuse victims.

    this is where most of the “David damage” has occurred. I have seen it over and over: yes (insert pastors name) did those horrible things but like David he is a man after God’s own heart. we are constantly having David pointed out to excused horrible things done to others by believers.

    David is constantly being trotted out to try and prove that we can do heinous things against other people and please God at the same time. pastors and Bible teachers take David out of the historical redemptive context to excuse horrible things done to others.

    Another problem with David is they often forget, or perhaps they do not know, that the Psalms are man talking to God in poetry. the Psalms are often presented as God’s decrees.

    David is an example of how concentrating power is also corrupting. God was angry that the Israelites wanted a king because he was their king.

  94. @ Lydia:

    Totally agree. I hate it when people use God to justify their own bad behavior. How much damage has been done because of faulty translations and changes in word meanings and eisegesis that has become concretized in the translations? The damage that is done to people in God’s name must make him very sad and angry. That will get me into trouble with those who say that God is impassive, but oh well.

  95. @ Lydia:

    Forgot to say I have a comment in moderation that is along the lines of your comment. I appreciate your thoughts.

  96. NJ wrote:

    Anyway, at least one of these guys was on record, during a discussion with students studying the counseling of sexual abuse victims, referring to the human body as the least important part of a person, or “the throwaway part”. (Made me wonder if these guys are a bunch of neognostics.)

    I had a pastor once who started teaching that the body was the locus of all our sin and we shouldn’t care about it because “the body ain’t saved yet.” He was talking to believers. He had no theological training. I had several long discussions with him trying to show him the logical outcomes (none good) of this thinking and its similarity to early gnosticism. Got nowhere. Eventually left that church.

  97. @ numo:
    I think step one is to squarely face up to the brutality in the scriptures that *we* profess to believe. To do otherwise is just wrong, imo.

    I’m not saying that wrong is right, not by any means.

  98. Victorious wrote:

    Physical, emotional, mental, or financial abuse indicates an unhealthy, controlling personality and the victims of such do the abuser no favor by staying. He (she) needs serious help and will likely not get it if the partner continues to allow the abusive behavior.

    But then what happens to Salvation by Marriage Alone(TM), Focusing on the Family(TM), and the Pastor’s Godly Reputation(TM) Making a Stand(TM)?

  99. numo wrote:

    I’ll take the ethics that have developed as a result of Judaism and xtianity, but anyone who carries on about Islam really needs to take a good, long look at their own scriptures and how they read to people of other faiths before making such sweeping judgements.

    The main difference is that Islam began with a 400-year unbroken winning streak while Christianity spent its first 300 as an underground outlaw religion and Judaism periodically got stomped on by their neighbors. The Curse of Runaway Early Success can really do a number on you and lock in a lot of dark stuff.

  100. numo wrote:

    @ numo:
    I think step one is to squarely face up to the brutality in the scriptures that *we* profess to believe. To do otherwise is just wrong, imo.
    I’m not saying that wrong is right, not by any means.

    I agree with that. I guess the problem for me is what does it mean? Why did it happen? What was God doing in it? And of course, WHY??? Somehow I don’t think we will get an answer to the Problem of Evil that is totally satisfying. If you find one, please let me know!

  101. Haitch wrote:

    I couldn’t agree more strongly, and in fact I *allege* that a counsellor who continues that line of questioning is a lascivious pervert.

    Like the prison therapist in that South Park episode where the kids get rid of all the adults in town by falsely accusing them of molestation and getting them arrested and taken away.

    Said therapist is heavily implied to be a closet pedo himself who gets it on vicariously by listening to accused pedos confess in detail. JUICY detail. And if there’s no JUICY confession, he browbeats/manipulates them into one.

  102. Tikatu wrote:

    I didn’t emphasize the slip so you all can find it for yourselves.

    In the original parable imagery, the “mote” is in the OTHER guy’s eye. The “beam” (as in tree-trunk log) is the one in your own eye.

  103. Daisy wrote:

    Like, for example, their idea that women are responsible for men’s sexual failings, or that men are incapable of controlling their thought lives or (sexual) actions.

    Teachings which translate into a woman must not wear skirts that are too short or blouses that are too revealing because wearing such items will supposedly ’cause’ a man to attack her.

    I smell BURQA.
    Enforced by whip-wielding Religious Police.

  104. Jeannette Altes wrote:

    And you may think that saying this destoyed Tamar’s life is a bit extreme. Let me ask you a question. How would you feel about a young woman if you found out she was the victim of incestuous rape? You may pity her, but would you want to date or marry her? In my experience, not. Life ruined.

    Even more so when you realize this was in an Iron Age Semitic Tribal Culture with a harem system. (And the resulting view and place of women, even the daughter of a king. Tamar’s value as diplomatic trade goods, treaty collateral, would be forever gone.) Imagine this happening in Saudi (which does its best to remain an unchanged Iron Age Semitic Tribal Culture, at least until the oil runs out) and you have a better picture.

  105. Tikatu wrote:

    Nouthetic or “Biblical” counselors don’t need that degree, it seems.

    Because their “degree” is direct from God, not man.

  106. senecagriggs yahoo wrote:

    BJU went all out to do that very thing with very stringent rules put in place to limit the opportunities for sexual sin. Of course the world and much of more liberal Christians circles/churches despised them for their rules and went all out to “modernize” their subculture to modern, looser standards. The world was ultimately successful.
    The rules under which male and female students now function are light-years away from the rules of the 50s and early 60s.

    You sound like you blame the secular world for the woes at BJU. I believe Jesus explained that the problem originated elsewhere. What makes you think BJU didn’t have the same problems 50 years ago?

    The difference now is that women are listened to (in the secular world anyway) when they come with complaints about sexual assault and harassment.

  107. @ Gram3:

    One problem I see is that we ignore historical context. Another is genre and how stories are told. Some interpret the OT as if the pagan cultures (for want of a better term) were just minding their own business and no threat to others.

    Another problem is ignoring the redemptive trajectory. Polygamy is one small an example of that. Never Gods intention. But Allowed to deal with a greater evil that was occuring, etc.

    This is why I despise moral equivalency arguments.

  108. senecagriggs yahoo wrote:

    If you were a young, sexually interested male and you were caught pinching the behind of a co-ed, suspension or permanent expulsion was in your future. While I’m sure it’s still not approved, there are certainly more opportunities for boys to engage in that kind of behavior. BJU, under duress, removed the handcuffs so to speak. Now we have numerous incidents of female students being molested/assaulted. BJU has come full circle.

    Today if a man pinches a woman’s back side she goes straight to the police and has him arrested for sexual assault. No need for the BJU student to get BJU involved at all. The ‘secular world’ has this covered and they won’t sweep it under the rug!

    I swear, Senecca, you make the BJU boys sound more wicked than supposedly unbelievers in the ‘world.’ Trust me, men are starting to get the message that women aren’t their play toys. Just for the record, I’m all for women being arrested and prosecuted for the same actions.

  109. @ Gram3:

    I don't expect to find an answer during my time on this earth. Wish things were otherwise, but then, there is so much that is beyond my admittedly limited understanding… I do believe that God is good.

  110. senecagriggs yahoo wrote:

    There is a GREAT IRONY in the accusations against Bob Jones University and the care of its co-eds.
    In 1960, what were the odds that a young, virginal BJU co-ed would suffer being sexually molested or assaulted by a male student?

    The great irony here is what little you understand about the powers that were able to control the lives of students and stuff things under the rug! You believe that because nothing was reported, that nothing ever happened. That is the real irony in your comment.

    If this is the comment that made it through, I’m glad we haven’t been subjected to the rest of them.

  111. I keep going back to the understanding that Jesus Christ was/is God in the flesh and the full representation of God.

    So obviously there is some interpretive disconnect with the OT

  112. Bridget wrote:

    senecagriggs yahoo wrote:
    There is a GREAT IRONY in the accusations against Bob Jones University and the care of its co-eds.
    In 1960, what were the odds that a young, virginal BJU co-ed would suffer being sexually molested or assaulted by a male student?
    The great irony here is what little you understand about the powers that were able to control the lives of students and stuff things under the rug! You believe that because nothing was reported, that nothing ever happened. That is the real irony in your comment.
    If this is the comment that made it through, I’m glad we haven’t been subjected to the rest of them.

    *
    Bridget, I went to a similar school back in the day and I can tell you, first hand; the girls and boys were closely watched. We all, at least the boys, hated it.

  113. Lydia wrote:

    So obviously there is some interpretive disconnect with the OT

    For me there is definitely a disconnect between Jesus and many events in the OT. It seems to me that many of the bizarre teachings I hear come from the attempts to reconcile what we know of Jesus in the NT with the details of the OT.

  114. Lydia wrote:

    the full representation of God.

    Part of that representation, however, railed at the Pharisees, prescribed millstones for one category of offense, talked about judgment and some (many?) of his stories included illustrations of untoward outcomes for some people. As unpleasant as that may be, there it is. And the OT portrays God as merciful and longsuffering and slow to anger as well as willing to take drastic action when pushed too far. It looks to me like some of both aspects of God can be seen in both the OT and the NT. I don’t see quite the clear cut difference that some apparently do.

  115. Josh wrote:

    And yes, nouthetic counseling’s dangerous side needs more exposure.

    Fwiw, the SBC has taken to calling this "biblical counseling." It is still the same t##d.

  116. Nancy wrote:

    Lydia wrote:

    the full representation of God.

    Part of that representation, however, railed at the Pharisees, prescribed millstones for one category of offense, talked about judgment and some (many?) of his stories included illustrations of untoward outcomes for some people. As unpleasant as that may be, there it is. And the OT portrays God as merciful and longsuffering and slow to anger as well as willing to take drastic action when pushed too far. It looks to me like some of both aspects of God can be seen in both the OT and the NT. I don’t see quite the clear cut difference that some apparently do.

    Oh, I agree. But when folks compare the OT to Islam and wiping out groups of people, it makes sense to question our interpretive grid of the OT. You don’t see that sort of thing in the NT “in action”. The closest we get are words such as, Woe to you, Chorazin.

    I have a theory about this stuff but it is too lengthy to get into here and a total derailment of the post.

  117. @ Nancy:
    Well, OK, but there’s no genocide! And even in the OT, there are differing takes, as with Yod sendung Jonah to Nineveh because he cared for the people – and animals, which are mentioned vety dpecifically – there.

    There really is no archaeological evidence that supports the sequence of events pictured in Joshua, either. Those in the field have differing views, true, but on this, they largely seem to agree. It doesn’t surprise me; there is much that isn’t strictly “literal” in the OT – as with Samson supposedly killing thousands of people with a donkey’s jawbone. We need to approach the whole compendium of books that make up thd Bible with great care, i think. One way to fo that means setting aside the inerrwncy grid, since it seems to block out much of what the texts actually *are.*

  118. Beakerj wrote:

    I also have to say that I have rarely, if ever, read words more horrifying than those about asking an abuse victim if their ‘bodies responded favourably’ because if they did this was a sin.

    It also demonstrates a gross lack of scientific and psychologic knowledge. During rape, a victim’s genitals fill with blood to reduce physiological damage from the attack. This is often a cause for confusion and shame among victims – I can’t imagine how damaging it might be to call this a sin. It is no more sinful than a runny nose.

  119. Jeannette Altes wrote:

    And for me, knowing that David is described as a man after God’s own heart really paints a disturbing picture of what God’s heart is toward his daughters who are raped by his sons.

    I’ve known a few people who – for whatever warped reason – actually held David up as a hero. I think he was a complete douchebag and a jerk. Maybe he had some manly qualities, but the important ones he lacked – he reminds me of a little boy trapped in a man’s body. If the “man after God’s own heart” thing means anything, I think it means that in spite of his foolishness and immaturity, David still trusted God. As for his problem with women, I think the NT makes it clear that this was never God’s plan.

  120. Lydia wrote:

    But when folks compare the OT to Islam and wiping out groups of people, it makes sense to question our interpretive grid of the OT. You don’t see that sort of thing in the NT “in action”. The closest we get are words such as, Woe to you, Chorazin.

    I have a theory about this stuff but it is too lengthy to get into here and a total derailment of the post.

    Lydia, take it over to “Open Discussion” if you like, I’d be interested to follow and read.

  121. Gram3 wrote:

    I *do* yap a lot at people who claim to be using a conservative hermeneutic and upholding the authority of the text but who are *not* doing that and who are putting their own ideas and words or somebody else’s ideas and words into the texts that we have.

    Agree. I would add that every single “inerrantist” that I have ever heard preach does exactly that. Often, those who call themselves conservative are the least such.

  122. senecagriggs yahoo wrote:

    The rules under which male and female students now function are light-years away from the rules of the 50s and early 60s.

    Goodness gracious Mr Jimmy Seneca, is this the worldview from which you are operating? I echo Bridget’s comments.

  123. senecagriggs yahoo wrote:

    In 1960, what were the odds that a young, virginal BJU co-ed would suffer being sexually molested or assaulted by a male student?
    *
    Damn near None!
    *
    They never let the boys get that close.

    If you actually think proximity rules correlate in any way with sexual abuse statistics, then I cannot have a conversation with you. It may be insulting, but the fact is that what you wrote is one of the dumbest things I have read in print – truly worthy of Jim Carey. I am not sure if a few of my brain cells expired in protest, but it wouldn’t surprise me. I don’t know why you are OCD about defending abusers, but your reasoning and comments have all the intellectual rigor of a cucumber. Please stop.

  124. @ senecagriggs yahoo:

    Some of what you say about the BJU rules from the 50s is the same thing that we heard back then about BJU. BJU was admired by some for this and resented by others. Like separate sidewalks for girls and boys. No physical contact of any kind. But the ideas that young males were uncontrollable bundles of raging hormones was not limited to BJU. We all heard that.

    And yes the rules have changed so we hear. Some of the dating rules based on race were changed because they were forced to do so. To say that any of this is a light years different change, however, may be a bit much.

  125. @ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist:

    If you have a reference on that I would like to read it. We had a politician recently, a dentist, who put forth the idea that women’s bodies reacted differently to rape than to non-rape sexual activity, and he got shot out of the saddle on that and about run out of politics altogether. His issue was slightly different as he was talking about the probability of pregnancy resulting from rape, but his premise of different bodily reactions to sex based on whether or not it was rape seems to be along the lines of what you are saying.

  126. Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

    Fwiw, the SBC has taken to calling this “biblical counseling.” It is still the same t##d.

    While I believe that there must be more than a few SBC churches that teach healthy, realistic things about mental health and minister grace amongst their congregations in that area, I have found that I can no longer take seriously much of anything that the higher ups in the SBC hierarchy say. This is a perfect example. Another example being any time Denny Burk and friends open their mouths to say something about LGBTQ people, but that’s my personal soapbox, because reasons.

  127. Bridget wrote:

    The great irony here is what little you understand about the powers that were able to control the lives of students and stuff things under the rug! You believe that because nothing was reported, that nothing ever happened. That is the real irony in your comment.

    That sounds like the Red Fanboys of the Cold War. Young Intellectuals for whom the USSR Could Do No Wrong. Even made the same arguments — “because nothing was reported (in PRAVDA or TASS, NOT the Reactionary Capitalistic Press Infamous For Its Blatant Lies), nothing ever happened”.

  128. senecagriggs yahoo wrote:

    dee wrote:
    senecagriggs yahoo wrote:
    Dee and Deb have made sure that many of my posts get buried IF THEY’RE ALLOWED AT ALL
    Bless your heart, Seneca.
    If you were on the premises of the school Dee, it was very tightly [ though never perfectly ] controlled. Now off the premises, that was a different matter in many cases.

    Girls going off campus had to (and probably still have to) go in groups. (I think boys did/do, too.) Dating outings had chaperones. (BTDT) Dinners off-campus had chaperones (that the couple had to pay for). The Dating Parlor had chaperones. (BTDT) The Snack Shop had chaperones. Boys were not allowed on the sidewalks near the girls’ dorms and vice versa. After any formal event, couples had to separate once the boy escorted his date near the girls’ dorms.

    Mind you, I haven’t read the student handbook in a dog’s age, and as a grad assistant there, most of those rules didn’t apply to me. But even though some things have been loosened up, some have definitely been tightened as BJU has tried to control the behavior of students, especially between the opposite sexes.

  129. senecagriggs yahoo wrote:

    In 1960, what were the odds that a young, virginal BJU co-ed would suffer being sexually molested or assaulted by a male student?

    Do you have any stats on how many young male virginal BJU students were sexually molested or assaulted by other male students in 1960 Jimmy?

  130. Tikatu wrote:

    But even though some things have been loosened up, some have definitely been tightened as BJU has tried to control the behavior of students, especially between the opposite sexes.

    I wonder if they will tighten up even more now that this recent information has been made public?

  131. I was waiting to see if any men would comment – I find the thought processes and ethos behind BJU’s “control & management of the sexes” really offensive to men. The underlying premise seems to me to loudly state that ‘men are raging uncontrollable sexual beasts’. If this premise has been with BJU since it’s inception, what does it say about the ‘values’ of its founder?

  132. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Tikatu wrote:
    I didn’t emphasize the slip so you all can find it for yourselves.
    In the original parable imagery, the “mote” is in the OTHER guy’s eye. The “beam” (as in tree-trunk log) is the one in your own eye.

    Dingdingdingdingding! That is correct! I have to wonder if this was just a slip of the tongue or a revelation of Pettit’s true thoughts on the matter?

  133. Nancy wrote:

    Tikatu wrote:
    But even though some things have been loosened up, some have definitely been tightened as BJU has tried to control the behavior of students, especially between the opposite sexes.
    I wonder if they will tighten up even more now that this recent information has been made public?

    They have created a forbidden fruit. If you look at statistics, those areas of usa that are most socially conservative are the most curious about the forbidden. Repress people and the drive has to go somewhere, and not always in a constructive direction.

  134. Haitch wrote:

    I was waiting to see if any men would comment – I find the thought processes and ethos behind BJU’s “control & management of the sexes” really offensive to men. The underlying premise seems to me to loudly state that ‘men are raging uncontrollable sexual beasts’. If this premise has been with BJU since it’s inception, what does it say about the ‘values’ of its founder?

    It’s not just a matter of the men being “raging uncontrollable sexual beasts” but also that women’s dress makes them that way. See Dr. Bob Jones Sr’s sermon on women and the way they dress: The Modern Woman. https://www.facebook.com/notes/bojous/bob-jones-seniors-startlingly-ungracious-sermon-to-women/1576257282600622

  135. I need to read this report in its’ entirety, am anxious to read the incidents of abuse, anonymous, of course. I sspent e years at BJU, graduating in 1953. It is mind boggling that coeds could actually get close enough to either abuse or be abused. Phone abuse (sex talk), or written abuse, possibly. Notes were delivered back and forth every night to dorms. Excitement when they arrived! You could walk next to your boy friend from chapel and the dining common to the women’s dorms but there were chaperones at the head and foot of the lines and it was rumored that someone was turned in (a popular term) for holding hands in the line. It was possible to call the women’s dorms at night, but only on “business” not monkey business either. My roommate frequently chatted in good fun to an old high school friend (male) who manned the admin. phones at night; someone turned them in, he lost his job. You could have a “date” in the dating parlor once a a week, sit across from each other (not next to), closely chaperoned. You couldn’t go off campus unless a senior, but certainly not with a male unless chaperoned. I visited with a high school friend off campus, someone spotted that she was smoking a cigarette, don’t ask me how. The reason I am boring you with this; someone on list. Was it Seneca?, said a male could not get close to a female, and he was accused of “being sympathetic to abusers.” That is rude and mean. In normal circumstances, in my time frame of attendance it would have taken a hell of a plan. That’s why I hope they include the actual (anonymous) incidents.

  136. Tikatu wrote:

    It’s not just a matter of the men being “raging uncontrollable sexual beasts” but also that women’s dress makes them that way. See Dr. Bob Jones Sr’s sermon on women and the way they dress:

    Again, I SMELL BURQA!

  137. @ Haitch:

    In all fairness to BJU, it wasn’t just BJU that thought this. Back in the day we all heard this. Not everybody said it, but enough did that I think that surely we all heard it. The guys did not seem to object and used it as an excuse to get all they could, or so they said. “I can’t help myself” was like a motto, and excuse and bragging. And being a female where that idea prevailed added an element of danger and adventure to life, kind of like dating the proverbial pirate. You know, bad boys are kind of exciting, and if you can portray all males as at least potential bad boys, well there you go. It was a cultural thing. Now BJU seems to have carried it farther than the rest of the society, but they were not alone in this idea. And BJU certainly carried the behavior restrictions for students farther, but for all of us there were some restrictions in dorm rules and such that no longer apply.

  138. Haitch wrote:

    The underlying premise seems to me to loudly state that ‘men are raging uncontrollable sexual beasts’. If this premise has been with BJU since it’s inception, what does it say about the ‘values’ of its founder?

    Dirty Old Man?
    With a lot of Sexual Baggage of his own?
    And “I Can’t Have Any, so Why Should They?”

  139. Hanni wrote:

    I need to read this report in its’ entirety, am anxious to read the incidents of abuse, anonymous, of course.

    I recommend it. It took me the better part of a day as the report is just over 300 pages long but it’s an eye opener. Pay special attention to the footnotes; they are enlightening.

  140. @ Nancy:

    Let me furnish an illustration about restrictions. In 1960 when I was a freshman in medical school, four women in a class of 80+, we were taking a first aid/resuscitation course first thing. Part of what we did was splinting and transport. Back when, the splints used for a broken hip or femur pretty much required exposure of the patient down to the underwear. (There are better ways now.) So one of the women wore slacks to emergency med class for reasons of modesty. She was reported to the school office, called on the carpet, and apparently threatened with dire consequences if she ever did it again. Slacks were strictly forbidden. This was a totally secular school. Nothing religious about this, just cultural.

  141. Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

    I’ve known a few people who – for whatever warped reason – actually held David up as a hero. I think he was a complete douchebag and a jerk.

    Me too! Thank you! It is such a controversial topic. Events of David’s death are particularly creepy if you ask me. Solomon bizarre, too, with his many wives. (I always remind folks of his many wives when they use certain proverbs against wives about nagging) But he got that temple built. And wise words do not mean wise living, eh?

  142. numo wrote:

    One way to fo that means setting aside the inerrwncy grid, since it seems to block out much of what the texts actually *are.*

    Very true.

  143. @ Nancy:
    Off the top of my head all I can think of is The Trauma of Sexual Assault Treatment, Prevention, and Practice – probably because it is on my bookshelf. But any number of psychology journals reference this.

  144. “Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

    I’ve known a few people who – for whatever warped reason – actually held David up as a hero. I think he was a complete douchebag and a jerk.”

    Me too! Thank you! But it is such a controversial topic in evangelical circles. Events of David’s death are particularly creepy if you ask me. Solomon is bizarre, too, with his many wives. (I always remind folks of his many wives when they use certain proverbs against wives about nagging) But he got that temple built. And wise words do not mean wise living, eh?

  145. @ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist:

    On a much less flippant note, I couldn’t agree more with both you and Beaks (and others, I don’t doubt – haven’t read all the comments on this one yet).

    One of the most disgusting abominations infesting the professing Church at the moment is the way in which some professing shepherds will do anything rather than defend the oppressed.

  146. @ Lydia:
    I don’t want to derail the thread, so, for the record, i am referring to mainstream Islam, not to the Wahhabis, Taliban, Al Qaeda or so-called ISIS. they regard other Muslims (those who don’t agree with them) as heretics/infidels/etc. They are an aberration, and all over Europe, the ME and N. Africa, there is a rising tide of demonstrations, written protests and etc. against the impositoion of Shariah and the so-called ISIS, Boko Haram et. al. But the discussions and such are mainly being conducted inFrench and Arabic, so most of us are out of the loop by default. The protest movement is very strong in France as well as former French colonies in the ME, N. Africa and other parts of Africa – with regard to the ME, that’s a *huge* chunk of the region, ditto Algeria. These protests are also happening in Egypt and othe ME countries. The whole thing is very much grassroots,like the protests here over the verdicts in the deaths of Eric Garner and Michael Brown.

    So, that said….

    /threadjack

  147. Haitch wrote:

    I was waiting to see if any men would comment – I find the thought processes and ethos behind BJU’s “control & management of the sexes” really offensive to men. The underlying premise seems to me to loudly state that ‘men are raging uncontrollable sexual beasts’. If this premise has been with BJU since it’s inception, what does it say about the ‘values’ of its founder?

    I think it’s harmful to both men and women to tell men that they can’t control themselves when they see a woman dressed in a more revealing way than permitted by whatever religious bubble they exist in. All people, but in this case, particularly men, need to be taught to take responsibility for their own actions.

    Mark wrote:

    They have created a forbidden fruit. If you look at statistics, those areas of usa that are most socially conservative are the most curious about the forbidden. Repress people and the drive has to go somewhere, and not always in a constructive direction.

    That seems to be borne out in this study.

  148. NJ wrote:

    Anyway, at least one of these guys was on record, during a discussion with students studying the counseling of sexual abuse victims, referring to the human body as the least important part of a person, or “the throwaway part”.

    If the body is just “the throwaway part”, then why was the original Christian afterlife RESURRECTION OF THE BODY instead of floating around forever as a Soul(TM) in Fluffy Cloud Heaven?

  149. @ numo:
    No prob. I think mainstream Islam is very bad for women,too. just like I think comp doctrine is bad for women but at least it is refutable using our Scriptures.

  150. @ Lydia:
    As with xtianity, there is a very wide spectrum of belief and practice. Btw, a lot of the women protesting Shariah are wearing hijab. Just because someone *looks* a certain way doesn’t mean they hew to everything that their manner of dress suggests – to us, that is. While it’s true that many wear hijab as a result of stricter underdtandings of religion, many simply do it out of custom. There are major social and cultural factors at play.

  151. Hanni wrote:

    Was it Seneca?, said a male could not get close to a female, and he was accused of “being sympathetic to abusers.”

    Hanni, I believe this comment was made against the whole context of all of Seneca’s (Jimmy) comments over the last few years, not just this thread alone. He follows a script – Deebs write about child or adult abuse in a church/Christian setting, cue Seneca who makes no mention of the victims, casts doubt on the circumstances, defends the perpetrator, and thinks everyone is unfair for calling him out. Maybe this is what a tragi-comedy is.

  152. Mark wrote:

    They have created a forbidden fruit. If you look at statistics, those areas of usa that are most socially conservative are the most curious about the forbidden. Repress people and the drive has to go somewhere, and not always in a constructive direction.

    I remember when in Australia the TV series “Desperate Housewives” made the news for being most popular in the Bible Belt…

  153. @ Hanni:
    I second Haitch’s comment – Seneca’s comment is part of a long long pattern. If he can find a way to cast doubt on abuse & defend abusers through the ‘we’re all sinners’ route, he will.

  154. Lydia wrote:

    Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
    I’ve known a few people who – for whatever warped reason – actually held David up as a hero. I think he was a complete douchebag and a jerk.
    Me too! Thank you! It is such a controversial topic. Events of David’s death are particularly creepy if you ask me. Solomon bizarre, too, with his many wives. (I always remind folks of his many wives when they use certain proverbs against wives about nagging) But he got that temple built. And wise words do not mean wise living, eh?

    “So as I say, not as I do” would be applicable to much of the OT, including anything from David, Solomon, etc.

  155. @ numo:
    I certainly do get that. still, I do not like what Islam teaches about women. I am confused as to why that is a problem for you. I do not like what Mormonism teaches about women and so on. none of that means that I treat them any differently.

  156. @ numo:

    Maybe this will help you understand where I am coming from: My daughter is in the process of obtaining a certification in peer mediation. Her instructor is a North African Muslim woman who covers her head. She is a precious soul whom we admire.

    Still, I do not like what Islam teaches about women.

  157. Seneca

    I wish you could learn to care about the abused. However, you seem unwilling to do so. We have let you comment, time and time again, with hope that you would learn to communicate better. You have been commenting here for years with no notable improvement. I leave that up to you to figure out why.

    You have added some horrible personal attacks about individuals on this blog. You are wrong about them and those comments, which have not been approved, demonstrate your lack of love.

    Please do not comment here for the foreseeable future. You can show those you admire how you got banned (for a long time) from TWW, one of the few in the history of this blog. Maybe it will make you feel important.

    I would ask that our readers pray that Seneca, aka Jimmy, would develop a broken heart for those who are hurting. Jesus loves you, Jimmy. May His love for you be reflected in the life that you live.

  158. @ Lydia:

    I believe that the bible says we need to live at peace with one another, in so far as that is up to us. I see nothing about embracing non-christian ideas from other religions. I think those are two separate issues. I am not muslim; I do not believe in islam and I do not think that every religion is just as good as every other religion. There are some lines drawn in the sand between the religions which trace their history back to the middle east. There is no requirement to stand with one foot on each side of any of those lines. There is a requirement to be decent human beings and live at peace as much as possible.

  159. @ Haitch:
    Seneca is banned for a long, long time-perhaps forever. Chalk this one up to the Deebs who keep hoping that showing kindness and allowing someone to work out their issues on a blog might lead to a changed attitude. Frankly, this morning, I have given up that hope. Maybe, after Christmas cookies, I’ll regain my optimism. However, this must stop.

  160. @ senecagriggs yahoo:
    In case you didn’t see this-let me repeat.

    Seneca
    I wish you could learn to care about the abused. However, you seem unwilling to do so. We have let you comment, time and time again, with hope that you would learn to communicate better. You have been commenting here for years with no notable improvement. I leave that up to you to figure out why.

    You have added some horrible personal attacks about individuals on this blog. You are wrong about them and those comments, which have not been approved, demonstrate your lack of love.
    Please do not comment here for the foreseeable future. You can show those you admire how you got banned (for a long time) from TWW, one of the few in the history of this blog. Maybe it will make you feel important.

    I would ask that our readers pray that Seneca, aka Jimmy, would develop a broken heart for those who are hurting. Jesus loves you, Jimmy. May His love for you be reflected in the life that you live.

  161. From this point forward, all submitted comments by Seneca/Jimmy will not be approved. This is my notice on that. I do not intend to keep writing “1 comment not approved” time and time again when he writes some awful comment behind the scenes.

  162. @ Nancy:

    Well, I went to delete the remark as too inflammatory and something went wrong. So let me say, I do not think that numo is pushing religious syncretism in any way. This is not about comments on this blog. But it is about some trends in our current culture in which one is pressured to give up various beliefs and identifiers if it offends somebody else. If one does not do that one is considered “phobic” as in islamo-phobic or homo-phobic or a long list of other hyphenated phobias. This is a bad trend which only creates more hostility. We need to pull back from that.

  163. numo wrote:

    While it’s true that many wear hijab as a result of stricter underdtandings of religion, many simply do it out of custom. There are major social and cultural factors at play.

    This is true in my experience. I think it is more likely that Islam religionized a pre-existing cultural practice, and it is difficult to separate Islam from the underlying culture. Sort of like Christianity only the markers are different.

  164. Arce wrote:

    “So as I say, not as I do” would be applicable to much of the OT, including anything from David, Solomon, etc.

    Or universally, speaking for myself. It may be that the string of good kings who went bad and bad kings who got worse served as an extended object lesson or logical consequence of people wanting a human king to embody their individual vanity when they *had* the Good King.

  165. Lydia wrote:

    Her instructor is a North African Muslim woman who covers her head. She is a precious soul whom we admire.

    Still, I do not like what Islam teaches about women.

    That is how I feel about my Muslim friends, though most of them are Westernized. The tough thing for me to understand is why Western women convert to Islam and an extreme Islamic lifestyle. Or why the older relatives of my Muslim friends are adopting a stricter Islamic practice after being liberal most of their lives.

    There was a photo gallery online awhile ago that showed pictures from Cairo and Teheran of women at the universities who looked just like co-eds here. Things have certainly changed.

  166. @ Gram3:
    In most Arab countries, this change is a very recent development that is not coming from historic practices. And yes, Egypt has changed – and not for the better.

  167. Gram3 wrote:

    Arce wrote:
    “So as I say, not as I do” would be applicable to much of the OT, including anything from David, Solomon, etc.
    Or universally, speaking for myself. It may be that the string of good kings who went bad and bad kings who got worse served as an extended object lesson or logical consequence of people wanting a human king to embody their individual vanity when they *had* the Good King.

    “Absolute power corrupts absolutely” is an old saying that applies to the OT kings and to CEO pastors!

  168. @ Nancy:

    I could not agree more. I do not understand why there is a problem with saying I do not like what Islam teaches about women. Or why that means one cannot live at peace with others they disagree with on those issues.

    I am sure many disagree with what Mormons teach but are able to live at peace with them too.

  169. Nancy wrote:

    But it is about some trends in our current culture in which one is pressured to give up various beliefs and identifiers if it offends somebody else.

    That often works both ways, sadly, in the arena of ideas. disagreement with something does not mean one is offended by it existing around them.

    I am concerned about the leaps in mapping disagreement to some sort of implied discrimination which is unfair. there is a censoring aspect to it that is just as debilitating in the arena of ideas and frankly doing the exact same thing.

  170. Gram3 wrote:

    The tough thing for me to understand is why Western women convert to Islam and an extreme Islamic lifestyle. Or why the older relatives of my Muslim friends are adopting a stricter Islamic practice after being liberal most of their lives.

    Or why women raised in egalitarian functioning homes end up in Christian patriarchal groups.

    that would make for a very interesting study.

  171. Arce wrote:

    “So as I say, not as I do” would be applicable to much of the OT, including anything from David, Solomon, etc.

    Very good point. I wish more pastors taught this.

  172. @ Gram3:
    i’m not sure that headscarves could ever be pinned down as a “pre-existing cultural practice,” because what evidence do we have? But that they are a *cultural* thing – and not just in the Middle East – is definitely true. (See Russia, for example, where one word for “grannie” is “babushka” – headscarf, which most older Russian women still wear, and with pride.)

    Also, if you look at the traditional dress for men in most predominantly Muslim countries, it covers pretty much every part of the body but face and hands. Part of that is climate/custom, and part of it is out of a desire to observe the commandments to modesty found in the Qur’an. Those guys on the Arabian Peninsula who wear traditional white robes also wear something that’s literally called “modesty pants” underneath.

  173. Gram3 wrote:

    The tough thing for me to understand is why Western women convert to Islam and an extreme Islamic lifestyle.

    As I understand it (from a long-ago article about this phenomenon) the world is a Big Scary Place and after a lifetime of total Do Your Own Thing freedom (and the aftermath), they want a place of safety. Where it’s reassuring and safe — told exactly what to wear, exactly how to act, exactly what to think.

  174. Gram3 wrote:

    There was a photo gallery online awhile ago that showed pictures from Cairo and Teheran of women at the universities who looked just like co-eds here. Things have certainly changed.

    One reason is Saudi oil money buying out Egyptian media. Until the only gig one of their most experienced and popular TV actresses can get is as a fully-veiled talking head reciting the Koran.

  175. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:
    Yes and no. Cairo is still the entertainment capital of the Arabic-speaking world, for music, movies and TV, too. I’ve seen recent clips from Egyptian talk shows with women guests and hosts who were dressed Western-style, with heavy mkeup (a constant in much of the ME, including Saudi Arabia).

  176. @ dee:
    I only feel sadness for Seneca/Jimmy. A real heavy sadness. Maybe one day I shall feel like having a cup of coffee with him instead of wanting to pour it over his head. I walk to work today with a heavy heart, also because of the outcome at the cafe in Sydney. I hope everyone remembers those who are grieving, lost, lonely, homeless and marginalized this Christmas.

  177. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Gram3 wrote:
    The bit about “pleasure from the abuse” is beyond description with words suitable for a Christian blog.
    Sounds to me like a Church Lady type finding ways to get off vicariously and cop a Moral Superiority attitude at the same time.

    I mentioned before about a minister whose son was abused by an elderly church member. The parents reported the abuse to the police. The abuser was arrested, released on bail, and murdered the son and his mother before shooting himself.

    After the funerals, the father was asked how much pleasure was the son deriving from the encounters with his abuser?

    The parents (before the murders) were also criticized by some church members for not “working it out” with the abuser.

    The father began a blog a couple of years ago where he wrote about some of his feelings. A Facebook comment about that blog went somewhere along these lines: if this blog doesn’t admonish or uplift, it doesn’t need to be. The blog is for those with strong faith and those with weak faith might be caused to stumble.

    I responded, if stuff that doesn’t admonish or uplift doesn’t need to be, then a good portion of the Psalms, portions of the book of Jeremiah, and a goodly portion of the book of Job would be excluded from the Bible. Even Jesus said, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?”

  178. Does anyone here personally know Jimmy, otherwise known as Seneca? He seems pretty lost when it comes to abused children and adults in the Christian church. I feel sorry for him. Is he an IFB pastor connected with BJU? If we are to be shunned according to the separatist ethos, why is he visiting here? Never have understood separatism. They don’t seem so separatist when they are engaging in society.

  179. Due to the inconsistencies of secondary separation, why don’t they refer to themselves as Neo evangelicals? I may be stirring them up. I just question if a fundamentalism that fears contamination from secular society and Neo evagelicals is truly practicing secondary separation by visiting blogs of Christians they feel are compromisers to be shunned, or who have unorthodox theology, in their mind. Just a question and perhaps an IFB or garbc christian or WELS lutheran could answer it. Sorry if this question is inappropriate or unkind.

  180. Nancy wrote:

    @ Mark:
    The term secondary separation is new to me. What does it mean?

    I will give it a try and anyone who comes from these traditions, please correct me. Denominations who practice secondary separation will not have fellowship with Christians who they view as having fellowhip with those who have contact with those who have fellowship with those they consider heterodox or whose doctrine they disagree with. For example when the SBC was a member of the BWA, the Garbc refused to participate in an organization wide evangelistic campaign called key 73. Recently the GARBC ceased support for Cedarville University because it views this would be a compromise. The GARBC has the opinion that there are theological liberals in the SBC even though the SBC is a conservative denomination. Churches that practice secondary separation view Billy Graham or Luis Palau as compromisers because he works with a variety of denominations during his crusades. I know because I attended such a church during Luis Palau crusade. Bob Jones senior eased fellowship with Billy Graham because of his contact with liberals. Jerry Falwell is also viewed as a compromiser, though his theology was conservative. I included WELS because an WELS pastor will not pray with someone who doesn’t agree with the WELS doctrinal platform. They view the conservative LCMS as compromisers to confessional Lutheranism. Secondary separation also keeps so much hidden, like what is being described, I would submit.

  181. @ Haitch:

    I feel bad for Jimmy, too. I always thought that there was something really wrong with him and that he was really here because he needed our help. I thought maybe he identified with the aggressor instead of the victim as a kind of dysfunctional method of coping. I kept thinking that there had to be some way to reach him and we had to find it.

    Why else is he here? Absolutely no one is going to agree with him when he is being ugly about people. Jimmy, there are a lot of people sincerely praying for you. Open your heart!

  182. Gram3 wrote:

    This is true in my experience. I think it is more likely that Islam religionized a pre-existing cultural practice, and it is difficult to separate Islam from the underlying culture. Sort of like Christianity only the markers are different.

    With two important differences:

    Unlike Judaism, which was forcibly dispersed among the goyim as a minority again and again…
    Unlike Christianity, which started out as a minority faith in an intermittently-hostile empire…
    Islam started out with a 400-year unbroken winning streak. For its first 400 years, Islam was THE dominant majority in its Caliphate, interacting with other cultures only as Conqueror and Overlord. Islam’s “pre-existing cultural practices” (coming from and optimized for Arab tribal culture) became the Dominant Culture wherever it spread. For its first 400 years, Islam didn’t have to adapt to and/or coexist with a cosmopolitan world or Empire — Islam WAS The Empire, and those 400 years of Religious/Political/CULTURAL domination locked in those “pre-existing cultural practices” as The Only True Way.

    So Islam is going to have a much harder time adapting its “pre-existing cultural practices” to any changes.

  183. @ Haitch:
    I know more about him than he thinks I know because of some comments on this blog. He is not IFB but he is into authoritarianism and tends to trust anyone who has a big name over the little guy. Also, he is a strict comp and two women running a blog drives him nuts.

  184. numo wrote:

    @ Headless Unicorn Guy:
    I think your premise is not entirely accurate, as it all started with a trader in the Arabian desert. There weren’t even s whole lot of people out there, you know?

    It may have started with the Arab tribal equivalent of a long-haul truckdriver who married his boss, but that 400-year winning streak began when they broke out of the Mecca/Medina area.

    During the late Cold War, there was a LOT of preaching about how the USSR fulfilled End Time Prophecy because “Communism spread from nowhere over half the world in ONLY FIFTY YEARS! THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE!”

    To which my response was “It HAS happened before! Remember Islam? From two little towns in the Arabian desert to the Pillars of Hercules and Ganges River Delta in a little over a century!”

  185. Mark wrote:

    If we are to be shunned according to the separatist ethos, why is he visiting here?

    Possibly the same reason Pathological Furry Haters can’t stay away from Furry Fandom. They’re as big a fans as the “Furverts” they sneer at, just flipped one-eighty. And if they didn’t have their Enemy, what reason do they have for living?

    Never have understood separatism. They don’t seem so separatist when they are engaging in society.

    Because at that point the rules of Power Struggle are in effect, and they’re trying to Dominate like a Draka.

  186. numo wrote:

    I think your premise is not entirely accurate, as it all started with a trader in the Arabian desert. There weren’t even s whole lot of people out there, you know?

    If the prophet had his first visit from the angel at age 40, and died at age 62 or 63 that is a pretty short time in which to convert thousands and the amass and army of thousands and take Mecca. That really sounds like amazingly rapid success of the movement. And he did do some of it as a conqueror, not just a preacher.

  187. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:
    I suspect that there are plenty of reasons why the conquests succeeded, and that that religion was only part of it. Not to mention the fact that xtianity had bern fused with the political structures of both halves of the Roman Empire for a good while already – it’s not as if there wasn’t a sense of “holy war” there, either.

  188. @ Nancy:
    There are differing views as to exactly what happened when, as well as how it happened. But there is no documentary evidence of these things apart from what is stated in the Qur’an and Hadith, which makes it very hard for historians to be able to asdess the earliest period of Islam. As time went on, the number of contemprary, documentary sources increased, but it took awhile.

    Please keep in mind that Muhammad himself was illiterate, as stated by his early gollowers, who were collecting what later became the Qur’an on pieces of palm leaves and such. There’s a puzxle here, per historicity of the dates in the Qur’an. And the fact that the winners of any conflict are those who write about it. It’s not as if we have contemporary acvounts by those who opposed Mohammed, for example…

  189. Beakerj wrote:

    senecagriggs yahoo wrote:

    In 1960, what were the odds that a young, virginal BJU co-ed would suffer being sexually molested or assaulted by a male student?

    Do you have any stats on how many young male virginal BJU students were sexually molested or assaulted by other male students in 1960 Jimmy?

    Now there is an excellent question!

  190. Josh wrote:

    I think it’s harmful to both men and women to tell men that they can’t control themselves when they see a woman dressed in a more revealing way than permitted by whatever religious bubble they exist in. All people, but in this case, particularly men, need to be taught to take responsibility for their own actions.

    Thank you, Josh. This is what I was taught growing up, & what I still believe. It is a pleasure to hear a younger person state it. (Oh, trust me, 🙂 you’re younger!!)

  191. Beakerj wrote:

    @ Hanni:
    I second Haitch’s comment – Seneca’s comment is part of a long long pattern. If he can find a way to cast doubt on abuse & defend abusers through the ‘we’re all sinners’ route, he will.

    Very true.

  192. Nancy wrote:

    zooey111 wrote:

    I think Paul had a lot of mental & emotional problems that bled over into a lot of his writings. I read all of his letters through that lens, or I wouldn’t be able to read him without snarling/harrumphing/spitting tacks. (Choose one).

    Given the list of things that he endured including jail and beatings (five I think?) and shipwreck and constant opposition from those who did not agree with him, and his chosen celibacy which I assume was not easy and his commitment to earning his own living by tent making I am thinking that we have to rethink the whole idea of PTSD or else we have to cut Paul some slack because of what he endured. No way he went unscathed by all of that.

    Yup. Combined with the guilt he felt for the people whose lives he had (directly or indirectly) snuffed out, its probably a wonder that he didn’t end up totally unable to function.

  193. dee wrote:

    From this point forward, all submitted comments by Seneca/Jimmy will not be approved. This is my notice on that. I do not intend to keep writing “1 comment not approved” time and time again when he writes some awful comment behind the scenes.

    Thank you. His posts have been very triggering, & that is, of course, the milder ones. I cannot imagine how bad the censored ones must be.

  194. Pingback: A Breakdown of BJU President Pettit’s Leaked Chapel Message | Spiritual Sounding Board

  195. Pingback: Translation of Bob Jones University’s Manipulative Press Release Announcing GRACE Report | A Cry For Justice

  196. Not sure where to put this, but fyi. And thanks to Boz.

    Per the BJU/GRACE efforts, BOZ responds to some regrettable actions of some victims’ advocates because of potential “unnecessary anxiety” to victims.

    http://www.romancingvictims.net/boz.html
    http://www.romancingvictims.net/fakeattorney.html

    There have been concerns expressed before as to Dr. Lewis’ credibility
    whose work has been featured here.
    http://thewartburgwatch.com/2014/02/28/dr-camille-lewis-presents-the-stormy-history-life-at-bob-jones-university-2/

    FYI for those this might affect.