First?

read

As a brit, I’ve never heard of Iain Campbell. But Scottish Calvinism is a different world to my own church background, and I live a long way from Scotland.

Please remember his wife and children at this incredibly difficult time.

However, it is also right to ask the bigger questions about hypocrisy and abuse in the church. I belong to a more open branch of evangelicalism, one that frequently gets disparaged by the conservatives. But it seems their holier than thou attitude is a load of hogwash and their claims of superiority do not simply stand up to close examination. I think we do well to treat phrases like “transparent piety” with extreme caution.

In the video at the end, I loved watching the mom even more than the kids. Her panic and trying to hide and stay small was hilarious. I could imagine her thinking to herself, “I had ONE JOB!”

I hope she and her husband were able to laugh at this. I was great, and way better than whatever topic they were trying to cover. It was a gift to the rest of us who needed the laugh this week.

I wonder if Iain and Tullian Tchividjian were friends and shared their how-to-seduce-a-congregant strategies.

Snark aside, I understand Anne’s anger. She has suffered much and now will have to raise her children without their father and explain these difficult circumstances to her children.

This man sounds like a predator. The 7 women with whom he had sexual relationships with are also his victims. He used his position of trust inappropriately and harmed women emotionally, spiritually, too. I hope all of the women involved can heal from this tragedy.

Julie Anne wrote:

Snark aside, I understand Anne’s anger. She has suffered much and now will have to raise her children without their father and explain these difficult circumstances to her children.
This man sounds like a predator. The 7 women with whom he had sexual relationships with are also his victims. He used his position of trust inappropriately and harmed women emotionally, spiritually, too. I hope all of the women involved can heal from this tragedy.

And we mustn’t forget the devastating effect this sort of hypocrisy has on people’s faith. When a church leader that people look up to as a model of virtue turns out to have a dark side, it can cause them to reject God altogether. And it’s even worse when there is a cover-up…

Dee, I am so glad you pointed out that these ‘relationships’ the wife alleges (I believe her) were not affairs, but rather clergy sex abuse. This distinction is so important. Just this week, a friend who was a victim of clergy sex abuse encountered another former member of that church who said “everyone knows he had an affair.” My friend reminded the person that it was NOT an affair, it was a felony. The person was taken aback..thought my friend was joking. No. It is a felony for the same reasons it is a felony for a therapist to have a go at a patient.

Thank you for your continued work in exposing, as my mom used to call it, “the dark underbelly of ministry.” My mom, however, thought it should remain in the dark. I’m glad you don’t. Carry on and know we are all praying for you.

I should have added the word “alleged” to “sexual relationships” in my above comment.

Blame the wife for confronting her husband concerning his SEVEN affairs?
Yep, and church folks wonder many people don’t want to join them for services on Sunday?

dee wrote:

Velour wrote:
I disagree with his wife’s demands that these women be kicked out of their church(es).
She is in a lot of pain and her reaction seems understandable. I wonder if she has gone for help in the past and was blown off?

True, Dee.

“Campbell was revered within the tight knit Calvinist circles. Was he one of those Calvinistas? I have no idea but I do know that a number of those within The Gospel Coalition circles were dismayed at his passing.” (Dee)

I would place Campbell in the classical Calvinist ranks, not a New Calvinist … of the R.C. Sproul sort, not John Piper. However, whether it be old guard or neo-Cal, there’s just something in the predestined-elect thinking of these folks that allows them wiggle room on moral boundaries.

Max wrote:

I would place Campbell in the classical Calvinist ranks, not a New Calvinist … of the R.C. Sproul sort, not John Piper. However, whether it be old guard or neo-Cal, there’s just something in the predestined-elect thinking of these folks that allows them wiggle room on moral boundaries.

I’m going to agree on the first and disagree on the last. I don’t think he’s a Calvinista as you said, but I don’t think (but obviously don’t know) that his Calvinism has anything to do with his alleged sexual activities with women outside his marriage. I think it is more likely something deeper and more personal that was lacking in either his character or his personal development or something. Obviously he was a very troubled soul who has left huge pain in the wake of his suicide, at the very least of it. His widow and his children and his mother and sisters do not deserve what he has done.

Max, I read your comments and often think I could have written the very words.

From the post: “It has long been an axiom at TWW that we cannot truly know what goes on behind closed doors and we must be careful not to think that we do.”

True. I worked with a gentleman last year whose wife appeared to have committed suicide. Investigation proved it was staged – murder. Knowing the guy, his wife, his kids, and having been to their home, it does not seem possible.

What happens with couples – we haven’t a clue. It takes forensics.

The Christianity Today [post reads: “Christian Today” but I followed the link) advice reminds me of when a church lady friend was seeking pastoral counseling about her ill-mannered (verbally abusive) hubby, who was an elder & generou$ in offering$. The pastor asked her what she was “doing to make him that way”.

From the post: a bio excerpt, and an obit link: “Iain D. Campbell was a brilliant communicator, in constant demand as a lecturer and conference-speaker. He had a quite extraordinary fluency of speech, but the fluency was disciplined by clarity, precision and careful arrangement. The delivery was effortless, though often passionate, the mastery of the subject complete, and while there was no trace of arrogance he spoke with the Bible-derived authority of a true preacher.”

Maintaining 7 affairs is neither disciplined nor without “trace of arrogance”. Furthermore, it is not a model of “Bible-derived authority of a true preacher”.

Blah, blah, blah. Don’t mean to be crass here, however, last year there was an obit in the local papers about a “pillar of the community” – posted by family members, obviously. However, the guy was also a known pedophile – in the community.

Good grief, what is with the dual reality of these icons? Do oil and water mix?

Max wrote:

It’s easier for a Calvinist, than a non-Calvinist, to justify moving south of moral north if they believe that God predestined it

Yes, I see what you mean. I believe that is what trips up the pups, definitely, IMO. What do you make of the fact that this man was very accomplished yet chose to remain in a small church? I have been pondering that.

Dee–I’m glad you pointed out that the women here were victims of sexual assault and that these were not affairs. I also think there were probably more than seven women, but it could be something else.

I also have to wonder what Dr. Campbell’s thought processes were in all this. We’ll never know, of course. I know that when I was suicidal and hospitalized in the late 1990s, it was because I was in an enormous amount of psychic pain and I simply couldn’t see how to go any further from day to day. Yeah, I was causing problems for people around me (example: I seem to recall breaking up a date a friend of mine was on with my woes–oops). But I felt like I’d fallen into a deep dark well, was splashing around in the water at the bottom, was getting tired, couldn’t get out and thinking I should just give up. That said, I have no insight into what Dr. Campbell was thinking.

Gram3 wrote:

What do you make of the fact that this man was very accomplished yet chose to remain in a small church?

As I noted in an upstream comment “Church can provide a hiding place where trust and betrayal in pulpit and pew play sinful games.” The bigger the stage the more likely one is to be eventually exposed.

Gram3 wrote:

What do you make of the fact that this man was very accomplished yet chose to remain in a small church? I have been pondering that.

Max will answer for himself I’m sure.

My two cents is that it certainly made him look very humble, didn’t it?

@ Max:
Yes, that makes sense. So sadly ironic that he had helped to reunify some churches that had split.

Max wrote:

“We are all within an inch of succumbing to the delusion that it is possible to be one thing in one context and something else in another. The real danger lies in the deception that whispers that we are safe behind the mask of hypocrisy.” (Ian Campbell, Hypocrisy in High Places)

Oh my, he was talking about himself!

Max wrote:

Gram3 wrote:
I believe that is what trips up the pups, definitely, IMO.
New Calvinism, with its YRR army, if not restrained will eventually lead to antinomianism. We are seeing symptoms of that already in their ranks.

Yes, Max. It’s that whole notha level of assurance of salvation No Matter What I Do.

Gram3 wrote:

What do you make of the fact that this man was very accomplished yet chose to remain in a small church?

Control of the situation?

@ Max: Wonderful quote.

Darlene wrote:

Perhaps it has something to do with taking Justification by Faith to a whole nutha level. A level where behavior has no effect upon one’s standing in Christ, no matter what that behavior might be

In my experience, the NeoCalvinists have NO need for Christ and the Cross. It’s ALL about *them*. They brag about how before the beginning of time that God chose them, yes them, to be saved and they are among God’s *Elect*. The way I understand it, they practically saved themselves and Jesus is an afterthought. I really don’t even understand why Jesus didn’t stay in heaven, kick back and have a hot beverage and a snack, and why He even bothered coming to earth when He wasn’t needed because after all we have The Elect.

@ Christiane:
Sorry, meant to write previous comment to the attention of Gram3.

dee wrote:

@ drstevej:
Yay! Faster than a jaguar.

Gram3 wrote:

Christiane wrote:

those dour, dignified, reserved Scots? … I guess the old pagan DNA will out after all and it will be difficult for the islanders to return to the weaving of tweed after all this excitement

I have no idea what you mean by this remark, but it is unkind and uninformed. And off-topic.

Gram3 wrote:

Christiane wrote:

those dour, dignified, reserved Scots? … I guess the old pagan DNA will out after all and it will be difficult for the islanders to return to the weaving of tweed after all this excitement

I have no idea what you mean by this remark, but it is unkind and uninformed. And off-topic.

Christiane,

I am a Scot and you do not know what you’re talking about.

Now, as far as Campbell (a very common name in the north), he is a selfish man, if the accusations turn out to be true, and no hero worthy of admiration. I’m getting tired of the completely inappropriate and evil reactions of the church to sexual abuse in its ranks. The world is watching.

JYJames wrote:

@ Dave A A:
“The hardline FCC is among the few churches which claim using Sunday transport to the islands cannot ever be justified.” http://bit.ly/2mvOGhz
And if one’s ox per chance tumbles into a pit on the Sabbath, would it be permissible to pull him out?

At my ex-NeoCalvinist gulag, I was berated for doing my laundry on a Sunday “in violation of The Sabbath”. Sigh.

I had helped a neighbor/mom with cancer on chemo who was terribly sick from it all with hair falling out, she has a husband and three young children, on a Saturday (when I would normally do my laundry).

I think that Jesus cared more about helping this mom with cancer, than what day I did my laundry.

Velour wrote:

I think that Jesus cared more about helping this mom with cancer, than what day I did my laundry.

Exactly. Jesus knew the darkness of the religious types back then, and the same behavior pops up in our churches now.

JYJames wrote:

And if one’s ox per chance tumbles into a pit on the Sabbath, would it be permissible to pull him out?

“Although the kirk session had concerns about the use of the ferry on Sabbath, they were more concerned about the unnecessary collection of animals that day.”

BD wrote:

Would you be willing to change your headline?
The term, committed suicide, is from British common law and was used when suicide was a crime.
The terminology now used is death by suicide, or died by suicide. This change is necessary in all cultures for suicide survivors; family and friends who face the stigma of losing a loved one to suicide.
It is going to take a long time to help people, including media, wean off the more familiar, legally incorrect term ‘committed’ suicide.
Thanks.

Here is the American Copy Editors Society information on the changes being made in terms used. http://www.copydesk.org/blog/2015/03/27/aces-welcomes-ap-stylebook-entry-on-suicide-ap-reveals-changes-at-2015-conference/

Thank you for your thoughtfulness and sensitivity.

He was a man of transparent piety

I think the word they were going for is apparent, not transparent– he was a man of *apparent* piety.

It doesn’t surprise me that the women involved have been convinced Iain had a difficult home life – that was likely the story he used to groom his victims. It is possible they have been duped and haven’t realized it yet. They should show grace to his widow, they may have completely misjudged her.

5. I don’t know what happened and I don’t want to know. And those of you who claim to ‘know’ more almost certainly don’t.

I believe this attitude is all wrong and is counterproductive. The Bible says that ‘the mature have their senses trained to discern good and evil.’ If we hide our heads in the sand, how are we to develop wisdom and become mature? We have to grapple with reality in order to become mature. The reality is that these situations happen. We need to face that and learn how best to deal with them. As long as we pretend nothing is wrong, we don’t learn, and the same problems happen over and over again.

6. Trust the Church: trust the investigation process

In what way has any church demonstrated they are worthy of trust? I don’t believe in blind trust, not where human beings are involved. The church is a group of human beings. Where there is no transparency, sin gains a foothold and flourishes. Trust God and trust the process of honesty and truth.

7. Christians who see this as an opportunity to attack the Church and to justify themselves and their own cynicism.

Honestly facing what happened, learning from it and finding ways to prevent a similar situation and protect future victims should not be seen as “attacking the church.” It should be seen as necessary for the health of the church. I believe that talking things through, dealing with the facts openly, and seeking solutions to create a better tomorrow are the only way that makes any sense.

Until churches start doing that, I really don’t feel it’s a safe place.

JYJames wrote:

JYJames wrote:
Velour wrote:
I think that Jesus cared
Jesus cared then, and he cares now.

Tears, JY James.

Thank you for your kind words.

Darlene wrote:

Perhaps it has something to do with taking Justification by Faith to a whole nutha level. A level where behavior has no effect upon one’s standing in Christ, no matter what that behavior might be. The thinking would be that one’s justification is grounded in complete, and full assurance of one’s salvation.

And yet they are so legalistic! All of the dos and don’ts and membership covenants and excommunications and so on. Is it one extreme to the other?

dee wrote:

@ Sergius Martin-George:
Oh good night! Now I know why he miffed me off. You are far more observant than I am!!!

Dave Robertson is not a very nice man. I discussed his post about the abuse with Jon Smyth and he rejected the victims pleas to the Archbishop of Canterbury to come clean about how much he really knew. Robertson said that the Archbishop said he “did not know about it and I believe him”. He rejected the victim’s plea for more information as “nasty attempt to smear a fine man” and ignored several key facts – such as the fact that influential figures in the Church of England knew about it in 1982. I said that the victims are in pain, they need to be heard and they want answers. He replied with contempt “unless you have evidence you are indulging in gossip!” Of course there is a possibility that the Archbishop really did not know but I don’t think the situation is being dealt with properly, especially in light of this article by the Guardian – Damning Report Reveals Church of England Failure to Act on Abuse.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/15/damning-report-reveals-church-of-england-failure-to-act-on-abuse

Robertson left out important facts and he failed to address many questions. Suffice to say I don’t trust him at all and I find no humanity or compassion in him.

Dr Campbell supposedly was a Bible expert as well as an expert on sin and its cure. We are supposed to take his advice since he published this for public consumption.

“Bait a trap with p*ssy and you’ll catch a preacher every time.”
— Christian Monist’s uncle

I get that people fall and have an affair. But 7 affairs spread over decades? This is not a one time slip. It is a lifestyle.

This is not “Mistakes Were Made(TM)”.
This is a heavy-duty WOMANIZER.
Whether Tee-Tee Serial Playa or All At Once.

Sadly, it appears that church folks are now blaming Campbell’s widow, Anne, for making him unhappy!

“See What YOU Made Me Do????????”

You expected different from God’s Speshul Pets the Predestined Elect?

https://i1.wp.com/nakedpastor.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/biblical-manhood.jpg?w=600

JYJames wrote:

From the post: a bio excerpt, and an obit link: “Iain D. Campbell was a brilliant communicator, in constant demand as a lecturer and conference-speaker. He had a quite extraordinary fluency of speech, but the fluency was disciplined by clarity, precision and careful arrangement. The delivery was effortless, though often passionate, the mastery of the subject complete, and while there was no trace of arrogance he spoke with the Bible-derived authority of a true preacher.”

“For Satan himself can transform Himself to appear as an Angel of Light.”
— some Rabbi from Tarsus

Ever notice Calvinism seems to breed flowery speech?
So many flowery wordsmiths like Piper and Douggie Wilson…

Ian wrote:

I didn’t word the above comment very well. I was simply suggesting that it is possible that Campbell could have chosen a role where he had private meetings with women, in the same way that paedophiles want to be around children.

I understand what you meant. And I agree.

While reading this, I kept thinking of the quote from Animal Farm, “All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.” I definitely think there are two sets of rules. Does this mean we are not to examine their fruit? I’m fairly certain there is a Carpenter from Galilee who would disagree!
Also, the attempt to lay the blame for this on his wife and her subsequent shunning by the community I find utterly despicable. Iain Campbell died as a result of his OWN sin and guilty conscience. Jeremiah 31:29-30 says so…unless the ESV somehow left that passage out of their “permanent text edition!”

Root 66 wrote:

Iain Campbell died as a result of his OWN sin and guilty conscience.

A lot of people are deeply troubled by guilt and their own sin; but they do not commit suicide.

I suspect what was happening with Iain Campbell was that he was in a very, very dark place for a long time. By the time someone commits suicide, generally they are at the end of a long isolated sad journey into the darkness.

That people shunned his wife was also a sign of their own deep troubles ….. I think being able to do such an unkind thing to the minister’s wife, after the events of this tragedy, also reveals a darkness in the midst of this faith community.

what is that saying?
‘only in darkness the light’:
the contrasts in this whole story are stunning, epic, and there IS a history in the isle of Lewis of strange spiritual happenings in my own opinion

Max wrote:

Darlene wrote:
I believe this is the danger of alien righteousness within Reformed theology. The idea that when a person sins, God doesn’t see me but the imputed righteousness of Christ. “Peek-a-boo, I don’t see you,” says God.
Exactly! “When I sin, Jesus is standing in front of me. God doesn’t see me; He sees Jesus covering me” … which is theological baloney, of course.
Some Calvinists also stretch the humanity of Jesus out of bounds to justify their own bad behavior. By subordinating the Son to the Father, they can limit Jesus’ holiness and purity to a lower standard. I once heard a Calvinist say in a Sunday School class “I believe if Jesus were here today, he would be sitting around a campfire drinking beer with the boys and telling jokes.” I took the opportunity to ‘preach’ who Jesus was and what He was really like at length. He never came back to Sunday School.

Darlene and Max: I love both your comments, and I do agree 100%. Keep on telling the biblical truth; it’s so good to hear. Do these people who say these illogical things ever actually HEAR themselves? “Jesus would have a beer”; in other words, I can have someone else’s wife or go a stripping tonight…coz God ain’t seein’ me, He a seein’ Jesus and his beer.

@ Max:
Max wrote:

The idea that when a person sins, God doesn’t see me

my goodness, OUR collective ‘sin’ as that force that drove the nails into the Hands and Feet of the Crucified Lord … this is not understood?
What recognition is it that brings people to their knees in sorrow when they gaze upon the One Whom they have slain????
“10” …. they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn. ”
whatever repentance is, it starts when grace is poured out so that people understand what they have done, and why they are saddened to the point of changing their lives and returning to God

‘God doesn’t SEE their sin? Our Lord suffered because of it …. they do not realize this????

Max wrote:

By subordinating the Son to the Father, they can limit Jesus’ holiness and purity to a lower standard.

The idea of a relational ‘sub’ position of son to father is something I have heard innocently expressed by a Christian woman, this: ‘Jesus isn’t God, He is the Son of God’

I didn’t understand what she said then.
I get it now. And what kinds of teachings would have led her to say that in all good conscience. She was not a ‘theologian’ but she was someone who loved Jesus, yes, an elderly distant cousin of my mother’s.

@ Dave A A:
The Free Church Continuing arose after a split with the Free Church of Scotland in 2000 after Professor Donald Macleod was acquitted in court of sexual assault, the Sheriff (Judge) ruling that there had been a conspiracy against him. The islanders are more reserved than most and do not, as a rule, wash their dirty linen in public.

Rev David Robertson, former Moderator of the Free Church did indeed interact witth various contributors here a few years ago and, yes, he was the author of the post that appeared in Christian Today. It was written for his own blog, “The Wee Flea” in response to the rather salacious mud-raking of the tabloid press here. As such, it is a fine, compassionate piece that does not stoop to the level of innuendo or insinuation. Re-read the tabloid reports and you will see the difference between what he said and what the press allege.

There will be no cover up. There is no blame shifting as Boston Lady alleges, nor is there anyone, Calvinist or otherwise, who is declaring themselves to be blame-Free.The Free Church will conduct its own investigation fairly and impartially and report on the facts. It is not true that Mrs Campbell was not shunned by the community, nor was she forced to flee the island.

To return to what David Robertson said. He introduced the piece by saying this:-
“My phone has hardly stopped ringing over the past couple of days, with journalists from different news organisations desperate for information and ‘an informed opinion’ about the recent tragic death of Iain D Campbell. It still disappoints me that in a world where people are being killed, this is considered so newsworthy that it merits so many column inches and so much gossip. However to some degree I don’t blame the journalists – that is the world they inhabit and they are just doing their jobs. Its more reading the accompanying comments and even more sadly what passes for ‘prayerful concern’ in the Christian world , which really sticks in the throat.”

The last sentence is particularly apt when reading some of the analysis and commenting here.

Christiane wrote:

whatever repentance is, it starts when grace is poured out so that people understand what they have done, and why they are saddened to the point of changing their lives and returning to God

‘God doesn’t SEE their sin? Our Lord suffered because of it …. they do not realize this????

Oh, but Christiane, that is old-time preaching! We’ve entered a new age of enlightenment, don’t you know?!

General William Booth (founder of the Salvation Army) looked down the road and saw the age in which we live when he said:

“I consider that the chief dangers which confront the coming century will be religion without the Holy Ghost, Christianity without Christ, forgiveness without repentance, salvation without regeneration, politics without God, and heaven without hell.”

I do not see enough objective evidence to justify blaming this man’s behavior on either his theology or his cultural ethnicity. I am not going there at this time on the limited evidence at hand. Personal responsibility cannot be so easily dismissed.

okrapod wrote:

I do not see enough objective evidence to justify blaming this man’s behavior on either his theology or his cultural ethnicity. I am not going there at this time on the limited evidence at hand. Personal responsibility cannot be so easily dismissed.

Agreed. Whatever the driver be for our behavior, we will all stand accountable to a Holy God for our own sin. “God ordained it or made me do it” will not preach on Judgment Day.

“Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. From his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done.” (Revelation 20)

“I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life” (Deuteronomy 30)

I think what some folks are saying in the comment stream is that personal behavior – particularly religious behavior – can be shaped by one’s understanding of God according to the theology they feed on. But at the end of the day, personal responsibility cannot be dismissed, as you note. It will matter not to God on that day what our religious tradition and teaching were.

@ Velour:
Welcome. God bless. Psalm 56:8, our tears are precious to Him.

Max wrote:

It will matter not to God on that day what our religious tradition and teaching were.

“At the evening of life, we shall be judged on our love” (St. John of the Cross)

dee wrote:

No one spends 2 decades allegedly deceiving people without somehow wanting to do so.

or perhaps feeling that he NEEDED to do it and not finding a way out?

JYJames wrote:

Unreal. Pastor Iain Campbell (Iain with the double i) is writing about the sin he is actually in, and recommends:
1 – examine oneself
2 – guard one’s heart
3 – walk in the steps of Christ.

Could this be another example of self-treating in secret by preaching against it like an inward-focused pep rally?

JYJames wrote:

how we behave

And how we behave is how we treat others – down to the most basic and mundane, perhaps unnoticed, of daily life relationships – our spouse, the cashier at the grocer, the server at the cafe, folks on an elevator, fellow drivers on the road, commenters in discourse on a blog, the other gender, etc. Jesus is our role model. He walked the talk with everyone he met along the way.

There are so many stories of leaders in our religious circles who, on a personal basis, are found wanting, i.e., the post about Francis Schaeffer and his wife Edith (and son Frank confirms in his books that the theologian was abusive to his wife).

dee wrote:

Could you expand more on the differences between John Piper’s theology and RC Sproul’s theology? I am still trying to figure it out.

While the essential doctrinal tenets are the same in both “Old” Calvinism (Sproul et al.) and “New” Calvinism (Piper et al.), there are some distinct differences in delivery of the reformed message.

My first glimpse at the New Calvinist movement began in 2006 with Collin Hansen’s article in Christianity Today “Young, Restless, Reformed: Calvinism is making a comeback—and shaking up the church.” In that article, Hansen contrasted classical Calvinism with the new reformation. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/september/42.32.html

While I may not agree with everything in their post, The Reformed Baptist blog did a good job outlining differences between the old guard and their neo-brethren in “The New Vs. The Old Calvinism” http://www.reformedbaptistblog.com/2014/04/the-new-vs-old-calvinism.html

While the old boys may not totally agree with the message and method of the new kids on the block, they appear to be putting up with their antics as long as the mission stays the same … to preach and teach reformed theology to the uttermost parts of the earth. Thus, Sproul and Piper can link arms occasionally at conferences … then go back to their individual ivory towers to speak to their individual followers with more teachings of another gospel that is not the Gospel at all.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

another example of self-treating in secret by preaching against it

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/01/29/lkl.ted.haggard/
Like Ted Haggard, former head of the National Association of Evangelicals, the anti-gay, gay preacher:

“Haas [one of the guys with whom Haggard had an affair] added, ‘(Haggard) used to say to me, “You know what, Grant, you can become a man of God, and you can have a little bit of fun on the side.”‘”

@ Christiane:
The Lewis Awakening, as it was called, took place between 1949-1952. Duncan Campbell belonged to The Faith Mission. The accounts of the revival are remarkably similar to a number of previous awakenings, both in Scotland, England and, indeed, in the USA.

The following is a transcript of Duncan Campbell’s recollection and explanation of what happened.

http://www.tracts.ukgo.com/campbell_revival_hebrides_sermons.pdf

Darlene wrote:

Perhaps it has something to do with taking Justification by Faith to a whole nutha level. A level where behavior has no effect upon one’s standing in Christ, no matter what that behavior might be. The thinking would be that one’s justification is grounded in complete, and full assurance of one’s salvation.

“I’m Saved, I’m Hell-proof, I Can Get Away With Anything & Everything, Gawd Saith!
I Can Do Anything I Want. ANYTHING.”

Like those Manichean Gnostics who messed up young Augustine’s head; except with them the attitude came from Platonic Dualism — “Since Flesh and Spirit are separate, I can indulge my Flesh without jeopardizing my Spiritual Superiority”. But the end effect was the same: “I Can Get Away With Doing Anything I Want. (As long as it’s Physical and not Spiritual.)”

Add Predestination into the mix and you’ve cut in the supercharger. “I WANNA!” becomes “God Wills It! (And who am I to refuse the Sovereign Will of God?)”

Islam, that other example of Predestination, has had a problem with this among its rich and powerful throughout its history. Compounded by the same “In’shal’lah…” breeding passivity and fatalism among the powerless victims of the rich & powerful. An ideal combination for a Caligula or Nero on top Holding the Whip at Whim and everyone else Feeling the Whip. One informant of mine experienced a church in Louisville that was really into Predestination and noticed the exact same pattern, so I’m confident of classing it as a side effect of X-Treme Predestination.

I believe this is the danger of alien righteousness within Reformed theology. The idea that when a person sins, God doesn’t see me but the imputed righteousness of Christ. “Peek-a-boo, I don’t see you,” says God.

“Uh, that’s Under the Blood.”
— Mike Warnke

dee wrote:

Darlene wrote:

Oh my, he was talking about himself!

I agree. That is why I think his life and writings deserve a closer look.

R.C. Sproul provides samples of Campbell’s writings at: http://www.ligonier.org/search/?q=Iain+Campbell

dee wrote:

I think his life and writings deserve a closer look

For example:

“… ways in which we take God’s name in vain. Among them … professing His name but not living according to our profession …” (Iain Campbell, What Does it Mean to Take the Lord’s Name in Vain?)

siteseer wrote:

It doesn’t surprise me that the women involved have been convinced Iain had a difficult home life – that was likely the story he used to groom his victims. It is possible they have been duped and haven’t realized it yet. They should show grace to his widow, they may have completely misjudged her.

They should. However, they’re likely to “Double Down and SCREAM LOUDER!” because “showing grace” means admitting they were wrong in the first place. And when you Stone the Jezebel who blew the whistle, you get to say “I Have Not Sinned”.

I know where this comes from. A similar dynamic surviving High School Hell locked in a similar attitude in me. Never Admit to Anything, because if you admit to anything, you have just volunteered to be THE scapegoat for everyone else’s sins, all the way back to when Eve munched the Fruit. And the Righteous will be Joyful to lay all the blame on you. “I THANK THEE, LOOOOOORD, THAT I AM NOTHING LIKE….”

It strikes me that any dynamic with “apparent piety” and surface Righteousness will be prone to this. Must Keep Up Appearances, you know. And is Calvinism especially prone to this? Where such surface Righteousness can become the desperately-desired PROOF of My Election?

Max wrote:

dee wrote:

I think his life and writings deserve a closer look

For example:

“… ways in which we take God’s name in vain. Among them … professing His name but not living according to our profession …” (Iain Campbell, What Does it Mean to Take the Lord’s Name in Vain?)

Which does lend weight to the theory that he was self-treating in secret by preaching against his own secret sins & personality disorders.

Like recovering alcoholic Billy Sunday preaching Christless sermons against Demon Rum.
Like Rush Limbaugh being the most vocal fanboy of the War on Drugs while hiding a secret Oxycontin addiction.
Like Ted Haggard preaching “God Hates Fags” second only to Fred Phelps while doing rentboys in secret.

“You can tell when a preacher’s in trouble when he stops preaching what he’s for and starts preaching only what he’s against.”

@ okrapod:
remember, these people were Calvinists who lived in a mist-shrouded island somewhat isolated and their emotions were ‘insular’ also: they personally kept themselves to themselves, likely

maybe the Lewis Revival was a ‘release’ of all that emotion? a therapeutic safety valve? whatever happened there, in the middle of the last century, people by the hundreds were staying up all night in the Church, crying, and praying, and that is a powerful kind of ‘CATHARSIS’ in the classic sense of the word for such reserved people

@ Lowlandseer:

” It is not true that Mrs Campbell was not shunned by the community, nor was she forced to flee the island.”
++++++++++++++++

perhaps not by official decree, nor being chased by church folk carrying pitchforks.

have you considered the power of innuendo aimed at her? the power of silent communication? the power of body language, facial expressions, eye contact, and how those can be incisive tools?

all manner of rejection and humiliation can be done under the radar and/or silently. under the circumstances, i can readily imagine it would be more than enough for Anne to vacate the scene.

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:

some thoughts (none of them will likely make sense to anyone but me):

perhaps those predators who publicly proclaim their own salvation and condemn to hell all unrepentant sinners …. perhaps these men are in some kind of twisted ‘denial’ and are preaching out of a kind of sick ‘projection’ of their own hidden sins on to the situation of others …. sick, in the sense that they don’t realize fully that they ARE projecting (too many known examples of this phenomenon to name)

they are solid in their super-ego judgment of others and of sin … they’ve got control over that

they are not in control of their own demons …. their ‘id’ (pleasure-seeking) is not under control, if not completely unrestrained

I would say such men have egos that have lost touch with reality and are living on the edge, where much must be kept hidden in hopes that their lost grip on reality will be kept secret and some control over what remains of their public image is all the hope they have left …. they are in deep trouble, these men, and are deceiving themselves, until they are no longer able to hide behind their public mask

The despair of such men makes them all the more dangerous as predators.

elastigirl wrote:

done under the radar and/or silently

With God, the “behind the scene” is actually the scene. He is everywhere and all knowing.

Why these delusional but “informed” expert theologians and preachers don’t get that – is a conundrum. The Iain Campbell bio reads like he is an absolute religious genius, yet he failed at the most basic level. His own little immoral world inside his glowing global evangelical reputation.

elastigirl wrote:

have you considered the power of innuendo aimed at her? the power of silent communication? the power of body language, facial expressions, eye contact, and how those can be incisive tools?

all manner of rejection and humiliation can be done under the radar and/or silently. under the circumstances,

With one major additonal Feature:
TOTAL PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY, with accompanying Total Wide-Eyed Innocence(TM).

Perfect for blame-shifting and gaslighting, as there are no actual overt acts the victim/scapegoat can point to as proof.

Darlene wrote:

I am so sick of hearing the word “Biblical,” because of the way it’s been used by this crowd, as well as the wider Christian community, that I don’t use it. The word has been emptied of any significant meaning. How about using words like integrity, honesty and compassionate?

Oh, I can just hear the response from the self-important church leaders now: “But… but… but… those are words that the unbelievers use, to describe their own behaviour! Words like those are worldly and carnal, and smack of pride in their own imagined righteousness. If we use those ordinary words, how can we feel all special and set apart? If we don’t use “Biblical”™ and “Gospel”™ to describe everything we do, how will anyone recognize us as holy!? And how can you even suggest that we have anything in common with those who don’t know Jesus?!?”

Not that I can read their minds, but I suspect that thinking like this might be behind overuse of the Christianese buzzwords.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

gender

Well, there are some gender aspects here, the Preacher guy with the Groupie girls.

However, in Hollywood, for example, the ego rise of an actor or actress to out of control immorality seems to be gender inclusive or gender neutral, all on board.

elastigirl wrote:

when i hear “he had a difficult home life”, of course the implicit message is she’s to blame. how convenient. she is the scapegoat.

When I hear that, I think of the old pickup line “My Wife, She Don’t Understand Me.”

Lowlandseer wrote:

It is not true that Mrs Campbell was not shunned by the community, nor was she forced to flee the island.

And you know this… how, exactly?

Sadly, the church member’s treatment of Anne is all too typical as it comes to how faithful spouses are treated upon revelation of infidelity. People push The Shared Responsibility Lie (http://www.divorceminister.com/why-does-the-shared-responsibility-lie-persist/).

Ian strikes me as an especially “accomplished” cheater if the allegations are true, which I have no reason to believe they are not. Over twenty years of living a double life suggests very DEEP problems in Ian.

Christiane wrote:

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:

some thoughts (none of them will likely make sense to anyone but me):

My thoughts usually don’t make sense to anyone but me. It’s gotten better over time, but you should have heard me in my 20s…

And I’m spending too long in this thread and have to run. Six hours sleep instead of four really makes a difference in the brain fog department.

Lowlandseer wrote:

It is not true that Mrs Campbell was not shunned by the community, nor was she forced to flee the island.

First, thank you for the information in your comment. It is helpful to me. Is it possible that the “shunning” is more of an informal response of a community in shock rather than a formal shunning by the church and that his widow felt more comfortable in her grief away from there? I can see how the story could be spun in many ways for various purposes.

I pray that you are correct that the church will conduct a thorough and complete and fair investigation. I confess that my experience makes me skeptical. I agree with what Siteseer wrote above about the process.

I do not agree some other commenters that we can conclude that his suicide was due to his Reformed theology since I’m sure that there are instances of suicides following exposures of adultery by clergy of other theological persuasions. I believe that there is a general human tendency to circle the wagons of the tribe around the Big Men when the tribe feels threatened by an attack on one of their own which is perceived by those in the tribe as a personal attack. I also believe that we place far too much confidence in mere humans, including ourselves.

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:

headless, with all affection, what planet do you live on? 🙂

(i truly hope i didn’t insult you, here! see, happy face & all. to me, the farther afield from the lowest common denominator of the status quo the better the affirmation)

Lowlandseer wrote:

The Free Church will conduct its own investigation fairly and impartially and report on the facts. It is not true that Mrs Campbell was not shunned by the community, nor was she forced to flee the island.

How can you claim this? Are you an expert on this situation? An elder in this church perhaps?

You make this assertion in the same way that the American pastor says,

“an American pastor was writing, ‘I never met or heard Dr Campbell in the flesh, but I knew him from sermon audios, and the sermons I heard told me all that I needed to know of the man. The reason for his high reputation was obvious.”

The American pastor apparently knew nothing about Campbell except his public persona.

dee wrote:

What I am trying to figure out is how his theological beliefs failed him.

I'm not sure exactly which beliefs you mean, but knowledge of any kind is never enough to keep us from sinning (please do not ask me how I know this.) He obviously had plenty of knowledge. So Reformed or non-Reformed, he or anyone else is vulnerable to sin. The lure of the Big Man in the clergy is that somehow he will be immune to sin when actually I think the temptation (pride) and opportunity (those who seek to bask in the glow of proximity to greatness) is greater.

@ dee:
Fair enough. There’s been a lot of talk on the thread about whether he was abusing his position. Possibly. It is possible that he knew someday the jig would be up. Suicide may have always been his exit strategy. As soon as the confrontation happened, the pills came out, and he seemed heck bent on doing it. I don’t think it was impulsive.

Jack wrote:

@ dee:
Fair enough. There’s been a lot of talk on the thread about whether he was abusing his position. Possibly. It is possible that he knew someday the jig would be up. Suicide may have always been his exit strategy. As soon as the confrontation happened, the pills came out, and he seemed heck bent on doing it. I don’t think it was impulsive.

That is so true. A local man was embezzling money from his clients, running around on his spouse. In his note he left after shooting himself, he knew he’d be caught, and then when he was going to be arrested, checked into a motel, and after consuming a large amount of narcotics, killed himself, all planned years earlier.

Gram3 wrote:

knowledge of any kind is never enough to keep us from sinning … He obviously had plenty of knowledge.

Yes, another sad story demonstrating once again that knowledge is not understanding, nor wisdom. It matters not how much a preacher knows if he has not developed a spiritual understanding of the jots and tittles he studies. Acquiring knowledge is not the same as knowing the Lord Jesus. Having a fine-tuned intellect will never enable you to walk as you ought … only the Holy Spirit can turn what you know into wisdom. I’m convinced that some of the smartest preachers in the pulpit do not fully understand what they preach about walking in the flesh vs. the Spirit.

Yes, yes, yes! @ okrapod:

dee wrote:

What I am trying to figure out is how his theological beliefs failed him.

We attended a Southern Baptist church years ago. The pastor was a tremendous pastor/teacher. He proclaimed Scriptural truths with a passion. He had the right theological beliefs from my assessment and delivered them accurately in his sermons; he was a graduate of a good seminary. After several years in the pulpit, he openly confessed during a service that he had never really given his life to Christ, that he was lost! He subsequently wept and repented of his sins before the congregation and was baptized the next Sunday by an associate pastor. He was a much better preacher after that! It is possible to know the right stuff but not experience it … if it’s not in your “knower”, your walk will not be right … and what you think you know will fail you.

@ Christiane:
In a final response to what Dee has said and your “Brava!”I will only ask that you both/ all read in full what David Robertson wrote. It is a necessary corrective to the speculation that passes for insightful comment both here and in the press.

@ Christiane:
Love your writing.

Lowlandseer wrote:

Who would believe that there are people of the Book, who are also people of their word?

Bottom line, in the final analysis: people are defined, in essence, by their actions, neither their book, nor their word.

What’s that saying? Talk is cheap, and a book is simply talk on paper. (With the exception that the Bible is God talking – whole different story, reality, dynamic – He is true to His Word & Written Word. Humanly impossible.)

@ JYJames:
you should see my HAT 🙂

“I have news for pastors. Their job is not more stressful on family life than many others like single moms who work two jobs, doctors, air traffic controllers, intelligence agents, etc. Sorry-Campbell doesn’t get a pass for decades of alleged abuse of women because he was stressed *in the manse.*”

This is the best thing I’ve read in a while.

ishy wrote:

And the fact that it went so long without his wife finding out also tells me that even if there wasn’t clergy sex abuse, there had to be some level of grooming to keep those other women quiet.

According to the above Sun article, the accused mistresses were married and have called in their lawyers. It seems that these women would naturally want to keep quiet to preserve their marriages and reputation in this small community.

okrapod wrote:

I do not see enough objective evidence to justify blaming this man’s behavior on either his theology or his cultural ethnicity. I am not going there at this time on the limited evidence at hand. Personal responsibility cannot be so easily dismissed.

I’m in partial agreement. The guy was already predisposed. Let’s just say that his theology helped grease the wheels.

Lowlandseer wrote:

brain

I say baloney to you. You have no way of knowing how the church will handle it. You are as naive as the American pastor who thought he knew Campbell from listening to his sermons. Or Peter, himself, who claimed he would never deny his Lord.

I honestly hope things are handled well, but you cannot claim that you know it will be handled well just because they are “people of the book.”

Amen on this. One of the best summations I have read here, and that’s saying a great deal.

“I get that people fall and have an affair. But 7 affairs spread over decades? This is not a one time slip. It is a lifestyle. Sorry. I don’t buy it. He preached in public, he admonished us in public and now it is his turn in public. We need to understand why his head knowledge didn’t become heart knowledge. If guy like this can’t do it, then something is wrong with how he, and others, approach obedience and all of us need to figure it out by looking at situations like this.”

I have found this story very hard to deal with, to be honest. First, the way the wife is apparently being treated according to news reports about her husband’s alleged affairs and his apparent suicide. This should be the time when a congregation surrounds the wife for several reasons, the apparent alleged double life her husband was apparently allegedly living and her loss of her husband to an apparent suicide. No matter her feelings she has suffered a great deal of loss. It could be a time of real healing and Christian witness as well as well just being human. Unfortunately, some neo-Calvinist leaning folks seem to have a very low view of being human. One undercurrent that was somewhat preached from the pulpit but lived out in so many ways back when I first became a Christian was just how much God loathes almost all of humanity from the foundations of the universe. Most were created with one purpose alone to be condemned and cast into perdition for the glory of a Holy God. So when real evil happened it was seen as good in the sense that it served an apologetic value to point out our continued total depravity and hatred towards God and His hatred towards pretty much all of humanity.

I never had the spiritual maturity to understand a Father who hates His Children or even an artist who hates His creation if you will.

brian wrote:

I never had the spiritual maturity to understand a Father who hates His Children or even an artist who hates His creation if you will.

brian wrote:

I never had the spiritual maturity to understand a Father who hates His Children or even an artist who hates His creation if you will.

beautifully expressed, Brian
….. you have been blessed not to have been led into that dark vision of a hateful God

@ brian:
Excellent commentary!

Max wrote:

I am wondering if frequent TWW visitor “Nick” has any input in this regard. I have missed his commenting of late.

Sorry, I didn’t mean to include this line in my response to Deb.

Nick, are you out there?

dee wrote:

@ Dave A A:
Your comment is fascinating.

I topped off the tank needlessly needlessly on Saturday, knowing I’d be driving 2 hours from Lewis to Harris on Sabbath and petro-fied of running short of petrol with no station open. Upon arrival in Tarbert, absolutely the only places open for business were the hotel and the kirks.
More seriously, I’ve been commenting on slightly tangential issues only because the sources for the affair/abuse/shunning allegations leave much to be desired, such as the daily fail. If/when the widow comes forward to some reputable news outlet, or alleged partners or victims call up someone like you or Julie Anne, then we’ll be able to discuss things of that nature more intelligently. In the meanwhile issues like clergy suicide, church unity/disunity, sabbath laws,, or disappearing obituaries are all on the table for me.

Ken G wrote:

Now it’s too late. The cat is out of the bag, so to speak. Grooming was not required.

You seem to think they only needed grooming after they were found out. That’s not how it works. Serial abusers start grooming the moment they pick a target. They choose targets who they think would let them abuse them, then they choose situations to go after their targets where the target is most vulnerable. Someone who has repeatedly had affairs does so with purpose and intention, and also does so to hide them.

To make the statement that all seven women were predators, and not groomed for the relationship based on a power differential, whether you or the newspaper, is malarky.

@ dee:

The conversation was on his public blog post – see comments by me (Zechariah) and his replies:

https://theweeflea.com/2017/02/07/christian-camps-and-child-abuse-is-evangelical-theology-to-blame/

I was completely taken aback when he said that the victims appeal to Justin Welby was a “nasty attempt to smear a find man”. He obviously has no empathy for their pain to treat them like that. I personally have no desire to smear Justin Welby but I stand with the victims who need to be heard. I also don’t believe that Welby’s response is sufficient and that he should have done more to interact with them, instead of just saying “I did not know about it” and move on.

This statement by Robertson stood out to me:

“John Smyth has been accused of sadistically beating boys. Smyth was a leader of what were called the “Bash” camps run by the Iwerne trust. There is no suggestion the abuse took place at the camps themselves”.

But he never commented on the fact that Smythe held prayer meetings in the nude, or that the Iwerne Trust were made aware of the abuse in 1982. Nor does he discuss the fact that Justin Welby was, at the very latest, made aware the abuse in 2013. It begs the questions as to why the Iwerne Trust did not report it in 1982, and what did Justin Welby do when he first heard about it four years ago? Did he make enquiries and co-operate with the police at the time? Did he request the Christian organisation in Zimbabwe to be alert and take preventative action? Did he make any effort to contact of the victims? That being said, a Channel 4 report on this states that Iwerne Trust made a report in 1982 of “horrific beatings” written by Mark Ruston, a friend of Mr. Welby. But Robertson chooses to believe the Archbishop’s statement that he knew nothing of the abuse at the time. It just doesn’t add up that senior figures in the church of England have known for years, and that a teenager was found dead in a swimming pool in Zimbabwe in a camp related incident. Yes, I have no concrete evidence that Justin Welby didn’t know and perhaps he didn’t, but the victims are entitled to answers. The victims who wrote the letter that appeared in the telegraph were there with Welby but Robertson chooses to believe Welby and paints the victims as “nasty”. If anyone has any answers to the above questions please tell me because I would like to believe the best about the Archbishop.

The aforementioned Channel 4 report can be read here: https://www.channel4.com/news/christian-lawyer-who-beat-boys-was-charged-over-zimbabwe-death

I felt that interacting with this man any more would have brought my blood to boiling point and also the use of explicit, unsanctified language and therefore took a few steps back. Just when I thought he could not sink any lower, I read his abusive tweets to Julie at Spiritual Sounding Board today. He is nothing more than a bully who hits out at anyone who stands with victims and poses a threat to polished image and reputation of his church and denomination. He is not worth interacting with and Julie eventually did the right thing and called it a day with him. I will no longer dignify any of his tweets or blogs with a response but I may speak to others in the same conversation. There is no point arguing with someone like that. He reminds me of the reason why I abandoned the institutional church.

dee wrote:

Ian wrote:

even victims does sound like the work of a sexual predator.
BTW he definitely wasn’t a new Calvinist. Scottish Calvinism is very traditional, strict, old-school. I’m sure it’s authoritarian and patriarchal.

Two good points. Thank you for weighing in on Scottish Calvinism. I have a lot of reading to do.

Also, I have also wondered if his behavior is akin to pedophiles. There are 7 alleged affairs. However, these go over 2+ decades. I am suspicious that there is much more going on here.

I don’t think multiple affairs is anything like paedophilia. I would say he just had a weakness for women. Perhaps he got a thrill out of having an affair. Could it have become an addiction? 7 in 20+ years – whilst a lot, it doesn’t seem like addictive behaviour. Even if his marriage was shaky, it doesn’t excuse affairs, especially for a minister.

I wonder if, as the minister, women came to him for counselling, and he managed to groom and manipulate some of them into becoming his sexual partners. Perhaps those who were emotionally vulnerable for some reason.

I previously suggested he might have killed himself to avoid having to face the consequences of what he’d done. I’ve also realised that, inside, he must have been a very troubled man. To have a public face as a model of virtue, yet privately be committing serious repeated sin, must produce a huge amount of inner conflict. But I think he was able to cope with that, as he only killed himself when his affairs were exposed.

Another explanation is that he was corrupt, possibly not a Christian, who didn’t really care for the things of God. I think that can be discounted, as a fake preacher is unlikely to choose a remote island church, and wouldn’t be driven to suicide when exposed.

There is so much we don’t know.

dee wrote:

JYJames wrote:

The pastor asked her what she was “doing to make him that way”.

Banging my head against a wall!

This is Classic guilt tripping that goes on in all Patriarchal cultures. I’ve been having some encounters as of late on the Internet with Christians who support & promote Patriarchy. I’ve bumped into this mindset frequently, most often expressed by male adherents of Patriarchy, with a few females chiming in. Recently, on one Christian site I began a post about the dangerous views of Patriarchy & how such views are harmful to women. You would not believe all the Radical Adherents of Patriarchy that came out of the woodwork! It got so bad with the sexist, hateful comments toward women, along with their toxic views of how women should think and submit, submit, submit…..That aI shut down the entire thread. I was concerned for the women who might be reading their comments, who already live in that kind of sub-culture, who would be persuaded to submit to an abusive partner.

Lowlandseer wrote:

It is a necessary corrective to the speculation that passes for insightful comment both here and in the press.

I hear you. I really do. But I hope that Mr. Robertson and the other clergy hear the lowly pewpeons who are asked time and time again to trust the clergy with no questions allowed. When transparency is lacking, speculation is invited. When trust has been violated so many times by the Professional Clergy Class (of all Brands) in the past, then it is difficult to keep going back to the dry well of “trust us, we will handle it well.” The sad fact is that I do not believe that the Professional Clergy Class (of all Brands) give a flying flip what anyone thinks except their peers. Thankfully, there are faithful ministers of the Gospel out there.

Gram3 wrote:

The sad fact is that I do not believe that the Professional Clergy Class (of all Brands) give a flying flip what anyone thinks except their peers.

Unfortunately, that’s the track record.

Dave A A wrote:

I fear another factor making it worse is simply Ministry as Career. The poor man had apparently been set on ministering since age 14 and was “good” at it. Asking for help might have very large career consequences — even if allegations were all untrue and other problems drove him to despair.

I think this is a key part of the picture. A man with a Plan who has a weakness that is incompatible with the Plan and which will ultimately explode the Plan which has merged with the Man.

Max wrote:

discernment

Yes, and for the Spiritual Gift of Discernment to be as commonly recognized and used in the church as the Spiritual Gift of Pastor or Shepherd. (1 Corinthians 12:10, Hebrews 5:14, Acts 5:3-6; 16:16-18; 1 John 4:1) and (Ephesians 4:11, Jeremiah 3:15, Acts 20:28, John 10:11-18).

Max wrote:

Sadly, Campbell dealt with the jots and tittles of doctrine but not the reality of sin in his life. The consequences leading to his death have disillusioned so many folks familiar with his writings and ministry.

What a terrible legacy he leaves. So many lives have been shattered by sin.

Darlene wrote:

You would not believe all the Radical Adherents of Patriarchy that came out of the woodwork! It got so bad with the sexist, hateful comments toward women, along with their toxic views of how women should think and submit, submit, submit…..That aI shut down the entire thread. I was concerned for the women who might be reading their comments, who already live in that kind of sub-culture, who would be persuaded to submit to an abusive partner.

This is what they believe the Bible teaches. Not because they’ve done their own reading and used their own critical thinking skills, but because they are taught to accept what the pulpit honcho says without question. In those circles (both Reformed and Arminian, they’re kissin’ cousins really), to not accept it is to be suspect that you’re quite possibly:
not saved
not truly one of the elect
not really a believer who “knows the Lord”
Any one of those three is enough to strike fear into even the most intrepid of heart (in those circles) about where you’ll spend eternity.

@ Muff Potter:
Or not a real man.
Patriarchy – a real man rules, a real woman submits. Biblical manhood and womanhood.

elastigirl wrote:

Careers and salaries and reputations and the stockpile of acquired power and significance are on the line.

That is certainly true. From a purely practical standpoint, however, it would be a very good idea for them to figure out how to deal with situations like these. Dr. Campbell is not the first and he will not be the last.

Surely someone among these Churchmen saw or heard or knew or suspected something these many years but turned a blind eye or rationalized it when they should have wounded him with the faithful wounds of a friend rather than soothing him with the false kisses of flattery that could only have fanned the flame that ultimately led to this destruction.

That is what these nobles of the Church should be contemplating. Not what tabloids are publishing. Not what blogs are writing. Not what commenters are writing. They should be looking at one another and asking one another “Did you know anything?” “What did we miss” “What else are we missing?” “How do we change?”

I do not plan to hold my breath until someone from the Professional Clergy Class (of any Brand) poses any of these questions to anyone flying their team’s flag.

JYJames wrote:

@ Muff Potter:
Or not a real man.
Patriarchy – a real man rules, a real woman submits. Biblical manhood and womanhood.

In the words of the prophet Naked Pastor:
https://i1.wp.com/nakedpastor.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/biblical-manhood.jpg?w=600

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Looks the Protagonist of this post, however, only 5 in the NSFW drawing, instead of 7.

ishy wrote:

You seem to think they only needed grooming after they were found out. That’s not how it works. Serial abusers start grooming the moment they pick a target. They choose targets who they think would let them abuse them, then they choose situations to go after their targets where the target is most vulnerable.

Sometimes spending YEARS in single-minded grooming of their prey — and third parties as pre-positioned allies, enablers, and enforcers. Plus having to stay Respectable and play the Angel of Light.

Single-minded, all-consuming concentration on target, deception, and manipulation.
Twenty chess moves ahead of everyone else.
That’s why Sociopaths always WIN.

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
@ Velour:
Astute observations. The predator or protagonist groomed the entire community, for a short term win playing an evil game, and an eternal loss with regard to reality.

@ Gram3:

“That is what these nobles of the Church should be contemplating. Not what tabloids are publishing. Not what blogs are writing. Not what commenters are writing. They should be looking at one another and asking one another “Did you know anything?” “What did we miss” “What else are we missing?” “How do we change?””
++++++++++++++++++

is it a persecution complex?

since 1993 or so, i’ve gotten the distinct impression from every pastor i’ve been associated with that they see themselves as the unsung heroes. they have it so very rough. that everyone is out to get them. but they are entitled to so much more. and so they band together with their tales of woe and build a kind of brotherhood to make sure they get theirs — an us versus them — all bearing their swords and shields ready to deflect and strike back.

this huddle, with all these hard metal shields drawn & lining the outside, sort of rotating in a circle, always on guard.

my impression is that the professional clergy class is so conditioned to think this way, so on edge and ready to strike back since persecution is right at the door, that they do not have access to their other faculties — like sober self-assessment, individually and corporately. even critical thinking.

a nervousness that is overriding some very important faculties. like sobriety.

so, what happened in 1993 or thereabouts?

I just submitted this comment at “Tragedy in Lewis – A Pastoral Response” by David Robertson https://theweeflea.com/2017/03/07/tragedy-in-lewis-a-pastoral-response/
… and am putting it here as it may never see the light of day there.

David, you said, ” I don’t know what happened and I don’t want to know”.

The “I don’t want to know” part really bothers me, because if you don’t want to know what happened, that means you don’t want to know even if the allegations are found to be true by the Presbytery Investigation, and nor would you want to know even if God Himself were to declare the truth of the allegations from heaven.

It also implies that if the allegations are true, you would not show compassion for the individual who has made the allegations, because, as far as you were concerned, it was none of your business, which would imply to that individual that she ought to just go away quietly and lick her wounds elsewhere, somewhere far from you so her pain doesn’t impinge on you. That’s what your words implied. Maybe you want to reconsider your words.

I put to you that IS your business as a member of Iain’s denomination to be assured that its leaders are wise and courageous enough to deal with evildoing in the flock and to discipline the evildoers if they have found them in the church. If that is not done in a denomination, the denomination will be even more the fair subject of mockery and scorn from unbelievers. And it will also be in danger of losing its true-Christian members who do not want to remain in a lukewarm compromised-christian institution.

And the same thing applies to evangelicals around the world.
I’m a Christian of the Reformed faith from Melbourne Australia. I’m interested in this matter NOT because I have an appetite for salacious gossip, but because now that the allegations have come to light before the world in the media, I want to be assured that they are fully investigated without fear or favour, and eventually I want to be able to easily find out whether the allegations have been pronounced proven or unproven by the Presbytery. And if they are pronounced proven, I want to be assured that the individuals who have committed heinous sin are put out of the church (as the Bible commands in Cor 5:11-13).

Why do I want that? Not because I’m baying for blood. Nor because I’m indulging in schadefreude. I want it for health of the worldwide evangelical church, and so that the church’s efforts to evangelise unbelievers can be more fruitful.

If the visible church doesn’t properly investigate allegations such as this, and it if fails to expel heinous sinners from the congregation, unbelievers will continue (very reasonably) to have very good reason to reject Christian’s warnings and exhortations that they need to believe in Jesus Christ — because they will see that the Christian leaders are hypocrites.

I also put it to you that if the allegations are found to be true, you would need to repent publicly to the individual who had brought forward the allegations, for your rather callous public statement “I don’t want to know if it’s true.” You may not have thought about it from that perspective, so please consider: If the individual making the allegations is telling the truth without any malice or ungodly agenda and is presenting good evidence that Iain was committing grievous and terrible sins — then that individual needs to be treated creditably and with dignity and respect. Not brushed off by senior people in the church (like yourself) telling her, “I don’t want to know.”

I hope you will reconsider your saying “I don’t want to know”. It smacks of washing your hands of the matter.

@ Barbara Roberts:

That is a good response, Barbara.

My only problem with the “putting out of the church” part is that this has always been used as a weapon against victims. I have never seen it used against perpetrators, despite what the Bible calls for.

These church leaders who “don’t want to know” are given the “power of the keys” (excommunication and shunning)? No thanks.

I have already seen that nightmare at work.

I would honestly support a change in the laws: making it a crime for clergy to have sexual relationships with congregants, just like it’s a crime for doctors, lawyers, and therapists to have sex with their patients/clients.

Since 1993 or so, i’ve gotten the distinct impression from every pastor i’ve been associated with that they see themselves as the unsung heroes. they have it so very rough. that everyone is out to get them.

Perhaps they’re internalizing Paul’s sarcastic rebuke of the believers in Corinth, recorded in chapter 4 of 1 Corinthians, and applying it to themselves. They see themselves as Paul, the hard-working, persecuted, vagabond apostle. This despite the fact that they might have much more in common with the Corinthian believers — who were privileged enough to become cliquish and frivolously litigious, and hadn’t suffered anything close to what Paul had.

@ Serving Kids in Japan:

It's deeply disturbing that Robertson is a senior figure in the Church of Scotland. In my correspondence with him he was singularly focused on damage limitation and protecting the reputation of the Archbishop and other senior figures in the Church of England. He doesn't show any empathy or concern for the victims.

Jack wrote:

But having worked in a mental health facility, I can tell you that even with all the precautions in the world, a person bent on suicide is hard to stop.

True, but he should have at least been on a one to one at the hospital! Dee is right, they need to review their precautions.

Ian wrote:

I am not looking to defend anyone and I do think the Iwerne Trust have a lot of explaining to do. However, Winchester School were also made aware of the abuse in 1982 but the parents of the victims did not want it to be reported to the police. I believe the parents felt a criminal investigation and trial would further harm their children.
With hindsight, was that the right decision? I would say no. Would it be repeated now? I doubt it. But, by the standards of the time, it was perfectly reasonable, and the well-being of the victims was the motivation.

As I have not been a parent in that situation I will tread carefully. I can understand that but I also would have difficulty with the fact that the abuser has not faced justice. I would agree that it was not the right decision because he was free to keep abusing and many victims were added to the list in the following decades.

ZechZav wrote:

I would agree that it was not the right decision because he was free to keep abusing and many victims were added to the list in the following decades.

Indeed, it has taken time for society (community members, law enforcement, judiciary process, church hierarchy) to evolve to where we confront our pillars of the community doing harm to children. The predatory pillars are probably more aware of this than everyone else. For example, the MO of move on, leave a trail of victims, has seemed to work well for them.

@ Barbara Roberts:
“I don’t know what happened and I don’t want to know.” (David Robertson, “Tragedy in Lewis – A Pastoral Response”)

Which, of course, is not a “pastoral” response! The pew – in Scotland and beyond- is trying to come to grips with this sad situation and you need to know that. All God’s children are priests, all believers are in ministry. When Paul said the following, he had them in mind, too:

“We beseech you, brethren, to know them which labor among you … And to esteem them very highly in love for their work’s sake” (1 Thessalonians 5:12-13)

When church leaders only rally to the side of fallen peers, ignoring the hurting Body of Christ, they are not fulfilling the role of pastor. Selective love is not love at all; Christ’s love was not extended only to those who had a professional resume.

JYJames wrote:

ZechZav wrote:

I would agree that it was not the right decision because he was free to keep abusing and many victims were added to the list in the following decades.

Indeed, it has taken time for society (community members, law enforcement, judiciary process, church hierarchy) to evolve to where we confront our pillars of the community doing harm to children. The predatory pillars are probably more aware of this than everyone else. For example, the MO of move on, leave a trail of victims, has seemed to work well for them.

This is exactly what I meant by the standards of the time (ie 1982).

Back then, we didn’t know (1) that anyone can be an abuser, (2) abusers keep abusing, and (3) abuse has devastating life-long consequences for the victim.

Hence child abuse is taken vastly more seriously now than it was in the past. I don’t think a parent today would not want to involve the police in a case of abuse.

JYJames wrote:

In this video, notice how the speaker, Campbell, massages his own hands and holds his own hands, throughout.

Extreme stress.

“When you are stressed there will be more rubbing of the hands together (self massaging or “pacifying”) which will increase in frequency and force commensurate with the stress. When things are really stressful, you will rub your hands together with fingers stretched out and interlaced (Teepee Hands). A behavior we reserve for when things are really bad.” (Joe Navarro, Body Language of the Hands: What the hands say is often louder than words!” Psychology Today)

@ Max:
Turn off the sound. Looks miserable, creepy or insecure hands. Body language is complete mismatch with the message – as the lifestyle, now known, was also a mismatch.

@ JYJames:
@ JYJames:
very bad setting for such a fractured integrity: the Western Isles would seem to best be the home of those whose lives were lived with contentment and the thankfulness for the peace in that contentment

he was too needy for that place

Nancy2 wrote:

Not only prayer for discernment, but attention, involvement, and courage – especially when those things are rejected by church leadership.

Indeed! Discernment should always act … that’s why God gives it to us … and only to those who will respond to what they hear and see. And sometimes that involves moving beyond church leadership to expose or to protect. Watchmen on the wall who are silent enable the enemy.

Max wrote:

Watchmen on the wall who are silent enable the enemy.

Yes.

@ Nancy2:
I guess people feel that ‘what they don’t know won’t hurt them’, but in cases like this, it’s more like what they don’t know can REALLY hurt them.

I wait for a cancer diagnosis: do I WANT to know if I have it? NO WAY;
but I must take the responsibility to find out if it exists and then seek the proper treatment for it or I am in DENIAL and the end scene is worse than the false peace of not knowing . . . .

if there is a cancer in the Church, people need to know about it and then they need to be responsible to take action to do what is right, even if it IS hard and painful to deal with it, yes

ZechZav wrote:

@ Serving Kids in Japan:

It’s deeply disturbing that Robertson is a senior figure in the Church of Scotland. In my correspondence with him he was singularly focused on damage limitation and protecting the reputation of the Archbishop and other senior figures in the Church of England. He doesn’t show any empathy or concern for the victims.

Where have we seen this before?
Exact play-by-play?

ZechZav wrote:

he was singularly focused on damage limitation and protecting the reputation of the Archbishop and other senior figures in the Church of England. He doesn’t show any empathy or concern for the victims.

Doesn’t he realize???? tht the ONLY way to protect the reputation of the C of E would BE to show empathy and concern for the victims ???

And the church people are blaming the widow …… poor boy had such an unhappy home life. Isn’t that the same thing as saying, “The devil made me do it!”, and then getting a free pass?
(PS – if there was an unhappy home life, did IC contribute to the unhappiness, or maybe even cause it?)

Nancy2 wrote:

discernment

As I see it, “discernment” really comes in two flavors. There is a supernatural gift of discernment imparted to some … and there is a discernment that comes naturally through simple observation. Much of the latter is just keeping your eyes and ears open to what is going on around you. In the case of the matter at hand, I find it hard to believe that a minister on a tiny island of only 20,000 people could have seven affairs and a child out of wedlock, as alleged, without someone discerning and acting on that information. Or did they know and remain silent for fear of touching the anointed? Was Pastor Campbell’s professional reputation really worth protecting to not intervene for the better good of the church? Was there not a discerning pastor friend in the ministry who could also double as a prophet to shout “You are the man!” into his life and bring a better end to this?

As some have noted on this blog, there is so much we don’t know. So we are left to deal with what we do know. “Something” was going on to cause him to end his life the way he did. His family, the local church, and the church at large have become victims of a sort for the “something” in his life. It appears at this point that those who are called by God and remain called by God in all that they do are becoming rare and endangered species.

@ Serving Kids in Japan:
Hello there Serving Kids in Japan. Thanks for your support of my comments over at Timothy Hammond’s blog What a hoot that fella is. Just when I think Patriarchy couldn’t get worse…..

@ Ian:
Pretty boy look?

Max wrote:

I find it hard to believe that a minister on a tiny island of only 20,000 people could have seven affairs and a child out of wedlock, as alleged, without someone discerning and acting on that information.

At times, polite society is super polite. Superficial living is an iron-clad veneer. Can be shocking, eye-opening, mind-blowing, an awakening to what is really happening in plain sight, just beneath the facade.

There was that guy in a Disneyland village in Austria who had his daughter imprisoned in his basement for many years, fathered children with her, etc., and even his wife and on-site renters did not have a clue – extreme cover-up.

Darlene wrote:

Thanks for your support of my comments over at Timothy Hammond’s blog.

No problem, Darlene. I might post a few more choice words over there, if time allows. (And if Hammond lets ’em through. 😉 )

In researching my previous comment I came upon this most interesting link, which y’all need to click within the next few hours or else wait until next week.
http://www.fpchurch.org.uk/we-are-closed-for-the-sabbath/

JYJames wrote:

Max wrote:

I find it hard to believe that a minister on a tiny island of only 20,000 people could have seven affairs and a child out of wedlock, as alleged, without someone discerning and acting on that information.

At times, polite society is super polite. Superficial living is an iron-clad veneer. Can be shocking, eye-opening, mind-blowing, an awakening to what is really happening in plain sight, just beneath the facade.

In my experience, Sociopaths are normally Oh-So-POLITE.

Just another weapon to Manipulate the prey.

Lowlandseer wrote:

@ Bridget:
I can say it because it is true. The church has declared what it will do and it will do it. A strange concept, I know. Who would believe that there are people of the Book, who are also people of their word?

This attitude reminds me of the folks who say: “The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it.”. They cannot think outside the confines of their narrowly defined doctrine. Like the Ken Ham YEC crowd, the Quiverfuls, Wilson in the Moscow Kirk, Scientology, etc. Blind trust is not a good thing especially when it comes to trusting those who have given us reason not to trust them. Christian Echo Chambers serve only to keep people fenced in, in order to ignore any cognitive dissonance that might be lingering around.

Lowlandseer wrote:

@ Bridget:
I can say it because it is true. The church has declared what it will do and it will do it. A strange concept, I know. Who would believe that there are people of the Book, who are also people of their word?

Yes, the same ones who allowed a lying, hypocritical, serial adulterer to command their ship and preach in the name of God for decades? That’s the church we should trust to keep their word, hell or high water? Sir, you’re daft if you think that’s a crowd that should be trusted to get to the bottom of things and keep their word. I used to work in a profession known for lies, I teach white collar crime and sundry fraud courses, have heard my share of lies and have become intimately acquainted with the liars and con artists who told them. Sir, you are tripping a few red flags here, dare I say.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Dave A A wrote:

In researching my previous comment I came upon this most interesting link, which y’all need to click within the next few hours or else wait until next week.
http://www.fpchurch.org.uk/we-are-closed-for-the-sabbath/

Very Pious, that link.
With almost every word and sentence (“…what the World calls “Sunday”…)

Better wait until tomorrow for your ox to fall into a pit.

I have a feeling that I’ve already broken one of their Sabbath Rules. A recollection of something I read a while back comes to mind. The children in these Scottish Presbyterian Sabbath-keeping communities were forbidden from laughing and playing on the Lord’s Day. My grandmother was from a strict German Baptist background where reading newspapers, going to the movie house, listening to the radio/victrola, shopping – were frowned upon on the Lord’s Day. This crowd must have been a barrel of laughs….Not!

Max wrote:

@ Barbara Roberts:
“I don’t know what happened and I don’t want to know.” (David Robertson, “Tragedy in Lewis – A Pastoral Response

It’s a fearful thing to consider what might be lurking beneath the religious facade. Move along….There’s nothing to see here.

Darlene wrote:

From watching that video, I wonder if he carried that “women should be silent” into all aspects of life. Women keeping silent is advantageous to an adulteror.

Ergo, blame the wife, who refused to obey and remain silent,

@ Darlene:
You have the wrong church. The Free Presbyterian Church is a different denomination

Gram3 wrote:

@ Dave A A:
Is there a diagram of this somewhere for those of us who have working memory limits?

LOL. Just know that the adage split P’s is a term given to describe the Presbyterian Church. I wouldn’t be surprised that even now, somewhere out there a Presby church is in the process of splitting from another Presby church.

Gram3 wrote:

Gram3 wrote:

@ Dave A A:
Is there a diagram of this somewhere for those of us who have working memory limits?

Wiki has one.

No doubt it’s a work in progress as one split ‘p’ continues to split from another slot ‘p’.

JYJames wrote:

http://bit.ly/2nsDOyT

A Reader’s comment following the Sun article, featuring: Rev James Maciver Writes Tribute To Dr Campbell:

“This is the same minister who seventeen years ago argued that fellow ministers who argued that allegations of serious sexual improprieties on the part of one of his senior colleagues should be investigated [and] should themselves be expelled from the Church. Over twenty of them were expelled, in 2000 but the subject of those allegations never dealt with.”

For a full account of what took place in 2000 and the involvement of David Robertson and Iain D. Campbell read http://www.freechurchcontinuing.org/images/books/pdf/when-justice-failed.pdf.It's a lengthy document but very informative.

Gram3 wrote:

@ Dave A A:
Is there a diagram of this somewhere for those of us who have working memory limits?

I found this one. http://www.christianstogether.net/Images/content/658/491754.JPG
The associated article dealing with whether newfangled inventions like hymns and instruments are allowable in worship is informative as well.
Other confusing diagrams available under Google images; chart Scottish Presbyterianism
IMO the split most applicable to our topic is the 2000 one, which took place after Campbell and Robertson were already ministering in the Free Church, and was precipitated at least in part by the denomination’s failure to investigate possible moral failure on the part of one of their most prominent leaders. Which makes one reluctant “Trust the Church” as Robertson asks (LOVE how he capitalizes Church, when he means his tiny denomination!)

Darlene wrote:

. The children in these Scottish Presbyterian Sabbath-keeping communities were forbidden from laughing and playing on the Lord’s Day.

like chaining the swings up in the playground …. when people go to those lengths to ‘honor’ God, it gets a bit obsessive and controlling

Nancy2 wrote:

The timing is just too indicative of IC’s guilt.

I concur.
Very likely he “checked out” in reaction to imminent exposure.

Suicide in such a situation has been called both “Death before Dishonor” and “the coward’s way out”.

I am inclined to believe that Mrs. Campbell was about to go public and expose him……. the truth would have ruined him and made a mockery of everything he pretended taught. What were his options? If what his wife claims is true, he had no out.

Or he was reacting to Mrs.C finding out and confronting him, regardless of whether she was “about to go public and expose him”. Just knowing that she knew might have been enough. Maybe he figured that if she knew, regardless of whether she went public or not, others would also know. One way or another, the jig was up.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

the truth would have ruined him and made a mockery of everything he pretended taught. What were his options? If what his wife claims is true, he had no out.

but that is not the act of a sane person: in order to save himself, he kills himself? in order to save himself from ruin, he hangs himself?

or maybe Campbell WAS a ‘true believer’ doing battle internally with that ‘wolf’ part of himself that could not be controlled and was being destructive to others …. so in order to stop the destruction, he ended his life because he saw no other way out of abusing people …. so he did away with the ‘wolf’ part of him that hurt others …. ‘course that meant the faithful Campbell respected pastor had to die also, but in his mind, perhaps that was the honorable thing to do rather than continuing in sin as the wolf nature grew more malevolent?

My imagination can really get going sometimes …. but brainstorming can be creative and this is a mystery as well as a tragedy. Given the setting, the dramatic nature of what unfolded, these events on the Isle of Lewis honestly would read like fiction, if only so many real people’s lives weren’t shattered by what happened.

Christiane wrote:

@ Lea:
I would say, other than a medically-related assisted suicide, that most suicides are not the acts of people who are completely compos mentis.

I’m pretty sure most people in the mental health field would disagree with you.

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
It’s not like, if their website falls in a pit on sabbath, they’d be required to have an IT person to work to fix it. It could just stay down there until Monday.
But no… the website has to rest on sabbath just like people!

@ Lea:

I don’t know Lea. Pondering.

This man, if he was guilty as accused, sounds like he had his flings with church women – thus his wife seeking to have these women expelled from church. If he used his influence over them as their leader/head (some sort of power) to get them to acquiesce, then I would consider him a predator.

Perhaps it comes down to his motives, which may never be known.

And these women – are they victim or participants? I have a difficult time understanding how 7 women would willingly participate with this one man if he wasn’t exerting influence over them in some manner.

In my world, affairs just aren’t that common. (Though my father was embroiled in one at the time he took his life and I have been led to understand that this was one of many. That was decades ago.)

Maybe I should realize my views are naturally skewed due to personal history and button my mouth and withhold judgements. Yeah, doing that now.

This is a very personal testimony – I was 12 when my father took his life. We had been in synagogue for Friday evening services – an unusual event as we rarely attended Shabbat services – when he looked at me with an expression of great deep sorrow. At the time, I did not understand it, though I knew it was of importance. I didn’t have the words or wherewithal to question him. I remember the intensity of that look to this day.

It was on Sunday that he ended his life. My hindsight has always been that he went to services to seek something – but that his mind was made up and the glance at me was one of sorrow and regret. He felt stuck and saw no other way out.

The sorrow and regret wasn’t enough to stop him, I, by virtue of being his daughter, wasn’t enough for him to derail his decision. He thought more of his own discomfort and confusion than he did about his family and children who were so young.

He left behind a note of excuse – that he loved two women (though he reportedly had many affairs prior to this last serious one). I vacillate between compassion and anger, lo these many decades later. I think that’s natural but still it is unsettling.

What was Iian thinking? That he was stuck? That his sin found him out? That his reputation would be ruined? That he hated himself? Maybe or maybe not. Unless he left his family a note, there will always be speculation and confusion for those left behind.

What he wasn’t thinking about were his children. Not when he made his final decision and not months and years before when he started down the path of infidelity and immorality.

This changes a child so profoundly. The being set apart. The knowing that you weren’t enough. Ever. It hangs over your life. A gift that keeps giving.

It stinks.

Yet, through it all, I’ve learned to trust in Jesus.

Dave A A wrote:

It’s not like, if their website falls in a pit on sabbath, they’d be required to have an IT person to work to fix it. It could just stay down there until Monday.
But no… the website has to rest on sabbath just like people!

Ha! Isn’t it just as sinful to make your automobile work on the sabbath, by hauling you to church? And what about wives and mothers – Shouldn’t dirty dishes and dirty diapers wait until Monday, too???

@ Dave A A:

Lol

… because if someone wants to believe that the Sabbath is on the first day of the week instead of the seventh, and that the Lord expects the Church to follow it even though it was given to the Jews through Moses and that Law is obsolete now, with whatever rules they deem necessary, and they don’t understand how Jesus is our Sabbath rest now, they have the right to do so (even if it drives me batty that they would call it the Sabbath and make their own day and rules) ….

I really need chocolate but think I just forfeited my right to enjoy some tonight. Smile.

Nancy – you deserve a medal! Give that sweet puppy time and you’ll have a dear companion. I think I will always have a dog friend in my life.

Remnant wrote:

[Have you noticed that Remnant has refrained from commenting on the Sabbath/Sunday and working/resting issues? Someone give Remnant chocolate.]

Here, dear. I’ll pass the box.

Remnant wrote:

This is a very personal testimony – I was 12 when my father took his life……..

Yet, through it all, I’ve learned to trust in Jesus.

I’m sorry that you have had to live with such sorrow. Thank you for bearing your soul in such a personal way.

Nancy2 wrote:

Shouldn’t dirty dishes and dirty diapers wait until Monday, too???

Maybe this is just Hollywood…

… however, it is curious that in the Chariots of Fire film about Eric Liddell, he boldly forfeited his spot in an Olympic competition scheduled on Sunday, but then, (in the film), the men of his Christian Scottish missionary family (dad a pastor) were served by his mother and sisters at the Sunday family feast after church in their Christian home.

The men sat and chatted theology and their other men’s affairs, while the women were quietly up and down from the table to kitchen, meeting the men’s every need.

@ Nancy2:
Lucky puppy, in a cozy home with warm hearts.

Esther wrote:

what happened to the men with integrity in the church, who defended them.

The Big Men were not pleased would be my first guess.

Remnant wrote:

Yet, through it all, I’ve learned to trust in Jesus.

Powerful testimony to our powerful Lord.

@ Nancy2:
Right. It’s seems pretty status quo. It’s weird, however, when clergy get up from that table and preach from the pulpit their detailed Sabbath rules.

Remnant wrote:

Have you noticed that Remnant has refrained from commenting on the Sabbath/Sunday

I think Jesus the Messiah is our Sabbath Rest and the also the Eighth Day. Which would be Sunday, not the sabbath. So Christians who are observing the sabbath on Sunday are missing the point, IMO, but I’m not going to go all legalistic on them.

End of derailment.

@ Remnant:

Thank you for sharing, Remnant. I am sorry for the pain and loss you have felt for most of your life. I pray that you have, and will continue to, experience the peace that passes understanding in the arms of your God.

Darlene wrote:

I think the powers-that-be in that church are in protecting the brand mode

I wonder if the cover-up has been going on for years. As Gram alluded to earlier, I wonder how someone of prominence can carry on multiple affairs yet keep it secret from all his colleagues. This is no easy matter to keep hidden. If there were enables, their malfeasance likely worsened the consequences.

Bill M wrote:

I wonder how someone of prominence can carry on multiple affairs yet keep it secret from all his colleagues.

I wonder if some of his colleagues knew, or at least suspected, and kept their mouths shut.

On the other hand, as Okrapod commented a few threads ago, IIRC, legalism is somewhat in the eye of the beholder. Not her words but my paraphrase. I hope I got that right…

Nancy2 wrote:

(Yeah, we adopted a shelter puppy – still miss Amos terribly, but Lizzie and Allie we driving us nuts! We had to adopt sooner than planned to maintain their (and our sanity).)

Congratulations, Nancy2! I’ve been thinking about getting another pup, maybe someday. Have you ever tried the umbilical cord method for housetraining? It has worked like a charm for me with a few dogs but I’ve not tried it with a puppy. Wish you many happy years with your new friend.

Gram3 wrote:

On the other hand, as Okrapod commented a few threads ago, IIRC, legalism is somewhat in the eye of the beholder. Not her words but my paraphrase. I hope I got that right…

Paul addressed this in Romans 14 about special days or all days alike. He said toe things: let each one be convinced in his own mind, and also he said whatever you decide to do or not do then do it onto the Lord. In other words Paul preached individual freedom of decision and action.

That does seem to say that either decision, special days or no special days, may be correct.

I think ‘that you shall keep this day special in this way’ is a rule (thou shalt) and ‘you ought not be making special rules for special days’ is also a rule (thou shalt not). Either one is legalism.

We all have rules of ought and ought not. It gets tricky when we try to make other people live by our rules.

My mother committed an act which resulted in her death. The act was one which she knew would more than likely precipitate a severe asthma attack and there was no discernible reason for her to do the act itself. She had been sick and depressed and angry for a long time. I was there when this occurred. I tried to save her but failed. We did have meds, I administered the meds, she died. Was it suicide? Who knows? Was it some reckless act for some unknown reason? Who knows? Was there more that I could have done? How did I fail to anticipate that this women might commit suicide (and yes I am retaining the transitive verb to describe the act). How did I miss it that she might do something even carelessly? which would lead to death unintentionally? Who knows?

I was 25 and an RN at the time. Perhaps I should have removed myself from health care as far as the east is from the west, never again put myself in a position where you fail to save the patient. It would have saved me a lot of pain over the years if I had done that. These sorts of experiences leave permanent disabilities in the families of the deceased.

That said, when the answers to ‘why’ are not know, and when ceasing to live with it is not an option, then the path of one’s thinking must include a severe refusal to place blame where it perhaps ought not be. There is a great temptation when looking at something like suicide and its ramifications to place blame wherever it makes the most pain go away. Blame the deceased person. Blame the circumstances of his/her life. Blame yourself for some real or imagined failure. Blame all the other people who should have realized that this might happen. Blame God. And pertinent to this post and to what Dale has said, blame religion. I have not found that to lead to long term success.

What I have found is this: To the extent that I failed, and I surely did, then I deliberately forgive myself and determine to be more perceptive in the future. To the extent that perhaps she betrayed us all, I deliberately forgive her. To the extent that there were others who could have helped her, I deliberately forgive them. And to the extent that nobody ever understands this sort of thing until they go through it, I deliberately forgive them as those who can’t help it.

But don’t anybody ever try to tell me how to feel or think or speak about this. Not then, not now, not ever.

@ Gram3:
As to Christian worship on Sunday, the early Church in Jerusalem began to gather on ‘The Day of the Risen Lord’ for worship even before the Church spread out from Jerusalem to the five first centers of Christianity.

According to tradition, the early Christian people also had the custom of gathering at ‘the empty tomb’ for prayer. I’ll put some info about this over on Discussion Section. 🙂

Christiane wrote:

As to Christian worship on Sunday, the early Church in Jerusalem began to gather on ‘The Day of the Risen Lord’ for worship even before the Church spread out from Jerusalem to the five first centers of Christianity.
According to tradition, the early Christian people also had the custom of gathering at ‘the empty tomb’ for prayer. I’ll put some info about this over on Discussion Section.

“The early church”….”according to tradition”.

Argumentum ad antiquitatem aka appeal to common practice and aka appeal to antiquity aka appeal to antiquity is a fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

dee wrote:

I believe that parents covered this stuff up to make them feel better as opposed to helping the children not feel better.

Amen to that.

@ okrapod:
and yet the early Christians did light their lamps against the darkness and kept vigil for the Lord’s imminent return;
still, at every moment, somewhere in the world, people pray and watch 🙂

that practice is older than the writing of the NT, but something about it must be included in that testament: something about ‘awaiting in hope’ 🙂

@ Lea:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/church-professor-cleared-of-indecency-charge-1305427.html Very strange case. It’s hard to believe that the 6 women conspired. Ugh.

For Dale and all whose memories are so very painful, may the Peace of Our Lord come to them in their sadness, that they will carry His peace within themselves on their sojourn.

@ Christiane:

The issue is this. Of the things mentioned in the NT there are some things which are requirements for today and some things which are merely mentioned but not commanded. The NT talks about feet and sandals, shaking the dust off sandals as a gesture for one and offering arriving guests a bowl of water to wash their feet as the other. There is no command that believers must wear sandals forever and ever amen. Or walk around with dirty feet. Or practice foot washing whenever you invite somebody to dinner.

The NT mentions believers assembling on the first day of the week, but there is no command that this must be the practice forever and ever. I was taught as a child that the first people doing that were observant sabbath keepers in their religion and that of course they could not break the laws of sabbath to hold christian gatherings. Either way, and whatever was going on at the time, there is nothing in the NT which commands which day and what time and where believers are to meet-forever and ever.

So, if it is now seen as a hard and fast rule/practice in Christianity can we guess how it got to be considered a hard and fast rule? I can. I can think of more than one variable which contributed to that. Does that mean that we all have to do it now? No. Does it mean that, depending on the current circumstances we may continue to do it? Yes.

If we think that people have made mistakes, great or small, shouldn’t we start by caring for them rather than sticking pins in their effigies?

So far, the ONLY thing that we know for certain is that a man who had been held in high regard throughout his 53 years, and who did an immense amount of good (yes he did!), took his own life, and that very serious accusations have been made against him, evidence for which is so far not available. Shouldn’t we be ultra-careful not to jump to conclusions?

Shouldn’t ‘non-religious’ people show universal unbiased sympathy and understanding?

Shouldn’t Christians remember first the love of God and that ‘all have sinned’ including ourselves?

There’s something revoltingly ‘holier than thou’ about those who take the liberty of pre-judging. Isn’t the claiming of the high ground by harshly accusing others just another form of reckless extremism – the pot calling the kettle black?

‘All married women become bitter and spiteful’
is just as vacuous a comment as
‘All men are selfish, sex-crazed animals’.
Both allegations are the false products of unbalanced minds and are simply silly.

Equally regrettable are wild and partisan statements along the lines of:
‘All these hard-line clerics having affairs is disgusting; he’s an abusive monster and should have known better’ or
‘His wife hated him and made this all up just to discredit the husband she had rejected’

So many comments simply reflect either a glaring sexism or a bigotry that discredits their writers. We have no right to take sides based on our own predilections, prejudices (for or against) and preconceptions.

The so-called Seven Adulterers, if they exist at all, may be completely innocent and blameless.

Mrs IDC may be completely innocent and blameless.

IDC may be completely innocent and blameless.

It’s strongly relevant to this case that within the Calvinist denominations the mental act of desiring a woman or man belonging to another marriage is held to comprise adultery. Adultery exists without any physical contact being made between the parties.

Any accusations against either partner, or against ‘the seven women’ may be true or false. The accusations may be motivated by truth, by spite, by envy, by misunderstanding, or by guesswork.

The viciousness with which the adage of ‘there’s no smoke without fire’ has been directed against the various parties really is ugly. Similarly, facile views that are so clearly driven by blind love of religion or blind hatred of it do their authors no credit at all. It is far too easy to put two and two together to make five.

Every accusation made so far has been premature. The death of IDC certainly contained a strong message which the public is rightly eager to know and understand. Very many people have positive views of ALL members of the Campbell family. Many believe that the church is at fault for some so far ill-defined deed or omission, whereas many believe that it is not. We don’t have access to the ‘deleted emails’. We have no idea what was in them. They may have been explicit or they may have been vague. They may contain evidence of wrong-doing or they may contain absolutely none and be entirely innocent (let anyone who knows otherwise stand up and state it). They could range from ‘we are both married people, we can only be minister and congregation and we must honour our marriage vows’ to ‘we can’t go on seeing each other’ or ‘I love you, don’t you care?’ or ‘I’m having your baby, we need to talk’, or ‘you’re a member of my congregation and this isn’t right’, or ‘if you left your husband we could…’ or ‘why don’t we go for a walk along the bay and discuss it’ etc. WE SIMPLY DON’T YET KNOW. This thread has already become infested with premature inferences and reckless damage is being caused.

This was a small community in which, notoriously, the slightest detail of everyday life is shared on a daily basis. Gossip is rife and everybody knows everybody else’s business. So far, over a span of 20 years, no shred of evidence has been produced for even one of these alleged ‘seven affairs’. Doesn’t that set any warning bells sounding amongst those who are so ready to condemn all parties out of hand?

Has even one of the participants in this matter so far been proven guilty? Of what? Don’t we just love trial-by-lynchmob? Whom shall we pillory first? Who will cast the first stone?

As of this moment, the only people who are demonstrably guilty are the premature accusers.

@ JYJames:
🙂 Blessed little puppy to have so much love!

dee wrote:

I have been thinking about this over the weekend. I believe that his wife, Anne, is telling the truth. That is why he chose to die as opposed to stay alive and fight. Also, if there is a child, the DNA will prove paternity.

I was typing when you were posting.

Please see my above question. Maybe you have insight. I don’t understand the thought process – how does caught equal end my life.

These guys stepped outside the norm to have affairs, which takes time, effort, lied, scheming – why don’t they have the resources to own their acts?

Remnant wrote:

: What makes men, who are adulterers, feel that suicide is the resolution to being caught?
Imagining that adultery is thrilling – the tension of the secret – the thrill of the chase and capture (so to speak) – then the let down of the revelation. How does being caught equate to suicide?

Can someone fill in the missing piece for me?

No answer, but I loved the question.

Is ‘sex’ always what it presents itself to be?
Or does it sometimes show up as a way someone tries in order to save their sanity, being that sex is one of the strongest drives humans have?

Do people sometimes engage in affairs as an escape from something else, terrifying and overwhelming?

Sex, as a human drive, is a very strong, strong force …. do people sometimes resort to it to get their minds off of a horror they cannot handle?

Remnant wrote:

dee – at this point, if the “dudes” chose to support Anne, I fear their motives would be to avoid international scandal, rather than genuine concern and love for her.

“Not from any Heavenly Virtue, but Hellish Respectability.”
— G.K.Chesterton, one of the Father Brown Mysteries

@ Christiane:

Oops, I referenced the wrong comment. I was talking about Sunday worship which was an earlier comment of yours.

I could care less about candles. Lights, lanterns and candles are tangential, but the Sunday issue vs sabbath issue has been brought up relative to the people in this post on that island in Scotland, and has been mentioned in a comment or three about the post.

Law Prof wrote:

Lowlandseer wrote:
@ Bridget:
I can say it because it is true. The church has declared what it will do and it will do it. A strange concept, I know. Who would believe that there are people of the Book, who are also people of their word?

Yes, the same ones who allowed a lying, hypocritical, serial adulterer to command their ship and preach in the name of God for decades?

Whether because “$oul$ Were Being $aved” or “Correct Doctrine/Ideological Purity”.

And the “lying, hypocritical, serial adulterer” may have been able to keep the Angel of Light façade up and running for a long time. To where there are those who still believe the façade — op cit Lowlandseer and Peter.

@ Christiane:

Further questioning – Is pursing an affair – and succeeding – a way of feeling powerful (akin to how a rapist feels)?

Is being caught stripping the adulterer of his power? Thus the end of his control? Thus the end of his life as he know it? This the end of his purpose for living? No power – no life?

JYJames wrote:

The men sat and chatted theology and their other men’s affairs, while the women were quietly up and down from the table to kitchen, meeting the men’s every need.

Biblical Manhood. Did the men ring for each course from their third floor study?

P.S. As described, that scene sounds straight out of that famous “Women: Know Your Limits” skit.

Remnant wrote:

Is pursing an affair – and succeeding – a way of feeling powerful (akin to how a rapist feels)?

I certainly do not believe it is solely about sex. Or ‘darkness’ as Christiane mentioned.

Have you read much on narcissistic personality disorder? I found some interesting possible answers there.

okrapod wrote:

My mother committed an act which resulted in her death. The act was one which she knew would more than likely precipitate a severe asthma attack and there was no discernible reason for her to do the act itself. She had been sick and depressed and angry for a long time. I was there when this occurred. I tried to save her but failed. We did have meds, I administered the meds, she died. Was it suicide? Who knows? Was it some reckless act for some unknown reason? Who knows?

Though as described, “indirect suicide” is a distinct probability.

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
yes, it does help to explain what I was not able to understand ….. I deeply regret my inability to understand anyway, but this is a bit of light, however tragic, on what did happen. Very sad.

Fellow Isle of Lewis minister Rev James Maciver, who conducted Mr Campbell’s funeral, told the Telegraph: “There are certain processes underway. At the moment we’re just investigating. We’re obliged as a church not to cover things up.”
A spokesman for Anne Campbell said: “The family has lost a husband and father. This is a personal matter and the family has requested that they be allowed to grieve in private.”

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Though as described, “indirect suicide” is a distinct probability.

Yes, rather like suicide by cop. The idea is that a certain percentage of one car ‘accidents’ are actually suicide. There are reasons for trying to hide the fact that something was suicide, including trying to spare the family or maintain one’s reputation or such.

Nancy2 wrote:

Jackson had 2 brothers at the shelter the day we adopted him. The neighbor’s are going to call and see if Jackson’s brothers have been adopted. If either or both of his brothers are still there, they are going to go adopt one of them.

God is good! 🙂

Peter wrote:

The death of IDC certainly contained a strong message

It wasn’t just a “death”. He didn’t die of natural causes. He didn’t die an accidental death. He killed himself intentionally. He committed suicide. Should say, “The suicide of IDC certainly contained a strong message ….”
And, yes, it did contain a strong message. Something was definitely wrong with him.

Lea wrote:

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Until the 1960s, a non-Catholic marrying a Catholic was required to convert to the RCC to avoid a “mixed marriage
Are you sure this was d/c’d? I have a friend who a few years ago converted to make their marriage ‘official’.

Actually, I’m not sure, but there has been a lot of change in the RCC in the last 50 years or so. Over the weekend it hit me:

500 years ago, the RCC locked into a certain way of doing things because of the Reformation Wars. So did the Protestants. But in the past 500 years (with a lot of it in the past 50) the two church movements seem to have swapped attitudes. Now it’s the Calvary Chapels and Truly Reformed who are into stifling legalism, SCRIPTURE as Koran, more Autocratic Heirarchy (Lead Pastors/Mini-Moses), totalist Thought Reform, and imposing a heavier and heavier yoke and burden after burden. And the RCC which has loosened into a refuge; concern for the poor and downtrodden (especially with the first Third World Pope), patronage of the arts & sciences, permission of fun and enjoyment, and a much lighter yoke and burden.

The Nones & Dones are fleeing the former. Some find the latter, some stay away completely. And many on the Protestant/Evangelical side (and some on the RCC side) are still stuck in the former Reformation Wars paradigm.

This also might touch on church history, with major shakeups every 500 years or so. It’s been 500 years since the last big shakeup (the Protestant Reformation) and we’re due for another. Maybe the Reformed need another Reformation?

Nancy2 wrote:

Peter wrote:
The death of IDC certainly contained a strong message
It wasn’t just a “death”. He didn’t die of natural causes. He didn’t die an accidental death. He killed himself intentionally. He committed suicide. Should say, “The suicide of IDC certainly contained a strong message ….”

Especially since according to the reports, IDC made TWO suicide attempts in succession; the second (at the hospital he was at to treat the first) was successful. That says something.

Peter wrote:

So far, over a span of 20 years, no shred of evidence has been produced for even one of these alleged ‘seven affairs’.

I teach law at a university in a common law nattion, that alone doesn’t make me right, but I do know that what you say is demonstrably rubbish. It’s strong evidence that you are an outright ignoramus speaking rashly of that which you know not. The testimony of a wife as to what she saw in emails and experienced in her confrontation with the husband is undeniably evidence of seven affairs. It’s evidence that would be admissible in a court of law, she could testify to it, it could be sufficient to even support a criminal prosecution were Campbell to have stood trial for some crime. When it’s supplemented by the strong circumstantial evidence of Mr. Campbell’s immediate suicide attempt and suicide, the evidence seems overwhelming.

The evidence is strong that you’re a blusterer trying to shout down the truth and that you neither know nor care what the Bible says about secrets being shouted from the rooftops. The evidence at this time points to you being a defender of your idols and institutions–but certainly not Jesus.

Dave A A wrote:

Campbell, speaking on behalf of the Lewis Presbytery (who are now to be trusted to investigate his death) insisted the issue was not the alleged perp-fessor but separation from the means of grace, which was a “gross scandal” akin to “incest, adultery, trilapses into fornication, murder, atheism, idolatry, witchcraft.”

That was what jumped out when I read it. That Campbell focused on separation from “means of grace” due to their failure to deal with Macleod’s misdeeds rather than on Macleod’s misdeeds sheds light on Campbell’s recent actions, IMO.

dee wrote:

I believe that it is highly probable that those on the investigation committee could also claim libel if I say that I do not believe them. I have been threatened with that in the US by a few well placed folks in regards to my comments on Sovereign Grace Ministries and other similar situations.

Of course, the Sovereign Grace folks involved in the scandals would either be speaking out of absolute ignorance or intentionally lying to attempt to shout down anyone who would expose the truth (absolute ignorance, shouting down the truth and intentional lies seem to me to go hand-in-hand with Sovereign Grace, in my personal experience with those in that denomination). In virtually every circumstance in U.S. law, it cannot be an untrue statement to make public your opinion of something.

@ Ian:
Ian, doesn’t Scotland have its own ‘Scots Law’?

Law Prof wrote:

The evidence is strong that you’re a blusterer trying to shout down the truth and that you neither know nor care what the Bible says about secrets being shouted from the rooftops.

Or (as Sean Spicer was described in one of his first press conferences) “A Party apparatchik who’s been given a 2 + 2 = 5 Loyalty Test”.

Lea wrote:

Actually, many people, men especially, do this in responsible to an event, such as loss of a relationship. This is very common. I don’t know if he was responding to loss of relationship or loss which he assumed would be coming of status, reputation, etc. People also commit suicide in response to medical changes. It’s not always someone who has been consistently depressed.

I agree, there are different reasons. Another is permanant loss of control to a person who must be in control at all times. There’s no way to know what was happening in the mind of someone we don’t know.

Nancy2 wrote:

Can somebody please tell John Piper about all of this?

And could you get TWW to upload a pic of your pup?

I’m sure we’d like to see your Crazy Baby Dog.

@ Serving Kids In Japan:

In a purely metaphorical sense, mind you. Not advocating violence, just a major dose of reality.

siteseer wrote:

There’s no way to know what was happening in the mind of someone we don’t know.

Sometimes we don’t know what’s going on in the mind of someone we do know.
Some 18 years ago, a lifelong friend of mine committed suicide. She was in an emotionally and physically abusive marriage, and none of us knew it. Each friend/family member knew about this one little incident, or that one little incident. She had told each of us not to say anything ….. It was embarrassing, and everything was okay, now. Each of us thought those incidents we one time things, and they had worked things through ……….. until we compared notes after her funeral, and realized the abuse was continuous over a period of 5 years. Her sister knew that she had miscarried because of the abuse.
I learned the hard way, if you know something, say something.

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
I have photos. I also took a short video on my IPad of Jackson’s first few minutes at home – he barked at Allie!

Serving Kids In Japan wrote:

Law Prof wrote:
We’re all priests now and there is but one high priest, Jesus. However, if you wish to hold him to the higher standard of one who thinks they have the standing to teach others about the truth of Christ and right Christian behavior, then I agree entirely.
Yes, I see what you mean. Didn’t think about my own wording there — just about Robertson’s nerve in trying to dictate to the rest of us, and convince us that wilful ignorance is the “proper” Christian attitude to scandal.

I was just being picky, figured we were coming from the same perspective. Just the axe I grind.

Gram3 wrote:

That was what jumped out when I read it. That Campbell focused on separation from “means of grace” due to their failure to deal with Macleod’s misdeeds rather than on Macleod’s misdeeds sheds light on Campbell’s recent actions, IMO.

Something like gnats and camels.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Or (as Sean Spicer was described in one of his first press conferences) “A Party apparatchik who’s been given a 2 + 2 = 5 Loyalty Test”.

poor Shawn, I suspect soon SNL will have in the role of ‘Humpty Dumpty’ talking to Alice, a reporter:

““When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Actually what I was thinking was that perhaps Campbell was thinking that he might well be in Macleod’s spot one day.

Serving Kids In Japan wrote:

Robertson’s nerve in trying to dictate to the rest of us, and convince us that wilful ignorance is the “proper” Christian attitude to scandal.

Robertson’s nerves are nervous that history may be rhyming a little too well if things are not managed very, very carefully. Back in 2000, the internet was not as big a deal as it is now.

@ Gram3:
However, it may also be true that the ones conducting this investigation may be interested in putting things in the past in proper order so that things can move forward in a positive direction. These men have their own choices to make just as the men twenty years ago had their choices and made them.

Nancy2 wrote:

I learned the hard way, if you know something, say something.

Agreed.

I knew a professional woman — whom the first time I met her I thought, “Addict.” She had addiction written all over her. She was also working too hard and going too fast. Working very long hours, volunteering for several organizations in different counties that required a great deal of work, teaching a night course on the side, fostering kids, etc. I gave her marriage 6 years from the time I met her to collapse, because no relationship could last with all of that.

I thought surely her big employer would intercede, see her addiction, and use Employee Assistance to get her help. But that’s not what happened.

She killed her husband and then committed suicide.

And I learned my lesson: Don’t leave it up to the next person to say something. I’ll say something and work on getting someone help.

She and her husband have several children, all of them young adults, who don’t have either parent now.

dee wrote:

The laws there do not allow people to say that they think that Iain is guilty.

Even if he’s dead?

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

But what if the Persona is so important that (like “the Tragedian” in The Great Divorce) it devours the Person until there is no Person left?

Perhaps a biographer will tell us someday what happened. There is a man behind this tragedy, and there are lessons to be learned if there are ears to hear and eyes to see.

Godith wrote:

Not only did the Church defend Donald Macleod, the State court exonerated him and claimed a conspiracy by the various women. In 2008 MacLeod was given a honorable doctorate of divinity by Westminster Seminary, Philadelphia. The Herald journalist quoted by David Robertson in his article “Tragedy in Lewis” is the son of Donald Macleod. Donald Macleod whose blog is http://www.donaldmacleod.org.uk/dm/ is in the Free Church of Scotland. His son, John, the journalist, is in the Free Presbyterian Church. If any of this is incorrect, please someone correct me.

I believe that the above facts are correct. Donald Macleod also wrote the widely circulated obituary about Iain D.Campbell. I know that his son John is a journalist but do not know which newspaper he writes for or his church affiliation.

Ken G wrote:

Law Prof wrote:
The testimony of a wife as to what she saw in emails and experienced in her confrontation with the husband is undeniably evidence of seven affairs. It’s evidence that would be admissible in a court of law, she could testify to it, it could be sufficient to even support a criminal prosecution were Campbell to have stood trial for some crime. When it’s supplemented by the strong circumstantial evidence of Mr. Campbell’s immediate suicide attempt and suicide, the evidence seems overwhelming.
But there would never be a conviction. The seven or so women involved in the alleged affairs would testify that the wife misunderstood or misread the e-mails and nothing happened. Of course, it would be a game changer if photos should surface.

Ken You are absolutely, unequivocally ignorant about the legal system and matters of proof and evidence. Completely, utterly wrong. There would be a conviction if a jury (or judge, if a bench trial) determined that the evidence was sufficient to establish matters in their mind based upon the standard of proof required (i.e., preponderance of the evidence in a civil case, beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal case). The jury could choose to believe the wife or the alleged mistresses and they could absolutely, positively find that there was adultery on the basis on the wife’s testimony alone, without a photo, without DNA, without a shred of anything else other than bare testimony. Ken, you are ignorant of the law.

Serving Kids In Japan wrote:

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
It’s been 500 years since the last big shakeup (the Protestant Reformation) and we’re due for another. Maybe the Reformed need another Reformation?
They need a good, swift kick in the pants. At the very least.

And most likely they’d react exactly the same as the Pope of Luther’s time.

Law Prof wrote:

The jury could choose to believe the wife or the alleged mistresses and they could absolutely, positively find that there was adultery on the basis on the wife’s testimony alone, without a photo, without DNA, without a shred of anything else other than bare testimony. Ken, you are ignorant of the law.

Emails alone would be enough to legally justify a divorce on the grounds of adultery. Divorce would mean he’d have to find a new career.

okrapod wrote:

And to the extent that nobody ever understands this sort of thing until they go through it, I deliberately forgive them as those who can’t help it.
But don’t anybody ever try to tell me how to feel or think or speak about this. Not then, not now, not ever.

Your story has been much on my mind today. I am so sorry for your mother’s death. Thank you for trusting TWW with the wisdom you gained through such hardship.

You are of course right: no one should tell you how to think or speak (or write) about this.

News organizations and copy editors, though, should follow ethical guidelines on this subject. In our area, an unusually large number of high school students have recently taken their own lives. The papers and TV stations have hesitated to cover these stories at all, partly out of a deep fear of inspiring more suicides. The information vacuum makes it harder for people in the community to put together suicide prevention programs. Meanwhile the dead youngster’s friends end up trafficking in rumors about a taboo subject.

When reporters do cover these stories, they usually take great care with the language. I had not known that “commit suicide” was a phrase left over from an era when the act was a crime. So perhaps it should be omitted from news stories, just as other phrases have been retired (“put up for adoption” comes to mind).

dee wrote:

After all she is just a woman.

Speaking of which, I just checked the wee flea’s comment section, and so far that of Barbara Roberts has not seen the light of day. A negative comment did get posted yesterday, however. The flea lambasted the commenter, finishing up with the suggestion that they be more careful next time before they judge and post, and pray and repent instead. Oh wow couldn’t have seen that one coming. A fan joined in to correct spelling and grammar, and another to criticize its being anonymous. Yet Barb’s very careful and not-anonymous comment remains in time-out.

Dave A A wrote:

dee wrote:
After all she is just a woman.
Speaking of which, I just checked the wee flea’s comment section, and so far that of Barbara Roberts has not seen the light of day. A negative comment did get posted yesterday, however. The flea lambasted the commenter, finishing up with the suggestion that they be more careful next time before they judge and post, and pray and repent instead. Oh wow couldn’t have seen that one coming. A fan joined in to correct spelling and grammar, and another to criticize its being anonymous. Yet Barb’s very careful and not-anonymous comment remains in time-out.

Thanks for the report, Dave A A.

And people who respond as badly as the leaders at that church expect anyone to come forward with any serious matter and that it will be handled with care, concern, and in the utmost ethical manner? They’d be fools to come forward.

Velour wrote:

And people who respond as badly as the leaders at that church expect anyone to come forward with any serious matter and that it will be handled with care, concern, and in the utmost ethical manner? They’d be fools to come forward.

Invitations to “Come Forward” to self-identify Traitors and Heretics for Denunciation and Purge.
Just like all those high school essays after the Columbine Massacre.

P.S. Remember “Gentleman Theologians”?

Hi Dee, I know it’s completely off topic but have you heard of this?
https://www.darkhorse.com/Books/21-419/Mike-Nortons-Battlepug-Volume-1

David wrote:

But I haven’t seen anything which says the dead can be libelled in Scotland. England and Scotland are both common law countries, so their legal systems have developed in parallel and have similar underlying principles. One of these is that a dead person has no character and so can’t be defamed.

Spot on. Dead people can be defamed and have no standing to sue.

okrapod wrote:

The whole section on that link about AP style changes is informative but it applies to the media.

Agreed. Nobody should be telling you how to tell your story.

@ Gram3:

I was thinking the same – I got lost amongst all the Wees and could not find where I was. Do these guys know where they are anymore? 😀

Max wrote:

Sadly, in just a short span of time, I’m sure TWW will be reporting yet another sad account of a fallen pastor and a congregation confused and disillusioned.

I just became Facebook friends with a man who found my spiritual abuse blog and Facebook.
He and his wife have started a website after she was preyed sexually by their pastor.

It is a betrayal many times over for them, where they should have been safe — the church.

ZechZav wrote:

But apparently ministers are above accountability to us rock-throwing peasants (I have to give Todd Wilhelm credit for that phrase).

LOL. Todd is very inventive.

I can’t remember if it was Todd or another gentleman who came up with the term 9Marxists
(in lieu of of the organization 9Marks).

when I heard this story, I thought that Lewis was the part of the island that had the most extreme form of Calvinism expressed by ‘sabbatarianism’; but I have learned that it was the other half of the island, called Harris. Nevertheless, Lewis does have the Back Free Kirk and I found this haunting psalm-singing video from that church:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3MzZgPBL3Q

the contrasts between the strict religious tones of the Calvinism in this place, and the nature of the Campbell tragedy are difficult to reconcile …. I cannot make sense of it, other than extreme breeds extreme when people are holding on too tight to what appears to be an unforgivingly rigid moral code where perhaps it is held that faith saves people FROM God

Velour wrote:

Max wrote:

Sadly, in just a short span of time, I’m sure TWW will be reporting yet another sad account of a fallen pastor and a congregation confused and disillusioned.

I just became Facebook friends with a man who found my spiritual abuse blog and Facebook.
He and his wife have started a website after she was preyed sexually by their pastor.

It is a betrayal many times over for them, where they should have been safe — the church.

Sadly, it always seems “church” organizations protect the pastor and the heck with the victims. This must change, but when?

Velour wrote:

I just became Facebook friends with a man who found my spiritual abuse blog and Facebook.
He and his wife have started a website after she was preyed sexually by their pastor.
It is a betrayal many times over for them, where they should have been safe — the church.

“Nowhere do we corrupt so effectively as at the very foot of the altar!”
— Screwtape

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Especially when the “trafficking in rumors” in the information vacuum is going to get wilder and wilder to the point where it will ALSO inspire more suicides. Maybe more than the media coverage would.

Dealt with two of these in the same school, alas.

One family wanted to keep everything completely private. They had the right–and perhaps a consuming need–but this left a building full of 2,000 kids to blame the dead child’s boyfriend. Funeral plan was changed at the last minute, and held far away during school hours. None of the youngster’s friends got to attend.

The second family coordinated heroically with the teen’s workplace, school, and church. Everybody was invited to a vigil, viewing, and funeral, to mourn together, share memories, and try to make sense of it all. I don’t know how the family found the strength and grace. They also knew when to say no and retreat to their home. Sadly, I think they absorbed some disenfranchised grief from the earlier death.

In both cases, the school did depression screening and suicide prevention training (in small assemblies), and offered further support to students.

I was a bit reluctant to post this but I want to get back to the suicide aspect of this tragedy. I was going through some letters records and remembering before I was 18 I witnessed two suicides in person one was successful the other was not, my mother saved his life. She was a nurse. When I say witnessed the one I was in the front room when he was in the garage but I saw his body when they were wheeling him out. The other one the man tried to cut off his arm with a broken bottle because he was seeing some type of insect/monster crawling on his arm. KJ will do that to you back in the 70’s. I saw a lot of that type of freaking out when I was a kid. Actually, it was pretty much a weekly event for say well 15-20 years. the kj was far worse than say the speedballing or freebasing though the freebasing would kill you dead right on the spot. Saw that happen one time too. All in all, I lost at least 12 friends due to suicide which does not count those that drove into walls, trains, ran down streets and were disintegrated by a large truck running away from the “demons” chasing them due to being wasted.

This affected me, it should not have and that was made very very clear when I first became a Christian, let the dead bury their dead you follow me, move on, get over it, etc. I still think watching people die from alcohol was far worse as that just sucked the life out of you. That goes way up in the double digits to people I know who died from that or related health issues from drinking so much. It was so common we never really thought about it but it had a lasting effect on me, again it should not and it is a moral, human, spiritual failing on my part. At least that is what I was almost constantly told.

The church does not deal well with messes, it wants overcomers, powerbrokers, strong, willful, and in many cases very angry people. What I have found strange is that if you actually need to be “saved” then you won’t ever be. God only wants those that don’t need God. I mean they preached grace, redemption, repentance etc. what they really wanted were truly good people who had it all together and above all were not a mess or those that could hide it really well. That’s what happened to this man in my opinion if the allegations are true. He seemed like he really wanted to die.

Again I write the above because I think I can relate to some of what happens, though I have never wanted to do anything to myself. But I am deeply empathetic to people because of my past, another failing but that one I will keep.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

That explains a lot abut Dale.
Until the 1960s, a non-Catholic marrying a Catholic was required to convert to the RCC to avoid a “mixed marriage”; the reasoning behind this was probably from the “Unequally Yoked” verse. (I do not know when this practice became established — possibly during the Reformation Wars like so many others — but I’m pretty sure it was discontinued after the shakeup of Vatican II.)
And in Dale’s parents’ case, this ended in disaster.

Actually, HUG, Dale left quite a bit unsaid in his comment.

My mother converted to marry my father. She was happy to do this at the time. Eighteen years later she did leave the Catholic Church (or it left her) when my parents divorced.

Dave A A wrote:

Velour wrote:
I can’t remember if it was Todd or another gentleman who came up with the term 9Marxists
(in lieu of of the organization 9Marks).
It was the other gentleman, but don’t quote me on that… Just in case 9 Marks decides to get a trademark (TM) on it, I wouldn’t want to get in trouble with their lawyers.
Who’d a thunk THEY would pick up on it?

Was it you Dave A.A. who came up with 9Marxist?!?! Brilliant!!

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Friend wrote:
In our area, an unusually large number of high school students have recently taken their own lives. The papers and TV stations have hesitated to cover these stories at all, partly out of a deep fear of inspiring more suicides. The information vacuum makes it harder for people in the community to put together suicide prevention programs. Meanwhile the dead youngster’s friends end up trafficking in rumors about a taboo subject.
At which point, the media covering it is in a double-bind.

Especially when the “trafficking in rumors” in the information vacuum is going to get wilder and wilder to the point where it will ALSO inspire more suicides. Maybe more than the media coverage would.

That’s difficult to know, though. The media doesn’t generally cover suicides because it not infrequently leads to copy cats (especially stuff like jumping off of bridges).

It seems to me the best option would be for the school to hold an assembly or some community events and talk to the kids,preferably with counselors available if they haven’t already. I don’t think a media report is really going to fix anything with them.

Aaron wrote:

You do not get that from Calvinism itself but from a misplaced celebrity culture which is why I have never been a fan of Para-Church organizations.

This is what I began to think. Celebrity and para church organizations that promote it are causing a host of problems. Partly because when someone sins there is SO much at stake for everyone involved, and they’re all linked and they start circling the wagons…

Many of them are deeply in ‘you scratch my back, i’ll scratch yours’ territory, which means they are unwilling to call anyone out or stop publishing their articles no matter how many abusive and assaultive people they marry off and promote, or women they abuse themselves, etc.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

“he suicided”.

We use ‘completed suicide’ or ‘suicide completion’ at work. I don’t see that catching on in public through.

Bridget wrote:

No surprise there.

It’s like Robertson or a helper approved a comment which seemed to be lower hanging fruit. I suppose they’d approve mine if I tried, and could then pick it apart and tell me to repent.

Lea wrote:

It seems to me the best option would be for the school to hold an assembly or some community events and talk to the kids,preferably with counselors available if they haven’t already. I don’t think a media report is really going to fix anything with them.

Families have a lot of control over what information the school releases to students. The school cannot even announce a student’s death without the family’s permission. Families can deny permission for a school vigil or memorial service. Or they can grant permission, with or without showing up themselves. At least around here.

Media reports can sometimes supply facts, although I agree that is not a reliable way to help large groups of kids.

Depression screening, assemblies, and available counselors do help a lot.

Dave A A wrote:

It’s like Robertson or a helper approved a comment which seemed to be lower hanging fruit. I suppose they’d approve mine if I tried, and could then pick it apart and tell me to repent.

That’s exactly what it seems like, especially when you know for a fact that other well thought out comments were not approved.

To be honest it was the whole “It was God’s will for His eternal Glory” / Its all your fault they are in hell because you did not witness to them good enough, their blood is on your soul narrative that really freaked me out. I get why some faith groups use it as it is good to maintain control and rip the soul out of a person who is a bit uppity but, well it hurts, to be honest. It still, does.

Deb wrote:

Bravo for opening up your home and hearts to a shelter pup! Have you chosen a name?

And a great big BRAVA! from Potter too. This is true holiness and sanctification (Nancy2’s deeds to the least of them), the real McCoy, not just ethereal claptrap in the upper cloud layers.

Ian wrote:

Can anyone think of anything else they had in common?

Others who cooperated in keeping it covered up.

Ian wrote:

I am not looking to defend anyone and I do think the Iwerne Trust have a lot of explaining to do. However, Winchester School were also made aware of the abuse in 1982 but the parents of the victims did not want it to be reported to the police. I believe the parents felt a criminal investigation and trial would further harm their children.

Possibly I shouldn’t say this but I always wonder, I hope it is really their children they are concerned for and not just the desire to pretend it never happened and make it go away.

dee wrote:

@ Dave A A:
This is a good comment. Keep your eyes on the lingo that will come out in the coming months. I believe there will be an effort to marginalize Anne Campbell. After all she is just a woman.

And susceptible to deception just like Eve. The ‘Eve’ card can be a convenient excuse not to listen to a woman’s testimony, especially – Heaven Forbid – against her husband.

dee wrote:

Velour wrote:

Even if he’s dead?

I wrote that without thinking. What I meant was that the way the law is written, I cannot say that I believe a cover up is underway by the investigative committee.I have to have proof. Thankfully, I write in the USA.

Freedom of speech is a beautiful thing.

I would like to make a slightly tangential, but substantially relevant, comment on UK libel laws. Several comments have now been made on this subject and not all of them are accurate.

Part 1 of 2: Objectively (the provisions of Scottish law)

This can only be a brief summary, obviously.

It is true that if I stand up out of the blue and say that some random person is guilty of some random wrong, and have no evidence for it, that person can sue me. But it is not true that I have to be able to prove it beyond reasonable doubt.

There is a long-established “fair comment” defence that covers honestly-held opinions that are based on fact (again, this is quite different from “proved beyond reasonable doubt”). This defence is maintained in Scottish law precisely in order to protect free speech, and it is particularly strong in matters of public interest. So, in principle, it’s not true to say that the law here stops you expressing an opinion over Iain Campbell’s guilt. It might be different if you were publicly prejudging the outcome of a criminal trial, but this isn’t one.

For any of us to say “A cover up is underway by the investigative committee”, with no reasonable evidence – such as an email or eye-witness testimony, or a history of Free Church investigative committees conveniently not finding anything wrong – would potentially be libellous. But that’s not actually something TWW is interested in saying.

A point that Deebs have often made (and will undoubtedly make again) is that they take considerable care before posting an article. Deebs are continually accused of malice and vindictiveness, and more besides, but – in my belief – wrongly. It is my opinion that Deebs do not publish material because it tickles their fancy, bolsters their prejudices or belittles people to whom they have taken a gratuitous personal dislike.

In my opinion, public figures who are featured in critical posts written here will usually at least have a case to answer. And I write that opinion in Scotland.

ZechZav wrote:

@ Bridget:
There is no point engaging people like David Robertson directly as it is a waste or your time and energy. He will either not approve your comment or approve it and then hurl abuse at you

Because the Elect have been Predestined To Do No Wrong.
“TOUCH NOT MINE ANOINTED! DO MY PROPHET NO HARM!”

Bridget wrote:

@ ZechZav:
The issue is that this behavior is horrid from anyone, but much more horrid when it comes from people who are considered leaders in the Christian community. Other Christians watch them and might think this is acceptable.

“He can get away with it, So Can I!”
(Except he’s Highborn and you’re Lowborn.)

Velour wrote:

Nick,

What are Scotland’s laws about doctors, lawyers, therapists, and other professionals having sex with patients/clients?

In the United States it is not permitted and they can lose their licenses, serious ethical violations, and in my state (California) they can be criminally prosecuted for sexual battery.

I am in favor of criminalizing clergy having intimate relationships with adult congregants and facing sexual battery charges.

Add teachers in the public education system to that list. Mary Kay Letourneau comes to mind.

@ Velour:

I’m not a legal expert, but as I understand it this is covered by the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009. Sexual relationships between doctors, lawyers, lecturers – more generally, people in a position of authority or trust – and their patients/clients etc are not illegal as such. However, in these cases, the age of consent rises from 16 to 18.

Overall, informed consent is the crucial factor. The law is stricter in cases of vulnerable adults; this is a legally-defined term and refers to those whose ability to consent is considered to be impaired or non-existent because of intellectual impairment or mental illness – temporary or long-term. So, an otherwise healthy person being treated for reactive depression brought on by external stress, would generally be considered a vulnerable adult. A pastor who was involved in counselling a person of the opposite sex, and ended up in a sexual relationship with that person, would be skating on thin legal ice because the counsellee would probably be considered vulnerable.

The practical upshot of this is that, although consensual sexual relationships are legal in principle, a person in a position of trust may not have informed consent in practice. Moreover, a sexual relationship may expose them to censure from their respective professional body if the relationship is deemed to have brought the profession into disrepute.

(A person may be deemed incapable of giving informed consent because of the influence of alcohol or drugs. Again, the law is stricter in these cases: bluntly, “no informed consent” means it was rape. It’s not enough to say “she didn’t say no”.)

IHTIH

Nick Bulbeck wrote:

but as I understand it this is covered by the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009. Sexual relationships between doctors, lawyers, lecturers – more generally, people in a position of authority or trust

Thanks, Nick, for the insights about Scottish law.

At least the wife is not in denial like the higher-ups such as that Robertson fellow.

Often when a family member is involved in wrong-doing, the family covers up for their guilty relative, and they circle the wagons.

The wife has more courage than the lot of them. She has the most to lose yet she called a spade a spade. Good for her.

Bad news so the administration kills the messenger.

Dave A A wrote:

@ Darlene:
Right before the Repent! card was the suggestion to pray… but of course!

“Pray(TM)” is Christianese for doing nothing.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

“TOUCH NOT MINE ANOINTED! DO MY PROPHET NO HARM!”

You got me thinking, and I did a web search on this. The top 2 articles both said people take it out of context, and David was talking about not killing Saul, but it was OK to criticize him. HOWEVER, a quick glance at the context makes it clear David wasn’t referring to Saul at all– rather Sarah, Abraham, Rebekah, and Isaac, when God wouldn’t let Abimelech or Abimelech Jr “touch” them.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

“Pray(TM)” is Christianese for doing nothing.

I didn’t know that. But then, ways of praying are not the same between them what speaks that language and them what doesn’t,
so once again, the thing is ‘who gets to say what a word means’ and the answer is: ‘the ones in charge … the ‘masters’ (at least in the satirical world of Alice Through The Looking Glass) 🙂

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

“TOUCH NOT MINE ANOINTED! DO MY PROPHET NO HARM!”

“Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.”

Okrapod, that is beautiful.

zooey111 wrote:

Nancy2 wrote:

(Yeah, we adopted a shelter puppy – still miss Amos terribly, but Lizzie and Allie we driving us nuts! We had to adopt sooner than planned to mainain their (and our sanity).)

I adopted my 2 beloved kitties two weeks after my dear “old lady” as I called her. I felt totally unready for a new pet–much less two of them, but I saw the one on the Humane Society website, & went to get her the next morning. While I was there, another cat climbed into my purse & refused to come out.
I was telling this story to a friend, & she said, “Sometimes we aren’t ready, but the cat is….” It sounds like you have the same thing there. God bless you–including the little ones.

what a lovely story ….. my son adopted a little puppy …. he went to a place with many puppies and dogs who were let out together and my son sat down to look at them, whereupon a small little one came over and sat down beside him to keep him company ….. so my son says, his puppy chose him 🙂