Tom Chantry Has Been Arrested and Is Now Jailed in Arizona

This morning, I received an email from a reader who claims to be a friend of an alleged victim of Tom Chantry. I was informed that Chantry had been arrested, had a brief hearing, and his bail revoked. he is now allegedly residing in jail in Arizona. Amy Smith, Todd Wilhelm and Nate Sparks were alerted and we chased down the information.

According to Grand Canyon News:

Thomas Chantry, of Yavapai County, was arrested in Arizona according to information retrieved by Grand Canyon Daily News.

Grand Canyon Daily News first heard about the event on December 21, 2016 after the arresting agency released the information to the public. Chantry was detained and later charged, according to Grand Canyon Daily News's analysis of the official report.

Nate Sparks got the following report:

So I spoke to the Yavapai Sheriff's media relations officer. I mentioned a pastor from Wisconsin, and he immediately knew who I was talking about and confirmed he had been arrested and booked in the county jail. However, he was arrested by Prescott PD, so he didn't have arrest details. I left a message with their PIO, will update if I hear anything more.

We found this arrest report online. The only thing wrong with the report is that Chantry was born in PA, not Arizona. However, we have received confirmation that this is indeed Reformed Pastor Tom Chantry.

screen-shot-2016-12-22-at-10-32-36-am

As the reader who sent me the original information said: "He is off the streets now." 

We will keep you updated as we find out more information; especially why he was arrested and his bail allegedly revoked. Frank Turk and the Pyro Boys have been strangely silent.

Comments

Tom Chantry Has Been Arrested and Is Now Jailed in Arizona — 391 Comments

  1. I’m waiting for Greg Atkinson and the expastors.com crowd to start making more excuses that Tom Chantry was just “burned out” from all his personal sacrifices “for the kingdom” and how we must give unlimited grace and restore him to ministry leadership ASAP. In their self-serving self-sanctimonious mega-pastor PR spin world, raping a 13-year old is simply an “inappropriate relationship”. Maybe they should do a concordance search for the terms ‘millstone’ and ‘neck’?

    They’ll be sure to silence any comments from victims, lest the sex offender’s inner circle of sycophants feels a tiny bit uncomfortable from the light of truth shining into dark places.

  2. Max wrote:

    It’s becoming such a sad ride for so many in the American church. I feel like crying.

    Me too, Max. Predators in our pulpits.

  3. Looks like Chantry was living in Yavapai County and had not returned to Wisconsin while awaiting trial.

  4. The court records haven’t been updated yet. The case# J-1303-CF-2016000671 in Prescott Justice Court. The case will be moved to Yavapai County Superior Court for prosecution. I’ll let you know which judge is assigned to the case as soon as it is posted. Sheila Polk is the county prosecuter, she is usually very tough on child molesters.

  5. For those that do not know what is going on with this guy:

    http://www.dcourier.com/news/2016/nov/26/pastor-charged-multiple-counts-child-molestation/

    When innocent children that cannot defend themselves gets harmed and abused, ANY upstanding Christian should feel rage inside.

    Can the church (Christ Reformed Baptist Church) please discipline and excommunicate this guy? If you want to glorify God then excommunicate this criminal. If you do not excommunicate him (because of your so-called grace toward him), then CONGRATULATIONS you just call all of his victims liars. WHERE WHERE WHERE are your GRACE toward the VICTIMS then?

    Neo-Calvinist churches would often ONLY show grace toward the POWERFUL leadership, but condemns and ignores the POWERLESS VICTIM. Their love is totally ONE SIDED, which is NOT true love at all but FAVORITISM and DISCRIMINATION. Jesus clearly told all of us to love EVERYONE EQUALLY. Will your church be just like those other neo-Calvinist churches? Or would you MAKE A STAND for the glory of God and excommunicate this criminal who hurt many children?

    Actions speaks louder than words. By their FRUITS of love you will know the true believers.

  6. Y A Y !!!

    Y A Y, again, for all abuse exposure.

    Y A Y for EVERYONE hearing about all the horrible hurt.

  7. I wonder how many people have been damaged due to SGM/Neo Cal/Comp? I am so thankful the New Cals and Comps are being taken to task in their ranks. Here is hoping some of those same people start to become vocal about the abuse.

  8. trs wrote:

    Y A Y for EVERYONE hearing about all the horrible hurt.

    Thank God for everyone who is DOING SOMETHING about all the horrible hurt. Maybe they can finally stop some of it.

  9. Not holding my breath for Frank Turk’s necessary apology for his abuse apologism and vileness,

  10. Richard wrote:

    I just located the new case# P1300CR201600966. I believe the case has been assigned to judge Trebesch. Here is a link

    This looks good:

    “In 1991, she joined the Arizona Attorney General’s Office where she served as an assistant attorney general for 20 years, dedicating her career to children’s issues—specifically, prosecuting child support and child abuse cases. “

  11. Off-topic short announcement. Shuana in Texas was able to pay some important bills for her and her son Billy (Dee previously wrote about Billy’s being abused). She is working part-time at the grocery store and has some cleaning jobs toward Christmas for Billy.
    She still needs car repairs.
    Shauna on Wed Dec 21, 2016 at 11:27 AM said:
    https://www.gofundme.com/pxs5dk
    Good morning everyone, update!!! I managed to pay bills with the recent gofundme funds. Thank you thank you!!!! I still have a bit more to go including my car getting the check engine and brake lights turned off this cost a bit since I need sensors. I have until the 31st after that I can’t drive because they will not pass my inspection foR my car and I need it to pass in order to register it. I have between now and Sunday to try to do some side jobs to give billy Christmas im on it though. today im on cupcake duty and then onto holiday cakes. Please continue to pray for us. Thank you all of you for blessing our home and continuing to pray for billy.

  12. FI..

    Sigh.

    On a brighter note:

    GMFS!

    (Though it’s actually passionate with rain here at the moment. I’m taking advantage of a brief dry spell to go for a quick run…)

  13. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    FI..
    Sigh.
    On a brighter note:
    GMFS!
    (Though it’s actually passionate with rain here at the moment. I’m taking advantage of a brief dry spell to go for a quick run…)

    GMFC. UHT. (Good morning from California. Up having tea.)

  14. Richard wrote:

    I just located the new case# P1300CR201600966. I believe the case has been assigned to judge Trebesch. Here is a link to her bio

    Richard,
    Could you please explain to me how you discovered who the judge in Chantry’s case will be? Thanks.

  15. @ Velour:

    I trust you enjoyed your tea!

    The break in the rain lasted until I set foot outside the house… so I got soaked. Never mind, though; running in the rain can be good fun. (You’re going to get wet/muddy anyway, so why not do it properly?)

    I’m currently putting together an invoice for some freelance work I did in the last quarter of this year, for which I’ll actually get paid! Hurrah.

  16. Velour wrote:

    Jessica wrote:

    Maybe they should do a concordance search for the terms ‘millstone’ and ‘neck’?

    Exactly.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if some of his buddies resort to the old “13 isn’t really a child” argument. There is a fringe element of the manosphere that wants the age of consent lowered or abolished. There is also a similar fringe within the evangelical world (exemplified by Vaughan Oleman’s recent conference).

  17. Arizona posts court records online at https://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/publicaccess/ the charges are listed under the original case number. He had a hearing on Dec. 16 in room 304 of the Yavapai County Courthouse. Divisions 1 and 4 are on the third floor. Judge Mackey, division 1, is probate and Judge Trebeach, division 4, is criminal. The court calender can be found at http://apps.yavapai.us/courtcalendar/ use the search function for case info. I’ll make some calls today and see what I can find out.
    The attorney, John Sears, is one of the best in the area.

  18. Richard wrote:

    The attorney, John Sears, is one of the best in the area.

    Wondering where the money comes from to hire the best lawyers in the area?

  19. Richard wrote:

    I’ll let you know which judge is assigned to the case as soon as it is posted. Sheila Polk is the county prosecuter, she is usually very tough on child molesters.

    I am deeply indebted to you for your offer of assistance. I have been unable to see why he was arrested and his bail revoked. If you see anything about that, please let us know.

  20. CHIPS wrote:

    Neo-Calvinist churches would often ONLY show grace toward the POWERFUL leadership, but condemns and ignores the POWERLESS VICTIM.

    I agree. I have been astonished how they circle their own, even when they are child molesters.

  21. RC wrote:

    am so thankful the New Cals and Comps are being taken to task in their ranks.

    Poor Marie was told by a couple of members of this group that she should never have allowed her story told on TWW because we are awful. Sad thing. There are no places for people to tell such stories out there and these people know it.

  22. @ Melody:
    Yeah-he told me that I would be obligated to apologize. It only goes one way. I will never, ever get over his necrophilia comments.

  23. Bridget wrote:

    Wondering where the money comes from to hire the best lawyers in the area?

    I wonder where the $100,000 cash bond came from. I wonder if his BFFs are helping out.

  24. Richard wrote:

    He had a hearing on Dec. 16 in room 304 of the Yavapai County Courthouse. Divisions 1 and 4 are on the third floor. Judge Mackey, division 1, is probate and Judge Trebeach, division 4, is criminal. The court calender can be found at

    This explains why he was in the Yavapai area on Dec 20 when he was arrested. He had a hearing 4 days before. Probably not a good time to get arrested…

  25. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    @ Velour:
    I trust you enjoyed your tea!
    The break in the rain lasted until I set foot outside the house… so I got soaked. Never mind, though; running in the rain can be good fun. (You’re going to get wet/muddy anyway, so why not do it properly?)
    I’m currently putting together an invoice for some freelance work I did in the last quarter of this year, for which I’ll actually get paid! Hurrah.

    Good morning, Nick.

    I enjoyed having my tea (loose tea/Earl Grey/Ahmad Tea brand). It is pouring here in Silicon Valley, California.

    After tea I went to the grocery store and did some more shopping for Christmas dinner,
    including buying fresh salmon.

    Congratulations on the work that you will be paid for! Hurrah!

  26. MidwesternEasterner wrote:

    exemplified by Vaughan Oleman’s recent conference

    I tweeted the Attorney General’s in Michigan where the conference was to be held and his home state of Kansas. I included the homeschooling conference. The homeschooling conference cancelled his planned presentation. Another denomination refused to rent him their facilities for his conference (since they take child abuse and sex trafficking seriously and are active in stopping it).

  27. @ MidwesternEasterner:

    Thanks for that information! Never heard of this man, but have heard of these ideas. What is troubling to me are the statements by this DA in the article.

    “Sedgwick County District Attorney Marc Bennett said he wasn’t familiar with the Ohlmans’ ministry or their plans to hold a retreat in Wichita.

    Marriages arranged by parents would be legal in Kansas as long as the couple getting married were each at least 16, he said.

    AS LONG AS THE LAWS AREN’T BEING BROKEN, THEY’RE FREE TO HAVE THIS KIND OF A MEETING.
    Marc Bennett, Sedgwick County district attorney

    “You’re free to have your own religious beliefs, of course. You’re free to raise your children with your same religious beliefs,” Bennett said.

    “And the government should have no role in that whatsoever, with one exception: when it starts to put the child in physical danger.”

    Even people who are legally married can be prosecuted for rape if they attempt to consummate a marriage without consent, he said.

    “As long as the laws aren’t being broken, they’re free to have this kind of a meeting,” Bennett said of the proposed retreat. “But if you cross the line and there’s a child who’s being forced into having sex with someone she doesn’t want to, then now you’ve gotten the attention of the state.”

    Arranged marriages are allowed in Kansas? A child can have sex as long as “she” is not forced to have sex with someone she doesn’t want to have sex with?? So a 15 year-old can choose to have sex with a 30 year old with no charges brought?

    I have concernes about the Sedgwick County DA.

    Not wanting to get off topic but this just sounds weird from the DA, much less the Oleman group.

  28. dee wrote:

    Bridget wrote:
    Wondering where the money comes from to hire the best lawyers in the area?
    I wonder where the $100,000 cash bond came from. I wonder if his BFFs are helping out.

    Well, you can get a bondsman to put up the money if you have assets/property to secure the bond. The rates on the money aren’t good, as you can imagine.

    Defense attorneys, however, don’t work this way. You usually pay them an amount up front, and then as fees are incurred.

  29. I think following the money is a very good idea.. especially if the money comes from the “good old boys”. This is especially true given the “good old boys” do not seem to care about the victims of the “good old boys”.

  30. @ Bridget:

    I’m thinking arranged marriages would be legal everywhere but not forced marriages, i.e. The kids would have to be on board and sign the form.

  31. I am glad that Chantry is in custody. I always wonder how many more children are molested when repeat offenders are not in custody.

    My dad had a friend when I was growing that he testified for as a a character witness. I was only about 12 the first time, and didn’t ask many questions. The second time it happened, I heard my mom arguing with my dad. “Not this time. I wasn’t sure the first time you testified, but this is the second time, and it sounds like the accusations are true.” My dad didn’t testify.

    Turns out that he was a Baptist deacon who had a thing for little girls. It also explained why we rarely visited their home, as my mom did not trust him around me and my sister. Since this was the 60s, I don’t know what happened to him in terms of prosecution. However, my mom did carefully explain to me that some adults are “sick” and can’t be trusted around children. I’ve always appreciated her advice.

  32. dee wrote:

    Richard wrote:

    I’ll let you know which judge is assigned to the case as soon as it is posted. Sheila Polk is the county prosecuter, she is usually very tough on child molesters.

    I am deeply indebted to you for your offer of assistance. I have been unable to see why he was arrested and his bail revoked. If you see anything about that, please let us know.

    I don’t get this either. Supposedly, he had a very good attorney. Makes me wonder why bail was revoked.

  33. @ NJ:

    Scenario – by law Kansas parents can arrange a marriage between 16 and 17 year-old children with anyone that age or older, but the children can then cry rape if they don’t want to have sex with the arranged spouse?

    I am a bit put off by the fact that the DA assumes with his choice of pronouns that the child=female.

    How about they change the law in Kansas so parents cannot marry off their children to whomever they please.

    And I won’t even get started on the cult group this DA is speaking about.

  34. Lea wrote:

    @ Bridget:
    I’m thinking arranged marriages would be legal everywhere but not forced marriages, i.e. The kids would have to be on board and sign the form.

    The thing is, that age child cannot legally give consent for anything else. AND, in these cults, children are taught to obey their parents without question. Where is the line for freely consenting vs. obeying your parents?

  35. @ MidwesternEasterner:
    The sexual focus in Christendom has been troubling to me. The whole ‘smoking hot wife” thing of young pastors, Mahaney pontificating about his wife satisfying him when she was ill, Driscoll promoting sodomy during wifes monthlies and on and on. Followers lapped it up. With that constant focus where else can it go? Their sexual satisfaction became part of their Gospel teaching.

  36. Bridget wrote:

    @ NJ:

    Scenario – by law Kansas parents can arrange a marriage between 16 and 17 year-old children with anyone that age or older, but the children can then cry rape if they don’t want to have sex with the arranged spouse?

    I am a bit put off by the fact that the DA assumes with his choice of pronouns that the child=female.

    How about they change the law in Kansas so parents cannot marry off their children to whomever they please.

    And I won’t even get started on the cult group this DA is speaking about.

    Actually, I’m not surprised by the DA’s assumption. The pattern I’ve seen in the “christian” neopatriarchy movement is marrying girls in their mid to late teens off to men somewhere in their 20s.

    I believe Laura is sincere about not wanting to force people into arranged marriages. However, I do wonder what her thoughts are about young Christians being systematically indoctrinated and/or pressured into marriage ASAP and a quiverfull life as the only biblical , God-pleasing way to live.

  37. Bridget wrote:

    The thing is, that age child cannot legally give consent for anything else. AND, in these cults, children are taught to obey their parents without question. Where is the line for freely consenting vs. obeying your parents?

    I don’t have a problem in theory with the idea of parents arranging a marriage between adults. I do not support it for children that are underage (under 18) and still living with parents. They can generally be legally emancipated if they have a job and cause at 16 or so, but I would think that would be a scary thing for a child to turn down the wishes of a parent who is controlling who wants them to get married when the only other option is living at home with that same parent.

    But I think the people involved would be considered to have consented legally to the marriage when they sign the marriage license, which their parents cannot sign for them. I do wonder if any have reached 18 and said they should be legally responsible for something signed under that age. Do the parents have to sign as well? I’m not sure how underaged legal marriages work.

    I’m just saying that arranged marriage between adults of legal age would not be illegal.

  38. Bridget wrote:

    In case anyone responds to my comments, I’m off to work for a bi; not ignoring you.

    My condolences 🙂 I took off so I get to go out and make christmas cookies!

  39. NJ wrote:

    I believe Laura is sincere about not wanting to force people into arranged marriages. However, I do wonder what her thoughts are about young Christians being systematically indoctrinated and/or pressured into marriage ASAP and a quiverfull life as the only biblical , God-pleasing way to live.

    AKA an INDIRECTly Arranged Marriage?

  40. Published this morning (different mugshot):

    http://www.dcourier.com/news/2016/dec/23/pastor-jailed-charged-five-counts-child-molestatio/

    “On Dec.20, Rev. Thomas J. Chantry was ordered held without bond in the Camp Verde jail, Chief Deputy County Attorney Dennis McGrane said.”

    “in a hearing before visiting Maricopa County Judge Bradley Astrowsky on Tuesday, Chantry was sent to the county jail, “determined to be non-bondable,” McGrane said.”

  41. dee wrote:

    CHIPS wrote:
    Neo-Calvinist churches would often ONLY show grace toward the POWERFUL leadership, but condemns and ignores the POWERLESS VICTIM.
    I agree. I have been astonished how they circle their own, even when they are child molesters.

    Rank Hath Its Privileges.
    ALpha Male/Herd Bull has total sexual rights over every female in his herd/harem.
    Paterfamilias has absolute power and sexual rights over everyone and everything in his Household.

    And according to the Word of Calvin, It’s All Been Predestined anyway.

  42. Bridget wrote:

    Richard wrote:
    The attorney, John Sears, is one of the best in the area.
    Wondering where the money comes from to hire the best lawyers in the area?

    TITHES! TITHES! TITHES! TITHES! TITHES!

  43. Jerome wrote:

    “determined to be non-bondable,” McGrane said.”

    Any lawyers know what would cause you to be non-bondable? Skipping out on hearings, being a flight risk, and reoffending are the only things I can think of but I’m pretty sure I got all that from tv.

  44. NJ wrote:

    Bridget, my guess is that he’s technically correct. Perhaps the real issue is the law needing to be changed to age 18.@ Bridget:

    I read that Germany is contemplating doing this because so many underaged Muslim girls are being married off. Germany wants them to finish high school first.

  45. MidwesternEasterner wrote:

    I wouldn’t be surprised if some of his buddies resort to the old “13 isn’t really a child” argument. There is a fringe element of the manosphere that wants the age of consent lowered or abolished. There is also a similar fringe within the evangelical world (exemplified by Vaughan Oleman’s recent conference).

    Why don’t they just go all ISIS and drop it to 9 citing Mohammed as example?

    And someone else on one of these threads cited Game of Thrones and “she’s flowering” for immediate Highborn political-alliance marriage.

  46. Lea wrote:

    Jerome wrote:

    “determined to be non-bondable,” McGrane said.”

    Any lawyers know what would cause you to be non-bondable? Skipping out on hearings, being a flight risk, and reoffending are the only things I can think of but I’m pretty sure I got all that from tv.

    I’m certainly not a lawyer, but here’s some info:

    “In Arizona, anyone charged with Sexual Conduct with a Minor (under the age of 15), Sexual Assault, or Molestation of a Child is non-bondable. Article I, Section 22 of the Arizona State Constitution list non-bondable offenses in the state of Arizona, which include the following:”

    http://verduralaw.com/sex-crime-charges-18.html

  47. dee wrote:

    Bridget wrote:

    Wondering where the money comes from to hire the best lawyers in the area?

    I wonder where the $100,000 cash bond came from. I wonder if his BFFs are helping out.

    The righteous church “should have” paid for the lawyers of the victims to sue the molester. Instead we have these neo-Calvinist churches paying for the defense lawyers of the molester himself. They are in the darkness for so long that they can’t even tell right from wrong anymore.

    For the likes of Tom Chantry, God has a message for them:

    3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for [d]good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; 4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. 5 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake.

    Roman 13:3-5

  48. dee wrote:

    I am deeply indebted to you for your offer of assistance. I have been unable to see why he was arrested and his bail revoked. If you see anything about that, please let us know.

    Richard, can you confirm that Chantry had been held on a $100K cash bond (as opposed to a surety bond)? A cash bond in Arizona means you have to pony up cash, rather than getting a bail bondsman to handle it for a 10-15 percent fee. I’m not surprised Chantry was given a cash bond since he was from out of state. But I just want to confirm it was a cash bond. Thanks in advance!

  49. A state court ruling in June tweaked the law:

    http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2016/06/14/state-cant-deny-bail-to-accused-sex-offender-appeals-court-rules/

    “Judge Peter Swann said simply being charged with a crime — even if there is evidence of the person’s guilt — is legally insufficient. He said a judge can deny bail only if prosecutors can also show that no conditions of release can be imposed to ensure protection of others.”

    So now in addition to showing “that proof is evident and the presumption is great that the accused committed the charged crime” a second requirement has been added in order for the state to deny bond in these cases:

    “the state must show…(2) by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is a danger to the community and that no condition or combination of conditions can “reasonably assure the safety of the community or any person”.”

    http://www.michaeldeneafirm.com/arizona-court-appeals-changes-bond-requirements-sex-offenses/

  50. Bridget wrote:

    Well, you can get a bondsman to put up the money if you have assets/property to secure the bond. The rates on the money aren’t good, as you can imagine.

    That doesn’t work with a cash bond. You have to present the entire amount in cash at the court. (Cash = Cashier’s check) That’s different from a surety bond. However, a bail bondsman will be happy to deal with that for you, for a fee, of course. (In point of fact, if I was involved in such a situation, I would get an expert like a bail bondsman to handle this, because you really do want an expert.)

  51. Lea wrote:

    Any lawyers know what would cause you to be non-bondable? Skipping out on hearings, being a flight risk, and reoffending are the only things I can think of but I’m pretty sure I got all that from tv.

    I’m wondering if something else has changed. Perhaps more charges are pending? Perhaps Chantry had tried to contact the victims? No idea, just speculating. Wish I could have been at the hearing!

  52. Bill M wrote:

    Lea wrote:
    I took off so I get to go out and make christmas cookies!
    A noble endeavor.

    I went shopping Tuesday – spent most of the day in a town over 30 miles from my rural home. Before I left, my hubby decided HE was going to make sugar cookies, all by himself. I rounded up the recipe, cookie cutters, food colorings, and extracts. He found the rolling pins, pastry sheet and cooling racks all by himself. I gave him a few pointers, (He started to melt the butter – melting the butter is a no-no, etc.) and left. He made two batches. He had just taken the last pan out of the oven when I came in. The kitchen smelled wonderful! He did a great job! The cookies were perfect! …….. Christmas ’09, I was extremely ill. Hubby loves chocolate coated peanut butter balls so much that he had me walk him through making those that year. He has made 3 batches every Christmas since then. He just finished making a batch. I still have to get out the recipes for him (uhm, there in “this” box, catagorized and alphabetized), but he does all the work! Saves me a ton of time and work!
    I had to teach this man how to fry bacon and do eggs over-easy. But, he’s in some serious trouble, now. If he can make sugar cookies and candy balls, he can make biscuits and roasted picnic ham!!!!

  53. Jerome wrote:

    “On Dec.20, Rev. Thomas J. Chantry was ordered held without bond in the Camp Verde jail, Chief Deputy County Attorney Dennis McGrane said.”

    Yeah, Merry Christmas accused child molester. Hope you like the jail Holiday feast menu.

  54. “After his arrest, on a warrant taken out by Prescott Police, he posted bond in Wisconsin, then came to court in Prescott and was allowed to return, said Dwight D’Evelyn, spokesman for the Yavapai County Sheriff’s Office.
    Chantry was not booked into the Camp Verde jail at the time.
    But in a hearing before visiting Maricopa County Judge Bradley Astrowsky on Tuesday, Chantry was sent to the county jail, “determined to be non-bondable,” McGrane said.”

    I bet this good judge has children himself.

  55. ishy wrote:

    Patricia Hanlon wrote:
    Radio silence from Chantry’s supporters?
    It appears to be so.

    Maybe he lied to them.

  56. refugee wrote:

    Maybe he lied to them.

    If they believed him without wondering about the possible victims, then they are naive and dangerous.

  57. CHIPS wrote:

    The righteous church “should have” paid for the lawyers of the victims to sue the molester. Instead we have these neo-Calvinist churches paying for the defense lawyers of the molester himself. They are in the darkness for so long that they can’t even tell right from wrong anymore.

    My understanding is that Karen hinckley’s *repentant pedophile husband” received help financially from the church.

  58. Bridget wrote:

    Well, you can get a bondsman to put up the money if you have assets/property to secure the bond. The rates on the money aren’t good, as you can imagine.

    The provider of bail bonds generally charges the defendant 10% of the full amount of the bond according to the premiere bail bond agency in my area. If the defendant absconds, then the agency forfeits the amount of the bond to the court. I doubt whether the agency will post bond for 10% if they believe the defendant is a flight risk. For a $100,000 bond, the defendant would have to pay $10,000 and not have to secure the full $100,000 amount. They accept credit cards and work 24/7.

  59. dee wrote:

    @ Talmidah:
    Yet, he was given a bond initially. Something must have changed. I wonder if it has to do with the arrest.

    I wonder about this too. Maybe Richard, who posted upthread, and others can keep us updated.

  60. Muslin, fka Dee Holmes & mirele wrote:

    A cash bond in Arizona means you have to pony up cash, rather than getting a bail bondsman to handle it for a 10-15 percent fee.

    Doesn’t the bail bondsman pony up the $100,000 cash? The bail bondsman is out the $100,000 cash if the defendant doesn’t show up for court.

  61. dee wrote:

    refugee wrote:
    Maybe he lied to them.
    If they believed him without wondering about the possible victims, then they are naive and dangerous.

    Definitely.

    Whether naive and dangerous (and forcing down their doubts for whatever reason), or complicit and covering up, the results are the same.

  62. Jerome wrote:

    in a hearing before visiting Maricopa County Judge Bradley Astrowsky on Tuesday, Chantry was sent to the county jail, “determined to be non-bondable,” McGrane said.”

    Yikes!

  63. Patricia Hanlon wrote:

    Radio silence from Chantry’s supporters?

    You won’t hear a peep out of them until his “best in the area” attorney gets him off the hook … then they will tell all the watchblogs how stupid they were for posting anything about Mr. Chantry. But if it goes the other way, they will quickly distance themselves from ever supporting him. The New Calvinists did that with Driscoll … he fell from darling of the movement to worm sweat when he became a potato too hot to handle.

  64. Muslin, fka Dee Holmes & mirele wrote:

    That’s different from a surety bond. However, a bail bondsman will be happy to deal with that for you, for a fee, of course.

    This is what I meant by my comment. Wouldn’t the bondsman still want assets to fall back on to get their cash back in case of a runner?

    BTW – I heard something about Scientology that was bizzare. I will post it over on the Open Discussion page.

  65. Bridget wrote:

    @ Nick Bulbeck:

    @ Talmidah:

    I think he might another one to sort himself out!!

    Hahaaa!…and I want to see what you heard about Scientology (yeah, I know, it’s bizarro anyway lol). But I watched that documentary called Going Clear several months ago and sheesh…it made me feel normal!

  66. Max wrote:

    It’s becoming such a sad ride for so many in the American church. I feel like crying.

    And me, too, Max. What is going on? Something very weird and sad…

  67. roebuck wrote:

    What is going on? Something very weird and sad…

    “Son of man, do you see what they are doing, the great abominations that the house of Israel are committing here, to drive me far from my sanctuary? … Go in, and see the vile abominations that they are committing here … have you seen what the elders of the house of Israel are doing in the dark … For they say, ‘The LORD does not see us’ …” (Ezekiel 8).

    Do not be deceived, you counterfeit elders of the church who abuse the children of God … the Lord does indeed see you! There is a pay day someday in your future, as Mr. Chantry has discovered.

  68. Lydia wrote:

    @ MidwesternEasterner:
    The sexual focus in Christendom has been troubling to me. The whole ‘smoking hot wife” thing of young pastors, Mahaney pontificating about his wife satisfying him when she was ill, Driscoll promoting sodomy during wifes monthlies and on and on. Followers lapped it up. With that constant focus where else can it go? Their sexual satisfaction became part of their Gospel teaching.

    It’s not a sexual focus in Christendom. Wacky fringe freelance envangelicalism is NOT Chistemdon. That’s the problem. Anyone can call themselves ‘Christian’, or ‘Pastor so and so’, and preach whatever they want for as long as the draw a crowd and can get away with it.. And they do. It’s cultism, pure and simple, as far as I am concerned.

  69. Max wrote:

    roebuck wrote:

    What is going on? Something very weird and sad…

    “Son of man, do you see what they are doing, the great abominations that the house of Israel are committing here, to drive me far from my sanctuary? … Go in, and see the vile abominations that they are committing here … have you seen what the elders of the house of Israel are doing in the dark … For they say, ‘The LORD does not see us’ …” (Ezekiel 8).

    Do not be deceived, you counterfeit elders of the church who abuse the children of God … the Lord does indeed see you! There is a pay day someday in your future, as Mr. Chantry has discovered.

    Anyone who thinks that the Lord doesn’t see EVERYTHING has left the path of wisdom…

  70. Jerome wrote:

    “in a hearing before visiting Maricopa County Judge Bradley Astrowsky on Tuesday, Chantry was sent to the county jail, “determined to be non-bondable,” McGrane said.”

    “Non-bondable” as in “bail denied” or “bail revoked”?
    That would indicate a REAL serious charge or a flight risk (as in evidence he was planning to skip the country).

  71. Ken G wrote:

    Doesn’t the bail bondsman pony up the $100,000 cash? The bail bondsman is out the $100,000 cash if the defendant doesn’t show up for court.

    Which is why they have Bounty Hunters.

  72. CHIPS wrote:

    The righteous church “should have” paid for the lawyers of the victims to sue the molester. Instead we have these neo-Calvinist churches paying for the defense lawyers of the molester himself.

    Not just “defense lawyers”, but the best shysters money can buy.
    “TITHE! TITHE! TITHE! TITHE! TITHE!”

  73. Talmidah wrote:

    “In Arizona, anyone charged with Sexual Conduct with a Minor (under the age of 15), Sexual Assault, or Molestation of a Child is non-bondable. Article I, Section 22 of the Arizona State Constitution list non-bondable offenses in the state of Arizona, which include the following:”

    Does this mean the arrest was on a NEW charge?
    Can’t stay away from the Jail Bait, can he?

  74. Ken G wrote:

    Doesn’t the bail bondsman pony up the $100,000 cash? The bail bondsman is out the $100,000 cash if the defendant doesn’t show up for court.

    Nope, that’s the difference between a cash bond and a surety bond in Arizona. A cash bond has to be paid in cash and all of it. I’ve seen the words “cash bond” and “$100,000” in the news articles, and I really want some confirmation, because I know very few people, myself included, who could come up with $100K for a bond *ever*.

  75. Lydia wrote:

    The sexual focus in Christendom has been troubling to me. The whole ‘smoking hot wife” thing of young pastors, Mahaney pontificating about his wife satisfying him when she was ill, Driscoll promoting sodomy during wifes monthlies and on and on. Followers lapped it up. With that constant focus where else can it go? Their sexual satisfaction became part of their Gospel teaching.

    As a life long celibate now past the age of 40, I can second, third, fourth and fifth that.

    If you’re reading this and are married and have a normal sex life with your spouse, the insane amount of attention paid to sex by professional Christians and preachers probably doesn’t stand out as much to you as opposed to if you’re like me, waiting to have sex.

    The sex obsession with some in the church is really glaring.

  76. Bridget wrote:

    Muslin, fka Dee Holmes & mirele wrote:

    That’s different from a surety bond. However, a bail bondsman will be happy to deal with that for you, for a fee, of course.

    This is what I meant by my comment. Wouldn’t the bondsman still want assets to fall back on to get their cash back in case of a runner?

    Well no, if you pay a cash bond, you’re giving *all*I the money up front to the court. It’s not like a surety bond where you sign over your house to the bail bondsman and he writes the bond. I would personally engage a bail bondsman to handle a cash bond in any case, because they have experience doing these things and the connections with the court to get your money back after everything is said and done.

  77. Maricopa County strikes again. Guess he’s the newest “celebrity” in the jail. Maybe Jodie Arias can sing for him. As far as I’m concerned, they can lock him up in jail and throw away the key. If any of us go by there on vacations, we can just wave. Maybe we can get the jail over crowded with “Men of Gawd” like Chantry. They would all be too busy pontificating about other people’s sin, they wouldn’t see their own.

  78. Harley wrote:

    Maricopa County strikes again. Guess he’s the newest “celebrity” in the jail. Maybe Jodie Arias can sing for him. As far as I’m concerned, they can lock him up in jail and throw away the key. If any of us go by there on vacations, we can just wave. Maybe we can get the jail over crowded with “Men of Gawd” like Chantry. They would all be too busy pontificating about other people’s sin, they wouldn’t see their own.

  79. Richard wrote:

    Harley wrote:
    Maricopa County strikes again. Guess he’s the newest “celebrity” in the jail. Maybe Jodie Arias can sing for him. As far as I’m concerned, they can lock him up in jail and throw away the key. If any of us go by there on vacations, we can just wave. Maybe we can get the jail over crowded with “Men of Gawd” like Chantry. They would all be too busy pontificating about other people’s sin, they wouldn’t see their own.

    Actually he is in Yavapai County jail located in Camp Verde, AZ. The jail is about 45 minutes from Prescott

  80. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Talmidah wrote:

    “In Arizona, anyone charged with Sexual Conduct with a Minor (under the age of 15), Sexual Assault, or Molestation of a Child is non-bondable. Article I, Section 22 of the Arizona State Constitution list non-bondable offenses in the state of Arizona, which include the following:”

    Does this mean the arrest was on a NEW charge?
    Can’t stay away from the Jail Bait, can he?

    Like Dee said earlier, he was given bond at first, then something caused them to revoke it. Not sure what happened.

    Maybe I’m confused (a daily thing with me – bad brain fog from illness), but aren’t his charges non-bondable anyway? If so, why did he get bond in the first place? Did the spankings have anything to do with it? Wouldn’t that be another layer of assault?

    And you’re right – some people just can’t stay away from younguns. I had a brother-in-law like that. He literally dropped dead recently, not long after getting out of prison. God help me, but I’m not sorry he’s gone.

  81. @ Max:

    “It’s becoming such a sad ride for so many in the American church. I feel like crying.”
    +++++++++++

    Hi, Max. I understand. I’m having a similar feeling about Christmas.

    My elderly parents are having severe health issues. Their house was always Hospitality Central. My mom was the Christmas Magician, every year creating and cookin’ up christmas magic — ambience, decor, delicious food, wonderful warm feelings, such great times of togetherness.

    it’s gone now. my sibling and I are doing our best to make it happen but it’s pretty stark, in every way.

    I’m coming to terms with the fact that christmas magic doesn’t exist. gifted people can create wondrous hospitality & all ‘dat — but there’s no inherent christmas “magic”. it’s nostalgia, sentimental feelings and memories, and what someone skilled with hospitality can do with it. this is nothing to sneeze at. but the heart of the matter is quality time spent with loved ones.

    I think church is like christmas. without the vehicle (christmas vehicle: my parents/my mom, the magic maker, the queen of hospitality; church vehicle: the familiar facility, format, routine, functionaries, nostalgic music…) it goes poof.

    but God doesn’t go poof.

    just as ‘christmas magic’ is not the tree, the trimmings, the music, and all kinds of other traditions (food, when/how to celebrate, nostalgic music) — really, it’s quality time with loved ones — God is not church.

    God is so much bigger than church.

    if the church institution is declining, it’s a difficult adjustment. but God isn’t declining.

    we just need a new kind of vehicle.

    (hope my thoughts/feelings/sensings are translating here — very tired)

  82. Bridget wrote:

    Lydia wrote:
    Their sexual satisfaction became part of their Gospel teaching
    That is the truth.

    And the logical end to being consumed with sex in Evangelical quarters is the Biblical Gender Roles guy. Some people may think he’s a Poe (I don’t since his interview with Alan Colmes), but just look at the comment section on that blog. ‘Nuf said.

  83. elastigirl wrote:

    My elderly parents are having severe health issues. Their house was always Hospitality Central. My mom was the Christmas Magician, every year creating and cookin’ up christmas magic — ambience, decor, delicious food, wonderful warm feelings, such great times of togetherness.
    it’s gone now. my sibling and I are doing our best to make it happen but it’s pretty stark, in every way.

    I am sorry to hear about this.

    I will be praying for your folks and for you and your sibling.

    Get your rest, if you can.

  84. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Ken G wrote:
    Doesn’t the bail bondsman pony up the $100,000 cash? The bail bondsman is out the $100,000 cash if the defendant doesn’t show up for court.
    Which is why they have Bounty Hunters.

    And now you got me thinking about Dog the Bounty Hunter. What a character he is! 😉

  85. Hi – Frank Turk here.

    It’s weird that someone who blocks me says that I have gone “strangely silent,” but I guess that’s how this sort of blogging works.

    My comments on the subject of Tom himself have not changed from this:
    http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1spe032

    Except to also say this: My prayer for all of you in this Christmas season is that if you are ever arrested for a crime, you are treated better than you have treated Tom. For example, it is spectacularly disingenuous to post a screen shot of the arrest record for Tom which omits the following from the comments at the bottom of the report: “Yavapai County Law Enforcement arrested Thomas J Chantry on December 20, 2016. Chantry and all others arrested are presumed innocent until proven guilty.”

    Tom may or may not be guilty. My prayer is that all of you will see that your on-line harassment does not make that question any clearer, or give his victims any solice.

    Good tidings of great joy to you as the whole world celebrates the birth of the only savior from all manner of criminals, including the ones who think they are righteous.

  86. @ Frank Turk:

    Frank-I didn’t block you. My filter picks up people who are new to the blog or who haven’t commented in a long time. Thank you for your comment.

    It looks like your friend is in heaps of trouble. I can only hope that it was just a big a mistake and no child was hurt.

  87. Frank Turk wrote:

    Also: I am sure my comment above never escapes moderation because it is what it is. May it work at least on your conscience.

    Let’s see…time between comment one and comment two-about a minute. I was in the shower during this time. I am not hanging onto my comment section waiting breathlessly for a new comment to come in.

    You should know this blog. You may not like us but we allow all kinds of comments, even from people who call us necrophiliacs. If that happens again, you will be blocked.

    Finally, good tiding to those who judge the hearts of people who want justice for victims of child sex abuse. You have no idea, Frank. One day, you will.

  88. @ dee:
    Dee– perhaps you could clarify for Frank what you meant by MacArthur possibly being “involved”.
    I figured you might mean he might be involved in encouraging Frank to defend Tom online, or getting lawyers to defend him in court. But these seem highly unlikely to me. Frank might even have taken you to mean that MacArthur somehow inspired Tom’s alleged crimes– even more unlkely. I do know he inspires many, like Team Pyro, to have a certain MO (a rather unchristian one, IMO) in dealing with their opponents. Perhaps you were just pulling Frank’s chain to get a reaction?

  89. elastigirl wrote:

    just as ‘christmas magic’ is not the tree, the trimmings, the music, and all kinds of other traditions (food, when/how to celebrate, nostalgic music) — really, it’s quality time with loved ones — God is not church.
    God is so much bigger than church.
    if the church institution is declining, it’s a difficult adjustment. but God isn’t declining.

    Hope you have a wonderful Christmas with your parents and family, elastigirl! It can be disheartening when the traditions change. I understand those feelings well. Now is time for your creativity to make new traditions and joy for you and yours, and anyone else you bring along. Blessings!

  90. Frank Turk wrote:

    My prayer is that all of you will see that your on-line harassment does not make that question any clearer, or give his victims any solice.

    It is quite obvious you have very little experience with such alleged victims. Or if you do, perhaps like the RCC and SGM convinced them it was best to forgive and forget so as not to stain the church?

    Peds are master cons not only with children but their parents and peers. That is why it takes victims years to dare speak up. They have lived in a hell that, sadly, many in the realm of commercial Christianity are too hard hearted to try and understand.

    What you declare above is exactly the opposite. Victims finally have some who, instead of seeking to silence them, are asking hard questions you find uncomfortable.

    You are quite proud of your tweetmap and social media prowess. You have a platform to tell the nations if Chantry is found innocent. (It is very hard to convict peds, btw. And they know it)

    But victims rarely have a platform of people who care. People who ask the hard questions. People who support them. And that is healing in a way I don’t think many understand after years of being convinced no one would believe you up against a “great man of God”.

    So use your platform but remember, your shaming doesn’t work on everyone.

    And your necrophilia comments certainly did not help your credibility.

  91. Frank Turk wrote:

    Tom may or may not be guilty. My prayer is that all of you will see that your on-line harassment does not make that question any clearer, or give his victims any solice.

    Bless you, Frank. This must be a difficult time.

    If he is innocent, I pray he will be so completely exonerated by the evidence that there will be no shadow of guilt remaining. If that is the case, I have no doubt there will be a post here. The people who run this blog, from my experience, have the integrity to say when they have been mistaken. Because they are so careful in vetting the material they post, I don’t think it happens often.

    As to “give his victims solace” — on the contrary, if he is guilty, and is convicted and sentenced, his victims as well as victims of other molesters will breathe easier, with the knowledge that, for at least as long as the sentence runs, other young lives are spared from being forever blighted by at least one molester.

  92. elastigirl wrote:

    if the church institution is declining, it’s a difficult adjustment. but God isn’t declining.

    Beautiful. As it it should be.

  93. Frank Turk wrote:

    Chantry and all others arrested are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

    I heartily agree with this, insofar as the law and punishment go. Private citizens, however, are free to presume all they want, so long as they don’t take the law and punishment into their own hands. (Posting opinions about these allegations online does not legally constitute “harassment”.) Private citizens are free to see five columns of smoke, and assume there were five fires. They might even presume that if an arsonist set five fires over 15 years ago, he may have set many more since then, and sound the alarm. Tom is free (though not required) to publicly proclaim his innocence, No one I’ve seen has proposed that Tom be stoned or burnt at the stake– or even locked up without due process– which he’s getting. You might notice that the State of Arizona has him locked up right now even though he’s not been proven guilty.

  94. @ Frank Turk:
    Frank, it is not a bad thing to stand by a friend. But I am pretty amazed at how kind you are to him and how mean you were to me years ago as an innocent commenter on your blog.

    You can be supportive of your friend but you need to understand this blog here exists, from what I can see, to support people who have been victimized. They do not and should not need to wait for a conviction for their stories to be listened to and comfort to them given. To do otherwise is to accuse them of being liars and a secondary but troubling result would be to make it less likely other victims would come forward. It is not an easy thing to speak up when one is a victim of sexual abuse. I kept quiet about my own rape for thirty years.

    You allude to possibly having gone through something in your own family under these circumstances. Which makes it even harder to understand why you cannot at least to pretend to have as much compassion for the victims as for your friend. I do not think anyone here would beqrudge you wanting to support your friend but that is not and cannot be the same as throwing alleged victims under the bus. Why do they not deserve just as much of the benefit of the doubt???

    We all will stand before the same Judge one day. I know it, the Deebs know it, you know it. So maybe just maybe at least try to understand why they do what they do, and the reason they pretty much have to do it?

  95. Frank Turk wrote:

    Tom may or may not be guilty. My prayer is that all of you will see that your on-line harassment does not make that question any clearer, or give his victims any solice.

    My main concern, like most of the people here, is for the victims and not for Tom and his alleged crime. Tom is getting plenty of attention it seems. And the justice system is making sure others are not possibly harmed.

    You are presumptuous to say that “the victims are getting no solice.” How would you know this? Do you know their minds?

    It is quite possible that someone will see this article online and come forward as another victim. As in many cases like this, there are often victims who have been silenced for years and suffered alone because of fear and shame, while they watched their perpetrator go on with life as if nothing happened. I hope this is not the case, but we don’t know, do we?

    Tom will hopefully get a fair trial, as our government demands. You can choose to support Tom, as his friend. I will support his possible victims who have probably lived with all kinds of awfulness for years.

  96. Frank wrote:

    “Tom may or may not be guilty. My prayer is that all of you will see that your on-line harassment does not make that question any clearer, or give his victims any solice.”

    I wonder if Frank meant to type alleged victims…

    Tom Chantry has a viewpoint regarding whether or not professing Christians can/should make public alleged crimes professing Christians allegedly commit. It seems he just might be for its exposure:

    Tom Chantry said…
    @ rdrift1879,

    Oh, I never answered your last question. Yes, honestly I would walk away, and I would also pray. I just can’t see where God calls me to expose Christians who are guilty of misconduct. (Not talking about crime, here, by the way – that’s another issue.) And no, I’m not speaking hypothetically. I know of situations which have never been resolved, and of pastors who have been guilty of great spiritual abuse. How I handle that, and more importantly, how I not handle that, is guided by Scripture.
    11:19 AM, May 12, 2012

    http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2012/05/you-know-what-all-right-already.html

  97. Dave A A wrote:

    Dee– perhaps you could clarify for Frank what you meant by MacArthur possibly being “involved”.

    Actually it was even less than what you propose. I wondered if MacArthur approved of Turk’s despicable necrophilia tirade. In other words, does he support Turk’s gospel™ style? I still wonder that.

  98. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Jerome wrote:

    “in a hearing before visiting Maricopa County Judge Bradley Astrowsky on Tuesday, Chantry was sent to the county jail, “determined to be non-bondable,” McGrane said.”

    “Non-bondable” as in “bail denied” or “bail revoked”?
    That would indicate a REAL serious charge or a flight risk (as in evidence he was planning to skip the country).

    HUG, I think you are on to something here. Why would a MARICOPA County judge be making this ruling? All the child molestation charges are pending in Yavapai County (Prescott), where there really isn’t any commercial jet service. However, Phoenix Sky Harbor airport, just 100 miles away, is in MARICOPA County.

    Is it possible that Rev. Chantry was trying to book or board a flight when the terms of his previous bond had a travel restriction? I see no additional charges filed in Maricopa County related to Judge Astrowsky’s action, so I assume that it would be violation of the previous bond.

  99. @ Jessica:
    I believe something happened. He was ARRESTED on 12/20. his bail revoked and he was put in the clinker.

    Remember, he was in court one 12/16 for a hearing. So, they waited 4 days after the hearing to arrest him? Why? This makes little sense.

  100. @Frank_Turk

    I admire your standing up for your friend. I have visited Christian friends in jail, and testified in court on their behalf, asking for leniency. I understand that. But I never made life more difficult for their victims, or asked victim advocates to change or do anything. I let them have their grieving and support mechanisms, and I prayed for the victims, for peace and restoration.

    The thing you miss is that Rev Chantry is not “just another Christian”. He was given the power and responsiblity to be a shepherd of Christ’s sheep. He betrayed that by not just sinning (as we all do) but (allegedly) sexually molesting at least 5 children under his care, using his pastoral authority to gain access to the children by lying to their parents about his intentions.

    That is WAAAYYYY DIFFERENT than a garden variety felony or sexual sin.

    You may think of him as simply your Christian brother, which he is. But he’s more than that, He’s a church leader, and THAT’s why Rev Chantry is getting the additional attention. Not just the church, but society, and God, holds these pastors to a higher standard.

    I believe if you remember how an (alleged) WOLF was allowed to devour the innocent baby lambs (with permanent consequences for these victims) then you might begin to understand why a few voices on behalf of those victims are not harrassment of your friend, but a warning to to others.

  101. Jessica wrote:

    He’s a church leader, and THAT’s why Rev Chantry is getting the additional attention. Not just the church, but society, and God, holds these pastors to a higher standard.

    Well said! Public figures are going to be dealt with in the public. If they don’t waist to be, don’t become a public persona.

    I understand that I open myself up to scrutiny because I have started a public blog. That is why we try not to deleted any negative comments regarding the Deebs. We expect it and can take it.

  102. Diane wrote:

    Oh, I never answered your last question. Yes, honestly I would walk away, and I would also pray. I just can’t see where God calls me to expose Christians who are guilty of misconduct. (Not talking about crime, here, by the way – that’s another issue.) And no, I’m not speaking hypothetically. I know of situations which have never been resolved, and of pastors who have been guilty of great spiritual abuse. How I handle that, and more importantly, how I not handle that, is guided by Scripture.
    11:19 AM, May 12, 2012

    Interesting. Could it be that he is telling us something here?

  103. Bridget wrote:

    Tom will hopefully get a fair trial, as our government demands. You can choose to support Tom, as his friend. I will support his possible victims who have probably lived with all kinds of awfulness for years.

    Well said! I agree.

  104. Frank Turk wrote:

    My prayer is that all of you will see that your on-line harassment does not make that question any clearer, or give his victims any solace.

    Turk finally says something elsewhere than his own blog and Twitter feed… and this is the best he can do? Let’s just count the number of things wrong in this sentence.

    “your on-line harassment” — How has anyone on this blog harassed Chantry? If you think anyone has, then call the cops and have them start an investigation. As I said on another thread, that’s what police get paid to do.

    “your on-line harassment does not make that question any clearer” — No, our discussions and opinions don’t clarify the question of Chantry’s guilt or innocence. And we never claimed that they do. So why are you stating the obvious?

    “or give his victims any solace” — …aaaaaand you know this how, exactly?

    Well everyone, it’s Christmas in Japan already, and (as per my usual) way past my bedtime. Will be up bright and early to open up my present/care package from the folks, then celebrate with Japanese brothers and sisters. Much love to all here!

  105. Serving Kids In Japan wrote:

    “your on-line harassment” — How has anyone on this blog harassed Chantry?

    Turk went after them, then claimed that oodles of people were harassing him because of it. I think he’s just a liar, and does it because it gets him attention.

  106. dee wrote:

    @ Jessica:
    I believe something happened. He was ARRESTED on 12/20. his bail revoked and he was put in the clinker.

    Remember, he was in court one 12/16 for a hearing. So, they waited 4 days after the hearing to arrest him? Why? This makes little sense.

    I just checked with my uncle who is in law enforcement, and he mentioned that it could have been the bail bondsman who approached the judge in Maricopa County. If he had reason to believe that Rev Chantry’s flight risk was now too high, he could have asked the court to revoke the bond. This would not have resulted in any new charges.

    However, being under indictment is being under arrest. With bond revoked, the original indictment (arrest) would thus require taking him into custody pending a hearing, even if there were no subsequent charges or “new” arrest warrant issued.

    Is any of that plausible?

  107. @ dee:
    I’m sure he totally supports the “gospel” style. Likely wasn’t consulted in this particular case.

  108. No desire to pontificate on the guilt or innocence of Mr. Chantry. Not my job, nor my right, really. Neither I, nor anyone else other than those directly involved, know the facts.

    What I will give my opinion on is this:

    1.) If one is a Christian, and accepts the veracity and authenticity of Scripture, then one must admit that there are enemies of God at work in this cursed world. The enemy hates God and wants to destroy His Church.

    2.) What better way is there for Satan to destroy God’s Church than by manipulating a public spectacle to discredit Christians? Whether the misdeeds are real or not, does not matter to those who hate God. The appetite is the same….devour someone.

    3.) Under the banner of “solidarity with victims”, those who link arms with enemies of God in this ongoing Schadenfreude over the myriad of sexual and financial clergy scandals, are both enabling and endorsing, even if unwittingly, the very root cause of what they claim to be fighting against…….SIN.

    4.) Let’s talk about the real victim, in the Christian worldview, of any of these types of scandals. Who is sinned against? I know I will take fire for this, but I would propose that the true Victim is our God. It is people who are made in His image, whom He loves, and for whom He died that are being abused and defiled. I find this point strangely lacking in the verbiage that goes on here. Yes, OF COURSE, we are to love and care for (protect) our neighbor…especially the vulnerable. BUT, as Christians, we should even more weep that a.) our God is being disobeyed, and His reputation maligned by those entrusted with the care of His dear lambs, and b.) the perpetrators of this disobedience will face an eternity of suffering and punishment if they do not repent. Is this something to take lightly and to gloat about in the fervor to support the earthly victims of clergy sin?

  109. Dave A A wrote:

    . You might notice that the State of Arizona has him locked up right now even though he’s not been proven guilty.

    Now there is a good point.

  110. Dave A A wrote:

    @ dee:
    I’m sure he totally supports the “gospel” style. Likely wasn’t consulted in this particular case.

    The spiritual high and mighty are never soiled with such seemly details. They are protected with plausible deniability

  111. dee wrote:

    @ Melody:
    Yeah-he told me that I would be obligated to apologize. It only goes one way. I will never, ever get over his necrophilia comments.

    Obviously I believe Frank is both wicked and unregenerate. However, I am afraid there is more going on here as well. Many of his comments read like someone who is drunk, or coming off a high. As for Chantry, we can pray for justice, but what exactly will it take for the YRR good-ol-boys club to change?This is about as disgusting as it gets.

  112. dee wrote:

    @ Talmidah:
    Not as of yet. We will try to find an answer after Christmas.

    Thanks Dee. I’ll keep poking around as well.

  113. elastigirl wrote:

    @ Max:
    “It’s becoming such a sad ride for so many in the American church. I feel like crying.”
    +++++++++++
    Hi, Max. I understand. I’m having a similar feeling about Christmas.
    My elderly parents are having severe health issues. Their house was always Hospitality Central. My mom was the Christmas Magician, every year creating and cookin’ up christmas magic — ambience, decor, delicious food, wonderful warm feelings, such great times of togetherness.
    it’s gone now. my sibling and I are doing our best to make it happen but it’s pretty stark, in every way.
    I’m coming to terms with the fact that christmas magic doesn’t exist. gifted people can create wondrous hospitality & all ‘dat — but there’s no inherent christmas “magic”. it’s nostalgia, sentimental feelings and memories, and what someone skilled with hospitality can do with it. this is nothing to sneeze at. but the heart of the matter is quality time spent with loved ones.
    I think church is like christmas. without the vehicle (christmas vehicle: my parents/my mom, the magic maker, the queen of hospitality; church vehicle: the familiar facility, format, routine, functionaries, nostalgic music…) it goes poof.
    but God doesn’t go poof.
    just as ‘christmas magic’ is not the tree, the trimmings, the music, and all kinds of other traditions (food, when/how to celebrate, nostalgic music) — really, it’s quality time with loved ones — God is not church.
    God is so much bigger than church.
    if the church institution is declining, it’s a difficult adjustment. but God isn’t declining.
    we just need a new kind of vehicle.
    (hope my thoughts/feelings/sensings are translating here — very tired)

    This really speaks to me…..in so many ways. Thank you.

  114. elastigirl wrote:

    God is not church. God is so much bigger than church.

    Every believer is a temple of God! “Don’t you realize that you yourselves are the temple of God, and God’s Spirit lives in you?” (1 Cor 3:16)

    I have a feeling that we will see more folks join the “Done” ranks in 2017 as they come to grips with the condition of the American church … and realize that they don’t have to go to church, they are the Church!

    God is indeed so much bigger than the organized church! “For in Jesus dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily” (Col 2:9). And that same Jesus lives within the heart of every believer!

  115. dee wrote:

    told me that I would be obligated to apologize.

    Some of these guys think they have some sort of authority over others and get their jollies* telling them what they are obligated to do.

    *Was going to use a more R-rated phrase but tones it down for a more PG-rated version.

  116. Frank Turk wrote:

    Chantry and all others arrested are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

    Legally. Which everyone knows.

    In reality, they are either innocent or guilty. That doesn’t change, no matter their legal status. Most child abusers are never caught or convicted.

  117. Frank Turk wrote:

    Tom may or may not be guilty.

    But there appears to be enough evidence to deny him bail. No one on TWW is locking him up. The civil authorities are doing that. You should complain to them.

  118. Just read at team pyro how much grace the “three amigos” gave people like R Warren, anyone who agrees with BioLogos, Catholics, People who are Charismatic, Women pastor/preachers, anyone who disagrees with John Macarthur, Anyone Emergent, Brian McLaren, and the list goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on. Yet one minutes time or so and it’s the “persecution” card. Yet on pyro people were regularly blocked/moderated, posts deleted often with what appeared to allegedly be glee. Just read the SGM post and the pack a lunch post and the open letter series, and Mr. Turk’s own twitter responses to people. Mr. Turk you have a very long history on the web, what is sad is you are a very intelligent person ad at times compassionate to some issues, honesty require I say that. Your “The Nines” segment was actually quite compelling in my opinion.

    I sense reading pyro you are involved in the local church and probably quite different in person. I know I spent a lot of time reading team pyro with one objective trying to understand the theology spoken of there. It was so close to the theology I left it was important to me to at least seek to understand it and the people who believe it. We are all not some conglomerate of “watch bloggers”, having seen personally the effect of child abuse issues I was compelled to come here just to see a glimmer of hope in a very dark part of the public church. Having a voice as a victim/ survivor of abuse is one of the most healing freeing things that can happen. Dee and Deb and JA Spiritual sounding board and Michael at PP have paid very heavy prices for giving people that voice.

    It is my hope that Mr. Chantry receives a speedy fair impartial balanced just trial of his peers. It is my hope as well that any and all alleged victims can come forward and be heard, given their “day in court” and restored.

  119. Lea wrote:

    Frank Turk wrote:

    Chantry and all others arrested are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

    Legally. Which everyone knows.

    In reality, they are either innocent or guilty. That doesn’t change, no matter their legal status. Most child abusers are never caught or convicted.

    Anyone heard of the one advertising billboard for a defense lawyer?

    “JUST BECAUSE YOU DID IT DOESN’T MEAN YOU’RE GUILTY!”

  120. ishy wrote:

    Turk went after them, then claimed that oodles of people were harassing him because of it.

    Maybe a version of substitutionary atonement, the alleged abuser and his supporters are the real victims.

  121. Frank Turk wrote:

    Good tidings of great joy to you as the whole world celebrates the birth of the only savior from all manner of criminals, including the ones who think they are righteous.

    That last jab is referred to as projection. “humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others”
    Wikipedia – “Psychological projection”

  122. dee wrote:

    @ Jessica:
    Yes-what do you think about. the Grand Canyon news report.

    “Yavapai County, Arizona officials may have gotten more than they bargained during their encounter with Thomas Chantry on December 20, 2016.”

    http://www.grandcanyondailynews.com/news/arizona/suspect-detained/29068254.html

    Thomas Chantry, of Yavapai County, was arrested in Arizona according to information retrieved by Grand Canyon Daily News.

    Grand Canyon Daily News first heard about the event on December 21, 2016 after the arresting agency released the information to the public. Chantry was detained and later charged, according to Grand Canyon Daily News’s analysis of the official report.

    The official report details Chantry as a nondescript suspect. Few additional details were recorded in the report.

    Difficult to say with clarity all the play-by-play without seeing the same report that GC Daily News saw.

  123. dee wrote:

    Bunny wrote:
    how mean you were to me years ago as an innocent commenter on your blog.
    You are not the only one.

    Ditto. It was quite troubling to observe many commenters being raked over the coals, ridiculed and insulted because they dared to disagree with Frank Turk, Phil Johnson, and Dan Phillips. Several of my comments were deleted, not because I was being nasty or unkind. No. Rather, because I brought a different theological perspective (non-Calvinist) to the table and they didn’t want to hear it. It seems The Pyromaniacs were only interested in one perspective: their own. So Mr. Turk should NO REASON to complain about any other blog being intolerant of diverse opinions or permitting him to post.

  124. Lydia wrote:

    Dave A A wrote:
    . You might notice that the State of Arizona has him locked up right now even though he’s not been proven guilty.
    Now there is a good point.

    Well, I suppose they’re just harassing Mr. Chantry, like folks on this blog.

  125. Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

    Obviously I believe Frank is both wicked and unregenerate. However, I am afraid there is more going on here as well. Many of his comments read like someone who is drunk, or coming off a high. As for Chantry, we can pray for justice, but what exactly will it take for the YRR good-ol-boys club to change?This is about as disgusting as it gets.

    I don’t think judging Frank as “unregenerate” is something within our purview. We can observe a person’s actions and behavior and deduce that such actions and behavior are not appropriate for a Christian. However, only God can judge the spiritual condition of a person’s heart to know if they are “regenerate” (saved). I didn’t like it when The Pyromaniacs thought they could judge people’s salvation and took liberties to make scathing comments about them. I think we, here at TWW, need to rise above the fray of making such judgments.

  126. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Lea wrote:

    Frank Turk wrote:

    Chantry and all others arrested are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

    Legally. Which everyone knows.

    In reality, they are either innocent or guilty. That doesn’t change, no matter their legal status. Most child abusers are never caught or convicted.

    Anyone heard of the one advertising billboard for a defense lawyer?

    “JUST BECAUSE YOU DID IT DOESN’T MEAN YOU’RE GUILTY!”

    Wow!!! Truth in advertising.

    I

  127. @ Dave A A:
    Let me tell you that either one of these is so fantastically-terrible, it doesn’t matter which one she meant. You honestly think I talk to John MacArthur ever — let alone about someone he has never met?

    You people deserve a merry Christmas — in fact, you deserves everything his life will render unto you. Someday you will see how you have treated others who need both prayer and the Gospel, and when Christ shows you what you have given instead you will wish the mountains will fall on you instead of what it will get you in the end.

  128. @ Ken F:
    I enjoy all the conjecture because it expresses the depths of understanding about the legal system used here.

    How often are those accused of what Tom is accused of denied bail, do you think — I mean, as a percent of the total? It turns out that AZ has had a law (now under review by the AZ Supreme Court) which denies bail to people accused of sex offenses. The statute requiring this is likely to be struck down after appeal, but right now the judge has no recourse — the previous judge also did not have the option, which is why Tom was brought back to AZ.

    So please: keep imagining the worst. Please keep saying everything you can imagine. This is how anyone reading this blog knows what sort of blog this really is.

  129. @ Darlene:
    Hi Darlene — thanks for the rough defense.

    Please link me to someplace any of the guys or myself judged anyone as unregenerate and unsaved. I’d be pleased to see it as I have always had a policy against it, and neither Phil not Dan are worried about such things. The point of our blog was always to point out error and see if someone would repent — not to cast them into hell.

    If you can find us doing otherwise, I’ll be pleased to take it to the author for their prompt action.

  130. Frank Turk wrote:

    Let me tell you that either one of these is so fantastically-terrible, it doesn’t matter which one she meant. You honestly think I talk to John MacArthur ever — let alone about someone he has never met?

    You people deserve a merry Christmas — in fact, you deserves everything his life will render unto you. Someday you will see how you have treated others who need both prayer and the Gospel, and when Christ shows you what you have given instead you will wish the mountains will fall on you instead of what it will get you in the end.

    and who are ‘you people’?

  131. @ Frank Turk:

    I second Dr. Fundystan’s opinion of you. You’re still proving him right in all these follow-up comments and how you mischaracterize this blog and the people behind it.

  132. @ ishy:
    I also like this comment very much.

    How do you think I found this blog and its sideshow of scamps and malcontents? It turns out I found it when it started accusing me of covering up for Tom when in fact I simply said nothing publicly about him — something common for about 2 years since the start of my blogging hiatus.

    But: suit yourself: I was waiting for just the right moment to come here and start hurling accusations at people I have never met because I knew for certain it would be a great way to spend Christmas eve.

    Oh wait: that was you guys. I was the guy summoned via twitter to make an account by people who apparently don’t even have full-time jobs.

    That’ll do it for me, y’all. Dee: thanks for posting my comment in spite of blocking me on twitter and also continuing to invent me ways to slander me. You made the end of 2016 exactly as good as the rest of it.

  133. @ Bridget:

    Thanks, Bridget. Yes, time to reinvent. Thanks for your kindness. Christmas is so complicated, in every way — doesn’t have to be — i think it’s even complicated trying to simplify it. i’ve tried to cancel Christmas every year for the past 5 years… hasn’t worked out.

    sorry for not being a ray of sunshine — to me, it’s just being realistic and honest.

  134. Frankly speaking, someone’s comments portray a very young rather immature individual but the picture of this person’s face that we are shown presents an old man. Is a mystery.

  135. Frank Turk wrote:

    How do you think I found this blog and its sideshow of scamps and malcontents

    I would say something snarky about the folks at your blog, but it’s Christmas Eve and I am full of goodwill.

  136. Frank Turk wrote:

    That’ll do it for me, y’all. Dee: thanks for posting my comment in spite of blocking me on twitter and also continuing to invent me ways to slander me. You made the end of 2016 exactly as good as the rest of it.

    I had an unfavorable impression of you long before I found this blog or before this Tom Chantry business.

    You expect the people who run this blog, or the others on here, to warm up to you after you ran around all over social media accusing people of being into necrophilia?

  137. elastigirl wrote:

    sorry for not being a ray of sunshine — to me, it’s just being realistic and honest.

    No apology needed at all. Life is hard sometimes, it just is.

  138. @ Max:

    ““For in Jesus dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily” (Col 2:9). And that same Jesus lives within the heart of every believer!”
    +++++++++++++++++++

    wow…. of course it’s true. we just never hear about it.

    is it that the former is too mysterious (so that the professionals don’t exactly know what to do with it – and that, of course, is not good for credibility), and the latter is to inconvenient (interferes with the institution’s raison d’etre)?

  139. elastigirl wrote:

    @ Velour:
    thank you for your kindness. all this is bringing tears. christmas… such an ironic experience.

    Hugs, sweetie. Sorry for the hard times.

    I hope you can get to the beach or some place that gives you peace and comfort.

  140. Frank Turk wrote:

    @ ishy:
    I also like this comment very much.
    How do you think I found this blog and its sideshow of scamps and malcontents? It turns out I found it when it started accusing me of covering up for Tom when in fact I simply said nothing publicly about him — something common for about 2 years since the start of my blogging hiatus.

    You really have trouble with this truth thing, don’t you? The blog posted about you AFTER your tweets on Twitter to Dee, and your tweets are included on the post you are claiming happened before you heard of TWW! Before that, you were not mentioned on here since 2013! Wow, was Dee psychic? That’s AMAZING!

  141. @ Joe:

    thanks, joe. i wish you peace and joy, and rich spiritual exploits. (after all, our own spirituality belongs to us, not the institution.) (i’ll stop now)

  142. Ahh. The christmas “spirit”. There isn’t one, really. Church, the Ecclesia, is us. Those who are of the same spirit, the Spirit of God, given to us by God, and one in His Word, we are it. You can’t GO there. We live there.

    It is hard to get to our age (I am mid-fifties) and our families = parents are now gone, and we are the tradition keepers/makers (or not). To stand alone in human terms is not standing alone with God the Father, Jesus our Christ and the Holy Spirit to keep us. We are never alone. So I sit here, in my apartment of one (with a bird on my shoulder…there goes the laundry) as I have for the last ten years, but I am not lonely. I am going to read some, I was reading in Hebrews last night…it is a good thing to remember. And 1 Pet 2:24… many things… even you all, though we have never spoken, and I’m sure many of us bear similar scars… we are one. We do not stand alone. “Do not give thought what you will say, but the Holy Spirit will deliver you the words as you need them.”

    This place is passing away. The Kingdom of our Father will never pass away. And in this late time, probably we shall be seeing it sooner rather than later. Syria, Lebanon, Isreal,

    The false leaders…are false. Our eyes need now be elsewhere. I am not without major fault in that area. But I am being reminded lately that it is later than we think, and much of this nonsense will pass away soon. Yes, we will be hated, excoriated, excommunicated, whatever. But never will Jesus walk away from us if we are humble and obedient to HIS Word. And it is only that which matters. The laws of men are never going to supercede the Word of God. We are already enduring…

    Remember the bible also teaches, Do not many of you wish to become teachers, knowing that we will have greater condemnation (we will be judged for how we teach and who we cause to stumble.) Yes, millstones, have you ever seen one? bigger than my car. I will stop and remember I need to remain humble myself. I do not wish to teach, only encourage.

    Nobody out there alone right now, who has Jesus Christ, is alone. We all all with you, in spirit if not in person. And many of us sit quietly alone (I was painting earlier) but believe me, alone is FAR better than being in the company of abusers, of any kind, emotionally, physically, or spiritually.

    If anyone has a tear in their eye, I have a kleenex. I know those tears and that pain. I think most here do. But you aren’t alone. You’ll see. This life is a shadow of the wonder of our reward. Read REvelation 19 and the description of the New Jerusalem. It helps. And we only share a tiny bit of the pain our Lord Suffered for to deliver us.

    It is a wondrous time, but only in that our Lord, Jesus Christ, came to earth to fulfill the prophecies of Him, so He could come again, and gather us together to no more ever suffer pain, or sadness. It will be. Amen.

  143. Frank Turk wrote:

    f blocking me on twitter

    I got tired of the necrophiliac nonsense. It totally creeped me out and frankly worried me a bit. I wasn’t sure what sort of person I was dealing with. You actually scared me, Frank.

    Now, you say I slandered you. Slander is knowingly telling a deliberate lie. I cannot imagine when I have done this. I may be wrong but never knowingly tell a lie.

  144. @ Frank Turk:
    My husband, who is a Christian, male (I know that matters to you) and a doctor actually expressed concern to me about your escalating comments as well as the necrophilia stuff. He was opposed to you being allowed to comment here but I convinced him to go along with it for the sake of communication.

    He, as well as me, are not amused. If you continue in this vein, I will defer to his well honed judgment on assessing the reasonableness of people one should communicate with. I bet, in this instance, he would recommend an outside professional do an assessment.

  145. @ elastigirl:
    I am praying for you and your family. Was a hard time for all of you. Aging parents is one thing I get. I wish I could give you a hug and a pot of soup.

  146. Frank Turk wrote:

    @ Dave A A:
    Let me tell you that either one of these is so fantastically-terrible, it doesn’t matter which one she meant. You honestly think I talk to John MacArthur ever — let alone about someone he has never met?
    You people deserve a merry Christmas — in fact, you deserves everything his life will render unto you. Someday you will see how you have treated others who need both prayer and the Gospel, and when Christ shows you what you have given instead you will wish the mountains will fall on you instead of what it will get you in the end.

    Wow. Let me repeat my questions to Dee and add a clarification.
    “Dee– perhaps you could clarify for Frank what you meant by MacArthur possibly being “involved”.
    I figured you might mean he might be involved in encouraging Frank to defend Tom online, or getting lawyers to defend him in court. But these seem highly unlikely to me. Frank might even have taken you to mean that MacArthur somehow inspired Tom’s alleged crimes– even more unlkely. I do know he inspires many, like Team Pyro, to have a certain MO (a rather unchristian one, IMO) in dealing with their opponents. Perhaps you were just pulling Frank’s chain to get a reaction?”
    I honestly failed to understand why Dee speculated about MacArthur, because anything besides provoking a reaction from Frank wouldn’t make sense. IOW I think Dee was mistaken. This was my first comment on this topic aside from one on Todd’s blog attempting to support one of the alleged victims. And Frank has replied to this comment rather than the one I addressed to him. Anyone, including Frank, care to translate his reply and what I said to provoke it?

  147. I normally don’t post here, I dont’ wish to add much but glean a great deal from seeing so many sides to issues and this is one place where one could glean a number (not the only ones, but a number) of opinions.

    I will say @Frank – what you post here really doesn’t elevate your point of view, in all honestly for all you say negative about the folks who post here, your venom and vitriol is evident and honestly you do yourself or your blog or the folks associated with you no justice but acting as angry, cruel, and as mean as you have been.

    It may be time to take a good long look at the mirror and determine why you feel the need to post as you do, and then put down the laptop for a long, yet indeterminate amount of time and just focus on scripture. Stop following what others tell you about it – start reading it for yourself. There really is nothing in there that would justify the treatment of others as you have. N.O.T.H.I.N.G. You come across as one of the most un-Christian men I’ve met and in my life outside of the intertubes I deal with some folks in real dire need of a personal connection and submission to Christ. Your ego has obviously gotten in the way of that. I pray that some day you’ll see it.

  148. Some of these pastors are a lot like President-elect Trump. I just want to take away their Twitter accounts and blogger profiles, you know, to keep them from habitually condemning themselves. Would be an act of kindness. I’m sure Mr. Turk could be a perfectly likable guy in a different setting, but I think his need to soldier the debate overrides his diplomacy. It’s very unbecoming of someone in ministry. As is having been friends with a now-arrested serial pedophile like Chantry. May the Spirit guide you into all truth, Mr. Turk.

    And at the very least, may it help you find better friends…that aren’t CURRENTLY-JAILED SERIAL PEDOPHILES.

  149. @ Dave A A:
    I would hazard a guess that the comment reflects bitterness. Not the same kind as the accusation of bitterness that the powers that be often bring against Dones, but actual bitterness.

    The man’s words sound bitter, and deeply grieved. He also sounds as if he feels he has no recourse–much as the people on the receiving end of spiritual abuse might feel.

    I wonder how much of that comes from an inability to control the narrative. He cannot delete comments here, he cannot “correct” people’s theological understanding (and he certainly seems incapable of reasoning together), so he is reduced to hurling invective, trying somehow to inflict pain. And failing miserably, it seems.

    Bitterness is so destructive.

  150. Due to my concerns about Frank Turk, I am putting him into moderation so I don’t wake up to a firestorm. This does not mean I won’t approve his comments. But, if I do not, I will post that a comment was not approved.

    I will no longer allow any name calling, accusations of slander without explanation, etc.

    On another point, blocking someone on Twitter does not mean that they cannot see your twitter feed. I see everyone’s twitter feed who blocks me. It just means that their comments will no longer be in your stream . I felt I needed to do this because Turk began to make me feel a bit unsafe with the necrophilia stuff.

    I no longer wanted to see in on my feed. I believe Nate Sparks was forced to do the same thing.

    I just finished making my pierogis and I am going to bed. Merry Christmas.

  151. Dave A A wrote:

    IOW I think Dee was mistaken

    I have a feeling that many people did not know just how concerned I was about the necrophilia comments. It made me fear, just a little bit, for my safety. Whenever someone goes off on a tangent like that, it does give me pause. Frankly, it is one of the most concerning things I have ever experienced on social media.

    It led me to wonder if I could be dealing with an unbalanced individual. Hence, my comment about MacArthur. I wondered If he was aware of this line of responses by one who supports his ministry. I was trying to figure out if this was normal interaction in Turk’s ministry.

  152. @ Nana:

    “2.) What better way is there for Satan to destroy God’s Church than by manipulating a public spectacle to discredit Christians? Whether the misdeeds are real or not, does not matter to those who hate God. The appetite is the same….devour someone.”
    ++++++++++++++++++

    well, sounds like such individuals will seek to devour regardless of what I or any christian does or doesn’t do. why should that dictate how christians respond to cruddy if not criminal behavior amongst its own?

    it’s high time christians took responsibility for their own and learned how to police themselves. because it’s the right thing to do — not because we don’t want to give the anti-God-ians something to talk about.

    the way i see it, the christian institution has a habit of whitewashing its leaders’ misdeeds. they do this for a few reasons:

    1) for the sake of protecting their safe, insular realm. christians like the familiar routine of their church, the sentimental aspects of it, the meaning & purpose it gives to their lives, and engaging with the people there. they have made church a big part of their lives. they do not want anything to jeopardize this.

    2) for the sake of their important role. christians have an aggrandized sense that they (or their church/their leader) are of such valuable consequence to God that He will be at a disadvantage & the world will irretrievably miss out if they are prevented from functioning as per usual.

    3) for the sake of their charismatic leader who provides the stability and infusive energy for their church community. the leader somehow makes people feel safe, that their community is safe. (people like predictability)

    4) for the sake of careers and job security. leaders favor & rally around each other & reserve the benefit of the doubt for each other over & above those who are bringing to light the misdeeds. over and above the victims. over and above common sense. and over and above the evidence.

    i prefer to despiritualize and plainly say that Where these things have happened, christians especially leaders deserve to be discredited.

  153. elastigirl wrote:

    it’s high time christians took responsibility…

    I think you summed it up there, elastigirl.

    There will always be those who purport to hate “sin” (and have perhaps convinced themselves they hate it) but who neither wish to do anything about it, nor for anybody else to do anything about it.

    I don’t know whether the commenter to whom you were replying is for real or not. But I read comments like that (they occur every so often, AWWBA) and it’s always a sobering reminder to me never to become like that. And to press on and ensure that, whatever I feel about injustice, I am taking responsibility for addressing the unjust as well as just offering palliative care to their victims.

  154. Nana wrote:

    4.) Let’s talk about the real victim, in the Christian worldview, of any of these types of scandals. Who is sinned against? I know I will take fire for this, but I would propose that the true Victim is our God.

    If you believe that, you should be doubly mad at the evil doer who brought the scandal.

    Your general line of thinking is so wrong, though. The bible is about truth. The things that were done in the dark will be brought into the light. We are meant to expose evil, not help it along by keeping our mouths shut ‘for the good of the cause’. That is not only bad christian thought, it is bad PR for Christ. Do you really wish it said of Christians that they cover up evil done to children, because they don’t want to hurt their image? Do you think that will lead people to God?

    Really, really think about what you’re saying here because it’s wrong on all levels.

  155. Lea wrote:

    Your general line of thinking is so wrong, though. The bible is about truth. The things that were done in the dark will be brought into the light. We are meant to expose evil, not help it along by keeping our mouths shut ‘for the good of the cause’. That is not only bad christian thought, it is bad PR for Christ. Do you really wish it said of Christians that they cover up evil done to children, because they don’t want to hurt their image? Do you think that will lead people to God?
    Really, really think about what you’re saying here because it’s wrong on all levels.

    Can you point out to me where I said that “evil done to children” should be covered up?

  156. Nana wrote:

    2.) What better way is there for Satan to destroy God’s Church than by manipulating a public spectacle to discredit Christians? Whether the misdeeds are real or not, does not matter to those who hate God. The appetite is the same….devour someone.

    Are you suggesting that exposing sinful behavior in church leadership is more damaging to our Christian witness than covering it up?

    Ephesians 5:11 – Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them…

  157. Nana wrote:

    Can you point out to me where I said that “evil done to children” should be covered up?

    It’s what your statement implies. TWW has been working to expose abuse. If exposing abuse is wrong, the implication is that it should be covered up. But if covering it up is wrong, then exposure is pretty much the only logical alternative.

  158. Ken F wrote:

    It’s what your statement implies. TWW has been working to expose abuse. If exposing abuse is wrong, the implication is that it should be covered up. But if covering it up is wrong, then exposure is pretty much the only logical alternative.

    Can you point out where I said that exposing abuse is wrong? What I was trying to point out is that as Christians when/if evil is exposed, we should weep. We should weep for the victims, and we should weep for perpetrators who face eternal punishment if they do not repent. We should weep and tremble before God lest we ourselves commit such offenses against God and against the vulnerable. What I see here, instead, is an almost gleeful display when a clergy failure is exposed. I truly understand this reaction from unbelievers, but am mystified by it from Christians.

  159. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    There will always be those who purport to hate “sin” (and have perhaps convinced themselves they hate it) but who neither wish to do anything about it, nor for anybody else to do anything about it.

    Unless of course the particular sin is same sex relationships.
    Then it becomes a Templars storming the walls of Jerusalem kind of thing.

  160. Nana wrote:

    What I was trying to point out is that as Christians when/if evil is exposed, we should weep.

    I’m not sure what you are proposing. It sounds like you saying that the appropriate Christian response is to weep but not engage in publicly exposing the wrongdoing. If that is what you believe, then you did not follow your own standard by publicly calling out people on this site. You should have just privately wept, or perhaps contacted Dee and Deb offline. But if you do think it is important enough to publicly call out folks on this very public forum, then you agree, in principle, with what this site is all about. Can you see how your comment can be confusing?

    If exposing abuse is not wrong, but you think that Christians should not be doing the exposure, then who should be doing it? Non-Christians? If only non-Christians expose abuse within the church, won’t that do more harm to our Christian witness?

  161. Nana wrote:

    We should weep and tremble before God lest we ourselves commit such offenses against God and against the vulnerable. What I see here, instead, is an almost gleeful display when a clergy failure is exposed. I truly understand this reaction from unbelievers, but am mystified by it from Christians.

    Can you point out to me in the Bible where Jesus only wept at evil?

    You seem to project emotions on everyone here which may not be true. And Ken makes a good point, that you are not even holding yourself to your own standard.

    I do feel relief when wolves abusing the sheep are put away from abusing them. But I wouldn’t call it glee in any sense. I do not believe many of these men belong to God. I believe some of them go into ministry specifically to abuse people, intentionally. And I have seen for myself that hiding it and not talking about it results in years of abuse, because Christians don’t stand up to it. Non-believers aren’t going to remember people dealing with bad clergy; they will remember the men who abused a bunch of children or shattered the faith of their family members.

    I see nothing in Scripture which says I shouldn’t speak up, even harshly, about abuse of God’s children. Jesus only wept a few times in the Gospels, even when emotional responses were expected in certain situations in that culture. But He did have a lot of stern words for anyone that hurt His children. As did Paul.

    Matt. 23:13: “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.”

    I am really failing to see how anything of what you said is actually founded in Scripture.

  162. Nana wrote:

    We should weep and tremble before God lest we ourselves commit such offenses against God and against the vulnerable

    Please let us know when you commit a serious offense against the vulnerable. You made it sound like you might not have control. I am concerned for you.

    If we “weep” over every instance of abuse in Christendom– that is all we would do and we would run out of tissue to boot. And besides, nothing would get done. It sounds pious but is something many most likely do in private. Not everyone makes a show of it.

  163. Nana wrote:

    We should weep for the victims

    But you did not do this. When faced with injustice it is normal and right to mourn with victims and to then commend justice. You came here without mourning for the victims and now criticize those here for their observance of the latter. To me that is upside down and speaks of a contorted view of the world.

  164. Lydia wrote:

    Please let us know when you commit a serious offense against the vulnerable. You made it sound like you might not have control. I am concerned for you.

    I commit a serious offense against the vulnerable EVERY single time that I lose my temper with my dear husband who is only trying to love me and do his best. Yet I, in my sinfulness, am always tempted to find fault with him. It is a constant struggle.

  165. Bill M wrote:

    Nana wrote:
    We should weep for the victims
    But you did not do this. When faced with injustice it is normal and right to mourn with victims and to then commend justice. You came here without mourning for the victims and now criticize those here for their observance of the latter. To me that is upside down and speaks of a contorted view of the world.

    How do you know that I did not weep for the victims?

  166. Debi Calvet wrote:

    @ Lea:
    Furthermore, God is never a victim. Ever.

    Check Merriam-Webster maybe? “….one that is subjected to oppression, hardship, or mistreatment.” I would say that describes Calvary, wouldn’t you? God, though His Son, became a willing sacrifice for our sins. Every time I sin, and it is brought to my conscience by the Holy Spirit, I wince, knowing that I drove those nails into Him.

  167. Nana wrote:

    Check Merriam-Webster maybe? “….one that is subjected to oppression, hardship, or mistreatment.” I would say that describes Calvary, wouldn’t you? God, though His Son, became a willing sacrifice for our sins. Every time I sin, and it is brought to my conscience by the Holy Spirit, I wince, knowing that I drove those nails into Him.

    the problem with your theology is that Our Lord was a WILLING ‘victim’ and His sacrifice redeems ….. the poor beaten wife or the sad and terrified sexually abused child are suffering victims who did not seek their pain, but their abusers HAVE SOUGHT TO HURT these people.

    I can refer you to a site where perpetrators/criminals ARE cared for in a Christian environment ….. but when these prisoners who were jailed rioted and were killing each other, the Christian woman who had come to live in the prison in order to care for them walked in and raised her hands and asked for them to stop. They did.
    Nothing wrong with asking perpetrators to stop. Very wrong to look the other way and do nothing or, worse, to think we (or even one person) will not be able to change things for the better:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/21/us/antonia-brenner-prison-angel-who-took-inmates-under-her-wings-dies-at-86.html

    It’s okay to weep for the sadness of the abuse/abuser/victim problem, but as Christians, we must do more.

    Our Lord didn’t stay on high and weep for our poor lost humankind, no. He came down. And He took care of us. If we follow Him, we assume the cares He has for people and we live accordingly. It’s not easy.

  168. Ken F wrote:

    It’s not clear to me that His willingness makes Him a victim. The Bible never calls Him a victim. Still, the fact that He willingly went through everything the incarnation entails gives a voice to victims.

    Bingo.

  169. Nana wrote:

    How do you know that I did not weep for the victims?

    Same question I asked you when you implied people here do not.

  170. Nana wrote:

    .) Under the banner of “solidarity with victims”, those who link arms with enemies of God in this ongoing Schadenfreude over the myriad of sexual and financial clergy scandals, are both enabling and endorsing, even if unwittingly, the very root cause of what they claim to be fighting against…….SIN.

    Personally, my goal, as an advocate, is to do all I can to help them move from victim to survivor. You would really hate that transition. :o)

    Justice is schadenfreude?

  171. Nana wrote:

    What better way is there for Satan to destroy God’s Church than by manipulating a public spectacle to discredit Christians? Whether the misdeeds are real or not, does not matter to those who hate God. The appetite is the same….devour someone.

    So the devil makes them do it?

  172. Nana wrote:

    Lydia wrote:

    Please let us know when you commit a serious offense against the vulnerable. You made it sound like you might not have control. I am concerned for you.

    I commit a serious offense against the vulnerable EVERY single time that I lose my temper with my dear husband who is only trying to love me and do his best. Yet I, in my sinfulness, am always tempted to find fault with him. It is a constant struggle.

    So, losing your temper with your husband (who you imply is as vulnerable as a child?) is akin to molesting children?

    What I am hearing from you are sin leveling /moral equivalency arguments that are so popular in wide swaths of Christendom. You must view yourself a horrible sinner like the child molesters?

  173. Nana wrote:

    God, though His Son, became a willing sacrifice for our sins

    So children who are molested are “willing” participants for a sacrifice to the cons sexual gratification? Or, the vulnerable whose brains are not fully developed and trusted evil cons who groomed them?

  174. Lydia wrote:

    Nana wrote:
    Lydia wrote:
    Please let us know when you commit a serious offense against the vulnerable. You made it sound like you might not have control. I am concerned for you.
    I commit a serious offense against the vulnerable EVERY single time that I lose my temper with my dear husband who is only trying to love me and do his best. Yet I, in my sinfulness, am always tempted to find fault with him. It is a constant struggle.

    My husband is “vulnerable” because he loves me. Those whom we love can hurt us as no other can. I view myself as God views me….a sinner whom He condescended to save, through no merit of my own.
    So, losing your temper with your husband (who you imply is as vulnerable as a child?) is akin to molesting children?
    What I am hearing from you are sin leveling /moral equivalency arguments that are so popular in wide swaths of Christendom. You must view yourself a horrible sinner like the child molesters?

  175. Lydia wrote:

    Nana wrote:
    God, though His Son, became a willing sacrifice for our sins
    So children who are molested are “willing” participants for a sacrifice to the cons sexual gratification? Or, the vulnerable whose brains are not fully developed and trusted evil cons who groomed them?

    This is a horrible misrepresentation of what I said.

  176. Nana wrote:

    So, losing your temper with your husband (who you imply is as vulnerable as a child?) is akin to molesting children?
    What I am hearing from you are sin leveling /moral equivalency arguments that are so popular in wide swaths of Christendom. You must view yourself a horrible sinner like the child molesters?

    Sorry I formatted the reply wrong previously.My husband is “vulnerable” because he loves me. Those whom we love can hurt us as no other can. I view myself as God views me….a sinner whom He condescended to save, through no merit of my own.

  177. Nana wrote:

    How do you know

    I did not see you it express it here and your protest was about the comments here. A 9 or 10 year old boy was allegedly groped by an adult man. Thankfully I have not had to overcome such an abuse in my formative years but have read enough stories to understand the tremendous damage that can be done. So many times the victim suffers in obscurity while their abuser, whose transgressions are unknown, is celebrated and given the limelight.

    For a new commenter it is always appreciated when they first express some concern for the actual victims, I think here it is referred to as the prime directive. Following that I personally get suspicious when I see more concern for the abuser, agreed, it is still an allegation. I get even more suspicious when cold water is thrown onto those who are hopeful that justice may have a chance.

    If these allegations are proven true I very much doubt that there is only one or two victims. The patter of such molesters is to have dozens if not hundreds before they are finally caught and convicted. So understand that context when you come to chastise those who are thankful that there may be one less molester prowling around looking for more victims.

  178. @ Nana:
    Still, your husband is vulnerable like a child being groomed for the sexual gratification of a con pedophile? And you are the same sinner as the con pedophile? Got it. I am familiar with sin leveling. The Neo Cal’s perfected it as weapon. Especially Mahaney.

  179. Nana wrote:

    Lydia wrote:

    Nana wrote:
    God, though His Son, became a willing sacrifice for our sins
    So children who are molested are “willing” participants for a sacrifice to the cons sexual gratification? Or, the vulnerable whose brains are not fully developed and trusted evil cons who groomed them?

    This is a horrible misrepresentation of what I said.

    Actually, I think it is the logical result of your thinking/doctrine. Unless you need to flesh it out better.

    Jesus understands our suffering. But He had the ability to call down 10,000 angels to stop it at any time. Children who are victims of heinous evil, do not. They rely on us adults to protect them from such evil.

    I honestly don’t think you have thought through what you have posted here. It sounds like the same tired cliches heard in so many churches.

  180. Lydia wrote:

    I honestly don’t think you have thought through what you have posted here. It sounds like the same tired cliches heard in so many churches.

    So it’s a tired cliche to think that I am a sinner in need of the Savior?

  181. @ Nana:
    I thought you were saved. Do you need to be resaved over and over?

    Do you really think losing your temper with your husband is the same sin as grooming a child for your sexual gratification? If so, we really don’t have much to discuss.

    Hey, tell at your dog or murder someone! God sees it the same!

  182. @ Nana:
    If you are never actually saved, yes. Or if you feel you have to continually seek salvation over and over there might be a problem with understanding the cross/resurrection.

    It seems we have very different views of sin. I don’t buy into sin leveling moral equivalency arguments. SGM used these same arguments as pious weapons on victims, too.

  183. Nana, it’s been fun. Gotta go. The newly minted permit driver in our home is taking us all for a joy ride. :o). Yikes!

  184. Nana wrote:

    What I see here, instead, is an almost gleeful display when a clergy failure is exposed.

    You might be mistaking relief for glee.

    Whenever an abuser is exposed, I feel relief at the thought that future would-be victims might be spared, whether it be sexual, physical, emotional, or spiritual abuse.

    I am certainly not gleeful, and I don’t detect a gleeful attitude in others who post here. Some may express their satisfaction in a rather savage way, but I detect the same relief behind the sometimes shocking language. Many who post here have been abused in the past, or know someone who has been abused, and have a keen interest in seeing abusers’ hands tied, in one way or another.

  185. Lydia wrote:

    Gotta go. The newly minted permit driver in our home is taking us all for a joy ride. :o). Yikes!

    To use the proper Christianese, I’ll pray for “traveling mercies”. (for everyone else in your path also)

  186. Nana wrote:

    Lydia wrote:
    Please let us know when you commit a serious offense against the vulnerable. You made it sound like you might not have control. I am concerned for you.
    I commit a serious offense against the vulnerable EVERY single time that I lose my temper with my dear husband who is only trying to love me and do his best. Yet I, in my sinfulness, am always tempted to find fault with him. It is a constant struggle.

    My word.

    Your dear husband is an adult, I should hope, over the age of consent, and able to defend himself. And it sounds as if the two of you have the capacity to reason together.

    There is absolutely no parallel between that and a person who uses a power differential to target, groom, and abuse others: a pastor, grooming and seducing women on his staff or in his congregation, for example. A “pastor” or football coach or youth volunteer worker using his position to satisfy his twisted desires with the children entrusted to his care.

    Wait, there might be a power differential in your marriage, if you are complementarian. Even so, that makes your situation even less comparable to what I mentioned, as the power differential would work in your husband’s favor, not yours. Unless, of course, you use your femininity in a manipulative way, unfairly, because he’s been trained to be a “gentleman” and will not fight back against a woman’s attacks, whether physical or verbal.

    It’s an insult to your husband to compare him to a helpless child; do you realize that? And an insult to the helpless children who have been molested by people in a position of trust, to infer that they had some kind of choice in the matter.

    Comparing yourself to a molester makes light of the molester’s sin, rather than making your sin seem heavier–do you realize? It diminishes your credibility and makes you out to be quite foolish (and not a fool in the way Paul talked about being a fool for Christ, if I’m remembering correctly, but more along the lines of the OT Proverbs).

  187. refugee wrote:

    And an insult to the helpless children who have been molested by people in a position of trust, to infer that they had some kind of choice in the matter.

    Can you please point out where I said that children who are abused have a choice?

    I bid you all adieu, and Merry Christmas.

  188. Nana wrote:

    view myself as God views me….a sinner whom He condescended to save

    NeoCalvinism?

    “Condescended”. What a low and hateful view of God they have. I am so glad to be out of NeoCalvinism and its sick and twisted theology.

  189. Nana wrote:

    I view myself as God views me….a sinner whom He condescended to save, through no merit of my own.

    I have stayed out of this Convo this far, because, well your original comment was difficult to digest.

    If you truly believe that the above is how God views you, his child, then I hope you one day meet your heavenly Father through his Son. He does not continue to view you as a sinner.

  190. Velour wrote:

    NeoCalvinism?
    “Condescended”. What a low and hateful view of God they have. I am so glad to be out of NeoCalvinism and its sick and twisted theology.

    Not a Calvinist, quite the contrary…I am LCMS. And have a look at the Biblical references to Christ’s condescension. It’s not a negative word in this context.

    http://biblehub.com/topical/c/condescension.htm

  191. Bridget wrote:

    Nana wrote:
    I view myself as God views me….a sinner whom He condescended to save, through no merit of my own.
    I have stayed out of this Convo this far, because, well your original comment was difficult to digest.
    If you truly believe that the above is how God views you, his child, then I hope you one day meet your heavenly Father through his Son. He does not continue to view you as a sinner.

    Well, many would argue (and I am in that camp) that until Heaven, we here are both saint and sinner. Luther’s very first, of the 95 theses covers this, I think:

    “1. When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, “Repent” (Mt 4:17), he willed
    the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.”

  192. My beloved of 40 years, Mr. Nana, has written something that he would like me to post.

    Having followed these recent volleys of verbal exchange, I would like
    to make the following hopefully irenic observations. Perhaps it would
    be helpful to discern the consequences between what I will call “small
    scale” sins, like yelling at your spouse, and “large scale” sins, like
    child molestation. Those in the sin-leveling camp can state with
    justification that both of these sins are an offense to the infinitely
    holy God. But certainly Nana would agree with Lydia and the rest that
    the public consequences of sexual abusing children are far more
    devastating, with dire long-range results. You can apologize to your
    spouse and it’s over- there is no such grace for the young victim of
    an adult pedophile!

    There are essentially two “courts” of justice functioning here. One is
    that of official state-sanctioned jurisprudence, in which the
    perpetrator is theoretically “innocent until proven guilty”. (This was
    just the opposite in ancient Roman law.) The other system is that of
    public opinion, as expressed on the Internet. I think what Nana was
    trying to point out is that, in the strictest sense, those whose aim,
    noble as it is, is to defend the victim, may be on the side of
    absolute justice, if the accused is indeed guilty. But- and this is
    “the Rub”, do we really know, without a shred of any doubt whatsoever,
    that our assessments about a given individual’s guilt are accurate? Is
    each and everyone of these clerical members 100% guilty? Can we really
    know this in every instance? Are we that sure- particularly when and
    if the evidence against them is solely based on the testimony of one
    person?

    No one, including Nana, would disagree that once a person is found
    guilty, assuming the evidence against him is incontrovertible, that he
    then should be prosecuted and be punished to the fullest extent of the
    Law.

    But there is an inherent weakness in this Internet court, and that is
    that I, as a writer, am at liberty to draw any and all conclusions
    that I desire, independent of what some evidence to the contrary might
    suggest. If there is an instance where, having made some premature
    conclusions, I am then heaping onto the bandwagon of popular
    indignation my own personal dose of vitriol. In so doing, perhaps I am
    unintentionally aiding the cause of those who would want to discredit
    Christians and Christianity altogether. This is the point that I
    believe Nana was trying to make. When there are no innate checks and
    balances as to what we write and say, then we need to provide them for
    ourselves, in the name of fairness and responsibility.

  193. Nana wrote:

    Velour wrote:
    NeoCalvinism?
    “Condescended”. What a low and hateful view of God they have. I am so glad to be out of NeoCalvinism and its sick and twisted theology.
    Not a Calvinist, quite the contrary…I am LCMS. And have a look at the Biblical references to Christ’s condescension. It’s not a negative word in this context.
    http://biblehub.com/topical/c/condescension.htm

    God also calls us friends.

  194. refugee wrote:

    I am certainly not gleeful, and I don’t detect a gleeful attitude in others who post here.

    I don’t either. To be ‘gleeful’ would be to be happy and joyful, but the truth is that someone has suffered greatly and it is on THAT premise that TWW does its work: to try to PREVENT abuse from happening so that suffering ends ….. Is there a ‘Good Job’ when a predator is exposed and prosecuted? YES. Because it IS good work to intervene to put a stop to the abuse of innocent people. It is a work of Christian mercy.

    So, yeah, ‘good job’ Deebs and people here who help this work: ‘good job’. Hubris? No ….. because there is no rejoicing based on what results from the suffering of others. No, TWW is out to expose those who work in darkness by putting light on them so possible victims will be warned.

  195. Darlene wrote:

    Several of my comments were deleted, not because I was being nasty or unkind. No. Rather, because I brought a different theological perspective (non-Calvinist) to the table and they didn’t want to hear it.

    Brava, Darlene!

    Could for you for challenging the NeoCalvinists. I am so glad to be free from the prison of NeoCalvinism. Rules, rules and more rules. No love. And no REAL Gospel.

  196. Nana wrote:

    But there is an inherent weakness in this Internet court,

    OK, folks. We live in America. We have the First Amendment and Free Speech. We are adults. We are free to discuss whatever we want. If you don’t like it/can’t handle it…don’t come here and complain.

    This blog wouldn’t exist if these churches had handled things properly.

  197. Ken F wrote:

    If exposing abuse is not wrong, but you think that Christians should not be doing the exposure, then who should be doing it? Non-Christians? If only non-Christians expose abuse within the church, won’t that do more harm to our Christian witness?

    I really begin to understand why the Apostle Paul was so ticked off with the church that he said that not even unbelievers behaved that way and even unbelievers KNEW better.

    Your response is spot on Ken F.

  198. Velour wrote:

    I really begin to understand why the Apostle Paul was so ticked off with the church that he said that not even unbelievers behaved that way and even unbelie

    Oh, you mean like when Paul ordered the church to protect and cover for the man who was sleeping with his father’s wife? ( sarcasm off)
    Snort! I wonder what Paul would have said if the church had had a child molester or a spouse beater in their midst?

  199. Nana wrote:

    Internet. I think what Nana was
    trying to point out is that, in the strictest sense, those whose aim,
    noble as it is, is to defend the victim, may be on the side of
    absolute justice, if the accused is indeed guilty. But- and this is
    “the Rub”, do we really know, without a shred of any doubt whatsoever,
    that our assessments about a given individual’s guilt are accurate? Is
    each and everyone of these clerical members 100% guilty? Can we really
    know this in every instance? Are we that sure- particularly when and
    if the evidence against them is solely based on the testimony of one
    person?

    Mr. Nana, You don’t sound vulnerable to me in your comment. :o)

    Now, what about the victim? You guys always forget the victim. Think of a 12 year old boy. Think of church and how his parents totally trust the pastor/teacher. So he does too. Go read some detailed grooming stories. Go read about brain development/children. Do you have any idea how much courage it takes for the now adult victim of such heinous horror to speak up? They already know there are tons of Christians out there like you and Nana who come out to lecture us about daring to discuss an arrest.

    Sorry, I will err on encouraging victims and their advocates to speak up and ignore the Christian lecturers.

    No child molestation has a 3rd party witnesses. The cons know this. And they know children are confused and scared. Cons often choose careers and places were there is instant trust and credibility. Churches are perfect places as we have seen so much of!. Churchy Christians are so quick to lecture people on what is the proper way to discuss alleged evil and tend to dismiss victims. Do you know hard it is to convict a pedophile? By the time they end up in court, the average ped has 50 to 100 victims.

    I want pedophiles to be very afraid. Go spend some time with victims and learn about grooming.

    Frankly, I am even concerned for Chanteys’s sons and other potential victims from his other jobs around children.

  200. Lydia wrote:

    Do you know hard it is to convict a pedophile? By the time they end up in court, the average ped has 50 to 100 victims.

    I’ve previously posted this interview with Dr. Anna Salter, Harvard educated and the author of Predators, on Tier Talk (a program for the corrections/prison industry) about sexual predators. Here it is again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRtccELtlJw There are 5 parts and each part is about 15 minutes. Very informative. So is her book.

  201. Velour wrote:

    OK, folks. We live in America. We have the First Amendment and Free Speech. We are adults. We are free to discuss whatever we want. If you don’t like it/can’t handle it…don’t come here and complain.

    Bingo.

  202. Lydia wrote:

    Mr. Nana, You don’t sound vulnerable to me in your comment. :o)

    Lydia,

    Mr. Nana has just put his feet up from a long day of helping our very pregnant daughter, son-in-law, and grandson celebrate Christmas. He asked me to tell you that he will respond to you in the morning if that is OK with you. He is watching “Man in the High Castle” and the confusing nature of this series does not allow one to do two things at once! 🙂

  203. Velour wrote:

    OK, folks. We live in America. We have the First Amendment and Free Speech. We are adults. We are free to discuss whatever we want. If you don’t like it/can’t handle it…don’t come here and complain.

    Bingo. Nana wrote:

    Bridget wrote:

    Nana wrote:
    I view myself as God views me….a sinner whom He condescended to save, through no merit of my own.
    I have stayed out of this Convo this far, because, well your original comment was difficult to digest.
    If you truly believe that the above is how God views you, his child, then I hope you one day meet your heavenly Father through his Son. He does not continue to view you as a sinner.

    Well, many would argue (and I am in that camp) that until Heaven, we here are both saint and sinner. Luther’s very first, of the 95 theses covers this, I think:

    “1. When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, “Repent” (Mt 4:17), he willed
    the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.”

    So molest, repent, molest, repent? Shampoo, rinse, repeat? Driscoll was called the repenting repenter. :o)

    You don’t think God gave us the “ability” NOT to purposely harm others? What on earth was the resurrection about? New life that isn’t? Metanoia is about totally changing thinking and direction. New Life. It was badly translated as repentance as in a form of perpetual penance because we are all “totally depraved and unable” to change.

    Of course I am not a follower of Luther, either.

  204. Nana wrote:

    Is
    each and everyone of these clerical members 100% guilty? Can we really
    know this in every instance? Are we that sure- particularly when and
    if the evidence against them is solely based on the testimony of one
    person?

    The rules of evidence are much stricter in the United States than you give them credit for in order to prosecute for any crime, including sex crimes.

    The sexual abuse of minors is the No. 1 reason that churches are sued every year according to Richard Hammar, attorney at Church Law & Tax, and Church Mutual (the largest insurer of churches in the United States).

    http://www.churchlawandtax.com/web/2015/june/top-5-reasons-churches-end-up-in-court.html

  205. @ Christiane:

    I think what people truly are is angry, righteously so, that people are being so continually harmed in the name of God by men who claim to be teachers and so claim authority for themselves…authority that they then use to hurt others.

    Whether or no you think tom is guilty or not (and the evidence would have to be stronger than not for him to be in jail right now), we have seen this over and over and over again. It will only stop when a line is drawn and these wolves are chased out of the flock. Sitting around weeping will not do that. Exposure might.

    Nana has misunderstood the point entirely.

  206. @ Nana:
    Not necessary. I am done. :o) Enjoy the show and ottoman.

    Unless….It is something too juicy to resist.

    Not familiar with the show but it sounds interesting if it takes concentration.

  207. Lydia wrote:

    Not familiar with the show but it sounds interesting if it takes concentration.

    Has a rather fascinating premise of what would have happened if the Nazis had won.

  208. Nana wrote:

    Is
    each and everyone of these clerical members 100% guilty?

    Do you feel that a child molester can be less than 100% guilty? Like maybe it was 90% predator and 10% victim? Or 80%-20%? I’m wondering what you are getting at in this comment?

    Are we that sure- particularly when and
    if the evidence against them is solely based on the testimony of one
    person?

    In this case there are multiple victims as well as an elder who spoke to the news.

    I think the Deebs are careful to vet the facts on the stories they carry and I believe that most of us who read the site do our own research on the stories, as well. I know that I read several of the news articles on this story.

    I think it is time we started worrying more about the victims in the church. Yes, false accusations can be possible, but the dynamics of those stories are usually quite different and red flags are noticeable.

  209. Lydia wrote:

    Not familiar with the show but it sounds interesting if it takes concentration.

    Man in the High Castle by Philip K Dick became THE classic archetype of the What-if-Germany-won-WW2 alternate history novel ever since it hit the stands and won a Hugo in 1963. Since SciFi Channel went SyFy into cheezy Z-movies and All Occult All the Time (after their excellent miniseries adaptation of Dune), there’s been a vacuum of adaptation of classic SF novels on cable.

    I have heard only ads about the TV adaptation, but they have a disturbing aroma of a “TRUMP IS HITLER!” stripdown. I don’t know whether this reflects the actual adaptation or just the ad copy trying to be Over-Relevant.

  210. Nana wrote:

    Is
    each and everyone of these clerical members 100% guilty?

    There are far more clergy members who have have gotten away with felonious sexual abuse of minors than those who have ever been apprehended. Frankly, far more of them need to be arrested and prosecuted.

  211. Nana wrote:

    But there is an inherent weakness in this Internet court, and that is
    that I, as a writer, am at liberty to draw any and all conclusions
    that I desire, independent of what some evidence to the contrary might
    suggest. If there is an instance where, having made some premature
    conclusions, I am then heaping onto the bandwagon of popular
    indignation my own personal dose of vitriol. In so doing, perhaps I am
    unintentionally aiding the cause of those who would want to discredit
    Christians and Christianity altogether. This is the point that I
    believe Nana was trying to make. When there are no innate checks and
    balances as to what we write and say, then we need to provide them for
    ourselves, in the name of fairness and responsibility.

    No one here, on the internet, has tried Tom Chantry. He is being treated as the government deams necessary, the government ordained by God I might add. In the name of fairness and responsibility, we need to be attending toward possible victims and assuring that no other victims are out tbere needing help, as well as making sure that no one else is possibly harmed.

    If their is a blight on Christianity and God’s name because of they way Christians and Christian organizations act, it does not need to be hidden. It needs to be exposed and dealt with.

    Most of the unbelievers I know see hypocrisy without end in those who call themselves Christians. I happen to agree with much of their assessments.

  212. Nana wrote:

    If there is an instance where, having made some premature
    conclusions, I am then heaping onto the bandwagon of popular
    indignation my own personal dose of vitriol. In so doing, perhaps I am
    unintentionally aiding the cause of those who would want to discredit
    Christians and Christianity altogether.

    The name of Christ, the cause of Christ, our Christian witness and many peoples’ faith (including abused children) has been shipwrecked by the cover-ups within the Christian church and the enabling of abusers.

    Jesus said that it was better that a millstone be tied around a person’s neck and they be drowned in the deepest of seas than they ever harm a child.

    When we did “this” (whatever action) to “the least among these we did it to Him [Jesus]”.
    When we don’t help and believe children, we did that to Jesus. When we demand that children not be heard, we did that to Jesus.

    Jesus can handle far more than you think He can. His reputation will always be intact and He doesn’t need cover ups to keep it.

  213. Nana wrote:

    “1. When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, “Repent” (Mt 4:17), he willed
    the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.”

    So Luther knows exactly what Jesus willed when he said those words?

    Jesus does not go on to refer to those who repented and believed as sinners. He instead calls them friends not servants. He considers them brothers and sisters. We are one with him. We are new creatures in Christ!

    I don’t recall Jesus referring to his disciples as sinners that would need to continue to repent. He said if they loved him, they would keep his commandments, and the commandments were summed up into two. I’m sure you know what those are.

    I think what God willed is for his followers to love the Lord their God with all their heart and love their neighbor as themselves . . . because this is what he said.

  214. Nana wrote:

    Well, many would argue (and I am in that camp) that until Heaven, we here are both saint and sinner.

    And how exactly does this relate to a crime against children? Can you explain?

  215. Nana wrote:

    helping our very pregnant daughter, son-in-law, and grandson celebrate Christmas.

    So you have a daughter and a grandson. If one of those accused a high ranking man in the church of molesting them, would you still defend the accused?

    I’m not picking on your family. I think it is wonderful that you are celebrating the season with them. I’m just trying to get you to understand why some of us become so outraged when we hear about abuse, especially in the churches. It is easy, at least for me, to see things from the point of view the parents of those victims.

  216. Nana wrote:

    So it’s a tired cliche to think that I am a sinner in need of the Savior?

    It is when it is used to sweep a crime under the rug, yes.

    Those whom we love can hurt us as no other can.

    There is absolutely no comparison between that kind of hurt and the sexual assault of a child. You realize that, right?

    What better way is there for Satan to destroy God’s Church than by manipulating a public spectacle to discredit Christians?

    When evil men and imposters are allowed into the church, when they commit crimes against vulnerable children and those crimes are overlooked and ignored, when these children eventually leave church because of the hypocrisy of liars that they have known, when churches produce atheists from among their own… these are much better ways for Satan to destroy people. And, frankly, where does the Bible say that Satan wants to “discredit Christians”? It says he came to steal and kill and destroy. If the church allows him to do so, if the church actually enables him to do so, under the feeble defense that we’d “look bad to the world” if we TOLD THE TRUTH ABOUT OURSELVES, then we are discrediting our own selves, forget Satan! If we can demure about facing the truth of child predators in the church, then we are participating in the deeds of darkness and we ought to have a millstone tied around our own necks and be cast into the sea along with the predators.

    And if you think I am speaking with glee, you are wrong. I am speaking with anger and disgust at the crimes that go on under cover of silence within the church, enabled by the dainty nice people who don’t want to step out of their comfort zone to do anything about it, or who care more about appearances than the souls of children who are being destroyed.

  217. Velour wrote:

    The name of Christ, the cause of Christ, our Christian witness and many peoples’ faith (including abused children) has been shipwrecked by the cover-ups within the Christian church and the enabling of abusers.

    Jesus said that it was better that a millstone be tied around a person’s neck and they be drowned in the deepest of seas than they ever harm a child.

    When we did “this” (whatever action) to “the least among these we did it to Him [Jesus]”.
    When we don’t help and believe children, we did that to Jesus. When we demand that children not be heard, we did that to Jesus.

    Jesus can handle far more than you think He can. His reputation will always be intact and He doesn’t need cover ups to keep it.

    Well said, Velour!

  218. siteseer wrote:

    Nana wrote:

    Well, many would argue (and I am in that camp) that until Heaven, we here are both saint and sinner.

    And how exactly does this relate to a crime against children? Can you explain?

    We may be flawed but we STILL have the power to choose between right and wrong, and we are not forced to sin. If someone sins, it is because they have willingly chosen to do so. And when this happens, they turn away from God and no longer walk in friendship with Him.

    Whatever we are or are not, we still retain ‘choice’ and we must exercise it carefully. Those who choose to harm children have made a choice. Perhaps they had an ‘inclination’ to see children as sex objects, but they are not ‘forced’ to act on this ‘inclination’, no. If they choose to act against a child, they have to be stopped and separated from the community for the sake of all of the children they would harm if they could.

    Sexual abuse is catastrophic for a child. It is not a ‘little thing’ and those who treat it lightly are either extremely ignorant or incredibly evil.

  219. Velour wrote:

    I really begin to understand why the Apostle Paul was so ticked off with the church that he said that not even unbelievers behaved that way and even unbelievers KNEW better.

    It’s sad when non-believers act with more integrity than believers. But this is what seems to be happening more and more. Considering the “doctrine” of total depravity being pushed by the new-Calvinists (and most Protestants), we should not be surprised when church people act totally depraved. They are just doing what there are taught. I don’t think this is what Jesus had in mind for what the church is supposed to look like. I’m taking a wild guess when I suggest that if Jesus were to walk into a typical new-Calvinist church today, He would not stand in awe and express, “Wow! This is exactly what I was hoping for!” Calvinism has a twisted view of “god” that results in a twisted view of humanity. It needs to be exposed for what it is.

  220. Nana wrote:

    If there is an instance where, having made some premature
    conclusions, I am then heaping onto the bandwagon of popular
    indignation my own personal dose of vitriol.

    What “vitriol” are are you referring to on this site? It’s an interesting theoretical discussion, but what examples do you cite from commenters here?

  221. Ken F wrote:

    Nana wrote:
    If there is an instance where, having made some premature
    conclusions, I am then heaping onto the bandwagon of popular
    indignation my own personal dose of vitriol.
    What “vitriol” are are you referring to on this site? It’s an interesting theoretical discussion, but what examples do you cite from commenters here?

    Precisely. What “vitriol”?

    And what dog does Nana have in this ‘fight’. Does she know the accused? Or another accused?

  222. Nancy2 wrote:

    Nana wrote:
    helping our very pregnant daughter, son-in-law, and grandson celebrate Christmas.
    So you have a daughter and a grandson. If one of those accused a high ranking man in the church of molesting them, would you still defend the accused?
    I’m not picking on your family. I think it is wonderful that you are celebrating the season with them. I’m just trying to get you to understand why some of us become so outraged when we hear about abuse, especially in the churches. It is easy, at least for me, to see things from the point of view the parents of those victims.

    Nancy2, you read my mind. I had the EXACT same question about Nana and husband.

  223. Pingback: Magnolia Street | Chamblee54 UNITED STATES

  224. Nana wrote:

    refugee wrote:

    And an insult to the helpless children who have been molested by people in a position of trust, to infer that they had some kind of choice in the matter.

    Can you please point out where I said that children who are abused have a choice?

    You called your sin the same kind of descriptive word one might apply to a child molester. Your husband has a choice to put up with your abuse, if that is what you call it. I simply started from your characterization of your sin as (I don’t have the exact quote on my phone but this is the meaning that can be drawn from your words) just as bad as a child molester’s sin. Well, perhaps sin is sin in God’s eyes (liars and gluttons are in the same list as murderers, I think), but some sins have much worse impacts and consequences here on earth. Perhaps that’s why Jesus talked about millstones for those who caused his little ones to stumble.

    The way you write about yourself as a (did you use the word wretched, or was it something else?) sinner in God’s eyes even now, after he paid the price to redeem you reminds me of the horribly destructive worm theology promulgated by our hyper-Calvinist former church.

  225. Bridget, you said it so much better than I did, just now. The worm theology that was drummed into me for two decades is fading, but it still crops up on occasion.

    Some people seem to delight in declaring what a horrible, miserable sinner they are, thinking they are making God bigger and greater that way. Maybe?

    Bridget wrote:

    Nana wrote:

    “1. When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, “Repent” (Mt 4:17), he willed
    the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.”

    So Luther knows exactly what Jesus willed when he said those words?

    Jesus does not go on to refer to those who repented and believed as sinners. He instead calls them friends not servants. He considers them brothers and sisters. We are one with him. We are new creatures in Christ!

    I don’t recall Jesus referring to his disciples as sinners that would need to continue to repent. He said if they loved him, they would keep his commandments, and the commandments were summed up into two. I’m sure you know what those are.

    I think what God willed is for his followers to love the Lord their God with all their heart and love their neighbor as themselves . . . because this is what he said.

  226. Velour wrote:

    And what dog does Nana have in this ‘fight’. Does she know the accused? Or another accused?

    this was unclear to me also ….. but I wondered if that was intended as so many come here to shill for their ‘buddies’ who got caught

  227. Refugee wrote:

    The worm theology that was drummed into me for two decades is fading, but it still crops up on occasion.

    One of the things I appreciate about John Piper is how easy it is to find examples of bad theology in his teaching. Whenever I need a counterexample I can usually count on him. I went to Desiring God and did a search on “worm.” Here is the article that popped: http://www.desiringgod.org/messages/fear-not-you-worm-jacob.

    Satan has master-minded a phenomenal victory in the American church. By teaching us through a thousand lectures and articles and books that we are too valuable to be called worms, he has made it impossible for us to sing “Amazing Grace” with truly amazed hearts. The more beautiful and valuable man is made to appear, the less amazing it is that God should love him and help him. …Brothers and sisters, if we felt a tiny fraction of how filthy and loathsome our sinful hearts are to the Holy One of Israel, we could not begin to feel indignant when we are called a worm.

    John Piper has an amazing gift to twist truth into something untrue. I don’t know why he still has a following. Until people expose Piper’s bad teaching, this is the direction the YRRs will try to take all the rest of us.

  228. @ Ken F:

    Stay away from amazing grace, Piper! If you actually listen to the song, it tells of a change. From lost to found, fears relieved. Not everlastingly lost, evil, wretched.

  229. Refugee wrote:

    I don’t recall Jesus referring to his disciples as sinners that would need to continue to repent. He said if they loved him, they would keep his commandments, and the commandments were summed up into two. I’m sure you know what those are.
    I think what God willed is for his followers to love the Lord their God with all their heart and love their neighbor as themselves . . . because this is what he said.

    When the disciples asked Our Lord to teach them to pray, he answered them with an outline. It seems to me, to include ongoing repentance.
    http://biblehub.com/interlinear/luke/11.htm

  230. This will be my last comment. Just to clarify:

    1. I am not a Calvinist, I am LCMS

    2. I made it clear in my very first post that I was not commenting on anyone’s guilt or innocence, quite the contrary. I don’t know anyone involved in these scandals, nor am I defending or accusing anyone.

    3. It’s obvious that the majority of commenters who have addressed my remarks, do not share my view of sin and salvation. There is no further benefit to either “side” to try to convince the other of the correctness of their beliefs.

    4. Merry Christmas to all of you and may God bless you.

  231. Refugee wrote:

    Bridget, you said it so much better than I did, just now. The worm theology that was drummed into me for two decades is fading, but it still crops up on occasion.
    Some people seem to delight in declaring what a horrible, miserable sinner they are, thinking they are making God bigger and greater that way. Maybe?

    God did not make worms in His own image, but He did make us in His own image!

  232. Nana wrote:

    ) What better way is there for Satan to destroy God’s Church than by manipulating a public spectacle to discredit Christians

    Christians have done a darn find job of discrediting themselves throughout the centuries. This Is due to the fact that many Christians think they are more sanctified, better, less prone to horrific sin than the next guy. Time has proven that.

    You know the best way for Christians to stop discrediting themselves? To admit sin and stop defending the indefensible. Oh hey, and stop blaming Satin for our own propensity to sin.

  233. Nana wrote:

    What I see here, instead, is an almost gleeful display when a clergy failure is exposed. I truly understand this reaction from unbelievers, but am mystified by it from Christians.

    Then you are not an insightful woman. We rejoice when a pedophile who has harmed others has been taken off the streets so no further children will be harmed. You are judging the hearts of everyone here and from my view of Scripture, only one can do that. He really doesn’t need you.

  234. Nana wrote:

    EVERY single time that I lose my temper with my dear husband who is only trying to love me and do his best.

    So, he doesn’t ever screw up and deserve you getting mad at him.?

  235. Nana wrote:

    How do you know that I did not weep for the victims?

    I do not know but you do not know our hearts either and you have been pointing fingers since your first comment. Unless you get back on track, you will be moderated

  236. Nancy2 wrote:

    God did not make worms in His own image, but He did make us in His own image!

    This worm theology hangs on nothing in the Bible. For people who are so loud in proclaiming “Sola Scriptura,” the YRRs are notorious for establishing their theologies on anything but scripture. There are only two instances in the Bible where the word “worm” is compared to mankind. One is the Isaiah 41:14 verse that Piper cites, but that is an example of hyperbole and it applies to Jacob rather than to individual believers. The other is Psalm 22:6. This is the messianic psalm Jesus started to recite while on the cross. That psalm emphasizes the contrast between people and worms, not the similarity. There is nothing in the NT that compares humans with worms.

    I’ve heard people describe John Piper as “deep.” It’s a great word for his theology – deep in the same way that the pit under an outhouse is deep. Piper pushes what I call christian pornography. For anyone not yet fully disgusted by Piper, watch this new trailer being pushed on TGC: http://jobthefilm.com/view-trailer.

  237. Nana wrote:

    God, though His Son, became a willing sacrifice for our sins. Every time I sin, and it is brought to my conscience by the Holy Spirit, I wince, knowing that I drove those nails into Him.

    Oh good night! I am sure you know all of you sins.

  238. Ken F wrote:

    It’s not clear to me that His willingness makes Him a victim. The Bible never calls Him a victim.

    This is a good point.

  239. Nana wrote:

    This is a horrible misrepresentation of what I said.

    Unfortunately, you writing style lends itself to such an interpretation. Maybe you need to up your game.

  240. Nana wrote:

    . It’s obvious that the majority of commenters who have addressed my remarks, do not share my view of sin and salvation. There is no further benefit to either “side” to try to convince the other of the correctness of their beliefs.

    I totally agree with this. I do see a line from Augustine to Luther and Calvin. That does not mean all Lutheran’s or Cal’s subscribe to their namesakes theology or practice. But there does seem to be a focus on perpetual sinning instead of new life. But I don’t subscribe to sinless perfection/Perpetual sinner, either. I just subscribe to good/evil. Choices in either category.

    I got the impression we were being rebuked for not weeping enough to your likng. I am not sure how that plays out in practicality.

    I do know from my experience as an advocate and such that it is part of healing when victims become angry enough to seek justice. This is a scary thing to bring up around churchy Christians. They seem to relate all anger to an automatic sin category. So when you brought up publicly weeping, I was thinking, oh dear me, I hope any victims who are transitioning don’t run into Nana! It could set them back years.

  241. dee wrote:

    Nana wrote:
    God, though His Son, became a willing sacrifice for our sins. Every time I sin, and it is brought to my conscience by the Holy Spirit, I wince, knowing that I drove those nails into Him.
    Dee wrote: Oh good night! I am sure you know all of you sins.

    I can’t get past the visual image of a cartoon bookworm with it face contorted into a continual wince!

  242. Nana wrote:

    But there is an inherent weakness in this Internet court, and that is
    that I, as a writer, am at liberty to draw any and all conclusions
    that I desire, independent of what some evidence to the contrary might
    suggest.

    Some observations:

    This is not an internet court.
    I have a right to express my beliefs in favor of the victims.
    There is rarely *incontrovertible* evidence when it comes to pedophilia since it is done in private. Therefore, the testimony of the victims is evidence.
    Courts trials ending in *not guilty* are not final evidence of innocence-OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony
    Many crimes never get to trial due to a lack of evidence.
    Finally, the internet has given voice to many people who have watched as pals of clergy attempt to defend the indefensible.

  243. dee wrote:

    There is rarely *incontrovertible* evidence when it comes to pedophilia since it is done in private.

    Also, what is the legal standard for conviction for this type of crime? Preponderance of evidence? Beyond a reasonable doubt? I believe “incontrovertible” is not a legal standard because it’s nearly impossible to prove a case to that level of certainty.

  244. @ Nana:
    Finally, do you know the rarity of false accusations in child sex abuse? These days it is usually seen only in custody cases.

    To imagine a grown man, dreaming up a child sex abuse and then talking about it, deciding on a con is minuscule indeed. To add to that, there are other children and there is the testimony of elders which usually means something to church people.

    No, it is reasonable to support child sex abuse victims in coming forward and we have done so for 7 years. I am still trying to remember what we were proven wrong.

  245. siteseer wrote:

    Nana wrote:
    So it’s a tired cliche to think that I am a sinner in need of the Savior?
    It is when it is used to sweep a crime under the rug, yes.

    Well said.

  246. Nana wrote:

    It’s obvious that the majority of commenters who have addressed my remarks, do not share my view of sin and salvation. There is no further benefit to either “side” to try to convince the other of the correctness of their beliefs.

    That is a hasty pronouncement about people you do not know, as well as a dismissal of those same people because they might not (because you really have no way of knowing) view sin and salvation like you do.

    No one was trying to convince you of anything. Some were simply pointing out that we don’t think Jesus views believers as wretched sinners. My goodness, what did he die for if we continue to live as if we are not new creatures in Him; and speak and live as if we do not know Him?

    I am very familiar with the Lord’s prayer, a very simple, beautiful, and straightforward prayer about God’s kingdom, forgiveness, and asking God’s help to do what is pleasing to Him.

    No one has said that we never sin again as a believers, but it should certainly not be the norm.

  247. Nana wrote:

    3. It’s obvious that the majority of commenters who have addressed my remarks, do not share my view of sin and salvation. There is no further benefit to either “side” to try to convince the other of the correctness of their beliefs.

    It may be that you poorly express your beliefs as well.

  248. I have placed Nana in moderation due to the passive aggressive nature of her *innocent* Christian theology. I suspect I have a partisan hack on my hands. Some styles are just to difficult to hide. I will approve her/his comments if they stick to the knitting.

  249. Ken F wrote:

    I’ve heard people describe John Piper as “deep.” It’s a great word for his theology – deep in the same way that the pit under an outhouse is deep

    The *I am worm* theology is one of the most damaging interpretations out there.

  250. Dee,

    I want to apologize for the remarks that I made about Schadenfreude and glee. I was wrong to make them without citing chapter and verse from your archives where I felt that I have seen it over the years.

    Please forgive me for that.

    Nana

  251. Ken F wrote:

    I’ve heard people describe John Piper as “deep.”

    This one of the things that Todd Wilhelm has written about, the smarmy way the T4G glitterati speak of one another. It sould be embarrassing for a servant to continually get such accolades but they appear to require it as a cover charge to gain access to their inner circle.

  252. Frank Turk wrote:

    Please link me to someplace any of the guys or myself judged anyone as unregenerate and unsaved. I’d be pleased to see it as I have always had a policy against it…. The point of our blog was always to point out error and see if someone would repent — not to cast them into hell.
    If you can find us doing otherwise, I’ll be pleased to take it to the author for their prompt action.

    Although Frank has said he won’t be commenting again, he might still be reading. If so, I’d like to take a stab at answering this request of his.

    In this case, Frank, the author is you, and it’s a comment you made right on this thread:

    Someday you will see how you have treated others who need both prayer and the Gospel, and when Christ shows you what you have given instead you will wish the mountains will fall on you instead of what it will get you in the end.

    So, Frank, what exactly did you mean by “what it will get you in the end”? Did you mean eternal suffering in hell (to which being buried by mountains is preferable)? If so, then that’s judging us as unsaved. If it means something else, then you really need to express yourself better.

    You’re welcome. 😉

  253. Serving Kids In Japan wrote:

    You’re welcome.

    Mountains falling on us? Hhm.
    And someone he is defending may be in a similar category. That someone, if guilty, may find it better to have a millstone tied around his neck and be thrown into the ocean rather than face the wrath God has for those who offend one of His little ones.

    But then, as he says, we will see.
    We will all see.

  254. dee wrote:

    Ken F wrote:
    I’ve heard people describe John Piper as “deep.” It’s a great word for his theology – deep in the same way that the pit under an outhouse is deep
    The *I am worm* theology is one of the most damaging interpretations out there.

    It’s for The Birds.

  255. Bill M wrote:

    Ken F wrote:

    I’ve heard people describe John Piper as “deep.”

    This one of the things that Todd Wilhelm has written about, the smarmy way the T4G glitterati speak of one another. It sould be embarrassing for a servant to continually get such accolades but they appear to require it as a cover charge to gain access to their inner circle.

    There is only credibility by association in that world. If you peek under their hood, it’s not impressive. How in the world did Al Mohler become labeled a brilliant theologian? Compared to what? Or whom? NT Wright? Roger Nicole? Gordon Fee? (The last wrote a great book for us plebes, “How To Read The Bible For All It’s Worth”)

    He was hired and promoted with that label at 33. But his practice and credentials are not that impressive. He has been nothing but a culture warrior and political strategist for a Calvinist takeover partnering with thugs and charlatans while churning out more of the same at SBTS. He has been a disaster.

  256. Lydia wrote:

    How in the world did Al Mohler become labeled a brilliant theologian?

    Because he is articulate enough to express non-brilliant things in an eloquent way.

    The good doctor has an interesting short video on his Twitter page that addresses the question “How can Southern Baptists move forward in unity on the issue of Calvinism?” He provides his usual arrogant mumbo-jumbo that Southern Baptists are the sole keepers of theological truth (Calvinism, of course), while slamming other denominations in the process:

    “Southern Baptists are amongst the last people on earth that can have a decent debate on these issues. Most denominations are so non-theological they have reduced their theological conversation to such minimal principles and affirmations that they couldn’t have a decent theological disagreement.”

    If you would like to take a gander at it, Google “Al Mohler Twitter” and scroll down to the video post on Dec. 15. As an interesting sidebar, when you Google “Al Mohler Twitter”, he pops up first in the search, with Russel Moore’s Twitter page in second spot! Cyberspace proof that Mohler and Moore are linked at the hip!

  257. dee wrote:

    The *I am worm* theology is one of the most damaging interpretations out there.

    Amen! There is victory in Jesus … rise above the noise that tells you otherwise, child of God!

    Piper is a strange one. If he can’t find a word to describe what he is thinking, he makes up one, like “worm-ness.” In regard to worm theology, he said “William Carey was this kind of man. His worm-ness did not paralyze him. It empowered him, because it drove him daily into the arms of Jesus. So I say again, “O to be such a worm.” Whew, why Lord Jesus do folks follow Piper?! Listening to him is exhausting.

  258. Max wrote:

    “Southern Baptists are amongst the last people on earth that can have a decent debate on these issues. Most denominations are so non-theological they have reduced their theological conversation to such minimal principles and affirmations that they couldn’t have a decent theological disagreement.” (Al Mohler)

    I actually choked on my ginger ale. I have only met one reasonable Baptist Calvinist, and I’m not sure he’s a hyper-Calvinist. Trying to have a decent “debate” on any issue with a hyper-Calvinist means having them yell while quoting the same 10 Bible verses over and over again, then insisting those 10 Bible verses make them more “biblical” than anyone else.

    Or, as is the case with many trolls here, they just wail in Christianese about how we’re all so evil so why can’t we shut up about the bad things they are doing.

  259. ishy wrote:

    Trying to have a decent “debate” on any issue with a hyper-Calvinist means having them yell while quoting the same 10 Bible verses over and over again

    Yep, they keep circling around their interpretations of Romans 9, Ephesians 1, and other selected passages. Trying to reason with them becomes impossible because they have reformed blinders on. Debating becomes arguing, something they are better at than preaching the Gospel.

  260. This is a very hard topic to read, it was common, in fact, it was daily we were reminded of what evil, vile, God hating rebellious sinners we all were. Even before we were born we were in total rebellion to God but in His Divine will a very very few might maybe be “saved” if we endured every single second not wavering in doctrine one bit ever even for a moment. If we forgot for one second what wretches we were we were reminded that this is false pride only God in His majesty should be praised, we should be thankful that He is not going to send us to hell, that is enough.

    The sad part about this is, for example, children even babies are attributed with adult “motives” of being rebellious, questioning authority etc. Like was said, do you have to teach a child to lie? Do you have to teach a child to say no? etc. I mean this is so damaging to children even adults. We were often compared to Hitler, Manson, Dahmer etc. Without common grace we would all be worse than Hitler, in fact, we make Hilter look like a choirboy in comparison. Day after day after day being reminded how much God literally hates us outside of Christ, then the zinger, that most of us are deluded and most likely outside of Christ so when we are at the judgment we will be told to depart into hell with the Celestial court singing praises to God for His justice and Holy Wrath.

    I cant tell you what it does, day after day after day after day hearing this over and over and over again. Verses like “second Pet 2:22 Of them the proverbs are true: “A dog returns to its vomit,” and, “A sow that is washed returns to her wallowing in the mud.” Or Romans one-three especially how we have all become useless that was another common theme. I often called it blank theology because of what is attributed to Luther, we are all dung covered by snow. What was really cruel was the idea that babies, children, adults with cognitive issues lack the intellectual gift of God to fully understand the Gospel so they are lost to His eternal unending wrath.

    It did not end there, it was the We all have it coming theology where we deserve any evil that comes to us because of our sin in Adam. Even those that died in the holocaust had it coming in God’s divine plan. His wrath was being delivered on the children of disobedience. Subtly hidden in that theology was the idea that people who were Jewish were even more cursed because they killed their God and His blood was on them and their children as it says in Matthew. It is seen here in some stories where it appears some defend the perpetrator because the child incised them or tempted them or “wanted it”.

    This is stuff I have personally witnessed to some degree, on or offline. It is so hard to get out of this type of thinking.

  261. Max wrote:

    ishy wrote:
    Trying to have a decent “debate” on any issue with a hyper-Calvinist means having them yell while quoting the same 10 Bible verses over and over again
    Yep, they keep circling around their interpretations of Romans 9, Ephesians 1, and other selected passages. Trying to reason with them becomes impossible because they have reformed blinders on. Debating becomes arguing, something they are better at than preaching the Gospel.

    So true. That’s how they talked/yelled/[un] reasoned at my ex-church Grace Bible Fellowship of Silicon Valley, a 9 Marxist/Complementarian-Patriarchy/John MacArthur-ite church.

  262. Ken F wrote:
    (Quoting John Piper)

    The more beautiful and valuable man is made to appear, the less amazing it is that God should love him and help him. …Brothers and sisters, if we felt a tiny fraction of how filthy and loathsome our sinful hearts are to the Holy One of Israel, we could not begin to feel indignant when we are called a worm.</blockquote You know one way this type of theology is totally useless and misses the mark is that it does nothing to the person who already believe she is a worm.

    If you'll notice in the Bible, Jesus tailored his presentation of his message to each individual. Jesus did not treat everyone who came to him as though they were arrogant. He seemed to realize some of the folks who sought him out already felt they were worm-like.

    A lot of people today already feel worm like, unvalued, shamed, lacking, defective. With these types of people, especially if they are un-saved (have never converted, become a Christ follower), the "You're a worm who God hates" message is only going to make them feel worse and more alienated.

    These types of people need to hear the opposite: that though they are sinners, God still loves them, finds them valuable to the point he died in their place.

    Hey, if John Piper wants to think of himself as being a worm, I guess he can be my guest.

    But as for me, I've been in stages of recovery the last few years, where I'm getting over a life time of having low self esteem. Nobody is going to get away with telling me I'm a dirt sucking worm any more.

  263. @ Daisy:

    Formatting got messed up there for some reason. Forgot to put the end bracket thing on the tag I suppose

    My comment started with this:

    “You know one way this type of theology is totally useless and misses the mark is that it does nothing to the person who already believe she is a worm…..

  264. brian wrote:

    It did not end there, it was the We all have it coming theology where we deserve any evil that comes to us because of our sin in Adam.

    I guess they think God allows some people into Heaven just so He’ll have a few people to torure?

  265. Max wrote:

    Lydia wrote:

    How in the world did Al Mohler become labeled a brilliant theologian?

    Because he is articulate enough to express non-brilliant things in an eloquent way.

    The good doctor has an interesting short video on his Twitter page that addresses the question “How can Southern Baptists move forward in unity on the issue of Calvinism?” He provides his usual arrogant mumbo-jumbo that Southern Baptists are the sole keepers of theological truth (Calvinism, of course), while slamming other denominations in the process:

    “Southern Baptists are amongst the last people on earth that can have a decent debate on these issues. Most denominations are so non-theological they have reduced their theological conversation to such minimal principles and affirmations that they couldn’t have a decent theological disagreement.”

    If you would like to take a gander at it, Google “Al Mohler Twitter” and scroll down to the video post on Dec. 15. As an interesting sidebar, when you Google “Al Mohler Twitter”, he pops up first in the search, with Russel Moore’s Twitter page in second spot! Cyberspace proof that Mohler and Moore are linked at the hip!

    Yes, they are trying hard to rehab, reframe and redefine the last 10 years of a culminating disaster. It is popping up everywhere. What do such types do? Seize the message. And gas light, gas light, gas light. See, now the shaming arrogance, silencing and censoring of the last 10 years were really just irenic debates. Viola!

    If Mohler or Moore say the sky is blue, I would still check it.

  266. dee wrote:

    To imagine a grown man, dreaming up a child sex abuse and then talking about it, deciding on a con is minuscule indeed. To add to that, there are other children and there is the testimony of elders which usually means something to church people.

    Generally if you were looking to see if an accusation were false you might look for motive, which is why custody hearings are a good example: motive. Accusing 20 years later an unrelated person with no money?No motive i see.

  267. Bill M wrote:

    This one of the things that Todd Wilhelm has written about, the smarmy way the T4G glitterati speak of one another. It sould be embarrassing for a servant to continually get such accolades but they appear to require it as a cover charge to gain access to their inner circle.

    They are a big circle of flatterers it seems like, and they seem to buy into it as well. It’s a wonder they can’t see it and get disgusted with it. Such a high school cliquish atmosphere coupled with something obsequious towards the higher-ups and downright vicious towards anyone outside the circle.

  268. Lydia wrote:

    they are trying hard to rehab, reframe and redefine the last 10 years of a culminating disaster

    Oh, I get it! Mohler is now trying to raise the average Southern Baptist to his level of theological prowess by flattering them as being theological giants compared to Christians of other denominations. Instead of slamming the SBC pew-peons as he did in the past, he is now taking it out on theological inferiors of other religious groups. Southern Baptists can agree to disagree on theology because they are smarter than anybody else! And while they bask in their superiority because the good doctor told them they were so theologically astute, Calvinization of their denomination will continue unabated. Brilliant move, Al.

  269. https://thouarttheman.org/2016/12/26/chantry-jailed-arbca-appears-covered-abuse/

    This is a very good well-researched article in my opinion. It appears to be the allegedly same old same old in alleged apparent coverups, in my opinion. The article contains an apparent letter that allegedly was written by someone who apparently had alleged information concerning the split of the group over some of the alleged actions of said pastor in part from what I can see in my opinion.

    I know I tell folks here I don’t weep or grieve, I have a confession this article made me weep deeply and that is not alleged or apparent. I honestly don’t know how you do it Dee, Deb Julie Ann in my few times helping at child missing service and homeless shelter I came away broken when I was involved with kids being beaten so badly they died or worse. I was only on the fringe helping out the social workers all women did the heavy lifting. It was at the developmental center I worked at where I saw the long term effect of vicious abuse kids beaten so badly that they had brain damage, broken backs fractured hips permanently paralyzed. After about a decade I had to get out of that work, I did not have enough left. Again most of the heavy lifting and emotional support for these people came from women and a large minority were also people who were gay. I add that just because well those professional caring people defined me almost as much as the folks I worked with.

    Personally, I don’t get the concept of spanking another adult’s child even with parent permission if it was given or not. I think one cannot consent to assault. I raised a kid and never one time raised my voice or my hand to him and no one else did if I was in the room. He is a fine young man with a fine family. He has little use for religion or “god” which I am deeply thankful for in a strange way.

    All I ever really wanted to ever do was serve and make a dent. It is still all I want to do. I am so sorry to those families who may have or have been hurt by the alleged actions of the alleged people who are involved in this situation. Please come forward call Dee Deb write an email they will help or get help from folks in your area but first contact the authorities. May God keep all safe.

  270. @ Max:
    I know it’s hard Max, but you gotta think like a bold manipulator and be so narcissistic you will declare the exact opposite of what has actually happened.

    If you have position, people will buy it. They will even question whether it was really all that bad.

    By the time Mohler and Moore have done their magic changing the big picture subject and bringing along those they previously claimed did not know the true Gospel and gee, what are you talking about???… We have never disrespected people. It was just a serious debate among family. You just misunderstood or were looking for offense.

    I know these types. They can convince you of anything if you don’t know the game. It is living in insanity.

  271. Lydia wrote:

    It was just a serious debate among family.

    We have some really bad knuckleheads in my family. They are always right about everything – everybody else is wrong. I bet you have such characters in your family as well. After several years of this, I see the family starting to marginalize these poor miserable souls – not listening to or caring much about them any more. Perhaps Southern Baptists will soon get this attitude when it comes to Dr. Mohler.

  272. Lydia wrote:

    I know it’s hard Max, but you gotta think like a bold manipulator and be so narcissistic you will declare the exact opposite of what has actually happened.

    You know, it is hard for me to do that Lydia. You see, I have the mind of Christ in me and He just won’t let me go there. On the other hand, He has given me discernment to test and try the spirits about me and I can spot pulpit manipulators and narcissists a mile away. Of course, I had to walk through some experiences with such characters to develop that discernment, and so I come on here and other watchblogs to share what I’ve learned. Once you see something, you can’t un-see it … once it’s in your knower, you can’t un-know it. And I’ve seen and learned that New Calvinism, with its assorted controlling spirits, is dangerous ground for Christians to trod on.

  273. Lea wrote:

    Generally if you were looking to see if an accusation were false you might look for motive, which is why custody hearings are a good example: motive. Accusing 20 years later an unrelated person with no money?No motive i see.

    Statistics bear out your comment.

  274. Max wrote:

    Piper is a strange one. If he can’t find a word to describe what he is thinking, he makes up one, like “worm-ness.” In regard to worm theology, he said “William Carey was this kind of man. His worm-ness did not paralyze him. It empowered him, because it drove him daily into the arms of Jesus. So I say again, “O to be such a worm.” Whew, why Lord Jesus do folks follow Piper?! Listening to him is exhausting.

    I could not bear to be in his church.

  275. Piper is nuts. His latest entry of “Stump the Pastor” was a question of can a man say Jesus Christ is beautiful. Oh my gosh, what a twisted answer he gave.

    I am with you Dee, I could never listen to that guy preach.

  276. dee wrote:

    @ Melody:
    Yeah-he told me that I would be obligated to apologize. It only goes one way. I will never, ever get over his necrophilia comments.

    So it was actually Turk making these comments and not someone else hijacking his account? I thought there was some concern that it was a third part. If it was Turk making those comments and acting in that manner, then it’d take a lot to convince me that he’s anything other than one who loves evil and hates God’s people.

  277. Frank Turk wrote:

    Please link me to someplace any of the guys or myself judged anyone as unregenerate and unsaved.

    Tell you one thing, Frank sure doesn’t judge people who are credibly accused from five different sources and convicted and arrested for molesting children of being unregenerate and unsaved. Those people get support, and lots of it.

    What Frank does is call people who report the arrest “necrophiliacs” and say that they invent ways of slandering him–in other words, he attacks the people who warn people of credibly accused, indicted molesters.

    You know what, Frank (assuming you’re still reading)? I’m accusing you of being unregenerate and unsaved. And I base that on what the Lord had to say about living out your faith through helping the helpless (read Jesus’ little brother James) and what Jesus had to say about those who harm little ones (which presumably, would include the supporters of such people). I base it on your vile, demonic necrophilia comments.

    Frank, I don’t know what’s wrong with you, don’t know what combination of nature and nurture led you to being one who supports evil and hates good. Don’t know what led you to being one who’d accuse Dee of slander without a single word to support it. Don’t know what sort of ignorance drives you to not understand the difference between and assertion and a rational argument. Don’t know what sort of demons you wrestle and can’t say I’d do one bit better with the hand you were dealt, but nonetheless, everything you’ve done here has only firmed up my opinion that you’re a total fraud, a liar, a malignant narcissist and a lover of evil.

  278. Serving Kids In Japan wrote:

    So, Frank, what exactly did you mean by “what it will get you in the end”? Did you mean eternal suffering in hell (to which being buried by mountains is preferable)?

    Yes– I think he meant that, but he addressed it to me personally, and I took it personally and was affected by it rather deeply. I believe Frank owes me an aplology. He told me this as well: “You people deserve a merry Christmas — in fact, you deserves everything his life will render unto you.” In other words– bah, humbug, go to hell!! Unless he really meant His life (i.e. Christ’s) rather an this life. Now I must say he “got” me with “Someday you will see how you have treated others who need both prayer and the Gospel, and when Christ shows you what you have given instead”. I confess I’m a failure when it comes to giving people both prayer and the Gospel, In this particular case, however, I’ve been praying since I first heard of it for both Tom and his alleged victims. And I plan to continue doing so until this case is resolved. For some reason this case has caused me little hope and much fear. Hope that it’s all a tragic mistake and fear that church leaders trying to handle things themselves 15 years ago has resulted in many many more victims. But either way I feel sincerely sorry for Tom. If he’s innocent, obviously, but even if he’s guilty, because if that is true, he’s been living and preaching a lie all this time since he ought to have been stopped. Until the case is resolved, I plan to devote time and energy I would otherwise have invested in commenting on the Internet to prayer for him and all his alleged victims. Happy New Year, all — and not the one you deserve!

  279. Dave A A wrote:

    He told me this as well: “You people deserve a merry Christmas — in fact, you deserves everything his life will render unto you.” In other words– bah, humbug, go to hell!!

    Like that song from one of the South Park Xmas Specials:
    “Merry F’in Xmas!”
    (Highly NSFW, heavy cussing from the first verse on. Search YouTube for “merry f christmas”.)

  280. Off-topic but somewhat related:

    I was reading the Daily Mail a little while ago and saw that Michael Skupin has just been convicted of possessing child pornography and sentenced to up to four years in prison. I knew that name was familiar. Sure enough, he’s the guy who was on Survivor in 2001 and was severely burned (he appeared on Survivor again in 2012). I remember seeing him on the 700 Club after the accident happened. He spoke about it and I think he gave his testimony, professing to be a Christian. I remember thinking at the time that something was just off or phony about this guy. It turns out he’s been in trouble several times over the years and was even involved in a financial scheme.

    I have dreaded looking at the news for years due to stuff like this and general evil in the world. I don’t know if Skupin is still a professing believer, but regardless, it sickens me to see this.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4068530/Former-Survivor-contestant-gets-prison-child-porn.html

  281. Law Prof wrote:

    Don’t know what sort of demons you wrestle and can’t say I’d do one bit better with the hand you were dealt, but nonetheless, everything you’ve done here has only firmed up my opinion that you’re a total fraud, a liar, a malignant narcissist and a lover of evil.

    According to M Scott Peck’s People of the Lie, “malignant narcissism” IS psych-speak for what used to be called EVIL.

  282. Law Prof wrote:

    What Frank does is call people who report the arrest “necrophiliacs” and say that they invent ways of slandering him–in other words, he attacks the people who warn people of credibly accused, indicted molesters.

    Maybe he thinks he’s Vinnie Mac, trying to revive the Katie Vick storyline on WWE.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeVLmcg9enc
    The jamokes over at Wrestlecrap.com called it “The Necrophilia Angle” and rated it the absolutely WORST pro wrestling gimmick of all time.

  283. Todd Wilhelm wrote:

    Piper is nuts. His latest entry of “Stump the Pastor” was a question of can a man say Jesus Christ is beautiful. Oh my gosh, what a twisted answer he gave.

    How twisted?
    “Johnny, Are You Queer” twisted?

  284. Todd Wilhelm wrote:

    Piper is nuts. His latest entry of “Stump the Pastor” was a question of can a man say Jesus Christ is beautiful. Oh my gosh, what a twisted answer he gave.

    Whew! I made the mistake of listening to “How Does a ‘Man’s Man’ Sing to a ‘Beautiful’ Jesus?” http://www.desiringgod.org/ask-pastor-john

    Listening to John Piper is like being a termite in a yo-yo. You go in circles and never get anywhere! Oh, but he’s so eloquent in his weirdness.

  285. Todd Wilhelm wrote:

    I am with you Dee, I could never listen to that guy preach.

    Sometimes I try to show my wife part of a Piper sermon. But I don’t do it often because she usually pukes – literally, not figuratively.

  286. ARBCA church list circa 2001, shows Chantry at Miller Valley Baptist in AZ and his father pastoring the association’s flagship church in Carlisle PA:

    https://web.archive.org/web/20010306063936/http://24.4.21.26/arbca/churches.htm

    ARBCA’s National Coordinator, also in Carlisle PA, was Bob Selph, Chantry’s predecessor at Miller Valley Baptist Church:

    https://web.archive.org/web/20010422201054/http://24.4.21.26/arbca/office.htm

    ARBCA Constitution from 2001 describes how they would handle churches’ “difficult matters”:

    https://web.archive.org/web/20010702220129/http://24.4.21.26/arbca/pdf/Constitution_2001.pdf

    V.D. (p. 5)

    “In difficult matters, member churches ought to be willing to seek and to receive the counsel of sister congregations and be willing to give counsel when requested. The Association will follow the procedures outlined in the (LBCF 1689) chapter 26.

    Details of specific cases brought to the Association shall be published only as far as is necessary in the judgment of the Association.”

  287. More Frank Turkishness and his bromance with Tom Chantry:

    http://new-calvinist-gadfly.blogspot.com/2012/11/calvinism-in-face-of-catastrophe.html

    Calvinism in the face of Catastrophe
    07 November 2012 by Frank Turk
    Tom Chantry actually wrote this last night, and sent it to me. I am posting it as I endorse it entirely.
    — Frank

    Although I’ve been worried about this election for months, only in the aftermath did I realize that I never really thought our country would re-elect a President who has been such an abject failure by any and every measure. It just didn’t seem possible that we would do so, and so at some level I didn’t expect it at all. As the results rolled in, I found myself reeling, unable to take in the enormity of what has happened to our nation. I scarcely slept, unable to stop running through the implications of the disaster. I was, to put it mildly, knocked down and stunned.

    But God is gracious, and eventually I slept, and this morning I find myself back up off the mat. Looking back, I can see what it was that took me so by surprise. I allowed myself to think too highly of my country – to imagine that the American optimists were right and that there is something exceptional and wonderful in the American spirit which pulls us through the worst crises. That smugness was knocked out of me by a series of blows as I realized anew that we are a culture of sin, a culture of stupidity, and a culture under judgment – none of which really surprises me in the light of day. Those blows absolutely leveled me last night, but today I’m standing. Here’s why:

    The reelection of President Obama demonstrates the wickedness of America. Make no mistake about it: a vote for the President was a wicked act. It is not sufficient to say that he is pro-abortion; the man is in favor of offing unwanted kids outside the womb as well. He not only celebrates the lifestyle of perversion; he wishes to deconstruct God’s institution of marriage for the benefit of the perverts, one of whom he appointed as a judge over us. On every point of American policy in which there is a clear side of righteousness and a clear side of wickedness, he stands with the devils rather than the angels.

    Most Americans, though, did not vote for him for those reasons. The majority does not hold his extreme position on infanticide, and every referendum shows that the majority does not agree to the institutional legitimizing of perversion. But on the issues of this election his position is also on the side of evil. As I wrote two years ago in my political credo, fiscal policy is also moral in nature. The unavoidable reality of this election is that when Governor Romney ran on fiscal sanity, the majority decided to cast their votes in favor of more free stuff from the government.

    In other words, last night’s vote demonstrates one fundamental evil that has overtaken our society. Today’s voter is unimpressed by the biblical ethic of work and responsibility; neither is he too ashamed to engage in systematic theft. We have become Greece. Only a nation of wicked thieves could have produced last night’s results. So if I imagined that my countrymen were too good to re-elect this man, I was brought to a rude awakening.

    But the second blow was even more unexpected:

    The reelection of President Obama demonstrates the stupidity of America. I know, I should be using a softer word than “stupid,” but as I said, I didn’t sleep much. The Scriptures teach that sin makes us stupid. Paul’s argument in the first chapter of Romans is essentially this: there is no fact more obvious than the existence of a Creator who deserves our worship, but sinful men refuse to see it, and in their wickedness they become driveling idiots. Paul said it much better, but that was his point.

    Moreover, we see this truth enacted all around us – and in our own lives – every day. How often have you continued in a self-destructive sin, all the while knowing that it can only bring you to grief? How often have you tried to convince a friend or a child of the obvious error of his ways, only to discover that his sin has too great a hold to be broken by common sense. In fact, this is why “common sense” isn’t common; it is countered on every side by common iniquity.

    Yesterday the prevailing sin of our nation led to an electoral suicide. Never in our history have so many voted against their own self-interest. Retired seniors voted for a President who will destroy their health care system and bankrupt their social security. Out-of-work college graduates voted for a President who considers 7.9% unemployment a huge victory. Black Americans voted overwhelmingly for a President whose policies left them far worse off than they were before.

    How do we account for this electoral lunacy? It’s simple, if you’ve read Romans 1. Sin makes you stupid, and we are a nation of gross sinners. So if I thought my countrymen were too smart to re-elect this man, I was predictably wrong again.

    But even this realization did not rob me of sleep last night. The knockout blow was yet to come:

    The reelection of President Obama demonstrates God’s judgment on America. It’s pretty hard to overstate how bad this election is. For starters, the President’s policy remains to raise taxes, raise regulations, and deplete the nation of energy. We’ve been calling this downturn a “recession” for a long time; soon we’ll recognize it for what it is. As more businesses are shuttered, as loans dry up, and as greater and greater numbers are out of work we will have to start calling it the “Second Depression.” By the end of this term there is expected to be a severe shortage of doctors as we actively demolish the world’s greatest health-care system. China is now free to continue manipulating its currency, Russia is free to point its nukes wherever it pleases, and Iran is free to continue being Iran. It’s bad – very bad.

    But what did we expect? As I said in my earlier article, it’s all very well and good to have a fiscal revolution, because fiscal policy is a moral issue, but it does nothing to address the deeper problems of our body politic. Did we really think that God would be content to allow us to continue ignoring his laws – to continue embracing perversion and executing our infants – and that He would never bring an end to our wealth? Did we think he would take no notice of a nation descending into vileness while His churches churned out a perpetual circus act? In fact, judgment was predictable, and now we know the form that it has taken.

    In Romans 1 Paul explained that sometimes God’s judgment comes in the form of allowing us to descend into greater wickedness. Complain about His manna and He will force-feed you quail until you are nauseated by it. Love evil, and God will give you your fill of it and more. What we are seeing is the judgment of the American populace. We have loved wickedness, and God has elevated a Degenerate to rule over us. The Lord is just, and we are about to discover exactly what that means.

    So I was staggered and overcome. The thought of the horrors that we must now undergo was too much for me. So why am I up off the canvas today, ready to resume my responsibilities as a Christian man?

    The church has the only answer to the sin and stupidity of our nation, and the only response to the judgment of our God. Now, don’t get me wrong; I don’t mean to suggest that as Christians we have the gospel and so we should retreat into a neo-monasticism in which we refuse to take part in the political life of the nation. We were right to cast a vote for a man who is relatively upright and who espoused relatively upright policies. We are right to weep today over the destruction that has come upon us. In fact, if you are unready to get up off the mat today, I don’t blame you. If you cannot smile, I sympathize. Ultimately, though, it’s true: we have the only answer.

    Policies can address political circumstances, but they cannot address the fundamental weaknesses of the American soul. Where we stand today is not so radically different from where we stood in, say, 1980. We don’t need another Reagan; we need the Holy Spirit. If men are to turn from their sin and discover the wisdom that comes from serving God, they do not need better government, but the message which has been entrusted to the church.

    This election was a catastrophe; there is no reason to pretend otherwise. Furthermore, it demonstrates the far deeper perils which threaten us. But we are Christians, and we know the answer, and He is the Prince of Peace. Let’s be busy about the work of His kingdom today.

  288. @ jerome:
    I really appreciate the information in this comment. I will be adding it to my post tomorrow.

    jerome wrote:

    Details of specific cases brought to the Association shall be published only as far as is necessary in the judgment of the Association.”

    In other words, they can deep six the report. If they did that with a child sex abuse situation, their organization is going to be talked about.

  289. I have not read all the comments here, so pardon if I am stating something that is already covered. Further investigation will show that ARBCA power-brokers squelched the ARBCA special committee report away back in about 2001 that looked into charges against Chantry when he was pastor there in Prescott. I say they were squelched not only because men I trust and who know have told me but because as a member of ARBCA for a number of years myself and most other members knew nothing about that whole matter. Chantry went on then to be hired as a teacher at a Christian school. Even if knowledge of alleged sexual molestation of children was not known at that time, ARBCA “pillars” knew about the assault allegations. Do we really think that the school would have hired Chantry if they had been told about that? And THEN he gets hired as a pastor up in Wisconsin. Did ARBCA leaders tell that church about his history? And finally, in 2015 as I understand, Chantry and his church in Wisconsin were admitted into membership in ARBCA and about that time the Prescott church resigned from ARBCA. Connection? I think so. Oh, and one more “finally” – what did the ARBCA insiders do when they first found out about these most recent charges against Chantry? How long have they been sitting on that info? The indictment process takes time and my guess is that ARBCA power brokers knew that he was under investigation WHEN THEY RECOMMENDED HIM TO THE MEMBERSHIP FOR ARBCA MEMBERSHIP, and said nothing to the churches.

  290. First of all, I say this again if any people who have been hurt concerning this situation or have knowledge of folks who have been hurt please contact the appropriate authorities, help groups, or other competent professionals. I hope I worded that ok. Pastor Crippen thank you it really helps seeing you say the things you are saying. Dee looking forward to the article. The last thing, Mr. Piper, in my non-professional opinion, really needs help. If people really loved him they would try to make that point to him.

  291. Unepetiteanana wrote:

    “The reelection of President Obama demonstrates God’s judgment on America.” – Frank Turk

    No, Frank, it demonstrates that we live in a democracy. In case you haven’t noticed the American public votes for a conservative for one or more presidential terms, and then for a liberal for one or more terms.

    We see the same thing in England.

  292. Jeff Crippen wrote:

    The indictment process takes time and my guess is that ARBCA power brokers knew that he was under investigation WHEN THEY RECOMMENDED HIM TO THE MEMBERSHIP FOR ARBCA MEMBERSHIP, and said nothing to the churches.

    They may or may not have known about the molestation investigation. These investigations are often done quietly and slowly to not scare off perpetrators and possible victims while informations is gathered.

    But ARBCA allowing this man to continue to work with children when they knew he had assaulted children is revolting.

  293. Bridget wrote:

    But ARBCA allowing this man to continue to work with children when they knew he had assaulted children is revolting.

    Yes. Did they just shrug it away and pay no attention to what he did after he skipped town? No, they knew he was pastoring and accepted him into the association. I would love to know who that school spoke to for references.

    If I’m reading Jerome correctly, this sounds like nepotism too.

  294. @ Jeff Crippen:
    Your comment is so important and it may break open this whole situation. I am planning on communicating with ARBCA (who will most likely refuse to talk. Then, I will be notifying some news services with the hope that they will be able to investigate this situation. My guess is that they will be interested in this story.

    I am reposting Todd’s article. Bit first, I am planning on featuring your comments on the situation.

    I had a hard time falling asleep last night as I contemplated the very real possibility supposed Christian men and a denomination would cover up knowledge of child sex abuse.

    I am trying to figure out if Frank Turk was aware of this situation when he so strongly attacked Nate Sparks and me.

    I guess we are back to that old saw: Who knew about, when did they know about it and why did they cover it up?

    Thank you Jeff. It was brave of you to enter this mess.

  295. Jeff Crippen wrote:

    And THEN he gets hired as a pastor up in Wisconsin. Did ARBCA leaders tell that church about his history? And finally, in 2015 as I understand, Chantry and his church in Wisconsin were admitted into membership in ARBCA and about that time the Prescott church resigned from ARBCA. Connection? I think so.

    Holy smokes.

  296. Jeff Crippen wrote:

    The indictment process takes time and my guess is that ARBCA power brokers knew that he was under investigation WHEN THEY RECOMMENDED HIM TO THE MEMBERSHIP FOR ARBCA MEMBERSHIP, and said nothing to the churches.

    Unbelievable.

  297. @ Unepetiteanana:

    I remember reading that blog back in 2012. It went somewhat viral, and Chantry wrote a followup piece which is even more incendiary. He stated to critics of his article that “your quarrels are not with me, but with God.”

    A statement like that sums up the mindset of the reformed crowd. I have been told many times to “go argue with God,” not with them because they are just messengers.

    Praise God for the separation of Church and State. Without it, people like dee and the accusers of Chantry would be the ones behind bars for “slandering godly men,” and Chantry and Turk the prison guards enforcing the Christian Sharia law. Imagine that. It’s not far fetched which is why we need keep the church separate from the state.

  298. Why does the Canadian flag show next to my name? I am in Southern California which is nowhere near Canada.

  299. David C wrote:

    Why does the Canadian flag show next to my name? I am in Southern California which is nowhere near Canada.

    It shows with Harley too, who is in Texas.

    I am in Northern California’s Silicon Valley and the US flag shows next to my screen name.

  300. David C wrote:

    Why does the Canadian flag show next to my name? I am in Southern California which is nowhere near Canada.

    It will change tomorrow. Yesterday we were all South African.

    (I think it’s just a site glitch!)

  301. I’m no fan of Obama, but it’s painfully clear Chantry has no authority to speak on such things.

  302. David C wrote:

    Praise God for the separation of Church and State. Without it, people like dee and the accusers of Chantry would be the ones behind bars for “slandering godly men,” and Chantry and Turk the prison guards enforcing the Christian Sharia law.

    Or burning at the stake alongside Servetus, with Chantry and Turk out-yelling each other “PRAISE GOD!”

  303. dee wrote:

    I had a hard time falling asleep last night as I contemplated the very real possibility supposed Christian men and a denomination would cover up knowledge of child sex abuse.

    After all these years doing Wartburg Watch, you’re still surprised?
    According to what you’ve covered here for years, that’s become the New Normal.

    I am trying to figure out if Frank Turk was aware of this situation when he so strongly attacked Nate Sparks and me.

    I’d put money down on it.

  304. Unepetiteanana wrote:

    I’m no fan of Obama, but it’s painfully clear Chantry has no authority to speak on such things.

    That’s because you don’t have His Direct Line to GAWD.

    I mean, What Would God Ever Do Without Chantry to Tell Him What His Judgment Is?

    (And remember the Christianese meaning of “Judgment”, My Dear Wormwood. Not “a binding decision”, but “somebody – preferably a LOT of somebodies – gets it in the neck”.)

  305. ishy wrote:

    David C wrote:

    Why does the Canadian flag show next to my name? I am in Southern California which is nowhere near Canada.

    It will change tomorrow. Yesterday we were all South African.

    “WE ARE ALL SPARTACUS!”

  306. David C wrote:

    A statement like that sums up the mindset of the reformed crowd. I have been told many times to “go argue with God,” not with them because they are just messengers.

    Amazing how God ALWAYS agrees with them 110%!

  307. Jeff Crippen wrote:

    The indictment process takes time and my guess is that ARBCA power brokers knew that he was under investigation WHEN THEY RECOMMENDED HIM TO THE MEMBERSHIP FOR ARBCA MEMBERSHIP, and said nothing to the churches.

    Knock that (Inner) Ring.

  308. Unepetiteanana wrote:

    More Frank Turkishness and his bromance with Tom Chantry:

    Bromance = GAY without actually putting Tab A in Slot B.
    (i.e. “Not Knowing in a Biblical Sense”, op cit Slick Willie & Douggie ESQUIRE)

  309. jerome wrote:

    ARBCA church list circa 2001, shows Chantry at Miller Valley Baptist in AZ and his father pastoring the association’s flagship church in Carlisle PA:

    Highborn Heir to a Pulpit.
    Think Daddy pulled some strings for Little Tommy?
    Rank Hath It’s Privileges.

  310. dee wrote:

    I had a hard time falling asleep last night as I contemplated the very real possibility supposed Christian men and a denomination would cover up knowledge of child sex abuse.

    I understand. That being said, you and Deb deserve to sleep well knowing that you are dedicated to do everything within your power to expose these frauds that destroy people’s lives!

  311. Frank Turk wrote:

    Turk

    Let me dismiss the legal side of this quickly: Turk’s chief defense of Chantry is that Chantry is innocent until proven guilty. This argument reveals Turk’s rebellion against the Word of God. The Bible demands that a minister be free of blame, not that he be considered innocent until proven guilty. Ministers who are tainted by scandal, even if they are found to be innocent, must be put of (or willingly leave) the ministry. The ministry does not exist for the sake of the ministers. The ministry exists for the sake of those to whom it ministers. Where doubt exists, the ministers must be removed. Paul tells Timothy that a man who desires to be an elder desires a good (that is, a lofty, or praiseworthy) thing.

    In keeping with the loftiness of the office, Paul then sets down some very strict requirements, many of which are entirely ignored by the Calvinist/Evangelical/Baptist blocks who are patriarchal. Being innocent until proven guilty is a very good principle of the civil and criminal law, though even in that quarter it does not allow people charged and indicted on charges to roam around as though no charges have been put against them. But the rule for church officers is that they must be blame free. And Chantry is not. He must be removed from church office. If he is fully exonerated, he can be returned to church office. But at this moment, his church, the Pyromaniacs, and all those who support him to the extent of keeping him in church office are disobeying Scripture.

    The fact that Turk, the church, the Pyromaniacs all ignore the plight of Chantry’s victims also shows their rebellion against God’s Word. The Bible spells out that charges against an elder are to be heard openly, in front of witnesses. Turk defends Chantry without having heard the grievances against him.

    But let’s get to the heart of the matter. Frank Turk treats Tom Chantry as though Chantry were a Christian man, one of “the elect.” He actually dares to say “From a perspective of God’s eternal justice, if Tom did the things he is accused of, he is already convicted in his heart and before the true judge of what is right. God is the one to whom Tom owes an explanation — if he is guilty.” No, if Chantry is guilty, he owes restitution to his victims, and he must voice his clear confession before the Church at large, vindicate his accusers, and offer his plea before both the secular court and the Church. Frank Turk and the rest of these hard hearted rebels REALLY need to go read the epistles to Timothy and to Titus.

  312. Muff Potter wrote:

    Nick Bulbeck wrote:
    There will always be those who purport to hate “sin” (and have perhaps convinced themselves they hate it) but who neither wish to do anything about it, nor for anybody else to do anything about it.

    Unless of course the particular sin is same sex relationships.
    Then it becomes a Templars storming the walls of Jerusalem kind of thing.

    That’s because HOMOSEXUALITY(TM) is the OTHER Guy’s SIN, never mine.

  313. Lea wrote:

    It will only stop when a line is drawn and these wolves are chased out of the flock. Sitting around weeping will not do that.

    But it WILL give the weeper doublepluswarmfeelies and THAT’s what’s Truly Important.

  314. Lydia wrote:

    There is only credibility by association in that world. If you peek under their hood, it’s not impressive. How in the world did Al Mohler become labeled a brilliant theologian? Compared to what? Or whom? NT Wright? Roger Nicole? Gordon Fee? (The last wrote a great book for us plebes, “How To Read The Bible For All It’s Worth”)

    Reverend Larry proclaims Reverend Moe a Great Theologian.
    Reverend Moe proclaims Reverend Curly a Great Theologian.
    Reverend Curly proclaims Reverend Larry a Great Theologian.
    NYUK! NYUK! NYUK!

  315. Max wrote:

    ishy wrote:
    Trying to have a decent “debate” on any issue with a hyper-Calvinist means having them yell while quoting the same 10 Bible verses over and over again
    Yep, they keep circling around their interpretations of Romans 9, Ephesians 1, and other selected passages.

    “I Know I’m Right —
    I HAVE A VERSE!”

  316. Lydia wrote:

    @ Max:
    I know it’s hard Max, but you gotta think like a bold manipulator and be so narcissistic you will declare the exact opposite of what has actually happened.
    If you have position, people will buy it. They will even question whether it was really all that bad.

    WAR IS PEACE
    FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
    IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH