Watchkeep: Karen Hinkley’s Response to The Village Church Email

“Above all, don't lie to yourself. The man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to a point that he cannot distinguish the truth within him, or around him, and so loses all respect for himself and for others. And having no respect he ceases to love.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, The Brothers Karamazov link

http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/view-image.php?image=80649&picture=na-prst-body
Wait A Minute

I had planned to write a post today about churches like TVC that trust pedophiles who declare their undying devotion to the gospel.™ However, something more important came up. I may try to post it tomorrow instead.

Last night, I was delighted when Karen told me that she was going to respond to TVC's email which was sent to 6,000 covenant™ members. Karen was deeply disappointed that the email contained a number of factual errors. In fact, she has documentation showing that some of those facts are incorrect.

We have decided that all such documentation will be placed on Amy Smith's blog. So it makes sense for Karen to also place her response there. I want to reassure our readers that Karen, Amy and I are working together to make sure that the information we are making available is accurate, pertinent and relevant to the issues at hand.

I want to stress the following quite clearly. The Village Church has continued their harassment of Karen since her resignation. I found some of the emails and tweets from TVC pastors/elders to be troubling. It is also concerning to me that TVC is trying to find out where Karen is now living. Karen is no longer in Dallas and has begun a new life for herself far from the hounds who are pursuing her. What part of leave her alone don't they get? 

The Village Church, and their unusually silent head pastor Matt Chandler, should have ended this nonsense a couple of weeks ago. Had they apologized and let her go on her way, these blog posts and other media would not have had a story. A simple We.Are.Sorry would have made this all go away. But, being one of those authority driven leaders means never having to say you're sorry.

Instead, things are escalating exponentially every day and that is too darn bad and really stupid. This not only reflects on the mothership of Acts 29 which is The Village Church, but it reflects on the entire Acts 29 network which has been embedded with this DNA.

I am posting the opening part of Karen's statement and then will link to Amy Smith's blog so you can read the entire post. Pay close attention to her statements surrounding Jordan's counseling, TVC's financial support of Jordan and Karen, and the supposed desire of Karen to return to the mission field. 


Karen's full response appears below in this post. It can also be viewed here at Scribd. 

I was shocked by the email The Village Church sent to over 6,000 people on Saturday, May 23rd. When I made the decision to go public in order to expose Jordan Root and The Village Church, I knew I was taking a great deal of personal risk, but I had never imagined that TVC would go to such lengths to deceive their members, silence their critics, and defame my character.

I originally chose to speak out primarily for the sake of possible past and future victims of child sexual abuse by Jordan. Today, I choose to speak out for the sake of other past, present, and future victims of spiritual abuse by TVC and similar churches. I want you to know that what has happened, is happening, or will happen to you is not okay and is not a reflection of the nature of God’s very real love for you. I want you to know that you are not alone. I want you to know that there are people who love Jesus who are willing to stand up for you and speak out on your behalf. I want you to know that the bullies do not always win.

In providing the following commentary on The Village Church’s email, I hope to shed light on the deceptive nature of their communications regarding this matter. You will find that there are many details TVC conveniently left out as well as what I believe to be intentional misrepresentations on their part. Much of the documentation for this commentary was posted along with Amy Smith’s original story on May 20th, (http://watchkeep.blogspot.com/2015/05/she-speaks-village-church-protects.html ) while some of it I am bringing to light for the first time. As you read, I pray that you will ask yourself why the leadership of a church that preaches the Gospel of Jesus Christ would resort to such despicable tactics in their communications.

In the Name of Jesus and for His sake,
Karen Hinkley

( All in italics is from the letter from The Village Church sent to their members)

Covenant Members of The Village Church,

It is heartbreaking to send this email regarding two Covenant Members of The Village Church, former missionaries Jordan Root and Karen Hinkley (formerly Root), but our hope is set on Christ through it all.

I have not been a Covenant Member of The Village Church since February 11th, 2015 when I formally withdrew my membership. (https://www.scribd.com/doc/266029324/Karen-s-Withdrawal-of-TVC-Membership-Letter) Interestingly, despite the claims of The Village Church that I am still a Covenant Member, I did not receive this email that went out to all of their Covenant Members.

When a public ministry leader, such as a missionary, has persisted in sin, The Village may announce their removal from ministry to the church (1 Tim. 5:20). We typically define “the church” as our Covenant Members. In the case of Jordan and Karen, we have already communicated their situation to our church staff and all Covenant Members of the Dallas campus. However, in light of the public nature of this situation, some misinformation that we’ve seen online and questions we have been receiving from our members, we felt it was necessary to extend this communication beyond Covenant Members at the Dallas campus to all Covenant Members of The Village Church. We apologize if you are not a Covenant Member of our Dallas campus and found out about the situation from outside sources, but our intent here is to provide clarity and understanding.

Jordan and Karen have been Covenant Members of The Village Church for three years and were sent out last August by the Dallas campus as missionaries to South Asia through a missionary agency called Serving in Mission (SIM). In December, Jordan confessed that he had viewed online pornography involving children. The Village and SIM were grieved at this news and immediately recalled the Roots from the mission field to further assess the situation and determine the best course of action. SIM, as their employer, began an investigation and notified the police in case Jordan’s actions had legal implications. At the same time, our staff and elders began walking closely with both Jordan and Karen in hopes of working toward their healing and restoration while also dealing with the seriousness of Jordan’s sin, including cooperating with all civil authorities.

This is an example of the way the leaders of The Village Church have repeatedly minimized Jordan’s issues and the nature of his “confession.” I learned that Jordan was viewing child pornography on December 16 after almost three weeks of digging. It had become increasingly clear to me over the previous several months that something was off, but I had no reason to believe that Jordan was capable of lying about something of this magnitude. On Thanksgiving I caught him in an unrelated lie, and I sensed immediately that there was more he was hiding and lying about. I pressed him, and he eventually began what I am calling his "pseudoconfession". He confessed he had masturbated and had accessed nude pictures (of adults) online a handful of times since we had arrived overseas. I felt strongly that there was more to the story and continued to press, but he assured me that there was nothing else.

This began almost three weeks of "pseudorepentance" during which Jordan gave the same "confession" to SIM leadership and The Village Church leadership. He spoke of how relieved he was that the truth was now out and even reported rededicating his life to Jesus at a retreat that weekend. Everyone involved believed in his honesty and repentance, and I so desperately wanted to myself. But I felt a strong conviction that I should keep asking questions, and I did. I persisted in asking questions almost every day over the course of the next three weeks, and on December 16th Jordan's reaction to a question I asked revealed that there was indeed much more to the story. He tried to avoid talking any further that night, but I pressed until he agreed to "tell me the whole story".

That night he admitted to almost ten years of child pornography use that began while he was in college and continued throughout his seminary studies into our dating and engagement. He said that he preferred prepubescent girls ages four and older but that he had seen child pornography involving infants and teenagers as well. He described images and videos he had used in disturbingly graphic detail. He also admitted he had returned to accessing nude pictures of children during our time overseas. When I asked whether his behavior had extended to children he knew in real life, he admitted to having masturbated to thoughts of children in his care. He also described two occasions on which he had been "tempted to molest" children but claimed to have chosen not to.

This case of sin has brought immense damage to a marriage and a ministry. Yet, in the midst of this heartbreaking situation, we have maintained a tremendous love and burden for both Jordan and Karen, for both the offender and offended. Since Jordan and Karen are Covenant Members of The Village who committed themselves to receive the care and protection of our church and elders, we have sought to minister to this brother and sister out of love and biblical commitment.

With regard to Jordan’s care and discipline, we have responded in the two ways that we believe the church should respond with regarding any sin: the blood-bought grace of Jesus for the sinner and the necessary consequences of sin.

There is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus (Rom. 8:1) and, therefore, no condemnation for Jordan. He has confessed his sin, and through the finished, redemptive work of Christ, Jordan is washed clean of all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9), met with forgiveness and granted fellowship with the body (2 Cor. 2:5-8). With that said, grace and love sometimes take the form of discipline and consequence. Hebrews 12:5-11 reminds us that God’s intent for discipline, as a good and loving Father, is the restoration and holiness of His children. The road of discipline is difficult, but when walked faithfully, there is a good end to it. In light of this, the following are the consequences that came from Jordan’s sin: 

Temporary Separation – Upon Jordan and Karen’s return from the mission field, we felt that it was in their best interest to encourage a temporary marital separation, allowing Karen time to heal and Jordan time to walk in repentance. Like any redemptive separation, the hope was that, after an appropriate time of healing and repentance, the married couple would eventually be able to come back together for the sake of pursuing possible reconciliation. While there may be situations that end in the dissolution of a marriage, we always hope for the power of the gospel to bring about a story of forgiveness and reconciliation.

If I had “come back together [with Jordan] for the sake of pursuing possible reconciliation”, I would not have had the option of having the fraudulent marriage annulled. I would have been forced to choose between resuming a marriage to a fraudulent pedophile and pursuing a divorce. 

Please go to this link to continue reading the post at Watchkeep

Comments

Watchkeep: Karen Hinkley’s Response to The Village Church Email — 729 Comments

  1. JD Nielson wrote:

    BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
    JD Nielson wrote:
    I’m commenting.
    No. You’re trolling.
    Also, I believe she had Biblical grounds for divorce/annulment. Just so that question is settled.

    That some keep insisting that she get her church’s approval for that step first is nit picking and asinine.
    She is an adult. She doesn’t need their permission or approval.
    The church membership she signed didn’t even mention anything about annulment.

  2. @ sam:
    I don’t believe rape or duress constitutes marriage, if that’s what you’re asking. When girl moves to Manchester for an arranged marriage, to get out of a hellhole and to provide her immigrant spouse with European citizenship and is then treated like a community slave, I’m not sure what place the “marriage” plays in that. As a Christian… I would probably be inclined to BUY the woman if I could, set her free, and help her in any way I could. Would she still be “married”? God is more forgiving than I am; He would probably consider the marriage to be beside the point. I suppose you could call that annulment.

    So, yes.

  3. BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

    Maybe the info I read was incorrect then

    You may be right 🙂 I just don’t find such things as contract, signatures, etc. as necessary for marriage in the Bible but I do see them as customs among many of the Jewish today. So I was more or less asking if anyone knew of such evidence in the Bible. What I’ve seen is more of a he “took” her as his wife.

    There are numerous places that mention a celebration or feast taking place at the home of the bride which I think is a shadow or type of Jesus coming to earth at the end of the age to dwell with His bride.

  4. Flicker wrote:

    But I am asking if there is even such a thing as annulment in God’s eyes.

    I don’t know where the word or practice of annulment originated (I think it’s the RCC) but God Himself issued a certificate of divorce to Israel for their unfaithfulness.

  5. @ Marsha:
    What I’m talking about is not whether it bothers you personally, but does adultery in his heart justify divorce.

  6. JD Nielson wrote:

    JD Nielson wrote:
    So, can the GOSPEL of Jesus Christ change the perverse desires of sexual predators? That’s a question I’d like answered.

    So, you are a WOF (Word of Faith) believer?

    Because WOFs believe if a Christian has enough faith God can heal them instantly. They believe God is obligated to heal them, if they pray and have enough faith or believe the Bible hard enough.

    WOFs believe that the Gospel includes a promise of healing.

    One of the only things I see about the Gospel is that it has to to with delivering people from an afterlife in Hell if they accept Christ, not that it guarantees that God will heal you of alcoholism, broken legs, or anything else.

    TVC is a Southern Baptist church. I grew up Southern Baptist, and SB never, ever believed in WOF. Unless TVC is a hybrid SB-WOF church?

    I would say no, Jesus does not heal pedophilia in most cases. He probably could if he wanted to, but he chooses not to for whatever reason.

    If you look at people who say they are Christian but who also have asthma, diabetes, near-sightedness, cancer, depression, anxiety-

    More often than not, these people have to see medical doctors and take medications, use inhalers, get surgeries, wear eye glasses, etc.

    All the prayer and faith in the world is not moving Jesus to heal all those people of their particular ailments, so why on earth would you argue, as you seem to, that Jesus automatically delivers pedophiles of their urge to fondle kids?

    Are you saying that “the Gospel” heals everyone who believe in it of cancer, poor eye sight, anxiety, depression, sprained ankles, arthritis, obesity, etc?

    Jesus said in this world you will have many troubles. He never said belief in Him would erase all your health problems or other struggles.

  7. Daisy wrote:

    JD Nielson wrote:

    BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
    JD Nielson wrote:
    I’m commenting.
    No. You’re trolling.
    Also, I believe she had Biblical grounds for divorce/annulment. Just so that question is settled.

    That some keep insisting that she get her church’s approval for that step first is nit picking and asinine.
    She is an adult. She doesn’t need their permission or approval.
    The church membership she signed didn’t even mention anything about annulment.

    Yes, “JD” is trolling.

  8. @ An Attorney:
    But as I’ve said before, I’m not sure “Vows” have any place in the uniting of a man and a woman, but might merely be a cultural affectation. If there are vows, they really are one-sided, and should be kept. My vows did not include, “And if she keeps her vow, then I’ll keep mine”.

  9. Flicker wrote:

    @ Gram3:
    The qualification was only if you’re married. I think my point was that if not knowing someone during the time leading up to marriage, or during the ceremony itself means that the person “didn’t exist” once you found out things about him that you didn’t like, then this means just about any marriage is null form the start, as some claim Karen’s was. I’m trying to not make this about Karen, but about marriage in general, from a godly, as op[posed to a US legal, perspective.

    Karen is a very godly woman who sought the Lord.

  10. @ An Attorney:

    No, tot he computer program, I have not said tis before, so I’ll post it here and now.

    But as I’ve said before, I’m not sure “Vows” have any place in the uniting of a man and a woman, but might merely be a cultural affectation. If there are vows, they really are one-sided, and should be kept. My vows did not include, “And if she keeps her vow, then I’ll keep mine”.

  11. Flicker wrote:

    I have also been arguing that 21st-century law, no matter how helpful, is NOT God’s mind on an issue, nor a guide to righteousness.

    And I’m saying that a vow is a vow and the righteous are to keep their vows even, injudicious or hurtful ones.

    Why keep a vow if it is injurious or hurtful? Seriously, why? Who would benefit?

    Karen said her vows to a man who deceived her, who pretended to desire her as his wife when he actually desires little girls. He was committing felonies when he met her, when he courted her, and after their marriage. There is no benefit to her in staying in this fraudulent marriage.

    Would Jordan benefit? Well, if he wants to keep on having access to children as in the past, he sure would. Karen staying with him might help to reassure others that it was safe for children to be around him.

    But I would argue that he would not truly benefit. His deceit and crimes should not be rewarded by getting to keep his wife. He hasn’t been arrested, he hasn’t been required to do the hard work of therapy, and the church is looking after him. Where is the motivation for him to take a hard look at himself and realize that gratifying his desires is evil?

    I cannot believe that God wants Karen to stay with an evil deceiver because she took marriage vows believing she was marrying a committed Christian with whom she could have a ministry.

  12. @ Gram3:
    No. This is not a proof text. (I don’t even know how to proof text. This is a long-standing understanding of God’s word, that has guided me for decades. If you say you’re going to do something (especially if you should swear it) then you should do it even if your word was ill-advised. Are you saying that this way of thinking is wrong?!

  13. JD Nielson wrote:

    Lydia wrote:
    @ JD Nielson:
    Do you mean 1 Corin 5 where the pervert was kicked out and Paul said turn him over to Satan so he can be saved? Is that what you are referring to?
    —–
    Wait, are you saying we need to exercise church discipline?!

    On church-going pedophiles? Yes, you can and should exercise discipline church discipline on them.

    Nobody is against disciplining them, and/or being cautious around them, such as making sure they are not left alone or around children.

    Karen didn’t do anything that calls for being disciplined, not even by TVC standards, as their membership covenant mentions nothing about annulments or having to speak to the church before seeking one.

    Even if it did, so what? It’s not a church’s business if or when one adult decides to divorce another, and certainly not over something like adultery or pedophilia.

  14. @ Victorious:
    Thanks. But part of the argument is that Karen, if she had moved back with Jordan, would have had to get a divorce to leave him, and that would have been far different than an annulment. I think I just admitted a little earlier that I do believe God in some ways and under some circumstances at least, does recognize what we today call annulment.

  15. JD Nielson wrote:

    Because that’s the best place to get our theology.

    I suppose so, but the Bible is not a direction manual for every topic one comes across in life.

    I had to buy a computer book from the store years ago to learn how to put additional RAM cards in my CPU and stuff like that.

    I don’t think consulting the Bible alone concerning things like psychological, personality disorders, or health problems is the way to go. The Bible does not fully address all such topics.

  16. Daisy wrote:

    Karen didn’t do anything that calls for being disciplined, not even by TVC standards, as their membership covenant mentions nothing about annulments or having to speak to the church before seeking one.

    This is another way in which TVC are acting like abusive bullies. One of the hallmarks of an abusive husband/father is that they keep changing the expectations and rules, making it easier for the abuser to accuse his targets. Same with TVC. In order to accuse Karen, they had to change their own rules.

  17. @ Marsha:
    God keeps His vows, and He expects us to keep ours, even if we later regret it. I would give you the verse, but someone else already said that if a text has any meaning, then it is a “proof text” and doesn’t apply.

    Okay here it is anyway.

    Ps 15:1-4: Lord, who shall abide in thy tabernacle? who shall dwell in thy holy hill?… He that sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not.

  18. JD Nielson wrote:

    My point is that we should also be willing to take into consideration the fact that he may actually have been changed into a higher degree of glory since his crimes were committed.

    Who, Duggar or Root? I think your view is dangerous and naive.

    You can believe all day long that Duggar/Root have a “higher degree of glory” (whatever that means) all you want, but I would not let either man alone around children.

    I don’t know what you do with Duggar, since he has a few biological children. Hopefully the wife keeps an eye open.

  19. JD Nielson wrote:

    I don’t think she was defrauded. I think she was married to a sinful man who persisted in sin for many years. And I think she should have divorced him (on the basis of sexual immorality) and not had the marriage annulled; but I haven’t given that enough thought and can’t speak from a place of conviction on that.

    She most certainly was defrauded.

    As to the rest of your commentary. You can think anything about it all day, but it’s her life to live, not yours.

    It’s her choice to make, not yours. She did not want to stay in a marriage to a man she learned was a pedophile.

    If you would chose to stay married to a person you found out to be a pedo, that’s your choice, but it’s pretty condescending to sit there insisting everyone else can, should, or must stay married to one.

  20. Flicker wrote:

    Are you saying that this way of thinking is wrong?!

    No, that is not what I’m saying at all. I’m saying that the conclusion you are drawing is not warranted from the entire context of Psalm 15. Proof-texting is removing a portion of a greater context which informs the “meaning” or the conclusions and subsequent applications we are to make.

    Again, the point of Psalm 15 is not “Keep your word.” Your application is unwarranted by the totality of the Psalm. It is a Messianic Psalm about forgiveness from our manifold sins, and you are trying to make it about law.

  21. Flicker wrote:

    @ Marsha:
    God keeps His vows, and He expects us to keep ours, even if we later regret it. I would give you the verse, but someone else already said that if a text has any meaning, then it is a “proof text” and doesn’t apply.

    Okay here it is anyway.

    Ps 15:1-4: Lord, who shall abide in thy tabernacle? who shall dwell in thy holy hill?… He that sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not.

    Oh nonsense!!!!! Gram said no such thing. You are misrepresenting her. She said you are misunderstanding the meaning of the verses.

    Proof texting involved bolstering one’s opinion on doctrine by quoting a short Bible passage out of context.

  22. @ Daisy:

    You can bet that any of these men arguing that Karen should stay with a pedophile husband would have a very different opinion if it were a man whose wife was viewing child pornography because she preferred four year old boys to her husband.

  23. Flicker wrote:

    but someone else already said that if a text has any meaning, then it is a “proof text” and doesn’t apply.

    No, that is *not* what I said. I said that the “meaning” that you were deriving is not supported by the *entire* text under consideration, namely Psalm 15. Is it OK if people isolate one sentence from a letter that you wrote to someone else, having certain intents and having certain pre-understandings and then proclaiming to all that what you “meant” is what you said just in that sentence. All without due consideration of the entirety of your letter and consideration of those pre-understandings? That seems to me to be a recipe for misunderstanding the “meaning” rather than understanding the “meaning.”

  24. Michaela wrote:

    Karen is a very godly woman who sought the Lord.

    Short and sweet, thanks. Opposing points of view can be helpful to highlight or sharpen issues, other times a stream of side issues is just distracting.

  25. Marsha wrote:

    You can bet that any of these men arguing that Karen should stay with a pedophile husband would have a very different opinion if it were a man whose wife was viewing child pornography because she preferred four year old boys to her husband

    I can’t make much sense out of their arguments so your theory sounds as plausible as any other.

  26. Marsha wrote:

    @ Daisy:
    You can bet that any of these men arguing that Karen should stay with a pedophile husband would have a very different opinion if it were a man whose wife was viewing child pornography because she preferred four year old boys to her husband.

    First rule among Comps: the Woman is to blame unless another man higher up says she isn’t. Facts are not relevant.

  27. @ Flicker:

    No Flicker, the vows are made to each other as part of the ceremony, and made before God. They are promises, mutual promises, which is what a true covenant or contract is. And any covenant or contract can be annulled or terminated if it is shown that one party agreed to it not intending or able at that time to live up to it, or if there was duress or force used by a party to get the other party to sign. It is “I am agreeing to do so and so in light of your agreement to do thus and thus.”

  28. Daisy wrote:

    JD Nielson wrote:
    I don’t think she was defrauded. I think she was married to a sinful man who persisted in sin for many years. And I think she should have divorced him (on the basis of sexual immorality) and not had the marriage annulled; but I haven’t given that enough thought and can’t speak from a place of conviction on that.
    She most certainly was defrauded.
    As to the rest of your commentary. You can think anything about it all day, but it’s her life to live, not yours.
    It’s her choice to make, not yours. She did not want to stay in a marriage to a man she learned was a pedophile.
    If you would chose to stay married to a person you found out to be a pedo, that’s your choice, but it’s pretty condescending to sit there insisting everyone else can, should, or must stay married to one.

    Once again, I’ve never argued she needed to stay married to him.

  29. Daisy wrote:

    JD Nielson wrote:
    JD Nielson wrote:
    So, can the GOSPEL of Jesus Christ change the perverse desires of sexual predators? That’s a question I’d like answered.
    So, you are a WOF (Word of Faith) believer?

    No

  30. JD Nielson wrote:

    I think there are a lot of people on this blog who don’t believe in progressive sanctification, which is an underlying point of contention for both cases.

    I don’t see where you’re going with this.

    How would outsiders tell if a pedo is totally delivered or not? Why would you put children at risk, if you can’t tell if the guy is totally cured or changed?

    It would be like saying, “Do you believe Jesus/the Gospel can cure a Lion of being a carnivore.”

    I guess Jesus can do that, but how will you test that the Lion is a vegetarian – if you toss a carrot at him and he doesn’t eat that, what, stick your arm in his cage to pet him and see what happens?

    You would want to risk getting your arm torn off and eaten to prove that God will and can change every Lion?

    (I guess you could toss a steak in the cage instead, but the arm example fits a bit more. I can’t quite think of a perfect analogy to it, but something like that.)

  31. JD Nielson wrote:

    So, you are a WOF (Word of Faith) believer?
    ———
    No

    You sound just like one. Very WOFish. You sound like you’re arguing for the same thing they do.

  32. mirele wrote:

    Jordan is being treated as a repentant golden boy

    I wonder how much of that is due to that church wanting a “cured pedophile” to put on display, for PR, to get attention?

  33. @ Marsha:
    Okay. I was being a little sarcastic. But she did say, or at least imply by her argument that that verse doesn’t show that God holds this value as important.

  34. Daisy wrote:

    JD Nielson wrote:
    I think there are a lot of people on this blog who don’t believe in progressive sanctification, which is an underlying point of contention for both cases.

    I don’t see where you’re going with this.

    How would outsiders tell if a pedo is totally delivered or not? Why would you put children at risk, if you can’t tell if the guy is totally cured or changed?

    It would be like saying, “Do you believe Jesus/the Gospel can cure a Lion of being a carnivore.”

    I guess Jesus can do that, but how will you test that the Lion is a vegetarian – if you toss a carrot at him and he doesn’t eat that, what, stick your arm in his cage to pet him and see what happens?

    You would want to risk getting your arm torn off and eaten to prove that God will and can change every Lion?

    (I guess you could toss a steak in the cage instead, but the arm example fits a bit more. I can’t quite think of a perfect analogy to it, but something like that.)

    According to the largest insurer of churches, Church Mutual, as well as attorneys who consult churches like Richard Hammar (Church Law & Tax), there is an epidemic of child sexual abuse in the conservative evangelical church that rivals the sexual abuse epidemic in the Catholic Church.

    Child sexual abuse is the No. 1 reason that churches get sued every single year according to the experts.

    http://www.churchlawandtax.com/blog/2015/may/top-5-reasons-churches-went-to-court-in-2014.html

  35. @ An Attorney:
    And again, if he doesn’t CHERISH me, then HE has already broken the agreement. Divorce is now justified. No marriage is more than that.

  36. Lydia wrote (referring to Jordan Root):

    As in “I am saved but I still view child porn so just give it some time as I will progressively stop….someday”
    So there is your new life in Christ.

    Yeah, and I think he spent over ten years viewing child abuse images?

    He also sought employment at lots of children-oriented venues.

    Didn’t Karen say he admitted to her that he molested two young girls when was younger (or do I have this part wrong)?

  37. proudjezebel wrote:

    I just feel you’re missing the point entirely. I’ve shared a bit of my personal story here because I think it’s important to see that this sort of culture victimizes the vulnerable, and it is not okay, and that is ultimately what anyone who loves other people should be concerned about. Not legalistic crap about man-made covenants.

    I’m very sorry for the abuse you received from the pastor and the other people 🙁

    I agree with everything else you wrote, too.

    I have not left the Christian faith completely myself, but I have sort of been heading in that direction (I find it hard to explain what my beliefs are, in a way).

    But yes, being hurt by people who claim they follow Jesus, but they don’t care about you, or what you’re going through, or that they keep focusing on rules and doctrines, rather than on people who have been hurt, really does make you want to leave, or consider leaving the faith.

    I too look at guys like JD on this thread and believe that he really misses it. That’s not uncommon, though. I’ve seen similar sentiments on other blogs and social media from other Christians.

  38. @ Flicker:

    “If you say you’re going to do something (especially if you should swear it) then you should do it even if your word was ill-advised. Are you saying that this way of thinking is wrong?!”
    ++++++++++++++++

    why can’t you just say “I was ill-advised. I made a mistake to say I would do this.”

    I can think of all kinds of scenarios that would eventuate in disaster or at least unnecessary hardship for self and others, all for the sake of believing it is wrong to do the above.

    God did give us brains to reason with, and negotiate tricky circumstances.

  39. Flicker wrote:

    @ An Attorney:
    And again, if he doesn’t CHERISH me, then HE has already broken the agreement. Divorce is now justified. No marriage is more than that.

    Haven’t you made marriage an idol? I can think of plenty of situations that justify a divorce.

    There are many women who stay with pedophile husbands and sacrifice their children and grandchildren to sexual abuse because they don’t want to divorce, and everyone is supposed to ‘respect’ him. All that happens is that the damage spreads through generation after generation.

  40. Bill M wrote:

    @ JD Nielson:
    If Law Prof is lurking about, hopefully he can weigh in. Karen files for an annulment based on fraud, Jordan signs the annulment, is it not an admission of fraud?

    I don’t think so, but I’m honestly not sure. Many times when we sign things we’re just saying we’re not going to contest it, but while not specifically admitting wrongdoing. When having clients sign settlement agreements, for example, always in my experience it was specifically stated that neither party admits squat, they’re just settling so they can go their separate ways.

    But my knowledge of divorce law is confined to handling two unfortunate situations: 1). corporation for which I was counsel had a plant mgr get arrested for nonpayment of child support, and the CEO asked me if I could do anything to help (the answer was basically “No”) and 2). appellate case I co-handled where our client in a marital dispute had literally taken a shot at his soon-to-be-ex and, to no one’s surprise, had the book thrown at him in trial court and he appealed–and that’s where I came in, on the appeal (by the way, with my brilliant counsel he crashed-and-burned in the court of appeals as well). There it is, a long-winded way of saying you may know more about divorce and annulment law than me. Maybe An Attorney or Judge Tim knows.

  41. Flicker wrote:

    An annulment is a legal process, I meant godly options.

    Where does the Bible say annulments aren’t godly? Just because something is legal doesn’t necessarily mean it’s not godly, or that God dislikes it.

    If a fishing license ungodly or sinful?

  42. JD Nielson wrote:

    1.Ahhh the feels.

    2. I see no Biblical reason to grant that a marriage never happened, and I think it’s dangerous to start saying that “because this person was doing this or that sin, they defrauded the other person.”

    point 1. The Bible says to do unto others, and it also says “Jesus wept” and “Jesus had compassion on.”

    Having feelings is not a bad thing. You appear to lack empathy. Please do answer gram3 on that point. If you had a daughter, sister, niece or granddaugther, you would be okay with her being in a marriage to a pedo? What if it were you? You would actually want to stay in marriage with a pedo?

    2. as to this point, explain what you think would be a case of a spouse defrauding another.

    Obviously the authorities in the state of Texas believes it’s possible to defraud someone in a marriage, since they apparently make that a basis for granting an annulment.

  43. @ Flicker:

    I’m not sure how applicable the Leah and Rachel story is to the current deal.

    Karen is or was living in Texas in the year 2015. The state government she was living under said she can get a marriage annulled if certain criteria were met, so she got an annulment.

    You said,

    That is, godly keeping the obligations of one’s vows, no matter how misplaced the vow was, or following the secular law instead?

    What vows specifically and whose vows?

  44. Daisy wrote:

    JD Nielson wrote:
    I see no Biblical reason to grant that a marriage never happened, and I think it’s dangerous to start saying that “because this person was doing this or that sin, they defrauded the other person.”

    Obviously the authorities in the state of Texas believes it’s possible to defraud someone in a marriage, since they apparently make that a basis for granting an annulment.

    Texas: •Fraud – one spouse lied about or hid something essential to the marriage.
    http://www.divorcenet.com/resources/annulment/annulment-basics/texas.htm

  45. Flicker wrote:

    So the first time (or perhaps the 470th time) that I don’t cherish my wife, then I have broken the marriage covenant? And then divorce is applicable?

    Only your wife could make those determinations. She needs to decide for her what her limits are.

    Another wife may accept those vows being broken 56,789 times while another may have a limit or only ten times.

  46. Flicker wrote:

    @ Gram3:
    Now THAT I can’t believe. The overall context does NOT nullify the thoughts it contains.

    I did not say that the context nullifies anything. I said that the context is the context in which meaning must be determined. That is not at all the same thing. I am not saying that Psalm 15 says it is OK to break a vow. What I am saying is that the purpose of Psalm 15 is to show that we *all* sin in various ways. Please stop misrepresenting what I’m saying. Perhaps we are talking past one another.

  47. @ JD Nielson:

    You didn’t answer the question put to you.

    You kept saying you don’t really know if Karen was defrauded or not, but someone pointed out that Jordan signed papers admitting that he did in fact defraud her.

  48. Flicker wrote:

    If you time-travel, which is what annulment is in the legal universe. If your other half doesn’t fulfill every explicit aspect of his or her obligations that does not automatically release you from your vows.

    I’m not following.
    We’re talking about an adult (J. Root) who preyed on children, which is a different case from a husband who maybe forgot to bring their wife flowers on their anniversary, or who annoys her by leaving the toilet seat up all the time.

  49. Flicker wrote:

    @ Marsha:
    Okay. I was being a little sarcastic. But she did say, or at least imply by her argument that that verse doesn’t show that God holds this value as important.

    No, I said nothing of the sort nor did I imply anything like that. I specifically said that we are sinners who cannot enter the Holy of Holies or touch God’s holy mountain. That is a clear reference to Sinai and later Jerusalem. The Psalmist is looking back to Sinai and the Holy of Holies which represent the Law which kills because *we have broken the Law.* He was also looking forward to Jerusalem where the ultimate sacrifice would be offered by God. This is garden-variety conservative Biblical theology.

  50. JD Nielson wrote:

    My contention is that she should have divorced him instead of annulled.

    Why divorce instead of annulment? Why do you believe that?

  51. @ Flicker:

    And yet it remains that Jesus did say that the Law allows people to get divorces. Jesus’ main quibble seemed to be with the how or maybe the “why” of divorce, not that it existed.

  52. Lydia wrote:

    TVC leaders seem to think that is also more important than pedophilia, strangely enough.

    Maybe someone up thread (I don’t remember who) says they suspect that TVC is dying to refer to Karen leaving as a divorce, because there are (misinterpreted) clobber verses in the Bible about divorce they can beat her with.

    Whereas, there is nothing specific in the Bible against annulment that they can criticize her over.

  53. Flicker wrote:

    @ Gram3:
    Now THAT I can’t believe. The overall context does NOT nullify the thoughts it contains.

    Do you believe that everyone who keeps those laws could enter the Holy of Holies in the Tabernacle? Touch the Ark of the Covenant? Touch Sinai? Are we saved by keeping the Law perfectly? By always avoiding the bad things on this list and scrupulously observing the good things?

    He is making an argument in the form of a hypothetical which is impossible and which is designed to tear down their self-righteousness. No one can keep all those laws perfectly except the One who is the Great High Priest who could touch Sinai because he gave himself as the atoning sacrifice outside the Temple.

    That is the good news. We do not have to keep the law, though we will desire to be like Christ who is the fulfillment of the Law. Our obedience flows from love and gratitude, not from fear and bondage to the Law.

  54. Flicker wrote:

    If God created marriage, then I don’t think it’s fair — in fact, I would call it a cop-out — to now define it according to the prevailing laws within the United States’ legal system.

    I don’t entirely see why it would be wrong or a cop out.

    When God created Adam and Eve, he did not stipulate at that point what should happen if Adam was abusing Eve and Eve wanted out.

    I think there were later rules established about divorce in the Old Testament, that a woman could leave her husband if he did not provide a home, clothing, etc.

    I’m not living in Israel 5,000 BC. I’m an American in 2015 United States. We have different rules and laws in regards to marriage and divorce.

    God did not lay out contingency plans for every era and culture of the future concerning marriage and divorce.

    I think in some ways the government gets things right that the church does not. Most churches absolutely refuse to say it’s okay for a woman to divorce an abusive husband (which I think churches are wrong about), but the laws of the land permit that.

  55. Daisy wrote:

    @ Flicker:
    And yet it remains that Jesus did say that the Law allows people to get divorces. Jesus’ main quibble seemed to be with the how or maybe the “why” of divorce, not that it existed.

    Jesus was addressing the misuse by men of the allowance God made so that a woman who was put out *on wrongful grounds* could remarry. If she did not have a certificate, it was presumed that she was an adultress. That is why they had the discussion about “grounds” for divorce. Jesus was taking away the options that men had to discard their wives at will and without cause. He was creating freedom, not bondage.

  56. @ Flicker:

    But what he said was true. The Bible does not speak one way or another about anullment.

    I don’t think the Bible is as clear on marriage and divorce as you would like for it to be.

    The nature of marriage / divorce changed all through the many hundreds of years over which the Bible was written.

  57. Flicker

    How can he give you a biblical answer to a topic that the Bible doesn’t address?

    It would be like me asking, “What is your biblical response to if I should wear green or red socks tomorrow?”

  58. Flicker wrote:

    Show me one Biblical godly annulment (that wasn’t a divorce) for which there has been a “consummation” and in which the Bible condones the process.

    How is he supposed to provide you with a biblical citation of such a thing when (off the top of my head anyway) there is none? That something is not explicitly supported in the Bible with a chapter and verse citation does not necessarily mean it’s sin or that God is opposed to it.

    I might eat a pizza this Sunday. Can you show me a verse that says God condones me eating pizza on Sunday? If you cannot, that must mean pizza eating on Sundays is a sin (?)

  59. Flicker wrote:

    (1) as soon as a wife finds out her husband is greedy she must — or is at least allowed to — divorce him?

    Why would it not?

  60. Daisy wrote:

    Flicker

    How can he give you a biblical answer to a topic that the Bible doesn’t address?

    It would be like me asking, “What is your biblical response to if I should wear green or red socks tomorrow?”

    I know the answer to that one, Daisy! You’re supposed to wear sandals!

  61. Flicker wrote:

    1- But they kept their vows apart from any later difficulty and I hold them in high regard.

    2-And finally, should Abraham’s sin negate God’s covenant with him? I’m just asking.

    point 1. I think that is individual liberty and conscience. That your friend chooses to stay married to his spouse despite X is his choice, but his choice should not necessarily be made into a rule that everyone else must follow

    point 2. Wasn’t the covenant between Abraham and God one way, where God put Abe to sleep, and God walked alone through the divided animals?

    God was saying it was up to him and him alone to keep the covenant, Abe had nothing to do with it. (Unless I am mixing up my Bible stories.)

  62. Flicker wrote:

    It’s still just a legal argument.

    Legal arguments can have biblical principles behind them. Some of our laws in the USA are based on Judeo-Christian values.

  63. Daisy wrote:

    Flicker wrote:
    Show me one Biblical godly annulment (that wasn’t a divorce) for which there has been a “consummation” and in which the Bible condones the process.

    How is he supposed to provide you with a biblical citation of such a thing when (off the top of my head anyway) there is none? That something is not explicitly supported in the Bible with a chapter and verse citation does not necessarily mean it’s sin or that God is opposed to it.

    John the Baptist accused King Herod of being unlawfully married to his brother’s wife, Herodias.

  64. Flicker wrote:

    If a man marries, knowing that one day he will commit adultery in his heart, is that also grounds for an annulment?
    And if he marries without any thought that he will commit adultery in his heart, and then, say, is caught undressing women with his eyes, is this to you grounds for divorce?

    Stuff like that is up for each individual wife to decide for herself.

    There is no biblical “one size fits all” on ‘why’ or ‘if’ to divorce.

  65. Flicker wrote:

    I’m not sure that God includes abuse, neglect, abandonment, etc., as grounds for divorce,

    I believe it says so in the Old Testament.

  66. @ Flicker:

    That’s all very different from the Karen situation where the guy knew years before that he was attracted to children, yet married her anyhow.

  67. Daisy wrote:

    Michaela wrote:

    I know the answer to that one, Daisy! You’re supposed to wear sandals!

    I may rebel and wear flip flops

    You go, Girl! Is a pedicure Biblical or un-Biblical?

  68. Flicker wrote:

    No, you are saying that the man standing beside Karen didn’t exist. You have twisted your language to deny physical reality and to become meaningless.

    No, that’s not what they were saying.

    Jordan exists as an individual, but he never really had a marriage to Karen, because he lied from the start about himself.

  69. Daisy wrote:

    Flicker wrote:

    It’s still just a legal argument.

    Legal arguments can have biblical principles behind them. Some of our laws in the USA are based on Judeo-Christian values.

    Bankruptcy laws come from the Bible and debt-forgiveness (7 years).

  70. Flicker wrote:

    -1 I have also been arguing that 21st-century law, no matter how helpful, is NOT God’s mind on an issue, nor a guide to righteousness.

    -2 And I’m saying that a vow is a vow and the righteous are to keep their vows even, injudicious or hurtful ones.

    I totally disagree with point 2.

    That is a recipe for telling women they have to stay in abusive marriages, to husbands who give them black eyes and broken ribs.

    Point 1. How do you know that God disagrees with laws?

    What is the point in Romans chapter 13 in the New Testament if God is not okay with people making up laws and Christians following them?

  71. Flicker wrote:

    once you found out things about him that you didn’t like, then this means just about any marriage is null form the start, as some claim Karen’s was. I’m trying to not make this about Karen, but about marriage in general, from a godly, as opposed to a US legal, perspective.

    That is a big misrepresentation of Karen’s case with Jordan.

    It’s not that after they married Karen found out that Jordan preferred country music, and all the time, she assumed he was a rock music fan just like her.

    The guy intentionally with-held that he is into a criminal and very repulsive immoral activity (child abuse images, and perhaps molesting kids).

    I don’t understand why you do not grasp the gravity of that.

    Re:
    “I’m trying to not make this about Karen, but about marriage in general, from a godly, as op[posed to a US legal, perspective”

    The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. God may very agree with many U.S. laws. Why is Romans 13 in the Bible if God doesn’t think that law cannot be used to pursue righteousness and so on?

  72. Daisy wrote:

    Flicker wrote:
    -2 And I’m saying that a vow is a vow and the righteous are to keep their vows even, injudicious or hurtful ones.

    I totally disagree with point 2.

    That is a recipe for telling women they have to stay in abusive marriages, to husbands who give them black eyes and broken ribs.

    Point 1. How do you know that God disagrees with laws?

    What is the point in Romans chapter 13 in the New Testament if God is not okay with people making up laws and Christians following them?

    Flicker,

    Haven’t you made an idol of marriage? So when the ‘hurt’ or ‘injury’ comes to the wife or the children (including abuse)…she’s just supposed to stay? Do you really think that honors God? Isn’t she complicit in the abuse? (In the US she is legally complicit and can go to prison.)

  73. Flicker wrote:

    And frankly, I’m more concerned here with how God saw it, and what He expected of Jacob.

    I don’t recall the Bible spelling out exactly what God felt or thought about it.

  74. @ Flicker:

    The answer is, yes, it does justify divorce. But it’s up to each wife to determine for herself if that is a deal breaker or not.

    From what I see in the Bible, God grants people the freedom of choice on some things, this being one of them.

    You’re wanting a single, hard and fast rule that applies to all people in every situation, but the Bible alludes to God giving each person the freedom to chose for him or herself.

    Take marriage v. singleness for instance… God does not command every person to marry. You can stay single if you want to, and God is fine with you choosing to stay single.

    You’re wanting a rule that says, “God thinks all people should marry” or “God says all should stay single” but the Bible does not have such a rule.

  75. @ Michaela:

    Yes, I kind of suspect he may be trolling.

    Even if not, his comment on page 1 about wanting to pull up with a bucket of pop corn and sip a pepsi while reading may be a sign he’s not taking any of this seriously.

  76. Flicker wrote:

    If you say you’re going to do something (especially if you should swear it) then you should do it even if your word was ill-advised. Are you saying that this way of thinking is wrong?!

    Are you applying this principle to
    1. women who are married to abusers or men who they later find out to be pedophiles?

    Or, is this just 2. a general life principle you use on your job and stuff?

    If it’s point 2, okay, but point 1, just no.

  77. Marsha wrote:

    You can bet that any of these men arguing that Karen should stay with a pedophile husband would have a very different opinion if it were a man whose wife was viewing child pornography because she preferred four year old boys to her husband.

    Yes, I suspect that would be so.

  78. Michaela wrote:

    You go, Girl! Is a pedicure Biblical or un-Biblical?

    You’re giving me a chance to declare a Thus Saith Daisy commandment? But I will be magnanimous and allow you to decide that for yourself. 🙂

  79. JD Nielson wrote:

    I think she was married to a sinful man who persisted in sin for many years

    Question: if prior to his marriage, Jordan had confessed to the officiating pastor the things he has now confessed to TVC, would that pastor have advised Karen to continue with the wedding?

    Of course not.
    So by not disclosing information that would had resulted in ANY sane pastor refusing to perform the ceremony, Jordan married her by fraudulent means. Therefore the marriage, from day one was invalid.
    Which is why she was granted an annulment. The fact he is a “sinful man” is not the same as being a man who is actively engaging in unrepentant sin which happens to be a felony.

  80. Lydia wrote:

    I tried earlier to explain this to the pastors over at Voices (I know, shoot me) but they were having none of it. Seems I am all about denying the pedophile “grace” and I do not believe in the transforming Gospel.

    You should ask them if they are willing to show how they extend grace and believe in the transforming gospel by having Jordan come babysit their little girls this weekend?

  81. Gram3 wrote:

    I think, as a practical matter, that the Gospel Glitterati have inserted themselves between God the Father and God the Son. They have deemed the Son to be a subordinate person, and therefore I say that the Glitterites are seizing/usurping the authority of the Eternal Son.

    On second (or third or whatever) thought I believe you are correct. That is so hard to grasp, but these people really do seem to be in direct competition with Jesus himself. Good grief.

  82. Dee (and Deb too, if she also researched for this post), I much respect and also am sorry that you went through some of the awful child porn for this post. I did that one day, back when I was still in crisis, trying to find a way to trump my own experiences, and it made me sick for a month.

    Some things are simply raw evil, and child porn is that. It tends to stick in one’s mind afterwards, can put a greyness over things. I hope you are doing ok.

  83. Oops, I think I put the above comment in the wrong combox. Well, as long as Deb/Dee read it, that’s ok, I guess.

  84. Flicker wrote:

    This is a long-standing understanding of God’s word, that has guided me for decades. If you say you’re going to do something (especially if you should swear it) then you should do it even if your word was ill-advised. Are you saying that this way of thinking is wrong?!

    I think it is wrong, yes. And this may be one of the reasons that Jesus told people not to swear by this or that but merely use ‘yes’ or ‘no’ instead of swearing. Perhaps that plays into what he was thinking. Sometimes people can put something they said (and call it a ‘vow’) higher than something that God demands of or grants to people. That would be wrong. Best not to vow in the first place.

  85. Flicker wrote:

    long-standing understanding of God’s word

    I also believe that this is misguided. A vow made under duress, especially the duress of false teaching, I believe, is invalid. For example, if your church taught that gong to Hollywood movies was wrong, but renting videos is ok, and you, for some reason, vowed never to attend a movie theater. then you came to the truth that your church was forcing legalistic rules and regulations on you in opposition to the teachings of Romans and Galatians, and you realize that there is nothing wrong with theaters, your vow is invalid.

  86. Marriage vows are mutual and together make a covenant. If one party lies their way into the marriage, then the other partner’s vow was made based on a false premise. Dishonesty in one’s vow nullifies the vow of the other.

  87. An Attorney wrote:

    Marriage vows are mutual and together make a covenant. If one party lies their way into the marriage, then the other partner’s vow was made based on a false premise. Dishonesty in one’s vow nullifies the vow of the other.

    I wonder how the Internal Revenue Service will view the annulment? If Jordan and Karen filed joint income tax returns, it seems that those returns may no longer be valid and each would now have to file a separate income tax to replace the joint returns.

  88. An Attorney wrote:

    Marriage vows are mutual and together make a covenant. If one party lies their way into the marriage, then the other partner’s vow was made based on a false premise. Dishonesty in one’s vow nullifies the vow of the othe

    Well said.

  89. @ Patrice:
    Thank you. I actually spent a number of hours reading some stuff I wish I didn’t have to know about. For example, the biggest rise in child porn online appears to be in the 0-2 year old group! I almost threw up. Amy called me during my reading and asked if she was interrupting me and I said I was glad that she was doing so.

    Many church leaders do not get the heinous nature of this. The person who is watching a baby getting molested is not like some guy looking at some adult’s chest. There is something far more deviant and violent about it.

    The church claims it is prolife and fights abortion. The fact that they ignore little children being molested is an example why they are not truly profile. Profile means protecting our children before and after they are born.

  90. Dee wrote:

    Many church leaders do not get the heinous nature of this.

    They have no idea. Which is very odd, considering that this particular bunch is big into total depravity, chest-beating wretchedness, sheep with rabies, and all.

    I suppose they’re afraid of looking at evil. I would be too, if it hadn’t been foisted on me. But they give in to their fear, never sitting with it long enough to trace its contours and characteristics, its levels and complexities. Thus they think there’s a generic treatment for sin, and are ineffective against much of it.

    For being manly men, they do not have all that much courage.

  91. Michaela wrote:

    JD Nielson wrote:

    I see no Biblical reason to grant that a marriage never happened, and I think it’s dangerous to start saying that “because this person was doing this or that sin, they defrauded the other person.”
    OK, J.D. What do you do for a living? Are you being paid to come here? What are your ties to The Village Church?
    You keep avoiding the legal terms: These are FELONY crimes [Jordan Root’s child exploitation] punishable by long sentences in federal or state prison.
    The Village Church pastors/elders FAILED to address that, to get Jordan Root to confess to all, turn in every electronic device he used for those crimes, told him to plead “guilty” and serve prison time, and The Village Church pastors/elders failed to attend to the needs of the victims and their families, as well as Karen.

    JD Nielson reminds me of somebody in my life who is autistic (not saying JD is autistic, but the person I am reminded of, is) — very literal, very black-and-white, very precise in his/her own mind as to what s/he is saying, assuming (perhaps) that others see things with the same precision and clarity.

    I *think* JD Nielson is arguing from biblical standpoint the questions of divorce and annulment, compartmentalizing fiercely, completely ignoring the aspect of this that is legal (what does the bible call it — of the civil magistrate?) — which, as I recall, the bible says christians are to live under the authority of the civil magistrate.

    In this case, the civil magistrate has determined that no marriage took place. So legally, Karen was never married to the guy.

    I know a woman who, sadly, was in love with and married a guy who (he did love her, he just couldn’t love her in the way she wanted/thought she was getting) was using her as a “cover” — he was gay, his parents were rich and powerful and extremely conservative, and this was decades ago. So he married to please his parents, to give the appearance of someone his parents wanted him to be.

    The woman converted to catholicism, because that was the faith of the man and his family. The marriage was never consummated, I think. (I was a little kid when this took place, but I overheard adult conversations while all this was playing out, so you’re getting this from a child’s perspective.) Both the church and the state set aside that marriage, called it an annulment, and we were told it was as if that marriage had never taken place.

    The man married the woman under false pretenses. Fraud, basically.

    I met the guy, spent a week in the company of him and his family. He was a really nice guy, kind, cheerful, and considerate.

    A sad story all around. At least that unfortunate woman didn’t have to worry that her ex (or “not”?) was targeting and hurting children.

    ISTM that Karen did the responsible thing. If you look at the *legal* (not biblical) aspect, she really did the only thing she could do, if her focus was on protecting children, even more than protecting herself. I remember reading (in comments here?) that if she stayed married or got a divorce from Jordan, any evidence that she gave in any future legal proceeding against him (like his confession that he was a pedophile) would not be admissable. By seeking annulment instead, she has preserved her testimony, that if necessary, she can be a witness against Jordan, if it comes to that, if necessary, to put him away (especially if he refuses to put himself out of harm’s way) to keep children safe.

    Biblically, it seems that divorce is allowable for sexual sin. The bible doesn’t say anything about annulment. However, in Karen’s case, pursuing the *legal* option of annulment was the prudent thing to do, and, in the end, considering the protection of children as a part of the mix, it was very likely the most God-honoring course of action as well.

    I don’t know if JD Nielson can perceive this, from the very literal-minded, concrete perspective that is apparent in his/her comments.

  92. Flicker wrote:

    @ BeenThereDoneThat:
    I think it was a problem for him: Instead of having the wife he had wanted, and being able to go out on his own, and live his life in freedom, he had a wife he didn’t want, and had renegotiate for the wife he wanted, and work in servitude for another seven years for the wife he actually wanted. My question is: Which trumps which? Godliness or secular law? That is, godly keeping the obligations of one’s vows, no matter how misplaced the vow was, or following the secular law instead?
    If you don’t know what Jacob’s options were at the time, God says, “Lord, who shall abide in thy tabernacle? who shall dwell in thy holy hill?… He that sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not.”

    Although I get the creepy feeling that TVC and like-minded people might use that verse as a weapon against Karen. She (would have) “sweareth to her own hurt, and changeth not” (taking marriage vows, and not renouncing them by pursuing annulment, if she had gone that route). They would have called her blessed…

    (please pardon the grammatical mangling)

  93. Flicker wrote:

    @ BeenThereDoneThat:
    Psychological counseling is not a science. It’s very precepts are conjecture, and not even agreed upon by practitioners; they are unprovable, and there is no evidence that anyone who had been helped by psychotherapy has not stood a better chance at healing by the aid of a placebo, and there is proof that those who underwent psychology have been subject to harm from the interaction.

    I know what the statistics are. (I studied clinical counseling, on a graduate level, a long time ago.) However, statistics don’t tell the whole story.

    In my personal life, I can name a number of people who have found great relief and healing through therapy. (Individual sessions, that is, with competent, compassionate, trained and licensed therapists, not group therapy — and certainly not nouthetic counseling.)

  94. JD Nielson wrote:

    Gram3 wrote:
    JD Nielson wrote:
    Ahhh the feels.
    I see no Biblical reason to grant that a marriage never happened, and I think it’s dangerous to start saying that “because this person was doing this or that sin, they defrauded the other person.”
    I have no idea what you are talking about. The “feels” is what, precisely? I asked you to apply your principle to another fact set, namely your daughter or granddaughter. Would you demand that your daughter or granddaughter continue to live with a man who was a pedophile and failed to disclose that? You don’t have to answer, but don’t pretend like you answered when you did not.

    Nowhere have I insisted that she continue being married to him. My contention is that she should have divorced him instead of annulled.

    Ah, yes, it is as I thought. This is what I was addressing (a few comments ago) — JD Nielson perhaps does not understand that we are in the legal realm, here, when discussing divorce versus annulment, and not the biblical realm. In the legal realm, an annulment was the correct path to take, if the aim was to protect children (past and potential future victims) from Jordan.

    Because a big part of the problem is that only God knows Jordan’s heart. He can say he repents (turns his back on his sin and chooses to go another way), but he could be lying, and there’s no human way to read his mind and be sure that innocents are protected. So Karen must take the path that allows her to throw a roadblock in his way, if he is lying about the change.

    And yes, I believe that God can change any heart, can heal any sickness, of mind or body. Does He always? No. I wouldn’t even say that He heals “most” of the time. He can, if He wants. But often the answer to such prayers is “no”. I’m still wrestling with this. I’m still having trouble believing in a loving God whose mercies endure forever. I’m certainly having trouble with the issue of trust — if I give Him my trust, is he going to start letting horrible things happen to me to build my faith?

  95. An Attorney wrote:

    @ JD Nielson:
    I fully believe that God can cure a pedophile of his pedophilia. There are no documented cases of that, and many documented cases of failure of religious leaders to successfully help a pedophile to change. At most, a pedophile can be trained to not act on the impulse, which coupled with 24/7/365 supervision can enable the pedophile to avoid acting on his urges.

    Well stated.

  96. sam wrote:

    @Flicker
    many have compared complimentiarins in patriarchal churches to Islam, in the context of annulments, if a young woman in some far away country is taken captive by a man and forced to marry her against her will, dont you think God would actually say ‘ANNULMENT’ if she ever broke free?

    Oddly enough, I actually knew a woman who went through this. So it’s not just an abstract example.

  97. @ refugee:
    And in his culture/religion, divorce was not possible, so he thought he *had* her, and so she was able to get away once he relaxed his guard, thinking (as she said) that she also had the same understanding, the same mindset, to know that she was trapped in the marriage forever. Except that she was from a different culture, and had a different understanding.

  98. Victorious wrote:

    BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
    I think a better solution would be to look into the Jewish legal customs of that day. But there wasn’t a dichotomy between “legal” and “religious” customs in regards to marriage. Once the “ketubbah” was signed, the couple were legally married. Consummation and celebration would follow at a later date.
    As I mentioned in my comment to Gary W, I found marriage to be more of an agreement between two people than a legal one and find no requirement for a legal document other than one that signifies the marriage is dissolved (certificate of divorce) in Deut. 23 or 24 I believe. This certificate protected the woman from being labeled as an adultress in the event of remarriage.

    Thanks, that clarifies things for me.

  99. Gary W wrote:

    Ah, so Chandler is making a big PR to-do that he intends to apologize at the next service. Well, O.K., he’s already going to his media buddies, but has he apologized to Karen? He blames his elders for whatever sins, and appears to be quite ready to throw them under the bus, but has Karen’s resignation of membership been acknowledged and accepted? Is she being released from all further attempts at church discipline? Will they continue to essentially stalk her? Will they withdraw their threats of economic sanctions against Karen’s former missionary agency? Unless and until I see actual and meaningful fruits of repentance, I won’t believe any “apology” is anything more than a PR ploy.

    So is this an attempt to head off a news report in (what was the name of that internet news organ?)? Just like they managed to kill the story in the Dallas news?

  100. muzjik wrote:

    Lydia wrote:
    I tried earlier to explain this to the pastors over at Voices (I know, shoot me) but they were having none of it. Seems I am all about denying the pedophile “grace” and I do not believe in the transforming Gospel.
    You should ask them if they are willing to show how they extend grace and believe in the transforming gospel by having Jordan come babysit their little girls this weekend?

    No. Seriously. No. I’m afraid they might, just to show their faith in his repentance.

    (speaking from personal experience here. seriously misguided elders.)

  101. Daisy wrote:

    Flicker wrote:
    God keeps His vows, and He expects us to keep ours, even if we later regret it.
    That is not a biblical principal.

    He expects us *not* to vow, actually, from the way I remember the NT (new covenant) reading.

  102. Gram3 wrote:

    Proof-texting makes me very cranky. But a good dose of Biblical Theology calms me down.

    It gets me twitchy too Gram3. In my opinion, it’s full fruition (in the Christian world) has only come about over the last 40-45 years, and the parallels with Wahabbi Islam in the Arab world and how they approach their Qur’an are striking.

  103. Dee wrote:

    I actually spent a number of hours reading some stuff I wish I didn’t have to know about.

    And why should we? I mean, I get that it may now be necessary due to “leadership” incompetence. But, IMO, that tells me just how off the rails said leadership is. When the “students” must be far more educated than the “teachers,” then said teachers need to abdicate their thrones.

  104. Dee wrote:

    Profile means protecting our children before and after they are born.

    That is actually the biggest argument that can be used against churches when they say they are pro-life, because actions speak louder than sermons:
    – marginalizing and vilifying pregnant single women
    – marginalizing children born out of wedlock
    – looking the other way so as not to be bothered by child and spouse abuse
    – not taking sexual child abuse seriously
    – supporting torture ( http://religiondispatches.org/christians-more-supportive-of-torture-than-non-religious-americans/ )
    – not caring for the poor whose children often go hungry and don’t get healthy food or an education
    – supporting war ( http://www.christianpost.com/news/most-evangelical-leaders-still-support-iraq-war-31154/ )
    – supporting the death penalty (Mohler, who else, has an opinion on everything: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/05/01/why-christians-should-support-the-death-penalty/ )

    All these things don’t tell others that you really care for life, for all lives, of all people, before and after birth.

    If every life is precious, life after birth is just as important as before, and a child living in abject poverty that has no chance of getting an education appropriate for her abilities and aspirations is just as innocent of her condition as an unborn.

    Pro-life definitely DOES mean protecting children before AND after they are born.

  105. @ Gus:
    I agree. It’s so disheartening to watch those who claim conservative Christianity fight so hard for pro life pre birth and wane on fighting pro life post birth. The same churches that are up in arms against abortion are silent on matters like this, regarding the Jordan Roots and Josh Duggars of the world. I say this as a person who would claim to be more conservative and a Christian.

  106. Bilbo Skaggins wrote:

    Ever notice how so much leadership these days wants the parishioners to be open and accountable for their sins, yet they only allude to their own “mistakes” and apologize in general to anyone who might have been hurt while they continue to openly hurt the wounded and praise the criminal?
    See the question section in the email on page 18-19 and you will see what I mean.
    A true servant in Jesus Christ does not wield their power, but will humbly serve.
    Jesus said, “feed my sheep.”

    Yes.

    This happens a lot of in Acts 29, just as it happened a lot at Mars Hill Church, where Acts 29 was born and bred.

    Think of it this way: when you have a lot of “manly men” who thump their chests and yell all day every day about being strong and courageous, don’t you begin to wonder if something weird is going on?

    I’d say a lot of the “leaders” who do engage in this sort of hypercharged masculine rhetoric are actually pretty insecure about themselves, which is why they are so defensive, angry, and volatile when critiqued or rebuked.

    The strongest, most courageous men I know don’t need to shout it from the rooftops, and they certainly don’t feel threatened by comments or critiques.

  107. An Attorney wrote:

    The issue in annulment in this instance is not that she did not know him, but that he hid an important fact, that he was a habitual consumer of child pornography and a pedophile, who was sexually attracted to (aroused by) children, not adult women, and in particular, not to Karen. A part of the marriage vow is sexual fidelity, that is, that one’s spouse will be the focus of one’s sexual life, not some images of children being abused. That is the lie, the fraud that was committed by Jordan. Hence the annulment.

    It’s hard for me to believe this even has to be debated – if Karen, at the time of their ‘marriage’ had known the truth about his paedophilia she would never have married her. He tricked her into her vows by not telling her. It’s not the same as someone changing later, or moving away from faith. His sexuality is right at the heart of a marriage & he just lied. I’m sure she will need a lot of help to get over having slept with a paedophile, I know I would. Utterly grim.

  108. Law Prof wrote:

    JD Nielson wrote:

    BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
    JD Nielson wrote:
    I’m commenting.
    No. You’re trolling.
    Like….every one else on the internet whose business the interworkings of an autonomous church body are not yet pretend like they are?

    That’s funny, I thought it was the duty of Christians, as directed by God Himself to not only have nothing to do with evil, but to EXPOSE IT.

    Guess your big issue here, JD, is with the Lord. Why don’t you take it up with Him and ask Him why He was so foolish in your view (apparently, must be your view) to inspire those words?

    Oh, he can’t do a thing like that! J.D. needs to go write a letter to his elder board requesting their forgiveness for breathing first…….

  109. Mr.H wrote:

    The strongest, most courageous men I know don’t need to shout it from the rooftops, and they certainly don’t feel threatened by comments or critiques.

    As my dad always told us, ‘If you have to tell people you are the leader, you aren’t’

  110. Dee wrote:

    The church claims it is prolife and fights abortion. The fact that they ignore little children being molested is an example why they are not truly profile. Profile means protecting our children before and after they are born.

    Thank you, this is so true!