“Pain insists upon being attended to. God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our consciences, but shouts in our pains. It is his megaphone to rouse a deaf world.”― C.S. Lewis link
Friends and supporters of CJ Mahaney-Mark Dever Twitter Acct 1/23/15
Karen's marriage covenant was never valid due to Jordan's deliberate lies.
I have been following the comments on Twitter this week. Several people have said that Karen was breaking her *marriage covenant* with Jordan. I argue that she never had a valid covenant when they got married because Jordan was involved in illegal activity (kiddie porn) before, during and after the marriage vows.
What is a biblical covenant?
Carm.org defines it here.
A covenant (Hebrew berith, Greek diatheke) is a legal agreement between two or more parties. The word "covenant(s)" occurs 284 times in the Old Testament (as found in the New American Standard Bible). "Covenant(s)" occurs 37 times in the New Testament, which gives a total of 321 occurrences.
Using covenants is how God communicates to us, redeems us, and guarantees us eternal life in Jesus. He does this because a covenant is a promise, and God's promises cannot be broken since they rest in his infinite, pure character. The Bible is a covenant document. The Old and New Testaments are really Old and New Covenants. The word "testament" is Latin for Covenant.
There is a pattern to the covenants found in the Bible. Basically, it is as follows. The initiating party describes himself and what he has done, then there is a list of obligations between the two (or more) parties. What follows is the section dealing with rewards and punishments that govern the keeping and breaking of the covenant.
There can be two types of covenants: conditional and unconditional. Unconditional means that even if one party breaks their vows, the covenant is still in effect.
What is a biblical marriage covenant?
The meaning of the Old Testament word is bond; a covenant refers to two or more parties bound together. The New Testament term has usually been translated as covenant, but testimony and testament have also been used. The generally accepted idea of binding or establishing a bond between two parties carries with it the concept of “cleaving,” or sticking together like Super Glue!
However, the following caveat is key. From the same source:
…The vows we exchange at our wedding reflect a relationship already bound by steadfast love and faithfulness. The degree in which these words have meaning comes in direct proportion to the unconditional love that dwells within our heart for the one to whom we are repeating them.
…Covenants are based on freedom of choice. Covenant marriages are not built on coercion, deceit, and manipulation.
Covenants are based on telling the truth.
When a couple enters a covenant, they are testifying to the truth of their commitment. That doesn't mean they won't fail. It simply means that at this time and place, they will knowingly forsake all others and cleave to one another, becoming one flesh. They are telling the truth.
There was no covenant since one party knowingly lied.
Simply put, Jordan deliberately lied. He had not forsaken all others and he could not become one flesh with Karen. He was actively involved in enjoying the flesh of others and would continue to do so. He had established a relationship based on deceit and unfaithfulness. Therefore,t he covenant was null and void.
Let me say this clearly. Of course people enter marriages and things happen afterwards that are not foreseen. However, when one makes a covenant, one is averring to the truth of where things stand at that place and time. Jordan was a liar and unfaithful and knew he would continue to participate in enjoying on line child sex abuse. That covenant is void.
Misunderstanding Hosea
A number of people have brought up Hosea as to why Karen had to stay in the marriage. This is an example of poor application of the Biblical text. Hosea was specifically commanded by God to marry a prostitute.This was not meant to be a template for the rest of us.
It was meant to serve as a living example of God's faithfulness in spite of Israel's unfaithfulness. God did not mean that we should all marry and live with prostitutes just like the story of Abraham and Isaac was not meant for all of us to be ready to murder our children.
Sexual faithfulness is stressed in both the Old Testament and New Testament. We are urged to be sexually faithful before and after marriage. To use Hosea as proof that God wants us put up with a pedophile in a marriage is a gross misrepresentation of the text. (What is going on in Bible studies these days???)
Pedophilia, Child Pornography Internet Child Sex Abuse and the Church
In this section we are looking at various aspects of pedophilia and child pornography. Karen has said that Jordan has confessed to both.
Misunderstanding pedophilia and child sex abuse
I always shake my head when evangelicals claim that the Roman Catholic child sex abuse scandal was due to the fact that priests could not marry. Besides showing a profound ignorance of pedophilia, it is intended to show that evangelicals are superior and do not have much of a problem. However, Boz Tchividjian of G.R.A.C.E. caused quite a stir when he said the the evangelical record of child sex abuse eclipses that of the Catholic church.
Now, how could that be since evangelical pastors can marry? The answer is quite simple. Pedophiles are not interested in sex with their spouses the want to have sex with children. It can be, as Dr Drew Pinsky said last night on HLNTV, a fixed sexual preference. In other words, although a few might be able change their preferences, many cannot.
Declaring that one is now a Christian does not guarantee his truthfulness. (Possible graphic/triggering material from this point forward.)
Pedophiles, and those who access images of child sex abuse on the internet, are manipulators and charmers. They find places in which people are trusting. No one is more trusting of professions of faith and fidelity than evangelicals. It stands to reason that such individuals would find their way to the church. And, if our experience from the stories on this blog are any indicator, pedophiles are finding their way to churches in droves.
I wrote Pathological Naiveté: A Child Porn Addict is “Cured” Through Bible Study in 2012. Here is an excerpt about a true story from Raleigh, NC.
Imagine… A little girl, let’s call her Sarah, is held down by a man and forcibly raped. The horrendous scene is recorded on camera. You can hear her little voice sobbing and calling out for her mommy. Yet, there is no mommy, and this heinous act is completed. The repulsive video is available on the Internet. A man in Raleigh, North Carolina gets his kicks out of watching child pornography like this. In fact, he has been getting sexually aroused this way just about every night for TWELVE years. He is finally brought to justice and will soon be sentenced for this felony. This crime carries a minimum of FIVE years in a federal prison.
This criminal is upset and does not want to go to jail while he awaits his sentencing because he has important things to do. What is the response of one Southern Baptist pastor? The pastor takes the stand in order to ask a judge to give him extra time to be on the streets reportedly because this man has become a Christian. Huh?
Now, pay close attention to this next part. He was practicing what would happen when he was caught. Do you think that Jordan might not have been doing the same in his 10 years of accessing this stuff?
Christian can be played. This guy had a 12 year habit. Jordan had 10 years. Why do you think that Jordan, after pseudoconfessing twice, is now telling t"he whole truth and nothing but the truth?" Is it just because he says so and a church counselor believes him after a month or so? He is "walking in repentance?" Really? Could he be playing games? His history indicates that it is quite possible.
History
David Chatham, a 43 year old public relations executive, began viewing adult pornography at the age of 9 when he found his dad's Penthouse magazine, tucked away in a briefcase in a closet. Approximately 12 years ago Chatham began viewing child pornography. He is married and has no children. In December 2008 he was arrested and was found to have over 3,400 images of naked, molested boys and girls, toddlers and teens on his computer. Chatham was tried in federal court, pled guilty, and will soon be sentenced to serve a prison term of at least five years.Knowledge of Wrongdoing
There will be no insanity plea here. Prior to his arrest, Chatham claimed that he knew he would eventually be apprehended. There are investigators who spend their working hours on the web tracking down these perverts. Incredibly, Chatham admitted to the newspaper reporter that he rehearsed what he would say and do when the inevitable arrest occurred.
Here is an excerpt from my analysis.
Conversion after apprehension
There is no question that David Chatham knew his activities were illegal and immoral. What is troublesome is that his “new life” didn’t begin until after his arrest. He claims he rehearsed what he would say when he was arrested. Why did he wait until his arrest? Child molesters are highly manipulative individuals. “Wait”, you might say, “He was not a molester”. We contend that he contributed time, and, most likely, money, to this illegal business. In effect, his financial support contributed to this heinous industry. By his actions, he was condoning and implicitly agreeing to the rape of toddlers – that’s right – toddlers!!!!
This man was a public relations expert who rubbed elbows with the rich and powerful. He must have thought out how he would tip the scales in his favor when arrested.
His porn acquisitions went on for 12 years! Such a habitual activity is not cured overnight. We are sure that there are Christians out there who probably claim that a miracle occurred. To that we say, “Can you prove it?” Is it worth the risk to our children? Don’t committed Christians also commit heinous acts?
Child pornography is not just pornography.
Here is what the Department of Justice has to say about this.
It is important to distinguish child pornography from the more conventional understanding of the term pornography. Child pornography is a form of child sexual exploitation, and each image graphically memorializes the sexual abuse of that child. Each child involved in the production of an image is a victim of sexual abuse.
While some child sexual abuse images depict children in great distress and the sexual abuse is self-evident, other images may depict children that appear complacent. However, just because a child appears complacent does not mean that sexual abuse did not occur. In most child pornography cases, the abuse is not a one-time event, but rather ongoing victimization that progresses over months or years. It is common for producers of child pornography to groom victims, or cultivate a relationship with a child and gradually sexualize the contact over time. The grooming process fosters a false sense of trust and authority over a child in order to desensitize or break down a child´s resistance to sexual abuse. Therefore, even if a child appears complacent in a particular image, it is important to remember that the abuse may have started years before that image was created.
Unfortunately, emerging trends reveal an increase in the number of images depicting sadistic and violent child sexual abuse, and an increase in the number of images depicting very young children, including toddlers and infants.
What are offenders actually viewing on the Internet and what do they expect while viewing? (Very Graphic)
Here is a PDF developed by the Federal government following congressional testimonies.
Sexual interest in children and corresponding sexual gratification are significant motivators for most child pornography offenders.24 Offenders often use the images to masturbate and to validate their sexual interest in children.25 Some offenders also use images to “groom” or lower the inhibitions of potential victims.26
Child pornography offenders also may develop or increase deviant sexual interests and distorted attitudes about children as appropriate sexual partners.32 Such symptoms may serve to further socially isolate the child pornography offender and escalate his use of child pornography.33
Child pornography offenders’ collections often contain a variety of images including legal but sexually suggestive child images,48 sexually explicit poses, explicit sex acts, and images depicting violence,humiliation, bondage, and bestiality.
Images depicted victims suffering a variety of sexual abuse. NCMEC reported that 84 percent of the victims had at least one image depicting oral penetration; 76 percent of the victims had at least one image depicting anal and/or vaginal penetration; 52 percent of the victims had at least one image depicting the use of foreign objects or sexual devices; 44 percent of the victims had at least one image depicting bondage or sadistic behavior; 20 percent of the victims had at least one image depicting urination or defecation; and four percent of the victims had at least one image depicting bestiality.102
Most child pornography offenders have some degree of sexual interest in children, but some offenders are partially or completely motivated by other sexual and non- sexual reasons
And for those of you who are still inclined to believe that child sex abuse online is a teen girl sending sexts to her boyfriend, digest this. In that above quoted PDF, 28% of confiscated child pornography collections had at least one image of children under the age of 3!
Pedophiles molest more than you imagine
Jordan confessed to Karen that he had offended as a child. I think it is highly likely, given his involvement with children that he has offended on more occasions.
In order to understand how serious this situation could be, here is a well known statistic which comes out of the National Institute of Mental Health and researched by Dr Gene Abel who is well known in this area.
The typical offender molests an average of 117 children by the time he is apprehended.
The typical offender is male, begins molesting by age 15, engages in a variety of deviant behavior, and molests an average of 117 youngsters, most of whom do not report the offense.
-Dr. Gene Abel in a National Institute of Mental Health Study.
The law and child pornography
The Department of Justice's Citizens Guide to Child Pornography lists some of the relevant laws.
Images of child pornography are not protected under First Amendment rights, and are illegal contraband under federal law. Section 2256 of Title 18, United States Code, defines child pornography as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor (someone under 18 years of age). Visual depictions include photographs, videos, digital or computer generated images indistinguishable from an actual minor, and images created, adapted, or modified, but appear to depict an identifiable, actual minor. Undeveloped film, undeveloped videotape, and electronically stored data that can be converted into a visual image of child pornography are also deemed illegal visual depictions under federal law.
Notably, the legal definition of sexually explicit conduct does not require that an image depict a child engaging in sexual activity. A picture of a naked child may constitute illegal child pornography if it is sufficiently sexually suggestive. Additionally, the age of consent for sexual activity in a given state is irrelevant; any depiction of a minor under 18 years of age engaging in sexually explicit conduct is illegal.
A Profile of a Pedophile
This is from a post we wrote when we started this blog in 2009. Even then we were focusing on this problem within the church. (Please forgive the formatting in 2009. We switched to a different format a year later and it didn't transfer well.) See if any of this rings a bell.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the characteristics and behavioral indicators of a pedophile, also referred to as a serial child sex abuser include the following:
- Usually an adult male but some women also sexually abuse children
- Often a child molestation victim themselves
- Seeks out children of the age group they were when victimized
- Usually married and hard-working
- Employed within a wide range of occupations
- Usually well-liked and respected community members
- Often well-educated and regular church-goers
- Relates better with children than adults
- Some prefer boys, some prefer girls
- Usually prefers a specific age group of children
- Takes and collects photographs of victims while dressed, nude or in sexual poses
- Collects child-adult pornography
- Seeks to lower inhibitions of potential victims
- Regularly attends children’s events in the community
- Volunteers in youth organizations
- Coaches children’s sports
- Chaperones camping or overnight trips
- Frequents video arcades, playgrounds or shopping malls
- Offers babysitting services
- Seeks jobs where children are easily accessible
- Befriends parents, especially single mothers, to gain access to children
- Participates in internet gaming with children
- Joins social networking websites such as MySpace, Facebook, and other social media
- Become foster parents
- Seeks job opportunities where children are easily-accessible”
Did you know that Matt Redman was abused as a child?
We wrote about this here.
At a recent conference, Luis Palau told us that Matt Redman had been terribly abused as a child. In his middle school years, he discovered a heavenly Father who never abused him and loved him. That gave him the strength to carry on even though he was still being abused. Much of the hope in his music is born out of the abuse he endured as a child. May this song give those of you who have been hurt the courage to hold on because you know "the end of the story."
I see they found somebody a booster seat.
Second. Thanks for pointing out that the marriage was never valid. Invalid because he was fraudulent in the vow of sexual fealty to her.
I just made this argument (though far less detailed) on FB.
I didn’t get many takers.
Yeah, the whole Hosea example is SOOO abused in Christian circles. I cover the most common abuses of Scripture here:http://www.divorceminister.com/top-three-texts-used-to-abuse-faithful-spouses/
I would say Karen had good reason to end/annul the “marriage” as you so aptly write concerning entering the covenant in good faith. Thanks for keeping us abreast of the situation!
Sergius Martin-George wrote:
???
Matthew Paul Turner writes that Village Church has apologized:
http://matthewpaulturner.com/blog/
“In receiving more information and considering the way we’ve ministered to Karen specifically, we believe that we owe her an apology. Specifically, as it pertains to her desire for an annulment…”
Regular Readers:
Read Matt Chandler’s apology very, very carefully. There will be a test. I will post it tomorrow and ask you to point out what it does and does not say.
“Sexual faithfulness is stressed in both the Old Testament and New Testament. We are urged to be sexually faithful before and after marriage. To use Hosea as proof that God wants us put up with a pedophile in a marriage is a gross misrepresentation of the text. (What is going on in Bible studies these days???) ”
There is NO common sense!
dee wrote:
Dee — glad you’ll be doing that — a good exercise in communal discernment.
A thought: When you post it, would it be possible to number the paragraphs to make it easier for commenters to make points about specific details, and ask them to mention paragraphs they use to draw their observations from? I think that would help in sourcing responses …
Dee: Thank you for this post. It was very, very difficult to read, but we all need to be educated on what we are really talking about here. Thank you for making the clear case that child porn = child sex abuse in a “photo”. This quote was shocking:
“The typical offender is male, begins molesting by age 15, engages in a variety of deviant behavior, and molests an average of 117 youngsters, most of whom do not report the offense.”
-Dr. Gene Abel in a National Institute of Mental Health Study.
Average of 117 victims before they are caught and the Christian churches are in major denial.
@ dee:
“Our hearts are heavy and broken over the things that have been said about our good and faithful God”
*hurls*
Sorry, had to jump the gun on the atheist persecution spin.
Quote from TVC on Matthew Paul Turners site.
“In hindsight, we wish that we would have provided clarity to Karen in an immediate fashion and are saddened by our unpreparedness.”
Not sure about the word choice “unpreparedness”.
Should read “our legalistic law focussed hearts “
Ok, I’m going to go there.
That apology is not enough.
It doesn’t get to the root problem(s), which is that these guys love their covenant more than they love Jesus. Because they’re going to cling to their covenant even when it’s been shown to have been applied in horrible, demeaning ways.
Oh yeah, their child abuse policies are not good enough. It took them three months to admit to the congregation that Jordan Root had been abusing children. I do root cause analysis for a living (granted, on computing systems, not on people, but it involves human error). The Village Church is not admitting that it did anything wrong with regards to how it handled Jordan Root.
That’s my off-the-cuff reading of this “apology.” Give me a few hours more and I’m sure I could pick this thing apart and demonstrate that the reason TVC apologized was because it was asked for a statement by a press outfit, hence, backed into a corner.
dee wrote:
I’m not impressed, although MPT is going gaga over it. Basically all it says is that they RELEASE Karen from from her membership- despite the fact that she RESIGNED a long time ago. Hey, L. Ron Chandler, despite your delusion that your ‘covenant’ applies until you say otherwise, Karen resigned and from that point on there was NOTHING for you to release her from. But I’m sure she appreciates that magnanimous gesture anyway.
As far as the rest of Chandler’s ‘apology’, he’s not apologizing for a thing. But I’ll leave that until after Dee’s post tomorrow because I suspect she’ll say much of what I’m thinking and say it better.
Good grief that “apology” manages to make the entire thing about TVC and not in a good way.
brad/futuristguy wrote:
Yes, please. Lots there.
Ali wrote:
Just in case GovPappy was wondering…
This is the line that made my head explode. TVC is still under the delusion that they get the last word in telling *anyone* how to live their lives. This is not okay. This is not even remotely okay.
However, I’m hopeful, because the beginnings of repentance can be in response to consequences. “I’m going to lose EVERYTHING if I don’t grow a spine and face this.”
This is a START. It’s not enough, not by a long shot, but this is THE FIRST STEP.
Pray that God removes the scales from their eyes, and keep writing!!! Educate their members!! This is where healing *could* begin.
But, I want to know if they reached out to Karen, apologized, etc., before talking to Christianity Today. Seriously.
“We did not lead Karen and the church to a place conducive to peace, repentance and healing.”
“We did not lead Karen…to repentance and healing”….something really seems off with this sentence. What about Jordan? I honestly can’t verbalize it. Help me!
Dee, thank you for the information on child pornography. I have learned new things.
Team Chandler minimizing child pornography in the past few days has been incredible to me. Show many where any gospel(TM) pastors say legal adult pornography is just pictures and not nearly as bad as actually pursuing sex and I’ll walk in the Village Church and sign everything I can get my hands on.
BTW, if Hosea is a template, we need a lot more prostitutes if we’re going to get everyone married.
Ali wrote:
Me too! What is wrong with these people? Gaahhh!
That Bad Dog wrote:
Agree. Probably are more concerned about media attention then Karen…..sigh.
As for their now allowing her to leave the church,in their good graces, I’d say, stuff it!
Ali wrote:
This is just another version of “Have we tried to help push her under our *care?
What a great apology! Once you wipe away the fresh-out-of-the-oven-Christianese, It basically say,” We could have been a little nicer, but we’re still right.”
Stan wrote:
Yeah, I thought that and the previous sentence “In all of this, we are deeply grieved by the way this situation has brought reproach to the name of Jesus” were intended as a smack in the face to critics like myself. I absolutely do not accept the characterization that I brought reproach on the name of Jesus. If anything, I was trying to help a bunch of people clean up a terrible situation perpetrated by men in the name of Jesus. But don’t pin this “reproach” garbage on me. It goes right back to you, TVC.
Yeah. Some major issues with that apology. At least those bullies know that as families choose to leave quietly now they cannot prevent them. So it’s a step in the right direction, however it’s certainly a no comment where the potential pedophile is concerned…so definitely not a safe church for children. I look forward to the test…as to the post: Horrifying. Thank you for sharing though. Needs to be heard.
Patrice wrote:
Mae wrote:
Probably? Absolutely! It’s nothing but a feeble attempt at damage control.
@Ali What jumped out at me was this: “We will continue to support her financially through August as we committed, and our hope and prayer for her is that God would guide her to another gospel-believing church, where she can find healing and restoration.”
In the sentence that you quote TVC mentions Karen’s (and the church’s!) “repentance and healing.”
In the quote that I cite, they mention Karen’s “healing and restoration.”
I get mentioning healing. What I don’t get is mentioning her “repentance” and “restoration.” What does she have to repent of? What does she have to be restored to? Jordan is the perpetrator here, not Karen.
This apology is extremely problematic as it is crafted to imply that Karen has done wrong and that The Village Church is showing her grace in spite of it.
I’m not buying it.
In any criminal case, an apology like this one would result in a sentencing enhancement, adding months or years. It is so self-protecting and not any admission of the significant malfeasance of the elders of the church in this matter. I can see lawyers drooling over the ability to use this in a defamation trial.
Pretty sure Ellie will have a good translation of the apology soon. No mention of an apology to TVC’s SIM missionaries for holding them hostage too. Or to SIM for blackmail. Sorry if saying too much too soon re test…
http://translationsbyellie.com
roebuck wrote:
They must have used one big bucket of whitewash to create that letter.
I am very concerned about these “new policies” the elders are putting into place at TVC.
I can’t imagine what kind of spin MC will put on this Sunday’s service.
“We are also in the process of creating a new care and church discipline plan and hope to have it approved and in practice very soon.”
Very concerning statement from TVC.
Ali wrote:
I haven’t read the thing yet, but looking at what is wrong with this one sentence I’d say that it implies Karen had something to repent of. That’s the first thing. The second is they do not seem to think it is God’s job to lead His sheep, but theirs. What he probably should have said is something more like “we did not get out of God’s way.”
Stan wrote:
I KNEW Dee was a daughter of Stan! 😉
“When it comes to protecting children, we believe we have strong procedures in place and feel confident in how we’ve handled allegations and confessions regarding child abuse in any form, specifically in the situation with Jordan Root. In examining ourselves in this area, we have been affirmed in the policies and processes we have in place to protect children. That said, in the weeks ahead, we will do an external audit to confirm we are doing everything possible to protect children and to evaluate how we handle child safety, abusers, abuse victims and other related matters in a biblical and legal manner.”
Much confidence in this statement from TVC but, the proof is in the pudding”…. Three months silence regarding Jordan Root. Disturbing disconnect.
Yes, it’s almost like they took lessons from the Mars Hills PR department.
The statements about their child safety procedures are necessary in order to not open themselves to legal liability by admitting any deficiency in this regard.
The rest of it is a really bizarre non-apology. I suppose it is difficult to choke out a real apology if you truly do not believe you are wrong.
@ mirele:
*You* did not say anything bad about God, but plenty of other people did. They have no one but themselves to blame for it. 🙁
Patrice wrote:
I know it will never satisfy the readers here, but it is a step to admit they were wrong. You have to give them that.
An Attorney wrote:
Oh wow—now since you have actual experience w/ this, please tell me, what twists this from genuine (or even CYA!) to “I’m adding months or years to your sentence for this?”
I thought it could have been a *start*, but never expected it to be all they do. I wouldn’t believe them just because they say, “I’m sorry,” any more than I’d believe Jordan Root.
@ formerly anonymous:
Great point!
Well that’s some fairly nauseating information Dee. Sorry you’ve had to read up on such vileness, I’m certainly regretting it. Time to go look/listen/do something beautiful to try to mitigate what I now know.
“Sometimes it takes a difficult, unique and trying situation to help us realize our mistakes and move us to change. Naturally, these situations also bring more feedback to the table, and we have sought to humbly hear that feedback, be willing to see the log in our own eye and repent where necessary.” It is an admission of wrong on their part. Yes, it can be interpreted as spin and damage control, I get that. But there is an admission of wrong.
It would take me hours to go through the defensive language in that “apology”. First they do not really take the blame for the problem. Second they do no come off the idea that Karen had some obligation to them. Third, they do not get off the idea that they had the right to attempt to control Karen. Thence ad infinitum the stupidity, foolishness, and craven cover up that pervades this phony “humble” “apology”.
Bob M wrote:
This^^^.
Given the starting point of the TVC pastors and leaders (which is very different than the starting point of many of us who read faithfully here at TWW), I agree with the way Matthew Paul Turner put it, “I mean, this is about as good as it gets when it comes to a conservative church responding…So… this is pretty big step, a step that many did not expect. I’m not sure I did.”
Time will tell, of course. And the most important thing for me, before I form any lasting opinions of this apology of theirs, is how Karen herself feels about it. After all, how I feel about it (which is actually very positive at this point) doesn’t really matter, at the end of the day. How SHE feels about it is the point.
@ Bob M:
They did not say “we were wrong in blada, blada, blada.” They made a statement that is generally true about people, not a personal statement “We did wrong”.
From TVC’s apology:
“In every way that we’ve mishandled this situation, along with others in the past, we repent and ask for forgiveness.”
I cringe to think how many Village Church members besides Karen have been deeply wounded by their pastors. I hope one day they too will share their testimonies.
Regarding:
Their view on this contradicts most all other conservative Christian advice I’ve heard since growing up anyway.
I would assume if there were a present day parallel to this, that most prostitutes would not be Christians – or that would be unlikely. A “Christian prostitute,” is, IMO, a contradiction in terms.
When never-married ladies like me who’d like to get married say to Christians we are throwing in the towel on the “equally yoked” belief,(equally yoked = where Christians insist a Christian can only marry another Christian), we are told we are wrong about it. We are told that a Christian marrying a NonChristian is sin.
Many of the Christians who have these strict rules about marriage and dating go a step further and create twenty (extra biblical) layers of dating and marriage criteria and rules, like they will tell single women to date/marry only men who are more spiritually mature than they are.
But in this specific incident involving Karen and TVC, they are advising singles to lessen the criteria, to consider marrying prostitutes? This just goes against so much of the other stuff they (Christians) taught me growing up.
So many Christians play “silly putty” with their teachings on dating, marriage, and other things, that I cannot take them seriously on any of this anymore. They bend their views and teachings on things to suit their particular need or situation that day.
Bob M wrote:
Yes, there is some genuine apology in it, I think.
I’ve spoken forgiveness to people who’ve offered partial apologies and it wasn’t helpful because everything slid right back to original difficulties. On the other hand, being too hard on people often causes them to walk away—I’ve done that too.
So it’s a narrow path to walk.
FWIW, I’m not feeling particularly inclined to be generous with this bunch. Doing better than Driscoll is something, but not a lot.
I’d like to compare it to the apology of Josh Duggar.
I’m thinking we will see a much needed expose site soon. Like TVCrepent or something. It could be tremendously healing for people to be able to talk openly-I bet a lot of people thought they were the only ones before. That’s how bullying works until it’s curbed by the community (loaded word in acts 29, and I’m not using that word their way just in general). I’m reminded of
welovemarshill or sgmsurvivors
Deb wrote:
MPT makes a good point- I think you can only speak to these guys in their own language, and only expect so much from them at a time, but dang do they need reform.
@ pcapastor:
Melody wrote:
This. 🙁 Their starting point is so.far.off the deep end that I don’t expect them to come around in one leap.
However, I’m still waiting to see if they *did* come around. How did they respond to Karen? Did they do it before or after the CT interview?
Pam Palmer wrote:
Gene Abel is not searchable on the NIMH database, but I did find a wikipedia article on him http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Abel that explains the unreliability of his data.
It seems he was using multiple times with one person to count as multiple people. Of course, you can criticize Wikipedia, not to mention the Pubmed journals that are referenced are not accessible. Instinctively, it seems like an inflated number.
These are statistics on the US dept. of Justice website:
An estimated 60% of perpetrators of sexual abuse are known to the child but are not family members, e.g., family friends, babysitters, child care providers, neighbors.
About 30% of perpetrators of child sexual abuse are family members.
Only about 10% of perpetrators of child sexual abuse are strangers to the child.
Not all perpetrators are adults—an estimated 23% of reported cases of child sexual abuse are perpetrated by individuals under the age of 18. http://www.nsopw.gov/en/Education/FactsStatistics?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1#prepetrators
I’m so appreciative of the work you all do here, but I hate bad statistics.
Actions speak louder then apologies, so all you can do is hope they back up their words with actions. Words are cheap, redemption costs something.
pcapastor wrote:
Perhaps, but the bar is so low….
I am glad they apologized. And notice – they did call her Karen Hinkley, not Karen Root. And they are apologizing directly to her, and they sent that e-mail out to the covenant members, the same people they sent out the other e-mail to. (And they knew like the other e-mail, it would be shared with everybody.) Did they do it to get the media off their backs, and for damage control? Maybe. But they did do it. I am hopeful.
@ Melody:
Yes, sharing one’s painful testimony is a cathartic experience and begins the healing process.
@ dee:
Matt Chandler’s attempt to pre-empt bad press the church believes is coming down the pipe (as mentioned in the elder letter) by going to Christianity Today with an ainterview on the apology he is going to give Sunday.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2015/may-web-only/matt-chandler-apologizes-for-village-churchs-decision-to-di.html
Ali wrote:
Well, for one, what the heck did Karen have to repent from??!!?? Nothing that I can see. They are acting like they are her Holy Spirit.
Albuquerque Blue wrote:
Yes, Blue. My thoughts too.
JeffT wrote:
LOL – needed that in the midst of this nonsense!
Bridget wrote:
Bridgette, oh my…that’s true. Once again TVC implies to the masses that Karen needs to repent.
Patrice wrote:
What about owing the entire church an apology? They have abused their positions as leaders, sent a letter to 6000 people about Karen, and let a pedophile be in the church without informing the members. And this is just a few of their “mistakes.”
Albuquerque Blue wrote:
Agree.
Lainie Petersen wrote:
Lainie,
Thank you! Yes…great thoughts. You nailed it. I’m not buying either. Karen is in my prayers tonight.
Bridget wrote:
Amen! Mistakes or abuses of power!?!
pcapastor wrote:
i expected it, any kind of big pseudo repentance thing in the press to turn the narriative away from the FACTS in this case. SIM and Karen attempted to notify families that might have had contact with Jordan Root and see if they had been molested. TVC instructed Karen to not talk to people about it, thats in writing, TVC instructed members instead to invite Jordan to their homes and love on him, homes with little children. TVC did not release info on the actual sin Jordan was in until MARCH, and then only because Karen Hinkley could not be silenced.
its like they are saying, Jesus is with us on this covering up child predators in our church, after all we’re not Catholic Priests
A result of the public shaming and disgracing of Karen Root is usually that no abuse victims will dare speak up, and that is often intentional. people see TVC as somehow different than other dispicable orgs that cover up child abuse in their churches, somehow having godly motives in this
if TVC did this so professionally in this case it means there are many many more Jordan Roots in this 6,000 member congregation. I cannot yell loud enough, how many children are crying tonight in their wonderful christian houses tonight in Dallas?
Bridget wrote:
THIS!!!!! SHE DID NOTHING WRONG. PERIOD AND STOP.
@ Bridget:
@ XianJaneway:
@ Ali:
See, you guys should all be writing blogs!
brad/futuristguy wrote:
Thanks-I’ll give it a shot.
@ Stan:
That absolutely reeked of Christianese along with them deflecting the criticism of themselves onto God. No, TVC leaders- you screwed up.
@ Pam Palmer:
Pedophiles move from kid to kid. In thee course of about 2 years in our area one pedophile molested over 20 kids and probably more. Considering his past, he probably molested twice that number in about 5 years. That’s 40 kids-one young 20 something offender.
Bene D wrote:
You have to subscribe to read the whole thing.
Lydia wrote:
Banging head against table.
Bob M wrote:
I’ll make sure you get the info tomorrow.
Bene D wrote:
I actually am aware of some bad things coming down the pike. i got a call from the west coast today with folks looking into stuff.
I am no lawyer but i believe TVC made themselves quite vulnerable in not only not allowing a member to resign but talking about her after she did resign to 6,000 freaking people. Are there any adults running the TVC mothership? Is everybody out doing conferences or what? Who is minding the ship? How could they be this stupid??
Albuquerque Blue wrote:
wow, you sure talk like more of a christian than alot of proffessed christians, hope me saying this doesnt offend you. i think you might have more in common with Jesus than you realize
@ Beth D:
Read the apology very carefully and tune in tomorrow when I do a TWW tutorial.
dee wrote:
Exactly, no one here is upset with God. It’s TVC’s actions that have been reprehensible.
Patrice wrote:
True. And the part about not leading Karen to repentance makes absolutely no sense. MATT CHANDLER, LISTEN, “Karen had nothing to repent about.” Period. She is the one who was wronged, along with the children who were sexually abused to provide Jordan Root his pedophilia porn.
sam wrote:
I was going to say that.
Albuquerque Blue wrote:
“You have a saying: ‘Knowledge is a three-edged sword.’
We also have a saying: ‘Put your money where your mouth is!'”
— Commander Sheridan, Babylon-5
dee wrote:
The Arrogance of God’s Anointed Speshul Pets.
pcapastor wrote:
I did. Tune in tomorrow.
sam wrote:
It really is unbelievable!
sam wrote:
Make an Example of one, and a hundred will fall into line.
JeffT wrote:
yep
dee wrote:
i am sure that by now they realize they should not put incriminating things in press or email, which makes me shudder to think that they will have to intimidate people in person now.
mirele wrote:
TVC came out with a statement which I refuse to call an apology. I am virtually certain that the statement was crafted as a risk management document. There was most likely a team consisting of Chandler, the three, at least one attorney, at least one crisis management PR strategist and writer, and several representatives of The Village’s insurers. Not counting conference calls.
This is a PR piece put out because MPT’s post got traction. He’s not an Evil Female Watchblogger that they can dismiss.
Gram3 wrote:
LOVE it!
Corbin wrote:
Once you wipe away the fresh-out-of-the-oven-Christianese, what’s left could fit on a Twitter tweet with lotsa room to spare.
XianJaneway wrote:
Christianity Today put their journalistic integrity somewhere near Jimmy Hoffa’s shoes. They were waiting for the PR and Risk Management team to come up with the official narrative.
Shame on everyone who participates in this sham apology. There was plenty of time for the ELDERS to “come to Jesus” as they say. But that’s not what has happened here. They have not repented of their false doctrine which leads them into false and damaging practice.
Bridget wrote:
It seems to me that TVC’s leadership has pushed the Holy Spirit, and Jesus, aside and made themselves lord of Karen Hinkley’s life. Lord have mercy.
dee wrote:
I have a feeling this is going to be bad for them. And I am not a prophet, just a guy.
Ali wrote:
Well, start with “lead Karen.” This is typical Complementarian thinking. A man is never a bully or a shirker. He merely fails to lead well. Or love well or serve well. It is a deflection from what they do not want to say which is that we acted like bullies because we are bullies and may God and Karen forgive us for being bullies and teaching others to bully in Jesus’ name.
“to repentance” implies that she had something that required repentance. This is blame-the-woman disguised as a “confession” of their failure.
“and healing” totally ignores the additional harm and slander and accusations that they actively and willfully committed. She would have healed much better without all their “love” and “care.”
As for the “peace” part, who exactly do they think intentionally caused all the uproar. It wasn’t Karen. It was their stubborn pride and willful arrogance and intentional harm against her.
In short, it is what a “christian” PR flack would write to try to make it all go away. Because they honestly do think the average pewpeon is an idiot.
roebuck wrote:
They are blind guides who cannot see beyond themselves and their Perfect System. Happens all throughout history.
Gram3 wrote:
i want to tweet this!
Gram3 wrote:
Affirmative, Gram3.
And we just got treated to what they do to non-idiots like Karen.
Corbin wrote:
Your sentiments are exactly right. I only disagree about the “fresh” part. For me they are way beyond their sell-by date and are pretty stinky.
Ali wrote:
New and Improved! We’ve listened to our customers so we can serve the well!
@ sam:
I’d say I sound less like a Christian and just like a decent person. No one path has a monopoly on that. ^_^
mirele wrote:
Deflection and re-direction to another target. Their boys have already been instructed in the narrative.
Albuquerque Blue wrote:
“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”
― Mahatma Gandhi
@Dee thanks for the annullment explanation. i think that if Karen had chosen divorce then the people at TVC would be arguing that so since she signed a contract saying she wouldnt divorce without church approval she should be under church discipline and it would have deterred from the point i see the Lord making in all this.
they would have argued the letter of their law. recently i have heard many many secular people saying there is no difference between christians and sharia law, i would have argued that point until i saw most of the tweets coming from faithful Matt chandler followers. ‘yes a woman must stay with a pedophile husband, he can repent’ i think these same people would look at a young woman who had been captured and forced to marry an islamic prophet or army guy and refused to give her an annulment if she ever escaped, because she is married. What a horrible horrible twisting and misrepresentation of Jesus who is so the opposite in the bible towards women than any of these fellows.
Lainie Petersen wrote:
Umm, they could have let her do this some time ago, but they didn’t think that God is big enough to “guide” her without their “leadership” and “care. Also the “gospel-believing church” is code for “church who is just like we are.” This I know from personal experience.
dee wrote:
I haven’t read it yet, likely will be the usual “mistakes were made”. A valid statement would articulate each thing that was done wrong, how it should have been done, and what changes will be made that it never happens again, and who will hold them accountable.
It needs specifics, no shifting blame. It would be real helpful if they just say they have disgraced themselves and Jesus and then resign.
Likely criticizing their statement will be the digital equivalent of shooting fish in a barrel.
Albuquerque Blue wrote:
i was at a non-profit seminar recently and they were talking about marketing and brand damage. i decided to never ever refer to myself as a christian again lol. i just love Jesus
I have a sneaking suspicion that Perhaps it has been discovered that maybe Jordan just was not “looking” at child porn. Pay attention to what happens legally to this young man in the near future.
Gram3 wrote:
My bull meter was dinging off the wall with this TVC statement. But, your evaluation is an amazingly accurate account word by word translation ! Thanks Gram3.
Gram3 wrote:
i was thinking that someone that finds themselves under church discipline at TVC or any Acts 29 church should wear that like a crown. other non-acts 29 ish churches would congratulate a new member that had escaped there!
Bob M wrote:
Why? They have not demonstrated any disposition toward repentance until MPT’s post. ISTM that if they had been RunningToJesus and SeekingHisFace and PressingIntoTheTruth, that they would have seen the error of their ways well before this. Too convenient and too well-crafted and word-smithed.
Gram3 wrote:
Matt Chandler & Company are only feeling the heat from public pressure. They still think what they did to Karen was right as displayed by their non-apology to her.
Bob M wrote:
Going out on a limb and thinking large donors or prominent members helped them “realize” their mistakes and “move” them to change. In my opinion, men (or women) who are this stubborn, blind, and coercive should not be ELDERS in the church of Jesus Christ. Because he is none of those things, and ELDERS are held to a stricter standard in the Bible.
pcapastor wrote:
I truly do not understand why this is the standard. This is not a pretty big step. And if this is a pretty big step, then these guys were lower than I thought. I am a conservative, and I am repulsed by what these men have done in the name of Jesus and the way they have abused the authority that they have taken from Jesus in the first place. They have twisted the word of God to advance themselves and harm an innocent person and possibly put other little ones in jeopardy. I do not understand the pass that these guys are getting *from conservatives.* That is extremely distressing.
Gram3 wrote:
They could have not admitted any wrong. That is why I said you have to give them that. I am not saying that I think they have come clean or that they should get off scot-free. If you read any of my other comments, you would see that I think one of their greatest errors is in their minimalizing the depth of Jordan’s perversion, addiction, sin, habitual lying, and habitual pedophilia. He needs incarcerated, long term intensive counseling, etc. And their treatment of Karen is reprehensible.
Gram3 wrote:
Maybe because thousands sit in the pews/chairs and listen to them spout about “Delightful Discipline”?
Melody wrote:
Their love language is power and authority. That is what caused this. Rotten tree, rotten fruit. But no one dares to say that. We must “forgive” because they have “repented” so that they can produce more spiritual casualties who will need to be comforted. No repentance of false doctrine means no repentance for the inevitable harm that will recur, just as it did at Mars Hill and at SGM.
Gram3 wrote:
Not sure if you think I said that. I was quoting what they said in their apology. I didnt say that.
Albuquerque Blue wrote:
No, you’re right in one sense, that’s the way decent people think, but in another, sam’s right, you sound like someone who is actually into Jesus rather than the crap we get from most public “Christian” figures and their minions.
Who cares? All that matters is the Brand, because if that is threatened, my personal validation begins to crumble. sticks fingers in ears
LA LA LA LA LA LA LA
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
These aren’t the droids you’re looking for, move along
dee wrote:
How about just a little common decency. People are already lining up to give them the benefit of the doubt. Make no mistake, that is purposeful. The rapist is so nice because he let her go after 4 months. These men have raped her spirit. No one will dare say that, so I will because I am just that disgusted with the excuse-making and benefit-of-the-doubt mushheadedness. It is quite clear to me why cons target Christians who never quite get the wise as serpents part.
@ dee:
LOL…what doesn’t it say?
* That they will not continue trying to control people via the covenant.
* That they were wrong in anything specific.
* That Karen was justified to seek annulment.
* Specifically, by saying they feel they have strong procedures in place to protect children, they are ignoring the 3 month delay between when they encouraged church members to welcome Jordan into their homes, and when they notified church members that he was a pedophile.
* It doesn’t say anything at all about the allegations that they blackmailed SIM.
* It also doesn’t say that they are going to ACCEPT Karen’s resignation of membership…it says they are going to “move forward in releasing her from membership.” That could mean that they are going to “move forward” by continuing to pursue discipline!
dee wrote:
It sure doesn’t smell like whitewash. That’s lime and should make it smell better, not worse. And I think this statement makes them seem very much worse when people stop to actually analyze it and the smoke starts to clear.
Melody wrote:
Some time ago I was called on for a short meeting devotion and did it on servantship instead of leadership. With the exception of one person it was greeted by blanks stares. When we appear to come from a different universe the communication problem is greater than language.
sam wrote:
Tweet away.
Gram3 wrote:
This is exactly what I was thinking. It’s whitewashing and minimizing and deflecting. Since they seem so insecure in their masculinity as to need to lord it over everyone, because apparently one’s biology gives them divine authority over everyone else, I would urge them to ‘man up’ and do the right thing. But I’m not going to waste any breath on that.
Stan wrote:
I’m a Christian, and I wanted to hurl at that too!
Gram3 wrote:
There’s your problem. Chandler may be right about this one thing.
The pewpeons could start being the Body of Christ this Sunday, rise up en masse, and run Chandler and the other abusive leaders straight out the door, and they, as all bullies, would surely demonstrate their innate cowardice and run screaming for the exit. This could be done, then with the superapostles excised, the church could start submitting one to another, true elders, almost exclusively people who are older (it is called “elder”, isn’t it?) who are anything but cool and anything but ambitious, would rise up and lead exactly as the Bible says, by example, never, ever by compulsion, and their primary job would be to assist people, to listen to what the Lord is saying to the Body of Christ, and serve them–never being the Big Thing, the Center of Attention, the Star of the Show, because that’s riding up on blasphemy, that’s Jesus’s role.
All this could happen this weekend…unless everyone is so afraid of what others would think, of losing friends, losing community standing, losing jobs, losing a guru in whom you’ve invested so much, losing your shot to climb the ladder and progress to guru status yourself, losing the squishy comfort of sitting back on your well-rounded butt and letting someone else do the work for you.
Gram3 wrote:
The only “authority” they have is the authority their own members have voluntarily given them, and the ephemeral “authority” bestowed upon them by fellow Baptists and gatekeepers of the Evangelical Industrial Complex. Karen did the exact right thing to pull herself out from under their false authority. She may be regretting having ever given them any “authority” over her in the first place. As I said in another comment, I myself do not recognize them as having any actual authority in the church of Jesus Christ, apart from a civil understanding of “church.”
If Matt Chandler were to come to my town to “preach” I would see it as having no more authority than some random speaker at a TED conference. Might be good, might be bad, but it doesn’t have any authority one way or the other. Meanwhile every random Methodist and Lutheran and Anglican and Presbyterian minister in my town preaches with authority each and every time he or she preaches — there is always the question of whether the authority is being used to glorify Jesus, but there is no question about the possession of their authority to speak in the name of the Lord.
So all that to say that the bar is very low indeed for non-ordained, self-appointed, self-taught, non-ecumenical (i.e. not even recognizing the VALIDITY of the baptisms of Methodists or Lutherans or Anglicans or Presbyterians — the arrogance!) Christians. And any melting at all of the White Witch’s snow-cursed charade, any bringing out into the light at all of evil being acknowledged, any apology however flawed, is worth thanking the Lord for. I just ended a sentence with a preposition.
Bill M wrote:
Bill – Assuming you’re still there, ever wonder if you’re in the wrong place? Because it sounds like it to me.
Gram3 wrote:
I will say it: The pastors at TVC raped her spirit. They are moving in the direction of acknowledging that. We will see.
sam wrote:
Thank you for saying this, Sam. They behave exactly the opposite of the way Jesus acted toward women. They are concerned with their reputations. Jesus disregarded his reputation with the “righteous” when he spoke with women as humans rather than property and when he invited Mary to sit at his feet in the honored place as his disciple. That kindness and openness and acceptance toward women was scandalous in the culture of that day. Yet he bore the shame while these guys preen in front of their adoring crowds and congratulate themselves on how they “love” women and children. We just got a good look at their definition of “love.”
Gram3 wrote:
I’d cite examples from politics and the culture but that would distract, suffice it to say that partisanship is alive in the church. If this holds true to the examples we’ve seen, the attention will quickly turn on those “making judgements”. Criticism of the “I’m sorry you’re offended” non apology will be greeted by “we should accept it, they apologized, move on”
Bob M wrote:
They could have done that, but only for a diminishing amount of time. The silence had gone from deafening to telling.
I know that my tone is harsh, and that is truly not intended toward you. I am just flabbergasted that this is a debatable issue among people who name the name of Jesus! When Christians are more concerned about their reputation (which some cloak with talk of Jesus’ reputation) than they are about people, then something has gone terribly wrong with us. Men who stonewalled and browbeat a victim are now being offered the benefit of the doubt when they produce an obviously crafted statement as if it truly is a confession! I have no words.
Bill M wrote:
Perhaps the pewpeons are self-sorting.
Law Prof wrote:
often, not sure I’ll find it, but in this case it was a different type association, one person responded, and I’m not deterred by blank stares.
Bob M wrote:
Thank you for calling attention to that. I knew those were not your words, and I certainly should have made it clear that they said it. I apologize for creating the impression that you said that through my carelessness.
Gram3 wrote:
I’m not sure if you are interpreting my statement as giving them the benefit if the doubt. I am saying that they did admit wrong. And yes it was obviously carefully wordcrafted, but an admission of wrong is more than C.J. mahaney has ever been willing to give. And he covered up clear child molestation.
@gram3 I must qualify all that I say with two facts. I was sexually molested as a child, so my view is very emotional. And I knew very little about Chandler and TVC until this came to light.
pcapastor wrote:
That is something we certainly will not put up with. Please issue an appropriate apology.
Seriously, this is not a Baptist thing, as you must certainly know. Offline we could have some interesting discussions about the PCA. All flavors of the PCA. We’ve got Mohler and Dever, and you have Duncan and Keller. We could talk about the OPC if you promise not to tell Trueman. There is a corruption that spreads across the conservative denominations. I say that I have been in the conservative evangelical roundabout for a reason. The roads go off the roundabout in different directions, but eventually I come across the very same problems down the road. So back to the roundabout for another try.
Obviously we disagree about whether their is a clergy-laity distinction. But that is not the main problem we are facing right now. All the more reason for pastors like you in denominations with officers to speak out clearly to your people about the abuses.
It’s amazing that one member being ‘disciplined’ then ‘not disciplined’ makes Christian headline news! Acts 29 network et al do you think maybe you’re just all a little bit crazy? I don’t expect you to say that you are a lot crazy but, come on guys just go on and concede that you are just a teeny tiny bit nuts.
Bob M wrote:
I hope that I have not created more pain for you. It was unintentional, but this is a good example of how intentions do not mitigate the harm. I apologize for misunderstanding your point, and I believe I can see where you are coming from. I pray that this will be part of your healing from what you suffered. I cannot imagine what that is like for you and so many others.
I should make clear that I have heard so much PR garbage in my life that it just infuriates me when people use clever words without ever really acknowledging the damage or why the damage occurred.
Like some here, I would be thrilled to see some genuine repentance and even a faulty apology might be a step in the right direction. IMO though, they are apologizing for the wrong things because they still have no clue about the what they actually did wrong. So, while it **appears to be** an admission of wrong, they are merely apologizing for the manner in which they did things that they still believe were actually OK.
For example, they say:
“Specifically, as it pertains to her desire for an annulment, we know that it would have served her better to have a clearer understanding from us as to what we do and do not consider biblical grounds for divorce or what we understand the Scriptures to define as divorce.”
They are not apologizing for demanding that she withdraw her annulment petition or attempt reconciliation with the pedophile. They are only, ISTM, apologizing for not explaining their position to her more clearly, presumably so she would have understood why SHE was/is wrong on those points. (Which, BTW, is why they are still talking about her need for repentance.)
Xianatty wrote:
Quoting their statement:
I see this as an implicit admission that they never had grounds for placing her into the discipline process in the first place since the basis was that she had violated the procedures which she supposedly agreed to follow in the event of a possible divorce. Annulment is never mentioned in any documents I could find. Since the exact procedures were never spelled out, I don’t see how she could have agreed to them and therefore how she could have broken the covenant. ISTM that this is a case of we will let you know what the law is as soon as you break it, and then we will prosecute.
That’s an apology? As the saying goes, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig. In this case, they’ve smeared the pig not only in lipstick, but troweled on eyeliner and powder and swathed it in pearls and a sequined evening gown. The only thing missing is the blush for its cheeks, but I’m not surprised they overlooked that. Blush wouldn’t stick, since they have no shame.
TVG Apology shorter version: “We were right, we just said it wrong.” As they are from Texas, they wouldn’t use “wrongly.” 🙂
Not intending to cast aspersions on pigs, who are really quite lovely creatures. There’s also bacon.
I have a few questions going through my mind with all of this?
1. What is it with all these people wanting Karen to have to continue to be married to a paedophile? What is it with this need to cage people instead of allowing them the freedom even the Bible allows them? It’s like some kind of hideous endurance test to see just how much someone can take…& of course if she’s married to him she ‘owes’ him sex…& so on. Do they think putting someone in a marriage where they’re not & can’t be cherished by the other is less of a sin than annulment (which I don’t think is sinful) or divorce?
2. Why doesn’t God seem to be actually changing paedophiles? I don’t think I’ve ever come across a single example of a credible change story. Does anyone know one? If not, why not?
@ Bill Kinnon:
Make that “TVC” – stupid autocorrect
mirele wrote:
I agree with everything in your post, but especially that part of it.
Michaela wrote:
In the apology I saw (reproduced on MPT’s blog), TVC said they still think the theology behind all their dealings with Karen were totally true and accurate.
They are just apologizing for how they came across, or say they could’ve worded things nicer or whatever.
But they still believe in all their attitudes, that she should’ve gone to them first, etc etc. If that is so, I feel they are still missing the point.
Dee, I hope you really stay with this “apology” for it is anything but an apology. This is DAMAGE CONTROL. Matt Chandler is actually digging in. He refers to their covenant as being “rooted in Scripture.” How? Where? You could exegete this “apology” and come with a great cult manifesto.
Around our house we refer to you and Deb affectionately as “The Wartburgs.” I haven’t visited much lately just because I have enough “church garbage” of my own to deal with here. When I come back there’s this Village Church story. I tried talking to a church elder about this yesterday just to point out that we must protect children. Nothing. No response. I don’t get it personally. This should be priority number one. Instead it’s more VBS and summer camps.
One last thought. In Matt’s “apology” he refers to their policies being adequate to protect children. Policies don’t protect children. Adults protect children. No matter what the policy, at the end of the day a church staff member makes a decision whether or not someone can work with children. People like Jordan get approved because they are known for “loving” children.
Never leave your children alone with someone else in a church. I wouldn’t even leave my wife alone with some of these guys.
Going back to JD Hall’s post for a moment. The problem with his post is that even if you accept all his premises, the church *STILL* dealt with it incorrectly.
Go back to this argument that ‘it wasn’t put under discipline because of the annulment, it was because she sought one without consulting us first’. If they had been handling things ‘properly’ they should have sought legal advice straight away, this would have pointed to the possibility of an annulment given the situation, they would have then realized that time was of essence if Karen was to have this option opened. Does their reaction from Karen’s account show any of this kind of urgency? No. Instead what we get is mostly bureaucratic drift.
Picking up on something else. Is there any record that they referred Jordan to a counselor who is specifically equipped with dealing with pedophilia tendencies? Again no. Did they inform the church of the possible dangers Jordan posed? No.
Instead, it seems like he disappeared into the good-ole boy network in TVC (the counselors/lawyers etc that they always use).
Those elders must be thinking: “Why didn’t that Karen just keep her mouth shut like we told her to? Now we have to come out with this apology.” Oh well, fellas, I spose you’ll just have to suck it up.
Me thinks there were other folks that decided they too were going to come forward with how they had been mistreated. And so this “apology” is preemptive in that regard. Admitting the wrong in the negative is not as humble as they would like to make it seem. Why not list in bullets all the ways that you ACTIVELY wronged Karen? And begin with:
*We apologize for trying to control Karen’s life in ways we had absolutely no right to do.
*We apologize for trying to control the finances in Karen’s life. Something that was none of our business.
*We apologize for speaking falsely about Karen and then attempting to shame her by writing a letter to all our church members.
This would be a start, but by no means exhaustive.
Instead, their apology is just a means to cover their behinds. Hence it is no apology, because it is self-serving. Their timing in such an “apology” is very telling. Now they must attempt to save face. But the people who don’t sit at your feet and idolize Matt Chandler and The Village Church can see through the duplicity.
*We apologize for waiting three months before informing all our members at TVC about Josh Root’s sin of indulging in Internet child porn.
Whoops….my last bullet apology was in the wrong place. But I think y’all will get what I meant.
@ Bob M:
There’s a great deal missing. What bothers me most is the complete absence of what is happening with Jordan. They intend to continue coddling the child-destroying liar-man, I’m afraid.
Oh, and their “release” of Karen. It’s sort of like when a woman walks away after knocking a man on his a## in a fight, and the man says, “ok, you can go now.” lol
They are ignorant arrogant men–neither quality goes away with one partial apology, especially since the doc is still swimming in both.
We might consider this the first step in what they are fond of calling “progressive sanctification”. w00t
Bill M wrote:
ROFLOL!!
Another thing is missing, and it makes this “apology” a really weak piece of PR. So far, no one in TVC “leadership” has resigned or been fired!! Not even a sacrificial lamb, such as one of those men who harassed Karen.
Law Prof wrote:
This is GOLD STAR material for any and all TVC “covenant members” who may read this page. Be a Jonathan, find your armor-bearer [men and women qualify], and fight these Philistines.
1 Samuel 14:6, Jonathan said to his young armor-bearer, “Come, let’s go over to the outpost of those uncircumcised men. Perhaps the LORD will act in our behalf. Nothing can hinder the LORD from saving, whether by many or by few.”
It seems to me that King Saul is a forerunner of these TVC rulers, preoccupied with his power, his fame, his image.
Gram3 wrote:
@gram3
No, you have not created any more pain. The pain of sexual abuse is deep and pervasive in my life, as I believe it is in the lives of every child who was sexually abused for Jordan Root to have his pedophilia porn. (Aside, I personally don’t buy the lie that he didnt touch any children. Pedophilia, which I have studied indepth, pushes the abuser[I dont like the word addict] to worse and worse forms until they go after live victims in many cases)
And I agree with your assessment of them using clever words that make it look like they are coming clean, when they, in fact, have no clue as to the damage they are incurring. like I said, I am not that familiar with these people, but their handling of Karen Root is evidence that they are not qualified to be elders. I too am sick of the garbage I have been fed. Although you may have perceived that I am a calvinist, but I dont think I fit you all’s definition of a calvinista. (Probably just cut my throat on this blog)
Gram3 wrote:
Plus she resigned before she got the annullment. To me, this totally invalidates their “discipline” of her.
@ pcapastor:
There is no question that they re-victimized the victim with their outrageous, unloving, insensitive, graceless behavior.
Steve wrote:
I agree. I wonder how many attorneys were involved in crafting this apology…
Bill M wrote:
This is why I hate apologies like this for these sorts of things. it comes off more like “I am sorry you were offended but I was not wrong”.
They still refuse any discussion on why they were wrong.
@ Albuquerque Blue:
That is my view.
In the wake of this debacle, I am left wondering how many other Karens have been treated this way by The Village Church. So grateful that one woman finally fought back.
@dee I just finished reading all you said about pedophiles. I was abused by one. Much of what you said was true of him. He ended up in prison. I dont think they can be changed, and especially not in a few months with a non-pedophilia-trained counselor. They are habitual liars and habitual abusers and master manipulators.
Lydia wrote:
What is going on is that sexual misconduct is epidemic, and this leaves many people in marriages that they choose to stay in for various reasons even knowing what either they themselves or their spouses are doing. People stay in marriages where the spouse abuses the children and use religious jargon to appear righteous in that decision. People stay for the money or the status or to avoid their own fears or because they want to appear more righteous than Jesus or or or. And they sling bible verses around to make it look okay that they contribute to the abuse of even their own children. Sometimes people can be just plain mean and want to see other people suffer, and there are names for that also. So Susie Mae at bible study may enjoy seeing Libby Louise in the terrible situation she is in, and then try to help see that she stays in that situation by, again slinging bible verses and looking above it all.
People tend to be both mean and ignorant. I believe that is religion 101, first class first day. Were it not so we would not need a savior. We need to be set free from our own sinfulness and set free from the lies of the deceiver. To co-operate with one’s own salvation, however, one must be willing to give up one’s commitment to meanness and ignorance, and not everybody will do that.
This, I think, is part of what is going on in bible classes and small groups and life in general.
Bill M wrote:
And signed that cultish membership covenant!
@ Bob M:
I am so sorry for what you went through. Pedophiles become master manipulators through years and years of practice. It will be interesting to see how things pan out at TVC where Jordan is concerned.
@ Sidewalks:
Dr. Abel does seem a bit weird, and thanks for the more reliable and very helpful source links. That being said, I’ve seen at least one statistic similar-ish to Abel’s from a different source. In any case, the # of victims before getting caught doesn’t have to be as high as 100+ for there to be a serious problem (which I don’t think is what you meant to say anyway).
http://www.csom.org/pubs/recidsexof.html
Deb wrote:
@Deb I really hope thay he ends up in jail for many years.
sam wrote:
I am a Texas attorney, and I will tell you that they made themselves hugely liable for a lot, and the “apology” compounds the damages by alleging that Karen was in sin in this matter.
An Attorney wrote:
Yeah, what in the hell are they thinking?
"After considering questions of authority and submission, the second issue that came up in my study of the local church was the biblical teaching on church discipline."
It would have been nice if MC had practised what he preached in his article ” Is church membership biblical?” Even better if he had adhered to the words of Scripture that he quoted.
“You see it in several places, but none so clearly as 1 Corinthians 5:1-12. In this text, Paul confronts the church in Corinth for approving of a man walking in blatant, unrepentant sexual immorality. The Corinthians are celebrating this as God’s grace, but Paul warns them that this type of wickedness shouldn’t make them boast, but rather mourn. He calls them arrogant and tells them to remove this man for the destruction of his flesh and the hopeful salvation of his soul. In verses 11-12, he pulls no punches: “But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge?”
It has been my sad experience that very few churches still practice church discipline, but that’s another article for another day. My question out of this text is simple: How can you kick someone “out” if there isn’t an “in”? If there is no local commitment to a covenant community of faith, then how do you remove someone from that community of faith? Church discipline won’t work if local church membership doesn’t exist.”
And isn’t it ironic that he asks how can you kick someone out if there isn’t an in when his church tried to keep someone in who was already out?
*Clarification.
The first sentence belongs at the start of the quotation!
Steve wrote:
Actually it is likely to become damage enhancement, especially if the defamation claim goes to court.
Bob M wrote:
Based on my experience, my first thought was that this is an attempt to ward off any legal possibilities they stepped in. You don’t keep harassing a person who resigned their membership from your church. And you don’t keep referring to her legal annulment as a divorce.
Their authorirarian doctrine and internal polity is one thing but they took it way outside their jurisdictional bubble.
lydia wrote:
It is NOT, repeat NOT, an admission of wrong on their part. It is an admission of being ineffective in controlling Karen!!!!
Beakerj wrote:
In my experience, there just isn’t much deus ex machina going on anywhere. Have you ever seen an honest-to-God miracle, or heard of one? I’ve not. Not saying there are none, but they must be rare.
In the Matthew Paul Turner combox, a couple of young men were insisting that it was faithless not to believe that Jordan was being miraculously changed. Because magic! They see all salvation as miraculous (and maybe it is), but then use that to erase all the usual constraints of earthly life on those problems that they prefer not to address.
It seems to me that pedophiles are so good at lying (to both self and others), that there is little opening for change to begin. Which is true for all the personality disorders, really, and I wish they’d put them into that category.
I have a thought I’d like to run by you. I’m wondering whether psychology developed Axis II personality disorders in an attempt to describe/deal with human evil. Personality disorders seem to me to be essentially ethical disorders. I’ve met many people with Axis I disorders who are deeply moral, some so even during psychotic or manic breaks, which is astonishing. But all the personality-disordered people I’ve met have been essentially immoral, and their struggle, if/when they take it up, is to maintain some kind of minimal ethical standard.
If there’s anything to this, it could explain a great deal of the confusion re Tony Jones, Josh Duggar, Jordan Root, etc. They conflate all mental illnesses. They don’t notice the differences in disability (Axis II are generally fine at ADLs, Axis I aren’t). They don’t understand that treatment/therapies must be completely different, and that limitations must be put on the personality-disordered from the exterior rather than only automatically rising from disease itself.
It might also explain why so many assume that the personality-disordered are just fine and not at all ill–they function ok for the most part, lie like rugs with seriousness and humor, and their cockiness is socially attractive. Doesn’t that describe what we generally understand to be evil?
If that is so, then the conservatives do have a point about the personality-disordered–that they primarily need ethical restoration. It’s just that they don’t understand evil, really, and think that being “born again” or repenting, is instant and total. They have no clue how extra-ordinarily difficult it can be for some to take the long dreadful path to redemption.
Is there anything to this, do you think?
An Attorney wrote:
I did not think of that one. They are keeping it up! the documentation sent out to 6000 people and the meeting about her all happened after she resigned.
what would we call all these things harassment, defamation?
Can’t you just hear Chandler telling a judge that TVC was just trying to bring glory to God. And that all the harassment and defamation was their way of caring for Karen?
I’m gonna wait for Dee’s test to share my more serious thoughts about their apology, but for now….
Good heavens, can someone in TVC leadership get some much-needed self-awareness and realize that signing your emails as
“The Village Church Elders”
is so M Night Shyamalan?
I fully expect – seeing the pre-suppositions of the apology – the Elders to have a vote on whether to continue the Village or not.
I hope at least some of you have seen the movie. Hehe.
Patrice wrote:
How weird! I have been thinking about this, too, and share your view.
An Attorney wrote:
I know that you are an attorney. But I, as a normal, average, basic guy, read this as an admission of wrong at some level, at least. I do agree that much of the rest of the email is damage control and spin and defending their egregious abuse of Karen, but I take the below statement as an attempt at some level to say “We were wrong.” I am sure you will take issue with me, and angrily. Just know, that I am far angrier than you about Jordan Root’s pedophilia and how this church abused Karen.
“Sometimes it takes a difficult, unique and trying situation to help us realize our mistakes and move us to change. Naturally, these situations also bring more feedback to the table, and we have sought to humbly hear that feedback, be willing to see the log in our own eye and repent where necessary.”
@ Patrice:
Have you read any Scott Peck?
And if I could just add Calvin’s comment on the Corinthian passage
“Then he lays down a general principle wherein he (Paul) declares it wrong even to eat bread with a man of shameful life(1Cor.5.11)…and if churches are well ordered, they will not bear the wicked in their bosom. But because pastors are not always zealously on the watch, and are sometimes more lenient than they should be, or are hindered from being able to exercise the severity they would like, the result is that even the openly wicked are not always removed from the company of the saints. This I admit to be a fault and I do not intend to excuse it since Paul sharply rebukes it in the Corinthians.”(institutes Book 4.1.17)
Gavin White wrote:
Did I fix it correctly?
Bob M wrote:
So what is the venue for that to take place?
lydia wrote:
I could be totally wrong. It may be that all of their intentions are evil. However, I have found that, not knowing the hearts of men and women like God does, that it is not my job to point out people’s motives unless they tell me what they are. However, I do know that we are all sinners, and our motives are all tainted at some level with selfishness at some point, no matter how holy we may say we are. And I would not go so far as to say that these people are unbelievers who have no interest in serving God.
Hester wrote:
Oh no, you’re right, I didn’t mean that at all. As high as one is good enough for prison. I know there are predators out there that have 100+ victims. However, Abel is using 117 as “typical” and that could really throw parents into un-needed terror. I wish I could see where these numbers (including your source) are coming from.
lydia wrote:
I don’t know. I didn’t say it, they did.
Melody wrote:
I certainly hope so because IMO this is not an acceptable apology. If it was being given to me I would not accept it. They have not only not repented of the major thing*, on the contrary, they have reinforced their position on it.
They are saying they are going to make important changes in how they handle things like this. I do not see how it is possible to really get it right when they are starting from the base of supposedly being responsible to deny an adult their rights and privileges attendant thereto. They still believe it is their Biblical obligation to essentially control (“care”) for people, which is still going to be demonstrated in keeping themselves in an above position so those in their “care” are necessarily one-down.
This is a basic boundary violation that I would think must necessarily lead to other boundary violations such as viewing the matter as a type of both/and where Karen is folded into needing to repent of something — a place they “failed to lead her into.” And also failing to regard the gross violations of boundaries that pedophilia blatantly is, because these people are boundary challenged. I mean the TVC leadership.
They do not get where they end and others begin and that is going to impact their ability to regard pedophilia, separation/annulment/divorce matters, and a whole host of other issues in a way that is just not going to be right. They will never be able to lead anyone to a place of repentance, healing, restoration, what have you because they are not disposed in that direction. Instead of leading people into healthy dependence on God with all its attendant wisdom, they can only lead people into unhealthy, codependence on the church by keeping them in a dependent state and denying them the God given right and responsibility to grow up in the grace and knowledge of God.
What they need to repent of and apologize for is their failure to regard grown adults as autonomous agents responsible before God as individuals to make God honoring, Spirit led decisions regarding their own lives, and who are in fact able to do so.
*When I say the authoritarianism is the major thing, in no way do I mean to diminish the seriousness of the child abuse. I say it is the major thing because I believe it is more foundational and has at least in part underwritten their egregious mishandling of the child abuse, which I see and an inevitable fruit of this ideology.
Yes, but ~20 years ago. What he wrote was very helpful to me when coming to terms with my father and mother. I just packed his book (I’m moving) and thought I’d re-read it when I’m settled into my next place. If I remember correctly, he spent a fair amount of time on demon-possession (?) I think that very few personality-disordered people are.
Roy Baumeister’s “Evil: Inside Human Violence and Cruelty” is also interesting. Have you read that?
Few psychologists have taken up the subject of evil and I wish more would.
@ formerly anonymous:
You’ve said basically everything I want to say about their problem, and much more eloquently.
Haven’t read the supposed apology yet, but here’s my prediction: When it does not gain them the absolution they seek, including especially the cessation of criticism, they will angrily lay blame on those who continue to hold them accountable–on those who are looking for actual fruit in keeping with repentance. They will present themselves as the real victims.
Gram3 wrote:
One rather hopes that most if not all churches are ‘gospel-believing’. What a stupid thing to say. (Of course, it means just what you say.)
Bridget wrote:
^This.
Sexual misconduct is more rampant than people realize. I have reported it to school administrators, law enforcement more than you know….and often, nothing comes of it. The parents refuse to allow the child to testify, there is not enough evidence, all sorts of things…and the person in question moves on…..as to Boz saying evangelicals being involved more than Catholics, I believe it…..
@ formerly anonymous:
Excellent! Until they let go their heretical insistence on human hierarchy, they will continue to cause damage. But I think you are asking them to change what is definitional to them.
I suspect that’s why Matthew Paul Turner wrote, “…this is about as good as it gets when it comes to a conservative church…” I disagree and think they can do much better even within their own givens, but he has a point.
It isn’t going to happen in an apology. Still, it must be pointed out again and again and you made a great job of it.
@ Law Prof:
This is what I have been saying for years – the congregation has some complicity in the mess that they allow their church to become. Let’s not forget… The congregation IS the church.
O.K., I’ve read the “apology.” What, they’re going to give their resident pedophile a speaking role? They’re putting him front and center? That’s just in your face brazen. They have learned nothing!
Anyone asking for good statistics about pedophiles will be disappointed. The methodological problems are enormous.
One methodological problem is characterizing what is being studied. Many studies cast a wide net which obscures differences that affect our understanding of different sex offenses, prevention, treatment, and risk assessment.
There is a difference in offender characteristics and risk of offending between pedophiles who have been convicted of child molestation, that is men who prefer prepubescent children and have acted upon their desires and people whose preferences are not primarily towards children who have committed child molestation and variation within the latter category (crimes of opportunity, a desire for control and power regardless of victim characteristics, etc.)
There are also differences between people who are attracted to prepubescent children and those whose attraction is to children in early adolescence.
Second, almost everything we know about pedophiles comes from convicted child molesters. That means we know very little about people who keep their desires in check and do not offend by viewing child pornography or molesting. And we don’t know how repetitive these crimes are among those who commit them and manage not to get caught.
Hester is right in that there are studies of convicted pedophiles that show that they have had a large number of victims before being caught and convicted. That pattern is alarming, suggesting that there are pedophiles out there victimizing children, deceiving people, and getting away with it.
There are no reliable scientific studies showing that any treatment can remove sexual desires for children from pedophiles. None. Therapists focus on management, helping the person to control himself through cognitive therapy, medication, and supervision. The general consensus is that these desires do not go away.
There aren’t even any good studies showing that therapy can reduce recidivism.
Recidivism studies about sex offenders are not reliable because the categories are usually too global (often all sex offenses), are often based on all arrests for anything including for technical probation violations and of course – and this is critical – miss crimes which have gone undetected. And since we know that there is at least a subset of pedophiles who carefully choose and groom children to maximize their chances of getting away with it and do so for a long time, recidivism is a worry.
Gram3 wrote:
I have not known you to have no words, but nevertheless I have a few words. Anybody can “name the name of Jesus” and He Himself said that not everybody who says to Him “Lord, Lord” will enter the kingdom. We have lost the idea somewhere that among us are non-believers who look like sheep of the fold but who are not. I am not advocating going around labeling people, but I am saying that this truth, that not everybody on the pew or in the pulpit is necessarily one who will inherit the kingdom-that idea we must not lose sight of. We have to get over being shocked and appalled. That very reaction of ‘I can’t believe it’ sometimes may be making us lose sight of some otherwise evident realities.
Not you gram3, just taking your comment as a jumping off place.
http://www.wadeburleson.org/2015/05/simply-saying-i-repent-means-i-must.html
Patrice wrote:
Yep.
And I do not expect for a minute that they will change. I am about at the point of quoting Revelation 18:4: “Come out of her, My people.” I do think this is nearly that serious. I mean this ideology, not just TVC.
I know for myself I could never sit in one of their churches, and I find it impossible to keep silent on it. I do see it as a challenge to the Lord’s rightful throne in the hearts of people. I do not see them as representing Him, but as attempting to replace Him and rule over people in His stead.
I have seen people who hold this view as saying people like me are about licentiousness, that independence/autonomy is all about self and license to do as we please. That is a false dichotomy. On the contrary, I see them as rivals to God Himself and myself as an individual responsible before Him to obey Him according the the Spirit wrought dictates of my conscience, with no sense whatsoever as wanting a license to do what I please. But these guys seem to think that if you don’t want them ruling over you, you don’t want God ruling over you, so instead of THEM being a rival to Christ, I am a rival to Christ. I do not believe they will ever see it any other way, and I am not interested in courting their approval.
Let me see the scars in their hands and feet and side incurred on my behalf, and perhaps I will revise my view.
The only thing that might fix this for TVC is an open disclosure of their “care plan” for Jordan, including intensive counseling as recommended by SIM (to whom they also owe a very clear apology for blackmail) and with consultation with GRACE. Honestly I don’t think Karen will get the apology she is owed. Once again, a bunch of ignorant males pat a lady on the head. Unless Acts 29 burns their membership covenants and starts serving members instead of being all about leadership and member service, this is never going to resolve itself because they are a cult-business, not a Biblical local church.
Dee writes that the typical offender starts molesting at age 15. Josh Duggar was caught around that age.
I confess, I was so excited when I saw them say they were *deeply sorry* for hurting people that I completely missed the “leading Karen to repentance” bulls**t. 🙁 I’m so sorry. 🙁 I thought we had the start of something here. Maaaaybe we do. But it’s hard to see through all the self-protection. 🙁
Corbin wrote:
This is a succinct and accurate summation of TVC’s “apology”.
Patrice wrote:
Right–it’s not the typical “sex offender” it’s the typical “child molester”, because “sex offenses” can cover everything from violent forcible rape of a stranger to indecent exposure, depending on who’s defining the terms. 🙁
Bob M wrote:
No, not at all. Wade is a Calvinist, and he does e-church. This is probably the safest place to be. In my experience, people who want to control will find a doctrinal hook to hang it on. Abusers are in every doctrinal system.
js wrote:
I admire Wade Burleson for his insight and courage. However, I think he lets TVC off the hook way to easy based on their “apology”. As discussed by many in this thread, it’s nothiong more than a non-apology apology and to say that it’s the basis for forgiveness is, in fact, cheap grace.
Patrice wrote:
Scott Peck had his own problems and his work shows it. I find this true, unfortunately, among a disturbing number of mental health professionals. That does not mean that all psych research has to be rejected of course. Nor does it mean that all meds have to be avoided. It does mean that ‘consider the source’ needs to be applied in this area as in other areas.
@ Gram3:
You better believe that will be fixed going forward to include annulment. Did TVC say as much in their non-apology apology?
@ JeffT:
Well in fairness to Pastor Burleson, he is protecting his industry and employment. I can understand that and while he’s letting go of holding TVC to account he is still willing and able to support Ms. Hinkley.
formerly anonymous wrote:
It seems based on a fear/denial of maturing, of growing up. Exhibit A: they do not see a problem submitting to 25-30 yr olds. Exhibit B: They never set aside the “God is Father” simile. Exhibit C: Girls, ewww. Exhibit D: clubhouse rules!
And then there are some among them who think they’ve been given extry-speshul gifts to live not only their own lives but also all those “under” them. As 25-30 yr olds. Oy
From that context, it makes sense that maturity looks selfish and licentious. Traversing the wide wicked world and making one’s own decisions with only the airy-fairy Holy Spirit as guide, oh noes
Bob Altemeyer, an atheist prof at U of Manitoba, wrote a book called “The Authoritarians”. It is polemical and rather condescending, but contains fascinating research on people who live/think hierarchically. It’s free here: http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
Beakerj wrote:
I wonder if paedophiles are capable of empathy? Like a true narcissist but worse. Capable of WANTING to change? Are they so given over to the flesh, are they demonically possessed? I picture an emptiness in their soul. Emptiness and darkness literally in the eyes. Yes, the Lord can save and radically change. But do they WANT to be saved?
Steve wrote:
This is another expression to add to the list. DoctrineOfChoice is “rooted in” SomethingThatCan’tBeArguedWith. Look around. It is everywhere.
@ Deb:
Definitely damage control IMO. Also, controlling yet again. You know the person who always must have the final say? That would be TVC. In the control seat or at least feeling like they’ve retained some sort of control. Not to mention, how many people will now move on to the next juicy story because “Well, they apologized. It’s all good now.” And if you (me) continue to shine light on it all, continue to point out facts and discrepancies etc, we will be labeled as “unforgiving” and “bitter” and we should just “let it go”. “Move on”
Dee –
Here’s what I want to know, if you have any knowledge about it.
Did Matt Chandler contact Karen and address the issues his church has caused in her life BEFORE he interacted with CT?
Did TVC contact SIM and release them from the threats they made BEFORE Matt Chandler interacted with CT?
Who actually initiated the CT article, TVC/Matt Chandler or CT?
Albuquerque Blue wrote:
I love a lot of what Wade Burleson does, but the older I get, the more I realize it is a ” business” and a way to earn a living for many. …..it is why I am an advocate of bi-vocational ministers.
@ lydia:
Both harassment and defamation. The first is more of a criminal charge than a tort! But the latter is a tort and the first can be dealt with as a tort.
I read the apology the same way as Xianatty. The only “fault” they admit to is a lack of specificity in their covenant and other communications as to what they think about annulment and under what circumstances they think divorce could ever be permitted. But not to worry, they’re revising those documents now and “releasing” Karen on a technicality.
formerly anonymous wrote:
Amen! As far as I am concerned, this whole movement of “covenants” is Really close to what was one of the main drivers behind the Reformation and MArtin Luther… Every Sunday in my Presbyterian Church, we say the creeds and proclaim that we are believe in the “priesthood of the believers” Whatever this “covenant movement says”, it is clear by the WRITTEN statements from these Elders to KAren, and this “appology” that they do not in practice believe this…. It is even more amazing this is coming from a “SBC” church???
lydia wrote:
This “apology” took place quite soon after the mass email to the 6,000. I would like to know what was Chandler’s epiphany that they didn’t “lead her well.” OK, that just made me a little sick…
They admit they did not spell out the divorce procedure they prefer, so she could not have agreed to such procedures when she signed the COVENANT. I’m capitalizing that because the comments at MPT and here which support The Village are laser-focused on the COVENANT. They have implicitly admitted they had no grounds to put her into discipline from the beginning!
1. They use words like “failed”, “failing”, “mishandled”, and “mistakes”. Not “we sinned”, complete with specifics.
2. So they think they have strong procedures in place, they feel confident about the past, as well as their CURRENT policies and procedures for protecting kids. And yet they’re doing an external audit to make sure. Advice from their lawyers?
3. And now for some translations.
On Karen’s beliefs on annulment,
“We’re sorry we didn’t make ourselves clearer.”
On their treatment of Karen,
“There is nothing wrong with our beliefs, just the way they were implemented.”
On their exposure in the media,
“Pay no attention to what’s on the internet. We’re simply under attack here. People don’t like or understand our Biblical beliefs and practices.”
Bob M wrote:
I am not angry, but nowhere in that statement is there anything but a pontification on the human condition. They do not say “WE made a mistake.” They say “Sometimes people realize they have made a mistake.”
Albuquerque Blue wrote:
I think Wade has a good heart and his support of Karen is one sign of that. I just think he lets TVC off the hook way too easily. Words are cheap, actions are what really speak. So far, all we’ve gotten from TVC is words, we haven’t seen anything yet that actually demonstrates repentance. Actual repentance is a hard road and to forgive them solely on the basis of vague words is putting TVC on easy street.
To quote Michael Scott from “The Office”: “It takes a big man to apologize. And I am that big man.”
Matt, this is what sincere repentance looks like between humans: “I was wrong. I am sorry. Please forgive me. I will do whatever it takes to right my wrongs against you. I await your response”
XianJaneway wrote:
They’re as smooth and apt at deceit as the pedophile himself. The abuser sheltered by the 501c3 abuser. Of course
Bob M wrote:
Bob quoting the statement:
Is it just me or does this sound a lot like the various SGM/Mahaney spin doctoring. Didn’t he say how he was glad to have the feedback so that he could repent of his arrogance?
It also sounds a lot like Piper’s season of working in the garden of his marriage where he had to repent of a “species of pride.”
NJ wrote:
I don’t like their “unbiblical” beliefs that they are pawning off as biblical beliefs. Not one iota of their paperwork covenants will produce the love that is absent in the way they are responding to fellow believers.
AmyT wrote:
Yup. Maybe I’m being too cynical, but what I saw in that letter was ‘OK, you got us on a technicality, but we’re going back to the drawing board and tightening the “covenant” up so that we make sure we got you by the short and curlies’
@ XianJaneway:
Ah, yes, you are right!
Gram3 wrote:
No. He never got that far. He wanted people to pray for him in order for him to perceive his sin. He had a perceiving problem, apparently 😉
Bridget, I agree. Even though these membership covenants are a VERY recent innovation in Church history, Acts 29 sees them as essential as the elements of Christian worship.
Bridget wrote:
He definitely has a discernment issue
Nancy wrote:
No kidding. It’s not that I don’t have anything to say about them, but I don’t have words to describe the willful ignorance and blindness by some of the commenters at MPT and elsewhere who are stuck on Karen signing a covenant. Which we have now learned from their own mouths does not address the divorce procedure that she supposedly broke. It is absurd.
JeffT, right now they’re probably busy closing every loophole they can find.
My only fear with this argument is, it didn’t have to be an invalid marriage for TVC’s actions to be wrong.
@ XianJaneway:
In parts of Texas, taking a leak behind a tree will get you convicted for indecent exposure (even if no one saw the private part) and made to register as a sex offender for the rest of your life.
@ Corbin:
I agree
Melissa wrote:
My personal experience is that they will do minor tweaking and then pronounce it very good. They will double down on the actual problem which is their corrupt theology grounded in a corrupt interpretation of a number of proof-texts. I used to rejoice at any glimmer. Not any more because I learned how deeply ingrained this way of thinking is. I think the washout will take a generation.
NJ wrote:
That’s exactly the way I read it
Nancy wrote:
Yes, he had problems. But then, I don’t know if I’ve ever read an author who didn’t show weaknesses/flaws in their ideas. As you say, consider the source, and we humans are the source of books.
I read for what I can find. And when there’s something that gives expression to what I’ve found in my life, especially when I’ve not been able to give form to it, I am glad.
Peck’s book on evil was where I first grasped some of was going on with two people in my life. And Baumeister’s book offered different and further understanding. I will alway be grateful to them for that.
I poked around a little more in the field of ponerology, but couldn’t continue–it was too wretched.
Patrice wrote:
MPT has posted an update to his blog post: “This update wasn’t written for us. And it wasn’t meant for Karen, either. This update is damage control to calm the storm inside TVC. And some of its language, though gentle, still is laced with control. I’ll try to write more later. But I wanted to offer those who have questioned this blog post a heads up that I agree. I posted this in haste. And I apologize for that.”
So it looks like he gets it… that’s good, because his initial blog post was pretty uncritical of TVC’s non-pology. He says at the moment he’s under time pressure for the forthcoming story on The Daily Beast… so I guess he’s involved with that story.
Bridget wrote:
No, as of last night at about 10PM Karen had only received an email stating pretty much what you have read. She did get something that said she was “released” from membership which is rather amusing since she had resigned in February. In other words, they still think they can keep and release people.
If I had been on charge, I would have said that we recognize that you have resigned and wish you well.
Bridget wrote:
I do not know the answer to these questions. I suspect that Chandler called CT to post his apology. i wish CT had written the story of Karen before doing so.
AmyT wrote:
I like the word you used “technicality.”
JeffT wrote:
Wade is one of the nicest and kindest men that I know. He never fails to give anyone the benefit of the doubt. I am a bit more cynical than he is. We are probably good for each other!!
Nancy wrote:
I’ve never understood the Evangelicals’ antagonism for the field of psychology. The field has produced a lot of important knowledge for those who care for human health/thriving. Sure it plunges in/out of fads, and sometimes makes gigantic mistakes, etc. But so do Christians.
I sometimes wonder if the aversion is territorialism. “This is my subject. You can’t tell me anything I don’t already know.”
Dee wrote:
Funny how they ignored the whole story until Apostle Chandler came to them with his ‘apology’so they could help spread the whitewash.
Jeff S wrote:
I agree with you. I made this argument based on lots of feedback that this was being said and directed towards Karen. All of its wrong but I wanted to put the nail in the marriage covenant coffin.
Ben Denison wrote:
Oh good!
Ben Denison wrote:
Wow! I was up until 2AM last night talking with Karen and Amy and then trying to figure out a couple of things for today. I did not see that. Thank you so much.
Dee wrote:
Despite my disagreement with him on this issue, I think the world needs more Wade’s in the pulpit.
Gavin White wrote:
And I contrast that with the Son of Man, who was criticized for fellowship with notorious sinners. Guess who I think is right?
js wrote:
To quote the young people, “Wade, I am disappoint.”
That was not an apology. That was a butt-covering exercise. I think I know why Wade said what he did, but seriously, that wasn’t an apology.
Dee wrote:
I’m the person who would send back an e-mail telling them, “I’m sorry, I think you misunderstood. I haven’t been a member since February 11. Please correct the records. Thanks!”
I commented about this situation on another blog (SGM Survivors) and this is what one person said about what this church is calling “church discipline:”
Very insightful comment. It really isn’t “church discipline” since the members of the church have no say in this nor has it been discussed with the members or the leadership even let the members hear the other person’s side.
Dee wrote:
I’m not surprised, but still, wow – just wow?
The article is simply PR and damage control then. I guess TVC is mainly concerned with perception on the outside and member dissatisfaction on the inside. They have had no words for Karen who was at the other end of their abuse.
I think maybe Wade needs to ask more questions when pastors resort to PR bits.
mirele wrote:
LOL – yes.
My comments (copied from my timeline on FB) about the apology:
They . . .say that their main failure with Karen was how they communicated not what they communicated. They say it would have served her better if she understand what they considered a biblical divorce. So, if I understand it correctly, believing controlling the marriages, including finances, of members, and requiring a member to stay married to a pedophile, are still a part of their “deep theological convictions”. This is not good enough.
Patrice wrote:
Too funny. And too true in TVC’s case.
K.D. wrote:
A fairly profitable business at that. Great tax breaks as well.
Robin wrote:
Lol. Seriously.
Gavin White wrote:
John Calvin’s power-hunger runs through that commentary, making it a little difficult to see around it. But yeah, when someone like Jordan is welcome inside a church community, the community loses.
It is the job of all the members to be on watch for pathological sin. In this case, if Village Church had some qualified educated psychologists on staff, they would bring the intractable difficulties of pedophilia forward.
And that’s quite different from people who make mistakes, who fall down, who go up/down in their walk, or who are on particularly difficult roads. It takes some maturity to know the difference. I don’t think Calvin did.
From the CT article:
Dear Matt:
What are you smoking? At any mile-marker along this pileup you and the ELDERS could have decided to actually be loving and caring in the dictionary sense of those words. This is not about “messaging” being deficient. This is about the corrupt fruit that a corrupt tree produces. Until you find your manly chainsaw and take that rotten tree down and dig out the roots and stump, there will be sucker sprouting from the rotten root of the rotten tree.
We are not all stupid sheep.
Duggargate came up on the bus from the Metrolink station this morning.
Front of the bus was silent except for the beeps and boops of smartphones in the hands of staring statues. But in the back, four guys were talking about sports and TV and things turned to the Duggars. Went kind of like this:
“Bla bla bla Duggars bla bla bla They’re CHRISTIANS bla bla bla Guess it’s all right to bang your sisters as long as you’re not GAY…”
Gram3 wrote:
As Loving and Caring(TM) as the Ministry of LOVE in 1984.
Patrice wrote:
Calvin was a young lawyer who KNEW He Had God All Figured Out.
Need I say more?
Gram3 wrote:
Gram3 wrote:
The difference with John Piper is that in the sermon where he spoke of this species of pride, he named it clearly. I was there.
Patrice wrote:
I do. It’s unwanted competition (that might actually do a BETTER job).
In this, there is no difference between Evangelicals and Scientologists.
Just as anti-smoking activists joined forces with the tobacco industry to shut down vape shops, I would not be surprised if the Gospel Glitterati formed an alliance with Miscavage and Sea Org against the Psychlos.
TVC “releasing” Karen several months after she had removed herself from membership is the equivalent of a junior high boy arguing, “You can’t break up with me, I’m dumping you!”
JeffT wrote:
“One hand washes the Other…”
@ Deb:
Hi Deb.
No.. My comment should have started with ” it would have been nice if…..” And then go on to MCs thoughts. No worries.
AmyT wrote:
“Revising” as in “The Documents Have Always Been So”?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_images_in_the_Soviet_Union
Melissa wrote:
This might be what Biblical language calls “hardening of heart”.
There’s NOTHING left that can be saved.
Gary W wrote:
JUICY Testimony.
How else can all those Elders and Church Ladies get their oh-so-Delicious fix of such Forbidden Fruit?
mirele wrote:
I don’t get it. Gavin’s quote is of Calvin, who is following the apostle Paul in advocating not associating with = disfellowshipping those in serious and specific sin, notably sexual immorality. You seem to be criticising this (as it frequently is under the heading of ‘shunning’ though imo that is something else) but shouldn’t this instruction be applied or have been applied by the Village Church to Jordan? Or have I lost the plot, not something totally unknown.
Isn’t the purpose to get into his thick skull that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God, he should stop deceiving himself over this because his unrighteousness will exclude him unless he repents, and by that I mean the real thing, with real consequences and change. Such that he willingly has as much contact with children for the rest of his life as ex-alcoholics do with alcohol. Avoiding even getting tempted to be tempted so no disaster follows.
Rick wrote:
So true. She really did dump the ELDERS, and they could not put up with that! The other women might get uppity, too.
MPT says that the “apology” was written to calm the storm within The Village. I wonder if that storm is parents screaming about their kids being placed in jeopardy or people screaming “not in my name you don’t.” Or donors or what. Or maybe some of the Gospel Glitterati leaned on them because they were tarnishing the Brand. Sort of like Driscoll did for Acts29.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see a breach in the dam become a flood pretty soon about The Village and Acts29. At some point, people are going to connect the dots and call the picture what it is.
Gram3 wrote:
Not sure why, but my previous post did not quote correctly.
I agree that SGM/Mahaney did tons and tons of spin Doctoring. I actually read all 600 pages of Brent Detweiler’s documentation, and I am convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that Mahaney is not fit for eldership, but should be under the discipline of his church for his arrogance and abuse of many people, and SGM should be liable for the cover up of Morales.
That aside, John Piper is a different question. I am in the church where he was pastor. I was there. He named his sin, pride. The species he referred to, I think, he correctly referred to as a species of pride. It is applicable to and found in pastors. He felt that he was living in a certain kind of pride for him, “prideful sipping from the poisonous cup of international fame and notoriety.” that may sound self serving, but he was quoting what another staff member named as his specific type of pride. And he agreed that it was true of him. Whether those 8 months worked, I cannot say, but I can say I have seen and spoken to him up close and in person and I do not think he has ever abused anyone or covered up, or refused correction when someone approached him. I did. He sat and answered me, and he did not bully me or tell me to keep my mouth shut. Actually, the things he told me helped me understand it much better.
Bob M wrote:
What was the species of pride that he was talking about? To me that just seems like another Piperism that doesn’t mean very much but seems to say something profound. Some of these “confessions” sound like a version of the humblebrag.
Gram3 wrote:
You are making a lot of sense. We all wonder exactly what the motivations were, but all our wonderings are just that. We can make, however, educated judgments based on how the Village Church and Chandler word things that it is designed to cover their proverbial butts in a legal sense. What I do not get is the “leading Karen to repentance” part. That makes absolutely no logical sense.
Bob M wrote:
Then you remember how he defended CJ Mahaney and never said one word about the SGM victims. That is something that I will never forget. And there he is in that picture standing with Mahaney along with Chandler. That picture says it all.
Gram3 wrote:
“prideful sipping from the poisonous cup of international fame and notoriety”
Bob M wrote:
Sorry I missed this before my previous comment. The problem is that after his paid leave, he then resumed the same thing that he supposedly repented. I appreciate that you think he is a humble man. Respectfully, I disagree based on what he teaches and the fame that he seeks.
dee wrote:
I don’t get that. If I ever get the chance, I will ask him again. You know that the last time I spoke with him I asked him, and reported back here what he said. There is so much more evidence that has surfaced since then that I don’t get why these men approve of Mahaney.
Man I can’t dive into this thread there are a million thoughts going through my mind. In regards to what repentance and forgiveness is I wrote a story at my blog that I hope can illustrate what actual repentance and forgiveness is. You can read about it in the link below. But for those who are wondering what is repentance and forgiveness I would suggest you comprehend the story of Eric Smallridge and Renee Napier in Florida.
https://wonderingeagle.wordpress.com/2015/05/13/renee-napier-and-eric-smallridge-an-incredible-story-of-grace-forgiveness-and-repentance-in-florida/
this is exactly correct. This is not a repentant apology to Karen-they still blame her and think she is in sin-, this is a PR piece to prevent their church hemorrhaging members, especially concerned parents.
Jeff S wrote:
Gram3 wrote:
I have watched him for many years. I know people who have been on staff with him. I do not think that he seeks fame. I could say more, but I fear that I am being backed into a corner where someone is going to try and paint me as “little Piperite”, or some such moniker, and I will be labeled as one of the calvinistas that believe and parrot every word of the TGC crowd. That is not true, but I have to defend what I know of the man.
wow that’s some Christianese for ya
@ Bob M:
Gram3 wrote:
Sheesh, I should have supported that. What he teaches about Jesus prior to his incarnation is not humble at all in that he presumes to tell the Eternal Son his place in the Trinity. By what authority other than Grudem or Ware does he do that? To me, it is stunning and was unbelievable to me the first time that I heard it. His teaching on women is quite simply bizarre like a funhouse mirror. I don’t know him or his wife, but Gramp3 and I have talked numerous times about Piper working in the garden of his marriage. If he is the marriage answer man, then what happened? Then there was the Dubai stunt that was discussed and which people could not believe. To me, it demonstrates a lot of hubris to go to a city and visit a church whose property was gifted and then proclaim that God was going to bring down that tower which has the same symbolism for those folks that the WTC does for us. For better or worse, that’s how they see it, and his actions were rude and unseemly and, frankly, embarrassing to a lot of us. Those are just some examples that come quickly to mind.
Ali wrote:
As I’ve said elsewhere: If TVC say they want to care for you – run for your life.
XianJaneway wrote:
Actually, they would be wise not to contact her at all. What needs to happen is they publicly say they were wrong to keep contacting her after she asked them not to and after the resignation, wrong to hold the meeting about her and wrong about annulment.
I think the point concerned people are making is that Piper hasn’t used his platform to stand up for the people the church is supposed to serve. We can agree to disagree on our estimation of a person. But the church judges fruits- which in these cases can be seen in public behavior. I see a lot of obfuscation and fear of man in the responses in the evangelical church to all forms of abuse. They love their authority and male leadership and status quo whether or not it is actually healthy. They cannot get past a rigid interpretation of Scripture to figure out why abuses are inevitable in such environments. So respectfully, no one is painting anyone anything. It is just too easy to be taken in by the political maneuverings of “nice” people determined to continue in their blinkered frame of reference. That is what people are concerned about and why they react to what you are saying. I truly believe we will be surprised at how many people we disagreed with on earth are in heaven with us. however, there are no cowards there. So to have a platform and refuse to hear victims and stand up for them seems an indicator of something that is off.
@ Bob M:
Bob M wrote:
I don’t get that from what you have written. I do think that our experiences shape how we see and interpret events and people. I’m going on the facts of what the man does and what he says, particularly his heretical teaching about the Eternal Son being a subordinate Person in the Trinity. And I take his pronouncements about women very personally because he treats us as if we are a sub-male class of humanity while covering that hideous though with pious prose. That is something that you don’t have to consider when evaluating Piper’s intentions or his heart.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
🙂
Bob M wrote:
So do I. The one I know is quite humble and does good work. But what he teaches about some things is really not good or true.
Melody wrote:
what is?
Gram3 wrote:
Soo . . . completely off topic, but since you bring this up, does anyone read this blog? https://adaughterofthereformation.wordpress.com/2015/05/28/does-the-son-eternally-submit-to-the-authority-of-the-father/
She does an excellent job with this. It will be interesting if she’ll be able to retain her complementarian views if she keeps examining these doctrines.
and that they are wrong to accuse Karen as in sin when she acted to protect further victims of abuse, wrong to disregard SIM’s professional recommendations, wrong to mislead people into thinking GRACE meant they were a safe place for kids, and wrong to blackmail missionaries and a mission board in order to prove they were “right”. This apology is PR. It’ll fool some. I hear a lot of excuses and not a whole lot of real personal responsibility. sickening.
@ Lydia:
@ Ken:
Thanks for that Ken. I was also trying to show how little some of these New Calvinists know of Calvin and his teachings and, in some cases, of Scripture itself.
not sure if I tagged right. This:
“prideful sipping from the poisonous cup of international fame and notoriety”
@ Bob M:
@ HUG:
LOL. Seems to sum up the internet reaction IMO.
@ Melody:
I don’t think that’s Christianease. It’s just his flowery wording. Some people like it. Some people don’t (like me). I don’t think it’s particularly associated with the church, though. It’s definitely Piper though 🙂
@Bob M- I feel you about your fears regarding Piper in the comments here. It’s a challenge because many people who comment have been wounded by his teaching, so standing up for him is probably going to be confronted.
Personally, I have big issues with his teaching and what I think comes from it, but I understand not all of Piper’s fans see these (yet).
@ Jeff S:
I do read her blog from time to time, and I hope that she continues working through these issues because she does a great job of analyzing the data and spotting the flaws in various points of view. Basically, I enjoy reading what people of good will who think well write.
I trust the Holy Spirit will lead her just like the rest of us. I do think that there is a slight movement among the very bright women in the Complementarian churches to question some of the teaching and interpretations that have been taught.
Melody wrote:
Ah. It was how a staff member put into words what he thought Piper’s kind of pride was.
@ Bob M:
I’m not painting you so be at peace 🙂
That said, Piper retired and went off to Geneva to make films. He sounded like he was going to be the next Calvin or something.
He has made pronouncements about bridge collapses and tornados. I’m wondering (not really though) what he is thinking about the great floods down in Texas – the great evangelical center of the US. Matter of fact, does Piper have anything to say about the flooding in say Dallas? Oh, maybe that only happens when it fits a heathen bashing purpose, which completely nixes Christ’s command to love your enemies. (Snark off now.)
@ Hester:
I’ve found the way they’re turning “Duggar” into a verb fairly pointed and accurate. http://i.imgur.com/z62pOff.jpg
Gavin White wrote:
You are overcomplicating based on a church state mentality that is pervasive these days. They simply said you are not welcome right now around the group– whereever the group was. They had NO control over the guys behavior (As Paul pointed out about dealing with people in the “world”) nor did they try to have control. It was a simple: we are not associating with you with you right now until you have changed.
What some of you guys try to pass off as church discipline is right out of Orwell. Not the NT.
Lydia wrote:
I asked Dee specifically because they didn’t mention any of this in the CT article. I hoped they had taken care of it ahead of the article, but it didn’t happen.
Jeff S wrote:
Piper attacks the very personhood of women. His construct of “Biblical Womanhood” comes from his own imagination and not from the Bible. Yet we are supposed to bow before his authority about our very own selves. So, yes, it is wounding when a highly respected man says that women are made *for* men in the utilitarian sense of the word “for.” I believe that is a gross misunderstanding of what “for” means in that context, and it does not mean “for the man’s own purposes.” The problem is that people will not disown and call him out on his use of the Bible as a blunt instrument to pound women into his little mold, and all while telling them he is lovingly leading them and God says so.
Where have we heard this recently? It is not a concidence. Piper is a mentor to Chandler. Just like Mahaney is. And Grudem is. They treat Karen and other women the way that they do because that is the perverse view of women that they believe and teach.
Gram3 wrote:
Forgot about that one . . .
Gavin White wrote:
This was written by a guy who instituted fines and punishments for Genevans falling asleep during his sermons or daring to make fun of him.
Bridget wrote:
Well, there are so many that it is difficult to remember everything! That was yet again an instance where something embarrassing *that was intended for publicity* gets disappeared from the internet because people outside the groupthink bubble spoke out about the idiocy and presumptuousness of that video. Suddenly what was a few short days ago a very good and right thing to tell everyone about becomes a non-thing. Again, haven’t we seen this play out recently? That is not a coincidence either.
@ Patrice:
Back in the 80’s there was nothing else that was really addressing evil in psychological/secular terms except Peck. I do see problems with him but at the time he helped me see I was not nuts about a situation.
Bob M wrote:
Bob M: When you asked Piper about Mahaney and wrote here at TWW about it, I must have missed it — could you point me to that? I also have a connection to Bethlehem, and Piper’s tacit/silent support of Mahaney and SGM has been a real frustration to me, so I would really like to know what he said. Piper didn’t sign any of the TGC/T4G statements so I haven’t seen anything directly from him. (I would ask him too, but I no longer have personal contact with him, and my email went unanswered.)
@ Gram3:
And, again, things disappear with no explanation or apology that it might was wrong.
Ben Denison wrote:
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2013/04/25/breathless-adoration-of-mahaney-gang-at-resolution-2013/ is the post. You have to scroll down or
search for this:
Bob M UNITED STATES on Sun May 12, 2013 at 03:17 PM said:
roebuck wrote:
I agree. It really boils down to the congregation allowing a wrong view of Jesus Christ to become their truth.
@ Gram3:
I totally understand. You know (at least broadly) what I think of Piper.
I’m not criticizing your comments about him. He’s earned it. I do understand why someone wouldn’t feel comfortable being transparent at TWW about being a fan of Piper, though.
@ Bridget:
Scratch the “might”
Bob M wrote:
Bob, I believe we can only focus on actions and words. And from there we can only focus on “patterns” of words/behaviors.
I have NEVER understood the focus in Christendom on “we cannot know their heart” or we cannot ascribe motives. It seems almost like people are saying they are not really who they are talking like and acting like. They are somehow different people altogether. A secret good person we cannot know publicly.
My experience around the celebs in Christendom is they are worse than what they project publicly.
I don’t do motives or hearts. I do behavior and words. And that does not bode well for them unless I happen to agree with a mediator between Christ and me. Which I don’t.
@ Bob M:
Yikes- I just read his response. I do not like that at all 🙁
What I read is Calvinism >>>> people.
An interesting response given the conversation I had with my own pastor (PCA) recently. I told him “You know, I’m not sure how Reformed I am these days- I mean, I pass the test you guys gave at the end of the doctrine class, but I just don’t think it’s all that important compared to other things”.
And my pastor’s answer: “Neither do I”.
formerly anonymous wrote:
I agreee. And except for visiting around a few places we are pretty much “done”. I cannot see myself ever formally joining another church.
Melody wrote:
She does have a post up on it:
http://translationsbyellie.com/index.php/2015/05/29/its-about-power/
The policy demonstrates TVC’s ignorance of how to truly “care” for targets of abuse. Any covenant that requires that much control is not just. The covenant risks lives. It needs to go. The covenant makes TVC the mediator between targets of abuse and God. That is bad doctrine if there ever was any.
Go Ellie!
Patrice wrote:
I read it. He totally leaves out totalitarian political policy where the state micromanages your life choices. So evidently some totalitarianism is good to him.
Jeff S wrote:
Yes, I understand that. My hope is that we can separate the man’s toxic theology from what we think of him as a person. For me, I do not have the personal relationship, so it is easier to see the toxicity and the hypocrisy. If he were someone I knew personally, I’m quite sure my thoughts would be influenced by that. But I also hope that I would at some point see clearly the toxicity and put the blame where it lies: right on Piper’s head.
@ Bob M:
“He said that he believes that the church needs the Doctrines of Calvinism, and so that if a man holds to those views he gives him a lot of slack in other areas.”
Christ’s church does not need the doctrine’s of Calvin. I believe Christ can lead his Church quite well without Calvinism. But I can tell from Piper’s life and actions that he completely believes this and acts in accordance with his beliefs. He as much as said that in his response to you.
@ Jeff S:
Totally get what you are saying. I actually wrote about John Piper in this post. This is one of the oldest posts I have done that people keep reading. Its the second most popular post I have written.
https://wonderingeagle.wordpress.com/2015/03/10/my-mothers-pancreatic-cancer-john-piper-and-me/
@ Eagle:
My own post (the last blog post I wrote) on Piper: http://lovewithoutfear.net/2014/12/30/why-i-believe-the-evangelical-church-needs-to-stop-listening-to-john-piper-and-those-like-him/
@ Bridget:
Calvinism carries more weight than calling out a sinful leader. That pretty much sums up what we are seeing in his circles of Christendom.
Ken wrote:
Sorry, I was being snarky.
I should have gone with my first inclination, which was to quote Billy Joel: “I would rather laugh with the sinners / Than cry with the saints / The sinners are much more fun.”
That said, and being excruciatingly clear that I am not endorsing “sin leveling,” my points are these.
1) If there’s evidence a crime has been committed, churches should butt out and get the cops involved. That happens far less often than people want to admit. Usually churches have to be pushed into action. (And NOT JUST ABOUT pedophilia and sex crimes. Families can be *devastated* by financial crooks moving through a congregation!!!!!)
2) That said, kicking criminals completely out of the community can be devastating, particularly in cases where the church community is majority of the person’s life. I’m not opposed to Jordan Root going to church. I AM opposed to him having contact with children. I AM opposed to people not knowing why he’s on restriction. But I am NOT opposed to him being in community with others.
3) However, it’s abundantly clear that this Calvinist-style covenant doesn’t treat people fairly, because the people who are administering it are as human as the rest of us and they have particular ideas about humanity which are not healthy. Among those are: the idea that a marriage is sacrosanct, even if one of the spouses has broken the marriage bond by pedophilia; the treatment of women like we all have some disease that makes us stupid and we can’t manage our own lives (that’d be “Two X Chromosome Syndrome); and, frankly, invasion of privacy by the elders. As others have said, This is shepherding on steroids.
Remember, Jordan Root was not under discipline because he’d submitted to the elders (no matter that he was a confessed pedophile and the church didn’t bother telling people for three months), but Karen was because she exercised her legal right to an annulment, knowing full well that time was of the essence due to the fraud on her marriage and did not submit to the elders. (For all we know, the elders could have ordered her to cohabit with Jordan, thus destroying her ability to have the marriage undone.)
I’ve seen up close and personal what happens to people when they’re shunned by organizations. I know ex-Scientologists who are in grief because they are not allowed to have connections with their family members due to the fact that they are Suppressive Persons. Whym they might destroy the Scientologist members’ eternity! I have no idea how this works inside TVC, but I could surely see someone saying, “You can’t associate with X because he’s shacking up with Y, and you could be endangering your salvation.” I don’t like it with Scientology, I don’t like it with this.
I think all of this can be accomplished by notification and the long arm of the law, no covenant, Calvin or Paul necessary. I guess I’m realizing how secular I’ve become.
Jeff S wrote:
Ha ha! I too went back and scrolled to that post, to find out how John Piper answered your question, Bob M. BOY did his answer bother me! And then I saw that someone responded in the very next comment — me! I agree with my 2013 self! I was pretty smart back then!
Here it is for those who don’t want to scroll:
Bob M. wrote that when he asked John Piper about why he continued to support Mark Driscoll and C.J. Mahaney, that Piper “said that he believes that the church needs the Doctrines of Calvinism, and so that if a man holds to those views he gives him a lot of slack in other areas.”
So then my 2013 self wrote:
“Thank you for your integrity, and for this update. I respect how direct John Piper was with you. As a Calvinist myself, I could not disagree with his perspective more strongly. If I am understanding what he meant to convey correctly, it is, indeed, a terrible and dangerous perspective. It violates the Scriptural (not to mention Calvin’s own) principles of maintaining impartiality when judging others (no free passes for one’s own tribe members), and judging the integrity of other ministers not just on the basis of the words they use, but their character and ethic and the presence of LOVE in the whole of their lives. Getting the words right does not a godly minister make.”
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
I vape! After 50+ years of smoking, I’ve turned to vaping for the last 2 yrs. My son has entirely given up both smoking and vaping.
Deb wrote:
I’m afraid most who become aware of this story will write it off a single occurrence. After running across Chandler’s diatribe on “why membership” that concerned itself almost entirely with submission, obedience, and discipline, I am very inclined to believe this story of oppression is the proverbial tip of the iceberg.
Bob M wrote:
Thanks for the pointer! To quote what you posted:
If Piper could read the Second Amended Complaint with its long list of painful accounts of horrifying abuse in SGM churches, and if that’s one of the “other areas” Piper is saying he would “give [Mahaney] a lot of slack” in, then that is absolutely appalling.
Bob M said “I don’t get why these men approve of Mahaney” and I totally agree. It’s incomprehensible to me, based on my personal experience with Piper. But Melody said it well, above: “Piper hasn’t used his platform to stand up for the people the church is supposed to serve. We can agree to disagree on our estimation of a person. But the church judges fruits- which in these cases can be seen in public behavior.”
So the bottom line for me is that if you don’t take a clear stand and call out the abuse that happened in SGM churches, and if you visit Mahaney’s church and say how glad you are to be there, etc. — then you have sided with the abusers, and the leadership that let it happen and then hid behind a statute of limitations.
@ Bob M:
Bob do you mind if I use your comment? I would love to write a long, detailed essay about this topic sometime at my blog.
Albuquerque Blue wrote:
That is some cartoon…
Bill M wrote:
I think the exposure will do more good than you think. The past few days I’ve been having a lengthy discussion on my FB timeline about this, and more eyes were opened than you’d imagine. And one person who was kind of hostile toward Karen turned right around last night and said he takes it all back.
People don’t realize that this is an example of a systemic problem- but now they’ve heard it and they’ll be more likely to recognize it when it happens in the future.
What is very important about this particular instance is that the victim in this case was strong enough, well advised enough, and kept her head about her to be able to take this kind of public action. Most people in her position are simply too shell-shocked to do this kind of worked. Karen must be a VERY strong woman, and she is speaking for many.
For context, John Piper used to visit my church and “sit under my preaching” when he was out and about on his speaking tours. Without going into detail, my interactions with him over those years led me to stop reading or listening to anything he had to say. And then when his RABID support of Driscoll, Doug Wilson, then C.J.Mahaney came to light I transitioned from passivity with regard to his ministry (i.e. no more partaking of it) to actively warning people against it, which has gotten me into trouble with members of my own church on occasion.
pcapastor wrote:
“If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.”
(1 Corinthians 13:1-3 ESV)
Lydia wrote:
If I remember correctly, Altemeyer wrote in there somewhere that he was a socialist, which is ideologically the opposite of authoritarianism. Practically speaking, pure versions of socialism (as also communism) have never succeeded because they didn’t take into account the human propensity to power-over. They inevitably revert to totalitarianism because they are overly-optimistic about human nature.
Even the early Christians’ attempt at communal property/living didn’t work long term. And the same tendency towards totalitarianism shows up in the Acts 29 peeps.
But you and I (social democrat) will never agree on this, my libertarian friend.
Jeff S wrote:
That will not go over well at Presbytery. 🙂
Jeff S wrote:
Well there you go actually using the SCRIPTURES, Jeff. They are so IMPRACTICAL — until you can show me how they actually help to ADVANCE MY AGENDA OF PROMOTING A MUSCULAR CALVINISM I won’t waste my time listening to you. You are probably a liberal and a feminist.
Deb wrote:
Intimations of many more in a comment by Andrew over at MPT:
“Having one time been a Village Church member for over 10 years, essentially what I hear from this apology is this: we are incapable of caring for anyone. My family experienced that 5 years ago. And several of our friends at TVC experienced it, too. They were unprepared to care for her? Well, that was the same excuse 2 years ago involving a friend partnering with them on a church plant. The same excuse 6 years ago when friends who were missionaries sent by TVC were pulled back home virtually overnight because of false gossip against them. The same excuse 5 years ago when we sought wisdom to help a couple under our leadership at the church who was leaning towards divorce, yet the church was hung up on my theological differences. They are unprepared constantly. The issue is that their theology gets in the way of truly caring for people. They’ve missed the whole idea of Jesus. Right-thinking is such a shallow, low-level perch. Such an elementary way to see the world. Yet that is TVC’s idol (and many other Acts29 churches). When we were struggling, I could care less about their caring policy, what they thought was truth, etc. I just wanted someone to listen and give us some big hugs. We found that outside of the church and it was a better picture of Jesus than I ever got at the Village.”
@ Lydia:
I think you are attributing to me remarks that Matt Chandler made. I’m sorry if what I wrote wasn’t clear.
Gram3 wrote:
Ha! Perhaps not. He’s a Calvinist through and through (well, from what I know), but he thinks there are more important things in the world to talk about.
I was pleasantly surprised by the answer.
Patrice wrote:
Hah! I’ll wager that the three of us could argue politics like three Jews in Tel Aviv and still come up with a consensus of sound compromise.
pcapastor wrote:
These are the words of a man with a very warped view of doctrine and practice. It is a sick, sick thing to value a particular understanding of particular doctrines and then just let everything else slide.
IMO this explains Piper’s support and defense of Doug Wilson which was outrageous if anyone really cares about the true Gospel. I do not believe that John Piper does value the true Gospel as he should because he values the idols of doctrine that he has developed an propagated. Those doctrines are his identity, and he will not let them be examined. And he does not care how many people are hurt.
Absolutely chilling words from an influential Christian.
@ Jeff S:
You have written some good stuff about the problem with some of Piper’s views on your blog, if I am speaking with the right Jeff. Aside from Calvinism, he is toxic when it comes to abuse/women.
Beakerj wrote:
I had a great “disappointment with God” experience over just this. I prayed long and hard, and the paedophile never changed. In fact — he eventually did far worse than before. If only —Calvinism, then I’d have a good explanation — God predestined Ron to reprobation before creation, and ordained all the evil Ron did to come to pass, for God’s own greater glory. But I don’t like what that says about God.
*insert curse word here*
Images of child pornography are not protected under First Amendment rights, and are illegal contraband under federal law. Section 2256 of Title 18, United States Code, defines child pornography as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor (someone under 18 years of age). Visual depictions include photographs, videos, digital or computer generated images indistinguishable from an actual minor, and images created, adapted, or modified, but appear to depict an identifiable, actual minor. Undeveloped film, undeveloped videotape, and electronically stored data that can be converted into a visual image of child pornography are also deemed illegal visual depictions under federal law.
Does this mean that drawings/artistic renderings, said to be of fictional characters, *are* legal?
No, wait, I didn’t read far enough.
Notably, the legal definition of sexually explicit conduct does not require that an image depict a child engaging in sexual activity. A picture of a naked child may constitute illegal child pornography if it is sufficiently sexually suggestive. Additionally, the age of consent for sexual activity in a given state is irrelevant; any depiction of a minor under 18 years of age engaging in sexually explicit conduct is illegal.
gives me hope that even “artistic” renderings (i.e. drawings, paintings, pen-and-ink, drawn-on-computer) of supposedly fictional characters would be covered under this law.
Eagle wrote:
Go ahead. If you want my real name, you can use it. email me at rjmeredith3382@gmail.com
Can I recommend a small book called “The New Calvinists: Changing the Gospel” written by ES Williams and published by the Wakeman Trust(who have offices in the USA). In seven short chapters, the author examines the teachings of Tim Keller, John Piper, Mark Driscoll and a couple of UK based movements (one of which has links with Acts29) and shows how they are at variance with Scripture. It is well worth reading.
@ Gram3:
Piper is thought of as a sort of god in the YRR movement. He sort of reminds me of Peter Seller’s Chauncey but in an opposite way. He wrecks havoc all over with young people and ends up tearing families apart but just blithley floats around totally unaware. I ahve first hand experience with this in my own family when they left wheaton to go and study/work with him and about 10 years of testimonials from many whose teens were introduced to Piper in youth group or college who decided their parents did not know the true Gospel and shunned them to a certain extent.
People try to blow this off as cage stage Calvinism. But if a true teaching of Jesus Christ causes a cage stage of destruction, it is truth?
I think he has been far more damaging in the long run that even Driscoll. WE can point to Driscoll as obvious. With Piper we ahve to spend lots of time deciphering what he is actually saying when he speaks. He is so flowery, verbose with lots of arm waving passion and he comes off sincere but what is he really saying? He claims 7 pt Calvinism. Whatever that is.
Dave A A wrote:
No kidding.
Jeff S wrote:
So do you think that people have different off ramps from the Piper highway? I mean that to me his whole thing has been contrived from the first time I watched a video of the man.
Is it that people, like Piper himself, give him a pass on the outrageous idiocy because they like other stuff he says? How does that work?
pcapastor wrote:
Do you care to extrapolate this? What in your interactions led you to this conclusion?
@ Jeff S:
Ahh, there it is!
Dave A A wrote:
Maybe you don’t worship the same god (small ‘g’ intentional) they do. I know I don’t.
Okay, I read this post. I wanted to curl up into a little ball, but I read it. Thank you for the trigger warnings. I needed to steel myself.
And I haven’t read the comments yet, but the profile of a pedophile reminded me of Josh Duggar (not saying he is, not saying he isn’t) when it said the pedophile’s first offense is typically *before* age 15. Duggar was 14, I believe, or…?
Jeff S wrote:
Bingo. If Chandler left tomorrow that system is still in place. I learned this the hard way dealing with megas years ago.
@ pcapastor:
Thank you. We need more pastors with sort of courage.
@ Patrice:
Hee Hee. If you ever find some socialists who won’t want power to micromanage others, let me know.
pcapastor wrote:
Bow! Bing! Yes, the biggest insult from that: Liberal Feminist.
Muff Potter wrote:
I’d hang with you two anyday.
Lydia wrote:
Certainly he has. Piper and Grudem are the Bobbsey Twin purveyors of relational poison that lies behind Driscoll and the (Calvinist) Mahaney and Chandler and every other Acts29 or Gospel Glitterati gaga boy. Piper and Grudem teach these young men that they are gods to be obeyed, and in turn the boys return their praise to Piper and Grudem and the other Gospel Glitterati. It is totally a transaction of egos. A perpetual motion machine of destruction that gains momentum through each iteration until it collapses. OldJohnJ will have to correct that metaphor, but I think you know what I mean.
@ Lydia:
To paraphrase a former pastor of mine: When your heart is as filled with love and generosity as that person you call a liberal feminist, then I will consider what you have to say on whatever topic. But otherwise, you have no basis to complain about them, for they are doing what Jesus taught us to do.
Lydia wrote:
🙂
Lydia wrote:
Well, judging from reports from behind the scenes political machinations by Piper and Grudem, I would say that the flowery words are a mask for raw political ambition. Grudem doesn’t have the vocabulary or the gesticulation, but his comes out in scholarese that makes him seem so theologically deep.
@ Bob M:
Bob M, I want you to know that no matter what I think or have experienced with Piper I have benefited greatly from your comments and am so glad you are here.
(Are there two T’s in benefitted?)
Jeff S wrote:
That is my hope also, but I’m afraid it will take a lot more publicized incidents to drive home the lesson.
Formerly Anonymous made a good post this morning
formerly anonymous wrote:
Others have made the same point here today and I agree, this apology fails because they believe they it is an operational error when instead it is an error in principle. As anonymous indicates the operational errors will continue, the structure will exhibit more cracks because of the extremely flawed foundation.
ps It is debatable whether they even believe it is an operational failure.
@ Gram3:
I remember reading some book of Grudems long ago where he was going into a deep psuedo scholarly explanation about submission. Basically one of his illustrations to prove hierarchy and why it is really benign— was to claim that God submits to us. One of the illustrations he is used is when parents help their children with their homework, they are submitting to their children. There. Now, it does not hurt so bad when you are required to submit to husbands and pastors. See, God does it too when HE helps us!!!
There are people who will read this rot and fall for it. They are so focused on structure, heirarchy, doctrine and their place in all of it, they really make no sense if we are careful to think it through. They are positioning themselves as godlike
The Apology: “Specifically, as it pertains to her desire for an annulment, we know that it would have served her better to have a clearer understanding from us as to what we do and do not consider biblical grounds for divorce or what we understand the Scriptures to define as divorce.”
Why do they keep mentioning the “d” word? It comes across as if they believe annulment = divorce. Is this what they believe?
Gram3 wrote:
I would disagree with the “raw ambition” characterization.
Lydia wrote:
That is very kind of you. Yes, I think there is.
Bridget wrote:
Good questions.
Shannon H. wrote:
Because they are rewriting the narrative. It is purposeful. It will always be referred to as Karen’s divorce.
I am starting to wonder if this is actionable from a legal standpoint? They are not even recognizing the State of Texas laws for Karen. They are not even using “alledged” divorce.
Lydia wrote:
They are lying.
Lydia wrote:
It’s a somewhat tongue-in-cheek claim. This article sums it up: http://quotestore.blogspot.com/2006/02/what-does-john-piper_19.html
Muff Potter wrote:
Hah. Let’s all go to Tel Aviv and give it a try. Sounds like fun!
Gram3 wrote:
You might enjoy reading The Haj by Leon Uris.
The way these guys operate is almost scripted from Uris’s book.
Gram3 wrote:
To be clear, my quote was not about Piper, but about TVC and how the church behaved. In particular, I am concerned with how the church treats domestic victims: the victims are disciplined while the abusers are held in good standing because of the “appearance of repentance” (I believe that may even be a quote from TVC).
People just have no clue when it comes to how victims are dealt with by the church until they experience it. In this case, it has gone public and the evidence is all there, thanks to Karen. My hope is that the next time people here of a victim leaving a marriage, they won’t be so quick to assume the church handled it well.
But regarding Piper- I think a lot of people are attracted to his style of speech (I am definitely not!) and his appearance of humility. Others, I believe, are attracted by his focus on the holiness and desire to see God glorified. The latter can be very important to someone who has lived a very selfish life and has experienced the release and joy that comes from surrendering to God. If Piper was the one to deliver that message into his or her life, it’s going to be hard to go against him or look at him honestly.
As an example and with vulnerability (please be gentle!), I *still* struggle with this in regards to RC Sproul. I cannot tell you how his teaching has impacted my life in a positive way. I’ve listened to him for years, and his teaching of the Bible has inspired me to be a better person, a better thinker, a better servant, and a better worshiper. I value this very much. And yet, he still allows his son to be a big part of his ministry, and his son has done and taught some horrid things. So I have this wonderful series of teachings Sproul did on philosophy that have really been positive in my life. I want to share those with my wife. Do we listen to them, or do I throw them out because of his poor discernment with his son? It’s a real struggle for me. I understand not wanting to let a teacher who has blessed you go . . .
But returning to Piper, I am probably a little more charitable toward him than you are. I think he actually probably *is* actually a humble guy, but his great downfall is being raised to heights he is not equipped to handle. His teachings are dangerous, we both agree, and yet the damage would be very limited if he were a small town pastor. I think his great error is that he focuses on the “glory of God” (and important truth) to the exclusion of the dignity of the individual, and all of his errors (including his treatment of women) stem from there.
This can be a very inviting error of emphasis. In a world that suffocates in self-exaltation, the importance of the glory of God is a breath of fresh air. Once people latch on, they are stuck. And if Piper was just once voice among many, it wouldn’t matter so much. There could be give and take, and people could balance out his errors- and he might even listen. But the reality is, he is a king on a hill, and there are very few people in a position that can influence him to bring him away from his doctrinal edge. And now he’s super committed to some really crazy ideas, and who can help him out of this mess? He’s now accountable to all the public things he’s taught and people have re-taught. It takes a lot to course correct when you’ve made some of the statements he has. I don’t envy him.
Do I sound too sympathetic toward Piper? Maybe. I think he’s a mediocre pastor who was raised to the top and used for great suffering. I’m not saying he doesn’t bear responsibility for this, but I think the greater community wanted what he’s selling, and that’s why he’s as popular as he is.
Recently, some materials were purchased for use at my church from a ministry associated with Piper. I reviewed the materials, and while they aren’t horrible, I noticed they were completely skewed toward talking about sin and forgiveness, with nothing about horizontal relationships with human beings. I spotted this emphasis right away because that’s what I expect from Piper, and I sent an email to the organization. Their response surprised me somewhat, because after a few emails back and forth, the person I was corresponding with told me that my concerns would be “a topic of the next staff meeting, and likely a few more after that”. Now will anything change? I don’t know- but what it confirmed in me is something I’ve already suspected: people do not realize that the theology of Piper naturally leads toward ignoring horizontal relationships. But this man, at least, was awakened enough to at least have the conversation.
So that’s a long winded way of saying this: I think the way off the Piper highway is to show people that his focus on the glory of God is not a fully Biblical emphasis, and it lacks in a very important part of what God wants us to do: to love one another and build healthy, loving horizontal relationships. Whether people reject Piper or not ultimately, I don’t know, but the more people are focused on loving one another, the less powerful Piper’s voice will be, and his effects can be reduced down to the small town pastor he probably should have been.
Shannon H. wrote:
Definitely.
Gram3 wrote:
I see nothing to correct. When reading this I thought of a black hole. Black holes are not very discriminating: they devour everything in their neighborhood. The trouble with any such metaphor is there is a lot of collateral damage suffered by the innocent. In spite of what has been described and documented there must be a few innocents in the midst of TVC. Still, my sympathies are with the abused.
@ Muff Potter:
He wrote Exodus, right? I have not read The Haj. Putting on list now.
I think most people I know view the idea of “annulment” as a post New Testament idea, and that any teaching Jesus might have made on the subject of divorce would equally apply to annulment.
And this is probably what the “apology” meant by not being clearer on their views of divorce.
Jeff S wrote:
I think there is a lot of truth to this. I know many of the teens/college students I know who got totally wrapped up with Piper grew up in the seeker movements. I liken it to Rick Warren style to John Piper. (Although years later Piper is promoting Warren!)
In fact, I would say the rapid rise of the YRR movement was largely in response to the shallow seeker movement of 70’s and 80’s.
Lydia wrote:
For a short while after college graduation, I lived with a bunch of people (2 couples, 3 singles) in a big ole house and we shared dinner-making, some groceries, rent, utilities, domestic duties, and a couple of cars.
In the end, we had to make a schedule for each job/privilege because 2 people kept conveniently forgetting and 2 others kept haranguing/taking. That was a kind of micromanagement, I think, but it was the only way to live in some kind of harmony.
I’m glad I did it but it wasn’t enjoyable enough to continue. 😉
@ oldJohnJ:
It’s so awesome when I sound like I know something when I had absolutely no idea of a black hole! I had something more like Rube Goldberg in mind. Gram the Accidental Astrophysicist. Thanks for that. When we meet, my mind will do math and physics a lot better, I trust.
@ roebuck:
@ Muff Potter:
I really appreciate our reformed friends around here, but to me it seems God’s benevolence must take a serious hit it you take that theology to its conclusion. I’d rather have doubts about His omnipotence– and if He’s as good as I hope, I trust He’ll forgive me that.
Jeff S wrote:
More people need to do this. And eventually it will make a difference. I did this concerning something similar with a worldview textbook in Christian school and the faculty had no idea who the quoted people were. They just trusted the publisher.
Lydia wrote:
Piper also did a lot of speaking at Passion conferences, if I’m not mistaken.
I actually had a conversation recently with a FB friend who did not like something I said about Piper, and he told me exactly that: that Piper’s views on the glory of God had tremendous impact on his life. When I pointed out some of Piper’s teachings (about the dignity of man, divorce, etc), he was surprised and didn’t know about those things. I’m hopeful that this person will re-consider what he thinks of Piper as time goes on, but it takes a long time to shake the power and influence of someone like Piper in your life.
Which is why I believe the problem is larger than Piper himself.
Bob M wrote:
I accept that. There are people in professional interaction with them who have a different perspective. For me as neither a personal friend or professional colleague (not likely) I can’t say. However, when I look at how they have ruthlessly promoted themselves and their toxic doctrine such that they are the theologians of the YRR, I can only characterize that as ruthless ambition. That is how I view it from the half of humanity that they deem their servants and subordinates.
@ Patrice:
I had a similar situation while in college living with 4 other female students in an old house. We were all socialists back then sharing rent and bathroom schedules!
Whenever someone brings up Piper all I think about is the first time I heard of him. It was after the collapse of the Minneapolis bridge and his comment to his daughter about it. I haven’t felt it necessary to pay attention to him ever again.
Lydia wrote:
That as well as emphasizing the importance of keeping your word, because who can argue with that. Even though it is a red herring. The thing with you and I is that we have seen this played out so many times in so many contexts that we can almost write the dialogue for the next scene.
Lydia wrote:
I was actually pretty humbled in that conversation. Originally, I just contacted the person and asked what their affiliation was with Piper. He was quite nice, explained to me that there was an affiliation and that they all respected Piper very much. I simply thanked them for the info and I didn’t say anything. Basically, I just don’t like arguing with Piper fans because it feels like arguing with a wall.
But I reconsidered, and felt like I was doing a disservice not to voice my concerns. I did, and he responded four days later, with an apology for not getting back sooner, but that he really wanted to think and pray about what I said. He did not try to change my opinion at all or even argue in defense of their materials. He just thanked me for my perspective and said they would be reviewing my emails as a staff.
I feel a little sheepish that I almost avoided sending an email to avoid conflict. The downside of being a peacemaker I suppose. I was grateful that he actually did consider my words.
@ Jeff S:
He was probably not as familiar with the CBMW Piper. You know what I mean? As in: Women should take abuse for a season and a wife should show respect for her husbands leadership position and politely decline his suggestion for a threesome.
That is the Piper I know and cannot stand.
you and *me.* I learned me some grammar once.
@ Lydia:
Yeah he did. I read The Haj some years back. The hardcover copy I got from our local library is always checked out, and to this day it day shows signs of repair to the binding and pages.
Patrice wrote:
I have wondered the same thing.
Jeff S wrote:
A man who is truly humble will see that he has exceeded his capabilities and is harming people through his incompetence. An EMS guy who tries neurosurgery when neurosurgeons are available is not a humble person. It doesn’t matter how much the EMS tech goes on about how he is glorifying God.
I see no evidence for humility in Piper or Mahaney. I hear a lot of God-exalting talk, but I see a lot of man-exalting walk. Really, who writes a book about humility and then goes on a book tour and sells his humility. What kind of humble person busts the Eternal Son to private so that he can then turn around and make The Females be perpetually under him. His teaching and his actions betray his profession of humility.
@ Gram3:
Fair enough. I agree that if he were truly humble, he would not he ought not doing what he is.
But the real question I think is this: “What is Piper selling that people find so compelling? that they would put him in the position he’s in?”
The answer is probably closer to a works-righteousness model than many would realize.
@ Gram3:
Do you know why I was expecting some sort of “apology”? Because there has been nothing but scandal after scandal in that movement for the last 4 years. And more and more people are stepping up to take on the thinking and behavior in that movement. More and more stories are coming out they cannot ignore. Chandler has many professional and financial ties to the legacies of Driscoll, Mahaney and others.
And for what it is worth, I am noticing some subtle backing away from the YRR from some SBC leaders who are trying to change the narrative. They now seem to be focused on racism and unity. (Comp never goes away) Those are the two issues they are promoting now as if the last 15 years never happened. The money is now flowing as freely as it once was. Churches are divided, the church plants are bleeding red and it is not a pretty picture. They wrecked havoc and now want to pretend it never happened and look at us, we are so into unity now.
Lydia wrote:
NOT flowing!
Jeff S wrote:
Jesus said that the mark of his disciples is their love for one another, not the purity of their doctrine. This tells me that there is something deeply flawed about his theological outlook and that perhaps he is not capable of a mutual relationship and maybe he cannot even comprehend what that might look like. His verson of “one anothering” is always a hierarchical one, but Jesus explicitly taught his disciples that hierarchy is *not* part of the Kingdom.
In other words, again Piper makes no sense but he manages to sound very pious and bibley.
Sproul, Sr. lost his way some decades ago when Ligonier took off and he became a thing. Fame is an addictive drug, and good theology is no protection from it. In my view, Sr. wants to have it both ways in the PCA. Go to GA and make like the Big Cheese while having what is an independent Presbyterian church. He is his own microdenomination.
Jeff S wrote:
I think you’re correct. I’ve been thinking about a cohabiting couple in my former Acts29 church. They had, IIRC, 7 exes (not in Texas) between them, and also strongly opposed any gubmint involvement in marriage. But they (and pastors) had a problem– the man played wonderful instrument and a spot was open on the worship team. (This spot was opened up by another man undergoing discipline/excommunication at same time for “running while gay”, but I digress.) So a pastor performed.a license-free wedding ceremony, and next Sunday the new husband was performing. Now– if this couple has split up since then– they would need no legal divorce. Do pastors do divorces? If they’d moved to another church first, and the new pastor didn’t recognize the marriage, would he have to marry them first, before he could divorce them? But that’d be like forcing someone to stay a church-member just so you could excommunicate them…. I’m getting confused now… Really, I’m surprised nobody has yet accused Karen of “living in sin” with Mr Root, since they were never officially/legally married… Oops… Don’t wanna give ’em ideas…
Lydia wrote:
Thank you. Don’t know that I am especially courageous. Most times I feel (and demonstrate) the opposite. But thank you.
Jeff S wrote:
Piper is selling what people always sell: a means for people to think well of themselves. This is what Tom’s shoes, Whole Foods, Marlboro, and every other marketer is selling. They are selling you the way to your Ideal Self.
In Piper’s case, he is selling what amounts to a huge Humblebrag. Words that simultaneously have the appearance of humility but which actually are not actually that. Piper is selling the elite status of being among the Most Humble and God-glorifying in contrast to the other man-centered liberal Christians. Or some other elitist dichotomy. The point is that he has found a sweet spot of insecurity or arrogance or both among a substantial portion of young people. Young people want to be part of something Big and Important or Deep and Mysterious. That is why young people are very vulnerable to cults.
@ lydia:
@ Elizabeth Lee:
Maybe there’s something to it, then. Hah
Dave A A wrote:
I have zero doubts about the omnipotence-power of a God who created Cartesian space itself and all the non-Euclidean folds in between those spaces. What I have doubts about is whether or not He requires constant glorification from his creatures. I would expect that kind of insecurity from the gods of the Greeks & the Canaanites, but not the God of Abraham.
Muff Potter wrote:
Thank you. I love it when you weigh in because you ‘plain it better than I can.
Gram3 wrote:
Yes, exactly. And this is, of course, works-righteousness.
Dave A A wrote:
Oh. My. Word.
@ Gram3:
He uses a different method and most miss it but it is no different than what Warren sold. Warren starts off Purpose Driven life with “This book is not about you” but then the rest of the book is about you.
Piper does similar by making people think he is focusing on God’s Sovereignty. But it is really about whether or not YOU are showing that you are focusing on God’s Sovereignty– as he is.
Yes, it is an elistism thing. It comes out more clearly in young people around him who have few adult filters hence the cage stage types who claim the rest of us do not know the true Gospel.
Bob M wrote:
Hi Bob M. Probably best that I not go into any of the personal conversations/observations/interactions, I’ve had with him, except to say that after meeting him personally I went back and began to re-read the books of his that I owned with new eyes. And creative declarations of his like (I am paraphrasing) “What is the chief end of man? It is not, as the Westminster Catechism teaches, ‘To glorify and enjoy God,’ but ‘To glorify God BY enjoying Him'” began to seem less “creative” and more and more destructive to me.
Jeff S spoke above about Piper’s attraction being the subtle teaching of a works righteousness and that is what I began to sense as well, namely that now, according to Piper, our being able to glorify God is dependent upon our ability to enjoy Him! That is, if you think about it, a crushing burden. I can’t and don’t enjoy God very often — and now Piper is telling me that my very standing before Him is dependent upon my ability to enjoy Him? Whatever. There was also something about his main mentor in seminary being Daniel Fuller, who infamously combined gospel and law into one category — and that stuff is poison.
Another example was re-reading his book, “Future Grace,” and this time (influenced, I confess, by my recent personal interactions with him) no longer seeing it as a positive and creative contribution, but as a stunningly arrogant and destructive one. The main thesis of that book — that the Christian Church has been in error from the very beginning when it placed gratitude to God for His grace as a motivation for obedience — is so stunningly arrogant that I could no longer regard anything Piper had to say with any real seriousness. He put himself in the Pat Robertson category with his “I and I alone — and those who are wise enough to follow me — understand the heart of the faith” tone.
Give me the Heidelberg Catechism and its Guilt, Grace, Gratitude construct over Piper’s bizarre 20th century (but arguably as ancient as the Judaizers and the Semi-Pelagians) construct, or give me death, as they say.
Lydia wrote:
Took the words right out of my keyboard!
Gram3 wrote:
Yes! I think he feeds both insecurity and arrogance but it feels like having stability and wisdom. For boys/men. Separation from “the rest” inside Christianity, from all women, and all other men globally. A wretch who has been specially chosen by the God of the Universe to be a son of God. How can one not humblebrag about that?
Honestly, I think that’s a fundamental issue with the Acts 29 guys, and the Gothardites, SGM, Quiverfuls, Federalists, Reconstructionists, Driscoll, McDonald, etc, etc. Rather a large portion of the Evangelical community, really.
But Piper says it with flowers and he lets the other groups do most of the down&dirty. Well, except for announcing the real reasons for natural disasters. Oy
Muff Potter wrote:
That is exactly the kind of god that they have created in their own image, just like the pagans did. Then they fiercely guard and defend the god they have made. The God of Abraham is a God who is above all comprehension and who condescended to become one of us an dwell with us. The pagan gods keep their high places, but the God of the universe descended to us.
Gram3 wrote:
Thank you. Agreed! Pray for me. I say that as sincerely as one anonymous person can ask another! Off-line conversations would be enlightening I am sure.
Gram3 wrote:
Ha ha ha ha! No comment.
pcapastor wrote:
I have read and re-read your post. I have boiled it down to this: You take umbrage with the contention that Piper teaches this:
“my very standing before Him is dependent upon my ability to enjoy Him.”
I have read all of his books on this subject, and listened to his message on “Let your passion be single” many times in order to understand what he means. And I humbly, gently submit that you are misrepresenting what he believes and teaches. What he believes and teaches is that Pursuing happiness in God and Glorifying God are the same thing. I don’t see the works-righteousness of my salvation depending on my affections.
I am seminary trained, and I was in ministry for many years, so I am not just a sheeple who is enamored with him. And I don’t think that he gets a fair shake from a lot of people here. I know the risk I am taking is doing this. I have avoided defending him many times in the past, as I have watched many posters describe their hatred of all things Piper, so I will most likely not read a whole lot more. That, and I have a huge personal issue I am dealing with that will take most of my time. So please do not interpret my future silence as running away.
@ Bob M:
My issue with Piper is that he views the dignity of human beings as unimportant.
http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/reflections-on-the-concept-of-self-worth
“The imago dei is that about man which gives him the potential to be redemptively loved by God and to consciously depend in gratitude on God’s mercy. It is cited in unbelievers only in Genesis 9:6 (to justify capital punishment) and James 3:9 (where the implication is that we ought not curse man). It is not an important concept to the writers of Scripture . . .”
This right here is a huge foundational error, and why he can teach doctrines that ignore the suffering they might inflict on people (such as his divorce doctrine, especially holding abuse victims in permanent marriages).
Bob M wrote:
I hope you will be ok, Bob.
pcapastor wrote:
Oh wow. I had this dicussion with someone long ago about Piper changing the focus subtly and it causing destruction. Dying of cancer? Enjoy God! Raped? Enjoy God and be satisfied in Him! It is all part of His Sovereign plan for you to glorify Him.
This discussion started after reading Future Grace (and I agree with yhou about the burdens placed on people in that book) and discussing Piper’s most famous declaration:
“God Is Most Glorified In Us When We Are Most Satisfied In Him”
Instead of accepting it at face value (whatever that is) we parsed it based on his other words/writings. I see it as somewhat Gnostic. You have to have special knowledge to understand this and do it. The guy has done serious damage to untold teens who bought every word because it is an impossible task. Some of them became athiests later.
I agree about taking the gratitude and guilt over this stuff.
BTW: I have met Piper several times. I tower over him so that was awkward, too. :o)
Bob M wrote:
Fair enough. My summary of what I have read from Piper is probably a bit imprecise. And I won’t belabor this point (honestly, I will pray for the huge personal issue you are facing), but your summary of his teaching, “Pursuing happiness in God and glorifying God are the same thing,” is no less problematic. Maybe it is just our queer little conservative presbyterian world, but such a construct would keep a man from being ordained in our presbyteries. We can bat that around a bit at some point if you would like, but hopefully you can at least see that his construct is peculiar to him, whatever pedigree (picking and choosing this bit from Edwards, that part from Fuller, etc.) he can claim behind it.
But I don’t want any of that to overshadow what I hope you can sense is the (seems to me) universal respect with which people here at TWW have for you, despite whatever differences of perspective we might have about this or that.
Patrice wrote:
thank you. I have been in communication with Dee about the issue. She has provided some help and some advice.
The latest from Christianity Today on TVC: still doesn’t sound much like an apology.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2015/may-web-only/matt-chandler-apologizes-for-village-churchs-decision-to-di.html?utm_source=ctdirect-html&utm_medium=Newsletter&utm_term=9455833&utm_content=358426273&utm_campaign=2013
Bob M wrote:
MOD: Delete: Don’t talk about moderation.
Fair enough. My summary of what I have read from Piper is probably a bit imprecise. And I won’t belabor this point (honestly, I will pray for the huge personal issue you are facing), but your summary of his teaching, “Pursuing happiness in God and glorifying God are the same thing,” is no less problematic. Maybe it is just our weird little conservative presbyterian world, but such a construct would keep a man from being ordained in our presbyteries. We can bat that around a bit at some point if you would like, but hopefully you can at least see that his construct is peculiar to him, whatever pedigree (picking and choosing this bit from Edwards, that part from Fuller, etc.) he can claim behind it.
But I don’t want any of that to overshadow what I hope you can sense is the (seems to me) universal respect with which people here at TWW have for you, despite whatever differences of perspective we might have about this or that.
Jeff S wrote:
Jeff S wrote:
[I am really having “issues” today — pardon my internet incompetence. Messed up the formatting while trying to comment above, and will try again.]
Oh no. I did not know that he taught this. Please no. Please, please no. I do not want to live in world where Christians even HINT that non-Christians don’t possess the image of God. Please, please, please no.
Lydia wrote:
Thank you for another report about the real-world consequences of Piper’s invented constructs. Yikes. “Not many of you should presume to be teachers,” indeed.
“God Is Most Glorified In Us When We Are Most Satisfied In Him”???? What the heck????
How about “God is most glorified in us when we are ACTUALLY HELPING OTHER PEOPLE IN SELF-FORGETFULNESS INSTEAD OF OBSESSING IN GOOD ‘CHRISTIAN HEDONISM’ STYLE OVER OUR OWN PERSONAL SENSE OF SATISFACTION”?
Seriously, and I know I am beating a dead horse, but if some fellow appeared on the floor of presbytery in my denomination to be examined for ordination and presented such a construct, we would all say, “Young man, go back and study the Scriptures some more, and come back when you have an understanding of the Christian life that is recognizably Christian.”
pcapastor wrote:
This whole discussion around Piper/HyperCalvinism has me wondering… why did God create Man/Woman in the first place? Where does free will fit in? Did God just capriciously ‘elect’ some people and not others? Why? How does this fit in with concepts of a ‘loving God’? Etc., etc. etc.
A brief apology/apologetic for so many comments from me about John Piper on a thread about Karen Hinkley and TVC:
I do think all of this is relevant in that Matt Chandler claims John Piper as one of his biggest influences/mentors/heroes/etc.
roebuck wrote:
Hopefully it will suffice to say that any answers from Calvinists that are consistent with the answers of the historic Church (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant) would be helpful answers; and any answers that are utterly out-of-step with the sort of answers normal Christians everywhere and in every place have given, would be unhelpful (and possibly destructive and hyper-Calvinistic) answers.
pcapastor wrote:
See, I told you we could have some fun conversations!
Bob M wrote:
I hope you are sustained through this time. I will be praying for you.
Bob M wrote:
I’m truly sorry about your personal difficulty and totally understand your wish to unplug to attend to that. I do not hate Piper. I hate what he teaches, I hate the corrosive effects it has on the souls of women and men, and I think that he teaches many false things that hurt real people. He relegates over half the church to servile status. I wish that you could hear what he says with the ears and life of a woman who has had to live under the Spiritual Tyranny of these men and who is called rebellious when she asks questions and desires to study what the Bible actually says instead of what Piper and Grudem and the others have said. Truly I wish that you all could just accept us as full heirs with all that entails.
Bob M wrote:
That’s good to know. I appreciate your openness with us, and pray that you will find resolution and peace in the situation you face.
pcapastor wrote:
Precisely. Chandler did not come up with this mess out of nowhere. Grudem gets to share top billing, too.
@ pcapastor:
Just what I was hoping you would say ;-;
Ok, I haven’t read all the comments here so I hope what I say won’t be redundant. I think one of the underlying problems as to why the elders treated Karen in the fashion that they did is because she is a woman. And now I’m going to say something that might be offensive to some Christians, but I believe it to be on the mark. The very theology on gender roles and marriage that The Village Church teaches and upholds is the PROBLEM – a strict form of Complementarianism. Women are to be silent and pray for their husbands even when they’re indulging in serious sin. They point to the verse about “…being won over without a word by the behavior of their wives.” There is some extreme teaching out there in this regard that silence, even when the husband is verbally abusing and very well on the path to *physically* abusing the wife and children, that wifey (misspelling intentional) is to speak kindly to him and cook him his favorite meal.
In the case of the Roots, Karen had the AUDACITY to step outside the carefully partitioned walls of TVC’s brand of Complementarianism. She had the AUDACITY to think for herself instead giving that privilege over to the elders. That is a NO NO for women within this parochial system and demands swift retribution. She was supposed to see this experience as an opportunity, or (as in the video with Lauren Chandler on what to do when your husband commits sexual sin) a “PRIVILEGE to be the hands and feet of Jesus to minister to her husband.” And she was supposed to remember that she too has committed sin, although according to Lauren Chandler, it might be “prettier” sin than his. This is what the term “sin leveling” means. It ends up being a case of tu quoque, or as children would say in the playground, “I know I am, but what are you?” In this case, whatever Karen’s stance would be toward Jordan, the retort would be: But you must look at your own sin. Haven’t YOU sinned? What responsibility should YOU own up to that contributed to Jordan’s sin? It is a form of shrewd manipulation designed to put the woman in her place. I daresay that the Mark Driscoll take on women is still alive and well within this Acts 29 locale. Driscoll may not be there, but his mark remains.
All of this to say that the very teachings on Complementarianism, i.e.: Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood are the underlying cause of Karen’s mistreatment, in my opinion. These teachings, especially in their updated, reactionary form, are at the very root (no pun intended) of the problem. Misogyny is alive and well at The Village Church and the Calvinist Network.
Gram3 wrote:
Right you are, Gram3. And in a complementary world, if a woman truly leads, loves, or serves well, she is deemed controlling or rebellious by those bullies when she acts outside their approved parameters or so-called “care”.
All this discussion of TVC reminds me of a situation in my real life. I think TVC should make sure that their liability insurance is paid up and way more than they think they need.
Several years ago, one of my family friends was accused and convicted of inappropriate behavior with a child under his care. The incident was an inadvertent touch, but he was honest in the trial about the incident and was convicted. He is currently a registered sex offender, and he is willing to abide by the rules that the state has set forth, including not being around children. This is from a man who absolutely loves children and has an amazing gift for teaching and engaging them. He gave it up, willingly, for their good. That means that the children of my family cannot be around him.
The church that he was working for had not held him responsible for following their child safety protocols and precautions, and they knew that there were parents who were concerned about my friend. The child’s parents filed a civil case against the church and won a hefty sum of money. Cause you know the church has liability insurance.
On further reflection, MPT sure saw the truth in what TVC was REALLY saying
http://matthewpaulturner.com/2015/05/29/so-can-we-discuss-that-apology-from-the-village-church-because-it-really-missed-the-point/
@ Dave A A:
In most states, including Texas, living together for some period of time and identifying the other as “my spouse”, “my husband”, or “my wife” constitutes a common law marriage, as in a marriage in fact. In some states, to end that marriage requires a divorce in court.
Darlene wrote:
I agree.
Re: Karen Hinkley’s annulment — Does any honest person expect her to remain married to a man who is so completely not who he falsely and deliberately represented himself to be, whose entire persona was just a well-practiced cover? To stay with a man who began molesting little children at age 9 (by his own admission)? Whose ENTIRE adult life (including probably his marriage and his choice of a ‘mission field’) has been organized around manipulating people and situations to place him in contact with the most vulnerable young children? (And on other people’s donated funds, no less!) To sleep with a man who is actually turned on by fantasies of 4-yeat-old girls? No way.
Re: Josh Root’s ‘repentance’/rehabilitation — Does any sensible person in possession of even cursory facts of his life and the nature of long-term pedophilia honestly think this man can turn it around with a simple profession of sorrow when he is caught and some supposed supervision? To believe his confession is complete when his demonstrable track record is of first denying wrong-doing, then copping to a lesser offense only when caught? Is there any ACTUAL reason (other than the statement of an admitted life-long deceiver) that he has never physically molested any children? (Except, you know, just those two kids when he was 9!) Even IF he is truly remorseful, does that mean he is ‘cured’ and safe to have around children? If not, then WHY is it OK with TVC members that their pastors failed to disclose the nature of Jordan Root’s crimes for 3 months while he was in their midst with potential access to children? Does it make sense to ANYBODY that he is a member in good standing and not under church discipline while Karen was publicly defamed and painted as the bad guy? No way.
Re: Matt Chandler’s nonpology — For all those pointless words, mostly about the elders of TVC, you know who he didn’t show any compassion for? THE VICTIMS!!! Matt Chandler violated the Prime Directive.
Or, is it really all about roles and positions and power? Could it be that simple? Elders over people, husbands/men over wives/women, adults over children? Jordan’s okay because he’s ‘under’ the elders, but Karen is bad because she didn’t follow their playbook?
Why do so many not get this?
Darlene wrote:
No doubt about it! Couldn’t agree more!
dee wrote:
Having served in Acts 29 for three years, and having been exposed to the nuances of the MHC/A29 dysfunction, I immediately saw that this is not an apology. It’s damage control.
They are defiant in that they assert proudly that they stand by virtually of their philosophies, doctrines, and policies.
They don’t actually apologize for anything other than “not communicating well.” Which is sort of like trying to claim that “this was all just a big misunderstanding.”
They basically admit that this is a one-time thing (i.e. “letting” Karen go), and that it was really only because of the blogs and media.
It also sounds like a key reason why they are dropping this is the “technicality” that Ms. Hinkley legally got an annulment, not a divorce. The language of TVC’s covenant doesn’t include “annulment.” So, they can’t really say she violated the covenant because the State of Texas says she was never married, and certainly never divorced.
It will be interesting to see if the TVC membership covenant is modified in the weeks and months to come to specifically mention “annulment” in addition to “divorce.”
Jeff S wrote:
I’m glad your pastor feels that way. My only experience with a PCA church is one that has Reformed in the name and they are very, very “Reformed” but not very loving.
alethia wrote:
Child sexual abuse is the No. 1 reason that churches get sued every year according to the experts such as Church Mutual, the largest insurer of churches, and Richard Hammar (attorney) at Church Law & Tax.
http://www.churchlawandtax.com/blog/2015/may/top-5-reasons-churches-went-to-court-in-2014.html
@ pcapastor:
Yeah, I agree this is disturbing for multiple reasons. It’s basically a get-out-of-jail-free card as long as you can properly parse TULIP in public. Definitely Calvinism over people.
I can testify from personal experience that this is exactly what happens – and I didn’t even read much Piper, just got into Neo-Calvinism in general. (I actually can’t stand Piper’s writing style, which kept me away from him. Seriously, from what I’ve read I think most of his 300+ page books could be condensed to about 30 pages or less.) You get caught in this neverending feedback loop where you’re constantly monitoring every emotional vagary you have and repenting of any bad ones. Historical Puritan writings do the exact same thing. Monitor, monitor, monitor until you can’t see anything except how horrible you are, and then they won’t give you any consolation/assurance AT ALL lest they accidentally lull a lost person into a false sense of security.
And big surprise, when you’re trapped in this headspace, you can’t serve, pray or be useful at all, because you’re never getting past the question of whether you’re saved or not.
And that’s why I went back to the Lutheran church. I found no grace at all in my three years in the PCA and Calvinism, just endless navel-gazing and self-flagellation. It was bad for me so I quit. I had to force myself to stop the feedback loop and walk away.
Finest illustration of how bad this got: it was only because of a conversation here with Jeff S. that I actually realized again that Jesus died for me. (Thanks, Jeff, in case you didn’t know. 🙂 ) I never doubted that my entire life…until encountering limited atonement, Neo-Calvinism and the Puritans.
BTW, thanks for coming back. I always enjoy your comments. It’s basically only because of you and Jeff S. that I didn’t write off the entire PCA as controlling and self-absorbed. I know what I said above is harsh. Thank you for being a sane clergyman in your denomination.
And I don’t know where your presbytery is, but I can tell you there’s plenty of Piper-worship and patriarchy- and Doug Wilson-dabbling in CT. (Though not as bad as the Baylys, thank God.)
Addendum @ pcapastor:
I would like to note that because I live in New England, I do find the Puritans fascinating historically (note my handle and Gravatar 😀 ) and love studying them from that perspective, but I just don’t read their theology for actual devotional or practical purposes anymore.
Agree also with how Piper sets up an impossible standard. A PCA elder’s wife I know, after reading Don’t Waste Your Life, said “everything I do is futile.” And in context, she didn’t mean “futile” in a salvific sense – she meant that she’s frittering away her time and not doing enough for God. She stays home to homeschool three school age children and believes this is God’s will for her family. I’m not sure how you can simultaneously believe that God calls you to do something, and that that exact same thing is “wasting your life.”
This is what Piper does to your brain.
@ An Attorney:
We no longer have “common law” around here. All the same, I’m chucking as I imagine the same pastors who scrutinize divorces also requiring a church ceremony to solemize breaking the vows. It could be a whole new industry.
An Attorney wrote:
Here are the handful of states that permit common law marriages:
http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/common-law-marriage.aspx
Most states do not permit them, including my state – California.
Hester wrote:
Thanks for the encouragement, Hester. Until recently I didn’t even know the PCA had churches in CT! You DEFINITELY made the right choice (I do remember other things you have written about your experience in your PCA church) to go back to the Lutheran Church.
Your testimony is powerful. Those are the stories that need to get out there. And I also hope that the Piper-worship and Doug Wilson patriarchy crap that you sense in the churches in CT will fade away quickly. I know where I am both of those things have reared their head at various points, and NEVER in a way that bears the fruit of the Holy Spirit. Never. Piper is wrong and misguided in some serious ways (as documented above), but Wilson is just flat-out evil. So I definitely distinguish between the two of them, by the way.
Hester wrote:
Good for you! Use them the way you are using them, and don’t use them the way you are not using them!
Hester wrote:
So, so sad. So damned sad.
His hero, Jonathan Edwards, doesn’t have the greatest track record in that regard either. Lots of needlessly tormented souls under his preaching.
Here are the “apology rules” for my young children in this house (it’s much simpler language for them):
1: What did you do wrong? Explain each thing in detail to a parent and the harmed and ask if they will forgive you.
2: What steps can you take to make reparations to the harmed?
3: What is your plan to avoid harming someone like this in the future?
Honestly we have seen a significant decrease in serious fights since we implemented this for any situation that escalates (don’t get me wrong–it’s still two young siblings–arguments still break out over the most unbelievable things).
Still.
I would very much like to see those questions answered by TVC. As of now, their response reminds me more of the very bitter “I’m SORRY!!!” “I FORGIVE you!!!!” type apologies that we used to hear from the girls before making them think about what they really did. The kind of apology that exists to appease the authorities, but doesn’t really mean anything……
@ pcapastor:
PCA Pastor, could you elaborate on that statement about Wilson being “flat-out evil”? I have been commenting over on his blog: Blog and Mablog, and find the mindset and brand of Christianity over there disturbing. Wilson and his compadres are Patriarchalists (mine own word, I know) to boot. The man seems to fall short of just despising women. At least that’s how I see it. Although I’d say he has a contempt for many things that don’t conform to his version of Christianity.
Gram3 wrote:
@gram3 I want to apologize. I kind of felt as though if I began mentioning Piper, that the discussion would go off topic and I would rile a lot of people. Please everyone forgive me. It may not be profitable for me to continue. I am sorry for your experience of “the spiritual tyranny of these men” and “being called rebellious” and all of the demeaning and degrading feelings that go along with that. I sincerely did not intend to stir that up. I personally don’t hold to his version of complementarianism. But I do appreciate most of his teaching, and I feel like if I even mention one thing, many begin to pile on their condemnatory views of him and would expect me to comment on each one. I can’t. I’m sure you have a life too and can’t be drawn into every fray. I do greatly support TWW and their desire to support victims and expose egregious wrong. But when I hear you say his teachings are toxic, I think the well is poisoned and our discussions probably would not be mutually beneficial. Neither of us would be able to convince the other. Yet, I have profited greatly from much that you have said, and I respect you more than you can imagine.
So, I will try to avoid sidetracking discussions like this and keep on point.
Hester wrote:
I can understand. I have felt similarly. Yet I don’t believe she is wasting her life, not for one second. I believe that what she is doing is one of the highest callings in life.
@ pcapastor:
I think part of the problem is there are so many homeschoolers in the CT PCA, and when you get enough homeschoolers you’ll eventually get classical education, and when you get classical education you’ll eventually get Doug Wilson. That’s not the entire explanation but it’s a factor.
I know one Quiverfull family too (11 kids), who are also Wilsonites. They would switch churches sometimes but they’ve spent a lot of time in one particular PCA congregation (not mine). The mother is emotionally abusive, and is a very different person depending on whether she’s in public or in private. Their eldest son is off in Moscow, ID at Wilson’s college, apparently distinguishing himself so he appears to be on track for some kind of bubblebot life in Wilson’s direct orbit. Their eldest daughter lives at home and her only real connection to other people is fan fiction on the internet, another daughter became anorexic around ~13yo, and a third “got out” and is estranged from them now, except she has serious issues because of the emotional abuse and recently tried to kill herself three times in one weekend.
So yeah, I don’t like Wilson either.
I can’t read Edwards. He screws up my head. I read one sermon of his on prayer 3-4 years ago and I’m still attempting to recover. (Totally serious BTW.) This is why I’ve never read The Religious Affections. So I can sympathize greatly with the stories of his parishioners.
Addendum @ pcapastor:
Though to be fair, I haven’t tried reading Edwards since coming out of the Neo-Calvinist headspace, so I might be able to read him now if I objectify him as intellectual/historical exercise.
@ pcapastor:
There are some. Not many. Most of them I suspect are pretty small. However, a few of their parishioners are pretty influential in certain circles, at least when I was there. An elder from one was a big guy on the board of the state homeschool organization at the time my mom served on that board.
Attention
Stop talking about moderation. It happens to all of us. Myself and the Deebs. We will clear things as fast as we can. With subject matter like this last week there will just be a lot of moderation.
Also, DO NOT try and game the system to avoid moderation. This will get you even more moderated.
Bob M wrote:
Sorry. I do not understand nor do I feel similarly, but I am trying to understand how this happens to people-this style of thinking.
The person I saw who was like this was a presbyterian (of some sort) pastor’s wife in our town. She was a musician who played organ and piano and taught piano, she did the usual pastor’s wife stuff, and she raised three children. I heard her say that she had been treated for depression for years and that she never could comprehend what she wanted to be when she grew up. She seemed to be feeling some pressure to figure that out before it was too late to do it. At the time she would have been in her later forties or early fifties.
Whatever else that may be it is also bad religion. It assumes that God only values the guys in the center ring of the church circus. Only the brightest and the best and the elect-est have a prayer of surviving the wrath of God. Which means, apparently in their thinking, that God is basically impossible to please-never mind that he represents himself in scripture as a loving father and an infatuated lover. It assumes that God devalues women and what they do and how they are-never mind that the genesis story portrays God as looking at creation/man and stating that the thing lacking is woman-and then fixes that final achievement of creation (for those who take it literally). It assumes that God cannot and will not make anything happen that he sets his mind to, and somehow people have to solve that problem for God or else the great project will fail-because God is basically impotent without the help (and direction and counsel) of humans. I don’t know where they got this limited and distorted view of God, but it is pathetic and tragic and destructive to humans-none of which God himself actually is.
Amazon has graciously and for a small fee sent me a copy of Orwell’s two books-all in one book–since I only read 1984 decades ago and mostly missed the impact at the time. Good grief, people. Read it again. Read it now that we have seen some of the stuff from other countries and not just russian communism. Read it in the light of the mind control research that has actually been done since then. Then tell me if you do not actually feel compassion for God himself that scoundrels like some religionists try to do this same sort of thing to other humans and try to do it in the name of God himself. Who was it that felt a call to defend the honor of God-some English martyr who defied the king on some issue or other. Maybe we need to defend the honor of God against some of these ideas in our day.
Nancy wrote:
@Nancy
You missed the point of why I quoted Hester and what I was referring to. It was not the fact that she was a woman. It has to do with Piper’s book “Don’t Waste Your Life,” and how it can lead one to think they have never done enough, or are not doing things that matter.
An Attorney wrote:
In Texas, as soon as you move in with someone and “put forth” publicly that you are married, the state considers it a common-law marriage. Conversely, you can live together for decades and not be considered married as long as you don’t “put forth” as such. If a common-law couple separates, two years afterward Texas considers the marriage to have never happened. However, if there are children and/or shared property involved a divorce is recommended. An attorney (not this An Attorney 🙂 ) told me that, since my husband and I have been together so long, we would require a legal divorce.
I actually had a church wedding, but my cult didn’t do marriage licenses. I’ve had to educate myself about all of this.
GuyBehindtheCurtain wrote:
You should require a.posting covenant to be signed….lol.
@ Bob M:
No need for an apology, Bob. Piper is not the topic, but his teaching is certainly behind the problem(s) that frequently are the topic. I don’t have a person I know to compare to his teaching and his actions, so that’s what I go on. I think it is wise to let people know that they are deviating from what the Bible actually says. As a pretty tight conservative, that is very difficult for me to avoid doing.
I hope you are able to make some good progress on your situation, and most certainly you should not feel like you have to answer every comment. I’m glad you are here with your perspective from the inside there.
Gram3 wrote:
So, I take it that Reformed, or “Neo Calvinist” teaching combined with Complementarianism, is the issue, and you are most informed on what Piper has said on these. Or you see that Piper is the most clear and followed proponent of these, and therefore Piper is the one you zero in on. You may not see it, but when I read your posts, they become acerbic, and you use cutting, caricaturing depictions, and at times you exaggerate his teachings. I am sure you have a point in doing this, most likely to convey your disdain.
@ Bob M:
There are various ways of bringing attention to something positive or negative. That may be humor or straight exposition or it may be charged speech.
I don’t zero in on Piper because he is Piper but because he is the one who is the popularizer of the System which I think is anti-Christian. We have seen the devastating results produced by that System, and somebody needs to name and claim their part in either building it or selling it.
Piper is not the one I am most familiar with at all. I think that early on Piper and Grudem formed an alliance to fight what they perceived to be the cultural chaos of the 60’s and 70’s. I believe their assessment of the root cause of that was flawed, and as a result, their prescription was legalism in the church in the form of authoritarian rule and Complementarianism which is a re-formulation of patriarchy.
Authoritarian rule of some over others may be Biblical, but they need to make their case from the actual texts. That is my theme, hobby horse or whatever. I am a conservative inerrantst, and it just shocks me how fast and loose they play with God’s words and their flimsy logic that draws people along into their System. People want answers and solutions, and this System produces that for them. I just don’t think that a System is what Jesus came to earth to secure for us.
The conservative church is asleep or drugged. These are not isolated one-off incidents but rather the predicable results of a flawed model of the Christian faith. I wish that you did not see what I write as acerbic, and I ask you to consider whether it is worse to use certain words or worse to allow certain Systems to continue to drive people from the church and from Jesus and to continue to obscure the pure Gospel with the overlay of legalism.
ISTM the place to begin to unravel the devastation is to ask what is the central flaw in the System?
@ Bob M:
As far as I know, I have not made Calvinism an issue one way or the other. I’ve been in both types of churches, and actually I don’t think any systematic theology captures the scope of who God is and what he does. I much prefer Biblical theology, but I see the value in the study that goes into Systematics. And I realize how those two disciplines relate.
I am interested in what you believe is the proper response to a person who is confusing many and distracting from the pure Gospel? My perspective is that making the Gospel into a System or overlaying rules on the Gospel is something that brought out more than a bit of strong and possibly acerbic speech. When someone is using Jesus’ name to promote themselves and a false system, then I think strong words are required.
Piper lends his credibility to people like Doug Wilson who is a truly vile representative of the church. That is a person that I do know something about, and when Piper endorsed him, I could not believe he would bring Wilson into the mainstream of conservative evangelicalism. If Piper lacks that minimal level of discernment, then IMO he should not be a leader in the church according to the requirements of the Bible. The fact is, though, that Wilson agrees with Piper on the only two doctrines that really matter: patriarchy and calvinism. I do not wish to link Calvin to Wilson, hence the lower case.
The short of it is that Piper is leading many astray with his persuasive words. Mine are intended as a wake-up call.
I don’t think we can converse profitably. You think he is anti-Christian. I totally disagree. I dont have that much time.
Bob M wrote:
And I mean no disrespect. I genuinely don’t have time to discuss theology at that level with anonymous internet persons when I have many extended family members to attend to.
Bob M wrote:
How would you characterize someone who teaches legalism and calls it Gospel? That is a sincere question. I think he is a very deceived Christian. We all can be deceived, can’t we? I do not understand why Piper is privileged and his ideas and actions cannot be challenged.
Bob M wrote:
Have you stopped to consider that there might be people who would take retribution for my speaking out on people that are important to me and who are doing important work? Or am I a narcissistic zero without a voice?
Bob M wrote:
I am talking about a very basic level of What is the Gospel? Galatians applies beyond the Jew/Gentile issue. Nevertheless, I understand your family commitments, and they should take priority.
Gram3 wrote:
Your question is baited. I wont bite. He is challenged. It’s not legalism. He is not privileged. Now, I am sure you will rip me a new one.
Bob M wrote:
I don’t know what you are talking about. Where did I rip you one in the first place? I thought we were discussing some important issues. That is extremely out of line and not at all what I’ve said. If I am incorrect about that, then point me to the comment where I ripped you one. You have said I have not spoken as I should but you will not define how I should speak or where I crossed a line. How do I win, or how can I possibly be right or even barely acceptable?
Gram3 wrote:
When you baited your question, you crossed the line. Maybe you don’t see it. You assume I agree that he teaches legalism, and if I disagree, you will do like I have watched you do all along in your posting. You have lots of time to give your opinion and you do so at great length. And you know that I jusy said I don’t have time to go point by point with you. So, you made the legalism assertion, I don’t take the time to answer, and in effect, you win. When the issue with my daughter and sexual assault is is concluded, I will come back and take the time to defend why he is not a legalist. Until then I apologize for muscharacterizing you.
@ Gram3:
First I want to say that I experienced and was a part of spiritual abuse in the seeker mega world that was not Calvinist. Authoritarian systems no matter how benign they present themselves always evolve into abusing power. The lure of the stage and many followers is a huge sin trap. It is easy to see how they come to think they speak for God and have approval from Him.
The difference from my pov is that hierarchicy was not inherent in their doctrinal stance as it is natural to Calvin’s ST from a church/state culture. The focus is not on Sovereignty as much as relationships but that is skewed with clever words like servant leader and such. Much of the power stuff is hidden because people mainly come to see the show on the weekends. I say this to say I am well aware of spiritual abuse and how it manifests itself in closed systems and is not exclusive to the Reformed world/YRR bunch. They are just the shining star movement at this moment in history because they understood using media with the young.
To me, Piper is like the networks game. Or connect the dots or 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon. Much of what is playing out today in various circles can be traced back to some of Piper’s overall influence. From his dad who started out as a Bob Jones Fundamentalist Evangelist who went to the SBC to Pipers role in trying to get Greg Boyd fired from Bethel to Piper teaming up with Grudem and others to coin comp language and craft the Danvers Statement (along with the Baylys!!!) To his influece with CBMW to his influence on college campuses and in the YRR movement.
I ran across him about 14-15 years ago when he was all the rage with Campus Crusade, Intervarsity, etc and some family members hooked up with him at Wheaton and moved to MN after graduation to work and study with him. (That is where they learned none of their family members knew the true Gospel) Another family member was at McGill and brought home about 50 intervarsity students for a weekend who were practically worshipping Piper and his teaching on the book of Romans. From there I learned of his influence in mission orgs such as YWAM and Pioneer. (And of course the SBC/NAMB/IMB)
My Christian family was like: Who on earth is this Piper person? And from there we started doing our homework. He had massive influence on students.
Then it was his influence on the campus of SBTS along with Grudems ST which became the default Bible and then onto youth groups in many churches. Grudem/Piper were like team 1. The bottomline is that youth were always the target. Think of how old guys like Chandler would have been during those days who were doing the college student/ministry gigs.
From there Piper eventually went on to promote such patriarchal racists as Doug Wilson and lately to shore up CJ Mahaney. He just kept becoming more and more bizarre. It was showing up in his associations (excusing/promoting Driscoll) and even in his tweets. Claiming God fell bridges and sent tornados to punish people and scary stuff about women. Nothing is more important to Piper than Calvinism and comp doctrines, imo.
It was like he could not become controversial enough. He seems to love pushing the envelope. I could fill up blog comments with some of the shoddy work he and Grudem did to shore up comp doctrine that is down right disingenuous. (edited quotes from ancient writers!) So few would take them on because by that time much of what passed for evangelical Christian academia had become infested with the politics of doctrine and people were afraid of losing their jobs. I certainly know a lot of folks who left seminary over it.
I came to realize his comp teaching was becoming dangerous for women such as they should take abuse for a season and the bizarre video about how a wife should handle a threesome. There were many bizarre articles on CBMW.
I think he is dangerous because he comes off so harmeless and his appeal is his passion and verbosity. But his influence is incomparable in American and even some of Canadian Christendom. His retirement video shot in Geneva was down right scary. Global Apostle to spread Calvin. I just cannot see him as a man of integrity and principle based on the trajectory of what I have seen the last 14-15 years.
I see him as a man telling students only they have the true Gospel and they have a duty to make others see it. And that even their own Christian families don’t know the true Gospel and they have been lied to about God. (yep that is pretty much how it played out with all the cage stage Cals in the YRR movement) Piper has many emulators.
He seems to be much more of an idealogue than anything else.
I often think of his own son being excommunicated. The only thing people could tell me is because he drank alcohol and played music in bars. And, I have often wondered if Piper spoke the same way about the same issues at his church as when he was on the speaking circuit.
Now Barnabas, who became Presbyterian over infant baptism, went to work in a six figure job at Lifeway as some sort of content specialist. Some said he switched back to Baptist after he got the job. Piper moved to Nashville, too. Have not heard much about his missions for Calvin since the very expensive video was shot in Geneva.
These are my opinions and experience. I will end by saying I am weary of gurus. My desperate hope is that people will stop with all of them. Run to Jesus Christ and develop an intimate relationship with Him. Forget the mediators. In this day and time with all the resources at our fingertips I am really not sure what these insulated and isolated gurus can teach us about living out the Kingdom in the real world. They don’t live in the real world.
@ Bob M:
Bob sounds like you and your family is facing a tough time. Hope it gets better.
Albuquerque Blue wrote:
All is as Allah wills it…
(tongue in cheek Albuquerque, tongue in cheek)
@ Muff Potter:
Insha’Allah, allahu akbar.
Bob M wrote:
That is an assumption of what I was asking. I do have a lot of time, for which I am grateful. I am thankful that the Deebs and other women provide a place where women who have been beaten into the Complementarian/Patriarchy molds can finally breathe and have a voice. Men have been beaten into those molds as well. Not to mention the other things that happen in the church which are nothing like Jesus.
It is fine for you to think that he is not a legalist. However, I think that someone who adds to the pure Gospel with extra-biblical rules about how a woman should act and what a woman should do and what men should do or say is a legalist. The Gospel says that I am in Christ with all the inheritance that my brothers in Christ have. The hierarchicalists say, no, daughters are forever under their brother’s authority. That is not what the Bible says. Daughters of the King are not second-class, silent citizens, but we are required to be pressed into Piper’s mold of Biblical Womanhood or we are disobeying God. That’s just false, and it is legalism that adds to the Gospel. Gospel plus is no longer Gospel.
@ Bob M:
I am sorry beyond words for what someone has done against your daughter. Truly I cannot imagine the pain she is feeling and the distress your family is experiencing. May God protect her and heal her, and may you have great wisdom in working through this trial.
@ Lydia:
What you said is what I’ve experienced. I do think that many people do not know the backstory on a lot of things. They do not know about the political maneuvering, and they only see the video/stage Piper. I do understand how knowing him personally makes people see what he teaches in a very different way.
The endorsement of Doug Wilson was, to me, as clear an indicator that something is deeply wrong as is this grievous sin against Karen. People, nevertheless, will defend what they love. We all do it, and actually that is largely what my comments here are.
I do not want there to be any more Karens. I do not want there to be any more women who are told to endure abuse. I do not want the Son of God put in his place for the glory of God. That last thought makes me sick, but that is what they teach. I do not want any more people being told that either they obey the rules of humans or they are disobeying God. That, to me, is taking God’s name in vain. I don’t want there to be any more Christians who are taught not to be Bereans but to simply trust their leaders. I don’t want any more elitism in the church of any kind. But, unless the pewpeons wake up and put on their Berean glasses, these things will continue.
Albuquerque Blue wrote:
Thank you. It is heart wrenchingly painful.
Gram3 wrote:
Thank you. It is a parent’s worst nightmare come true.
Gram3 wrote:
No.I dont think there are people who would take retribution for you speaking out. That is one reason I use my real name.
Bob M wrote:
Then, respectfully, I think you are mistaken, and I have already seen it done to others who crossed the leaders.
Gram3 wrote:
Interesting. The Order of the Daughters of the King is an episcopal women’s lay order with an apostolate that includes prayer for the concerns of the parish and also personal evangelism. The way part of their prayer ministry works at our church is that there is a box where prayer requests can be left. Each request is assigned to one of the Daughters who will then pray for that request every day for thirty days. After 30 days the request can be renewed or terminated depending on the situation. The Daughters also meet two evenings per month for corporate prayer for other (not individual) parish concerns as well as study and fellowship. The personal evangelism is as the opportunity presents itself. At our church the Daughters are all middle aged or older women who have worked with the public and who have raised a family, for the most part, with a preponderance of nurses and teachers and such. Definitely not the silent and reticent types. Young daughter has finished her period of learning and discernment with the local group and the group has recommended her for membership. We are awaiting the approval of the rector, who will get around to a decision whenever he gets around to it.
Bob M wrote:
Hi Bob M. It has happened (and in some ways is still happening) to me; probably the main reason I do not use my real name here.
But, in light of what else you and your family are dealing with right now, having men with power go out of their way to get me fired, keep me from being being rehired at a new church, etc., is NOTHING. I would choose all of that, multiplied by infinity, over what you and your family are having to endure. May the Lord bring MERCY and HEALING (and justice). We are all with you here at TWW, even if we have vastly different perspectives on your former pastor.
Bob M wrote:
I could tell you a story that would curl your hair on this issue. Yes, they do take retribution with plausible deniability. Part of becoming a powerful stage presence in Christendom is maintaining image. And that image brings lots of speaking engagements. And anything that might tarnish that image is snuffed out immeditately with no traces. People are marginalized and don’t even know what happened. Few will talk. I know, I used to work with these guys.
If you wonder why I speak of the cult of personality like I do is because I have seen my share of people who spoke up/disagreed/etc who were ruined in many ways. Some financially. Some just had their reputations ruined and have to move away to find jobs.
Cult of personality Christianity is a huge sin trap for these guys. They don’t have to do any real dirty work, it is done for them. But at the same time, even their facial expressions/body language when a name is mentioned they don’t like tells the recipeint all they need to know: Don’t trust that person. And that person is toast in that community. The amount of power they have is unbeleivable which is why more folks don’t speak up and if they do, they do it anonymously. These cult of personality types have thousands of defenders ready to do battle for them. The ONE person has no one.
Gram3 wrote:
Me too.
Gram3 wrote:
That is also my take on ‘taking the Lord’s name in vain’. It is serious business, IMO. Ironically, I learned the meaning of that from a scholarly Rabbi. And how much more serious today when we have the indwelling Holy Spirit– for one to claim they speak for God to us?
pcapastor wrote:
Amen, and thank you for putting that so well.
I missed the comment about Bob’s daughter. Grace and peace to your family, Bob.
Darlene wrote:
I do think there is such a thing as “evil” men (distinguished from the “normal” person); and I think there are responsible studies that make use of both special revelation (Scripture) and general revelation (psychology, sociology, history, all forms of science, etc.) to provide descriptions and hallmarks that classify certain men as “evil.” Whenever I have researched or come across such studies, and whenever I have thought to cross-reference them with what I know of Doug Wilson from his own words and documented actions, he “passes” (i.e. fails) the test every time.
John Piper is in the Pat Robertson category. Doug Wilson is in the Jim Jones category.
Lydia wrote:
^^^^^^^ GOLDEN.
Hester wrote:
Oh my goodness. So, so terrible. I will pray that they will each find refuge in Christ, and in one of His normal churches (like your Lutheran one).
Lydia wrote:
It makes you the object of special care. Your loyalty to the leader, in contrast to your loyalty to Christ, is called into question. You must be marginalized or dispensed with in some manner.
Ironically, I think that Karen is a great example of the retaliatory attitude that you and I have observed. SIM was happy to keep her as a member in good standing, but The Village ELDERS decided to interpose themselves between her and SIM, harming that relationship. There may be a plausible reason for that, but I sure can’t think of one other than just plain spite and retaliation for her refusal to bow to their power and authority.
pcapastor wrote:
@ pcapastor
So, here’s my story. I was saved and educated in the Independent Baptist movement, 2 master’s degrees at Maranatha and Central Seminary. I was pastoring a church that was fully in the movement and we spent 6 years moving it to what we found by our best attempt at honest bible study to be a biblical direction. As we did, family after family left and ran to the local large IFB church with school and seminary. The people who remained were faithful, committed, and serious about serving God. We were slowly reaching new people and helping them grow, and helping some other families move away from the legalistic type of Christianity. BUt we had debt, and we could not pay it and pay a pastor. So I took a side job. And I did not handle the stress well. My family suffered greatly, we struggled financially. Many of my “friends” in ministry abandoned me because we were not toeing the line. I was called a lefty and a liberal by the local seminary president. I was not afraid t say in public what the truth was, what I believed about the doctrines and practices that I saw as destructive. I became a pariah. I made some huge mistakes, one being a moral failure, and I blame no one but me. I say all that to say that I would never go back and hide from saying in public and teaching the things that I did, even though I took abuse and was cast out. See, my kids were all in the Christian school where the local seminary was, and all of the local pastors sent their kids. The social pressure on my family was hard. There is so much more to the story, but you get the gist. And I was blogging at the time. And for a while I was anonymous. Then I decided I needed to be transparent and practice what I preached. I believe that when Jesus said everything spoken in secret will be heralded from the housetops, he mans that every word we speak anonymously will eventually be revealed as our words. And what I came to see, and continue to see appalls me as a Christian. Christians are willing to say all kinds of things, angry, demeaning, cutting, destructive, rude, obnoxious words, that they wold never say if they were not anonymous. And I want to be able to be the same person in person who I am online. Transparency and genuineness counts to me. I know there are other factors, but those count to me. And taken ownership for what I say I believe. If I say I believe something but am not willing to say it in public, I probably don’t really believe it.
Lydia wrote:
@ Lydia
Thank you. We are struggling with what to do.
Pingback: Why Matt Chandler Can't Practice Matthew 18 - Thou Art The Man
Pingback: Annulment of a Marriage And the Bible | Divorce Minister
CARMs definition of diathíki is so bad it’s no wonder that the reformed Baptists lean in the direction of legalism.
pcapastor wrote:
That pretty much sums it up.
Darlene, Years ago there was a blog by Michael Metzler called Poohs Think that I think is still up. Metzler studied under Wilson and went on to write about the experience. He finally got out of Moscow.
Wilson reminds me of Marlon Brando in Apocalypse Now. He is not only a racist (Black and Tan, Slavery As it Was) but he matched one of the submissive obedient single young girls to a convicted Pedophile for marraige.
Since Piper promoted him, he became all the rage in YRR, TGC circles. I would ask them if they had read Slavery As It Was and none of them knew anything about it. My poiont is that all an idol has to do is promote another person and they become an idol, too. The young YRR pastor does not do his own homework. He allows the gurus to think for him.
Beakerj wrote:
The problem with paedophiles is very complex. I think that there are people who are simply missing some essential art of humanity. They are the sociopaths & the psychopaths of the world, & they never repent because they don’t want to repent. They are satisfied to continue as they are.
I have said in several contexts(including here) that my belief is that sociopathy/psychopathy is what is called “the unforgivable sin”–not because God wouldn’t forgive them if they truly repented, but because they are never sorry for anything–except, of course, themselves.
It must be a horrible state, but there are such folk.
Melissa wrote:
I don’t believe that they want to be anything other than what they are.
pcapastor wrote:
“WHITE NIGHT! WHITE NIGHT! DRINK THE POTION! DRINK THE POTION!”
Lydia wrote:
The original meaning of the Commandment that I heard was “Claiming God’s Justification for doing evil”. Like God was saying “You do your own dirty work! Don’t drag Me or My Name into it!”
Convenient how it has been redefined to mean cussing and only cussing, Eh, My Dear Wormwood?
Hester wrote:
Purity of Ideology, Comrade.
Purity of Ideology.
The thing about covenants in the Bible is that they were legally bound. Even when someone made a covenant with God, the Lord would hold them to the covenant contract. It’s the reason why Judah went into Babylonian Captivity. They broke the covenant they made with God at Sinai. So, for a church to have a covenant that is not legally binding is somewhat lesser than what a covenant was meant to be in Scripture.