first

Wow! For the first time ever, I’ve got the first comment, all the way from England. It’s almost midnight over here, so time to hit the sack. Thanks, Dee and Deb, for all you do on TWW. It’s an honour to count you as friends.

Clearly you have never experienced the total helplessness and pain of having an alcoholic loved one.
I read this website often . ( I’m a Harvest Bible Chapel member and I keep up with all things JMAC). I have always considered this site to be , for the most part, a discernment ministry that is pretty fair and doesn’t make unsubstantiated allegations for the purpose of harming or hurting. At least until this article.

If you had ever lost a loved one to alcoholism ( I’ve lost two ) you would know that entire families can spend every waking minute and all of their financial resources to try to help and get help for their alcoholic family member resulting in failure after devastating failure . Alcoholics cannot be helped and won’t be helped if they don’t want it. And even if they want it sometimes it’s too difficult. Alcoholics are liars- the best liars.
Why do you feel it’s necessary to malign a godly servant like RC Sproul as if he is in some way responsible for his grown sons actions! He has been through enough pain without your unfounded accusations and threats even that if his son hurts someone it will be on his head . This is inexcusable and seriously hurts your credibility.

I’ve been a ligonier for years . I watch RC continue to persevere through terrible physical pains preaching Gods word wearing an oxygen mask . Leave him alone! We all grieve over our grown children when they inflict pain on themselves and others knowing that most of the time our help is rejected.

Barbara Roberts wrote:

R C Sproul Junior needs to be put out of the church and that needs to be very publicly done because he has been so significant at Ligonier. 1 Corinthians 5:11-13.

What a hateful thing to recommend that be done for someone with a serious substance abuse problem. He needs to be in an in-patient treatment program. He needs a skill-intervention by those people around him.

(P.S. I was excommunicated from my NeoCalvinist church on a trumped up charge, like the godly doctor in his 70’s before me, and a godly middle-aged woman in finance before him.)

When you spend so much of your life covering up sins, I’m sure there is a need to numb that kind of pain. So, his alcoholism caught up with him. I sure hope that church members or family members uncover the rest of the sins that have been covered up at St. Peter. Sometimes it takes the strength of one brave soul to shine the spotlight on evil and help save victims.

If any are reading and know what I”m talking about, please contact me. I know the story, but need someone willing to come forward, even anonymously. I need to verify you are who you say you are, but will respect your privacy. spiritualsb@gmail.com

Shannon Sproul passed away in 2012, not 2014. Later it was discovered that his late wife Denise either lived in a town with toxic waste problems or went to a school that had toxic waste problems. I got the impression that several people from that area had developed major health problems.

“Unfortunately, in spite of years of problems including accusations of excessive alcohol intake, it does not appear that dad Sproul and others in his orbit did much to help him deal with his alleged substance abuse issues.” (Dee)

“wine is a good gift of the Lord … I cannot forbid my brother in Christ from drinking” (R.C. Sproul, Sr.)

http://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/guilty-conscience/

Max wrote:

“Unfortunately, in spite of years of problems including accusations of excessive alcohol intake, it does not appear that dad Sproul and others in his orbit did much to help him deal with his alleged substance abuse issues.” (Dee)
“wine is a good gift of the Lord … I cannot forbid my brother in Christ from drinking” (R.C. Sproul, Sr.)

You have taken this quote out of context . Here is what he REALLY said.
It is also possible to have a guilty conscience when no objective guilt is present. Some people, for example, may be convinced that consuming alcohol is against God’s law. Yet while Scripture condemns drunkenness, it nowhere says that consuming strong drink is in itself evil. In fact, wine, not unfermented grape juice, is viewed as a good gift of the Lord (Ps. 104:14–15). False guilt attaches to many people in this area because some traditions have prescribed a rule against alcohol when no such law is present in the Bible.

However, this particular distortion of guilt feelings can be complicated since authentic guilt may occur even if a person drinks without ever becoming drunk. God’s Word says that “whatever does not proceed from faith is sin” (Rom. 14:23). If a person believes that consuming alcohol is wrong and takes a drink, he has transgressed what he believes is glorifying to God and has therefore chosen sin over his love for the Lord. The sin is not in the drinking of the wine itself, it is in violating the conscience (vv. 1–23).

Deborah Coan wrote:

Alcoholics are liars- the best liars.
Why do you feel it’s necessary to malign a godly servant like RC Sproul as if he is in some way responsible for his grown sons actions! He has been through enough pain without your unfounded accusations and threats even that if his son hurts someone it will be on his head . This is inexcusable and seriously hurts your credibility.
I’ve been a ligonier for years . I watch RC continue to persevere through terrible physical pains preaching Gods word wearing an oxygen mask . Leave him alone! We all grieve over our grown children when they inflict pain on themselves and others knowing that most of the time our help is rejected.

I am sorry for the pain of alcoholism in your family and your losses to that disease.

You have raised some important issues.

I would also like to say that in my own extended family there are some alcoholics. And I have found their parents, spouses or girlfriends (depending on their marital status), to be enablers, capable of cover-ups and lying. Their denial is just a problematic as the person who is the problem drinker.

12-step groups like Al-Anon and Adult Children of Alcoholics also address these issues.
http://www.al-anon.alateen.org/

Deborah Coan wrote:

You have taken this quote out of context .

So, does Dr. Sproul consider alcohol to be a gift from the Lord? And he does say at the end of the article “the Bible does not condemn alcohol, and so I cannot forbid my brother in Christ from drinking.” We all hope that Dr. Sproul attempted to intercede with his son’s alcoholism, rather than leaving his son’s conscience to deal with it – he was obviously in trouble.

Wartburgers, I suppose I should recuse myself from further comments on this piece. I am an old-school Southern Baptist who feels Christians would do well just to leave alcohol alone (period). I’ve seen the terrible impacts of alcohol abuse in my family, beginning with just a beer at the picnic to full-fledged alcoholism with many consequences. Call me an old fuddy-duddy, but I will upset folks if I keep talking … catch you on the next TWW piece.

Deborah Coan wrote:

Why do you feel it’s necessary to malign a godly servant like RC Sproul as if he is in some way responsible for his grown sons actions!

Yes, I would much rather malign him for the blasphemous statements he makes, like this one from http://www.ligonier.org/blog/forsaken-jesus-became-curse/:

If there ever was an obscenity that violates contemporary community standards, it was Jesus on the cross. After he became the scapegoat and the Father had imputed to him every sin of every one of his people, the most intense, dense concentration of evil ever experienced on this planet was exhibited. Jesus was the ultimate obscenity.
…
He didn’t just feel forsaken; he was forsaken.
…
It was as if there was a cry from heaven, as if Jesus heard the words “God damn you,” because that’s what it meant to be cursed and under the anathema of the Father.

RC Sproul has a very twisted view of the Trinity and the crucifixion. Is it possible that his son is reacting to the terrible theology he was taught? We don’t know. But we do know what RC Sproul teaches, and it is very damaging.

Deb wrote:

While I appreciate your heartfelt comment, I am compelled to share a tragic and devastating childhood experience with you.
When I was a month away from turning 13, I was invited by a friend to go to Myrtle Beach with her and her parents. On the way, we were hit head-on by a drunk driver. My friend’s parents were killed on impact, and my friend was severely injured. She was in the hospital for several months after the accident. I sustained serious injuries as well – a skull fracture, broken bones, and quite a few cuts (I am blessed that I didn’t lose my eyesight because I had lacerations above both eyes).
The woman who hit us was found guilty of manslaughter and served time in prison.
I believe you missed the intent of Dee’s post. If Junior makes the same mistake that the drunk driver who hit us did, R.C. Sproul Sr. will experience MUCH MORE suffering than he is right now. 
Drinking and driving is SO DANGEROUS! I learned at an early age that it can be DEADLY!!!

Sadly this is so true.

Max wrote:

Wartburgers, I suppose I should recuse myself from further comments on this piece. I am an old-school Southern Baptist who feels Christians would do well just to leave alcohol alone (period). I’ve seen the terrible impacts of alcohol abuse in my family, beginning with just a beer at the picnic to full-fledged alcoholism with many consequences. Call me an old fuddy-duddy, but I will upset folks if I keep talking … catch you on the next TWW piece.

I don’t draw a hard line in the sand, which I think can go to the other direction of legalism.

Many Christians, including from other cultures and countries, incorporate alcohol just fine in their lives without any problems. (I use red wine in cooking and I am glad to be out of an insufferable NeoCalvinist church that saw ‘sin’ in everything, including spaghetti sauce.)

There are people who are alcoholics and yes, the first drink (beer, etc.) leads to much worse compulsive drinking. But not everyone is an alcoholic nor should they be classified as such.

Deb wrote:

When I was a month away from turning 13, I was invited by a friend to go to Myrtle Beach with her and her parents. On the way, we were hit head-on by a drunk driver. My friend’s parents were killed on impact, and my friend was severely injured.

Deb,

I remember that you have told us this story before. I am glad that you survived and are ok. I am glad that your friend survived. I am so sorry that her parents were killed.

Several of my friends in high school were killed by drunk drivers.

Velour wrote:

Barbara Roberts wrote:

R C Sproul Junior needs to be put out of the church and that needs to be very publicly done because he has been so significant at Ligonier. 1 Corinthians 5:11-13.

What a hateful thing to recommend that be done for someone with a serious substance abuse problem.

But expected from the Righteous(TM).

Max wrote:

We all hope that Dr. Sproul attempted to intercede with his son’s alcoholism, rather than leaving his son’s conscience to deal with it – he was obviously in trouble.

How can it possibly not be idolatry to not hold accountable leadership in the church?

Deborah Coan wrote:

Why do you feel it’s necessary to malign a godly servant like RC Sproul as if he is in some way responsible for his grown sons actions!

If he is putting his son into jobs in ministry (which is my understanding, correct me if I am wrong), he is enabling him in some way. Maybe he should have let him truly hit bottom, so he would be more motivated to change.

I do agree that people won’t change unless they want to.

But if he is routinely drinking and driving with kids in the car, he might have been better off to spend some time in jail since that is a serious concern.

Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

responded to your comment with a quote from RC Sproul, but the comment is not yet visible, probably because of the words Sproul used. In the meantime, here is the link: http://www.ligonier.org/blog/forsaken-jesus-became-curse/. Please check back later for why I think this article is pertinent.

Mr. F- if you don’t agree with RC Sprouls theology that is your business and I’m not interested . Answer to God. It has nothing to do with the point that blaming the father for the sins of the son is not logical To say the least . Most people in this thread are staying on topic in a civil manner .

Thanks for this article Dee.

RC Sproul Jr has been jeopardizing the lives of the public, his own children, and other people's children, for many years. To underscore how terribly serious these matters are, and how long they've been going on, here's a very disturbing comment from Cortney on Spinderella Sproul:

"As sad as this is, it isn't surprising. In 2005, I was 13 years old and my family had just joined R.C. Jr's church in Virginia, Saint Peter Presbyterian Church. One time, his daughter invited me to the Sproul house for a sleepover. She and R.C. came to pick me up in his car. The Sprouls lived in an extremely rural town called Mendota. The road to Mendota was very long and wound sharply through thick woods. R.C. didn't want to slow down enough to safely take the corners. He instead cut them, crossing into the opposite lane right on the extreme point of blind curves. It was apparently his routine to engage in this life-threatening behavior during every commute to and out of Mendota. He had two children in the car, and we could have been caught in a head-on collision at any time. When I got home, I told my dad what R.C. had done, and he forbade all of us, his kids, to ride with him ever again. He's already a menace on the road when sober. I'm astonished he hasn't killed someone already."

Velour wrote:

What a hateful thing to recommend that be done for someone with a serious substance abuse problem. He needs to be in an in-patient treatment program. He needs a skill-intervention by those people around him.

Preach it sister!

And here is the moderator’s response to Cortney:

“Cortney, your story is not an isolated incident. There have been many such stories of people’s lives having been put into jeopardy by getting into RC Sproul Jr’s car. It’s good that you told your parents about it, and it’s good they protected you from further harm.

“What may have not been apparent to you at the time is that RC Jr wasn’t just driving recklessly with you in the car. He probably was already drunk, or at least under the influence. Most drunk drivers know they’re drunk, and they’re worried about potential consequences, so they slow down. In fact most drunk drivers are pulled over by the police not because they’re driving recklessly, but because they’re driving abnormally slow. They know they’re drunk so they slow way down, and this gives them away.

“But then there is what’s known as the “functional drunk” or the “functional alcoholic.” Functional drunks tend to be over-confident of themselves and, therefore, may become reckless behind the wheel and take dangerous risks. Cutting corners and crossing the center line on blind curves is about as reckless as it gets.

“More than likely RC Sproul Jr is a functional alcoholic, if not a “high-functioning alcoholic.” He’s held down a successful career (or at least he’s made a lot of money), been a reasonably successful father, has been held in high esteem by many people, etc. From just a casual observation he’s not a drunk. But those who’ve been paying close attention over the years have known that he’s got a serious drinking problem. He just masks it well.”

“Sentenced aggressively and appropriately” Sad but these “c”hristian pastors et al won’t even go that far with a rapist or child molester.

if this current bout of drinking heavily was a continuance of grieving, he could use:
1. Hospitalization with detox and follow-up care by his physician
2. Psychiatric evaluation with continuing monitoring to help with alcohol abuse as self-med for suffering from unresolved pain brought on by deep grief

Yeah, he needs help. Not any system that overlooks his cries for that help.

He is not a strong man, apparently. So others will need to intervene who do care for him. I hope they do. Whatever issues he has and whatever wrong he has done, he is still a human person in need of help, the RIGHT KIND of help. Not the good-ole boyz club nonsense, no. God have mercy.

So sad about his daughter. So very sad.

Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

@ Deborah Coan: So you fully agree with what Sproul wrote in that article? And you disagree that being raised under this theological umbrella could cause problems?

Mr F I am not interested in reading the article and getting into a debate on his theology and no I do not believe that sin in RC2 life is caused by his fathers theology.

Steve240 wrote:

His drunkenness just by itself disqualified RC2 from being a leader.
As others have pointed out rather than enable RC2, RC should have insisted no special treatment be given to RC2 and thus forced RC2 to hit rock bottom. This just goes to show what can happen when you have related people working in a ministry like this.

I agree that Sproul 2 shouldn’t be enabled by his father, Sproul 1.

But I don’t think Sproul 2’s substance abuse (he is an adult) disqualifies his father from serving in the clergy. Sproul 2 has his own household and is not part of his father’s household.

As the saying goes in rooms like Al-Anon, a 12-step program for the family and friends of alcoholics, “I didn’t cause it, I can’t control it, and I can’t cure it.”

Deborah Coan wrote:

Alcoholics cannot be helped and won’t be helped if they don’t want it. And even if they want it sometimes it’s too difficult. Alcoholics are liars- the best liars.

oh my goodness …..
I know you have suffered from people in your family with this disease, and there is controversy about ‘responsibility’ versus the helplessness of illness;
but alcoholism causes medical and psychiatric problems if not treated, and these problems deserve intervention.

Perhaps you need some help as a family member of people who were alcoholics, so that you can find some people to talk to? Sounds like it would do you good.

In the end, people hurt. And some self-medicate. And it compounds their pain and affects those around them also.
Whatever that ‘hurt’ is, it must be addressed. And if it is not, then they may very well continue to self-medicate in self-destructive ways, yes.

We can’t assume ‘they can’t be helped’, no. We must try to get help for suffering people: medical intervention AND psychiatric intervention. With follow-up.

When we have done all we could, then ….. But in the mean-time, we cannot ‘look away’ or play the blame-game on overwhelmed souls. We are obliged to do the right thing in intervening for OUR sakes as well as theirs: because we are human persons too and our day may come when we are ‘the overwhelmed’ and in need of the mercy of others. God help you, dear. You have my prayers.

My wife’s oldest son is alcoholic. He is also charming, manipulative, an involved father and a liar.
He lost one wife and two beautiful daughters because of it. Like RC2, he drove around drunk with our grandkids in the car. She was wise enough to divorce him and move across the country. And get involved with Al Anon.
By then he was almost dead from liver failure and heart disease. Somehow, he recovered, fathered a son, but soon was drinking again. His “wet” brain led to do something stupid and put him in jail for a year, including 90 days in San Quentin for “evaluation”. (I think the judge wanted to shake him up.)
We took him in to help in his recovery. He regained his health, went to AA, extensive counseling and stayed sober. Eventually, he regained visitation with his son and found a job. But he stopped going to AA and we realized he was drinking again. He agreed to go back into out patient treatment. Sadly, we smelled the booze again and he admitted that he was choosing to drink. (He is not driving)
We asked to leave by the end of the month. We will do almost anything to aid recovery, but we will not enable alcoholism.
The point to this story is that alcohol, for some people, is almost invariably destructive and those that love them have a limited ability to help them. I do know that covering up their behavior is as destructive as buying them booze and could end up with somebody dead. (So sorry for your terrible experience Dee)

Steve240 wrote:

Velour wrote:
I agree that Sproul 2 shouldn’t be enabled by his father, Sproul 1.
But I don’t think Sproul 2’s substance abuse (he is an adult) disqualifies his father from serving in the clergy. Sproul 2 has his own household and is not part of his father’s household.
I would agree that Sproul shouldn’t be disqualified due to his ADULT son’s issues. On the other hand if Sproul has bee covering up and protecting his son then maybe Sproul should be disqualified for protecting and covering.

Steve240,

That’s as harsh for the father as the recommendation for the son.

Alcoholism as the saying goes is a ‘family disease’. People who don’t even pick up a drink can have unhealthy behaviors. The father may be in just as much help as the son from experts who deal with alcoholics and from free groups like Al-Anon, for the family and friends of alcoholism.

Having had much shade thrown our way in the early ’80’s because our oldest son was into alcohol and drugs, we decided to start a support group called “Parents Concerned” This was in Silicon Valley. We ran this support group for 16 years. People from many churches came to our group . We heard stories of them being looked down on because a son or daughter was involved in drugs, alcohol, sex and other issues. Our group was a safe place for parents. Many non Christians came and eventually came to The Lord. We had connections with the San Jose Police dept, Good Samaritan Hospital, The Foundry School, The Bill Wilson House, Teen Challenge, Victory Outreach etc,etc. we went to seminars and learned a lot about drug and alcohol abuse. The one thing we learned is that you cannot change someone else.

Being a parent of an alcoholic or drug abuser is scary. Parental instincts are to protect your child at all costs. It takes a tremendous faith in Gid, as well as support from non judgement all Christians to let go and let your child experience the consequences.

@ Lea:

If you know you have a problem with alcohol, you need to face up to your issue and get help. That is the most important thing I learned in Al-Anon, a support group for family members/friends of alcoholics.

Last month, a young couple from my church was in a horrible accident just down the street from my house. The 19-year old mother died, leaving s two-year old without a mother. Her boyfriend is still hospitalized with injuries that will cause him lifelong disabilities.

I checked out the comments on the Spinderella blog. RC2 sponsors keggers for staff in which alcohol is served to CHILDREN!! He mocks people who don’t drink like he does. He is going to end up dead or lifelong in prison if he does not get serious help, and the fact that his family and colleagues contribute to his continued drinking behavior implicates them as well.

We had missionaries , elders and some pastors come to our group, they were in such pain and could not share in their Christian communities.@ Velour:

My father also struggled with drinking, he could and did say some of the most God awful things to us kids etc. I moved back in to help with my nephew and a bit with him for a few years. He had severe arthritis as well it totally crippled him to the point he could not work, took gold shots, eventually, the treatment and bad medical advice killed him. I won’t go into too much what I was told when I moved back in by my church family, abandoning God, letting the church down, not having the mind of Christ, succumbing to the world, loving my family more than loving God etc. A few years later as my father’s health deteriorated it was late and I was in the shower and I heard this crack and for the very first time my father called out my name in desperate need, it was in a voice I will never forget. The crack I heard was his leg bone splitting lengthwise down his leg.

I was right there, like I always was, at times he would be cussing, why this or that but he needed me. All the years of being there listening to the beratement and anger gave me the ability to listen as well to the pain and fear. I tried so hard to offer some comfort. I wanted to offer God as comfort but my father had had enough of the evangelical/catholic rhetoric from his mother and from our family priest and a war and so on. He went to the hospital the next day, he did not want to go that evening but finally, my mother insisted.

I was on the road when it hit, Loma Prieta, things collapsing the road buckling and our house was thrashed though we did not know it until it sold a few years later during the inspection while selling it and we took a big loss on it; Foundational and chimney issues. I drove to the hospital right after shutting off the gas and water at our house. I got there, there were big huge cracks in the wall, the elevators were broken people screaming and injured and there was my father asleep right after his surgery. He had never slept through an earthquake before even the small ones.

That was the last time I saw him alive. You know I wanted to share the gospel with him, go through the 4 spiritual laws, take him down the Romans road, walk him through the gospel of John etc. But I was just there, I was always there never moving not flinching no matter what I was there. That night I was alone, my mother was somewhere around the city or in the hospital, he was in recovery and my nephew was with a neighbor. I was home alone. He died that Wednesday in the afternoon. He waited for my mother to leave, was very stable, then just let go. I personally believe it was so he would not be a burden on us. He got to tell me he loved us kids, my sister was incarcerated and my brother was living in another state. I got to tell them, they were somewhat angry at me but there was a lot of emotions.

I did go back to my faith family. It was not too long until the did he know the Lord questions started, did I witness to him, you know his blood is on your hands if he is not saved God will hold you accountable… A few years later my brother in law was dying and I went to see him, very long story, and I shared with him the Gospel and the love of Christ, He “accepted” Christ, my church family reminded me that almost all death bed conversions are false conversions and most likely my brother in law died in his sins and went on to a Christless eternity. In very pious terms of course.

I’m sorry for all this, it’s just that fathers day was very hard for me this year. I really loved my father very much and he gave more for his family in deeper ways than most of the superhero folks that command such respect in the franchises from what I have observed. I have never shared this before but I just needed to. Thank You.

brian wrote:

I really loved my father very much and he gave more for his family in deeper ways than most of the superhero folks that command such respect in the franchises from what I have observed.

Nice story about your father, Brian. I can see why you loved him, faults and all.

Your ex-church family sounds like a bunch of cheerless people. I’m glad you are no longer around them and their hateful views.

brian wrote:

A few years later my brother in law was dying and I went to see him, very long story, and I shared with him the Gospel and the love of Christ, He “accepted” Christ, my church family reminded me that almost all death bed conversions are false conversions and most likely my brother in law died in his sins and went on to a Christless eternity

so much sadness in your comment, Brian

I don’t know what ‘church’ teaches that death-bed conversions are ‘false’, but I am Christian enough to know that isn’t true …. that if a person who is in peril holds his hand out to Our Lord, Our Lord takes his hand and saves him

too many ‘hate preachers’ out there, I’m afraid, so discouraging and spreading despair instead of hope and all I can do is ask ‘Why?’ when all around them is life and light, but they cannot ‘see’

I haven’t read all the comments, so forgive me if I am off topic by this point.

It is remarkable how LITTLE one can do for an addict if the addict doesn’t want help.

But it is also remarkable how MUCH can be done to protect others from the addict, that is NOT done.

People think they have far more impact than they do re: what they can control re: an addict, and they think they have far less control than they do re: what they themselves can do to reduce the impact of the addict.

Sr. can’t make Jr. stop drinking.
Sr. CAN keep Jr. from standing in the pulpit.

Sr. can’t stop Jr. from spending his money on alcohol.
Sr. CAN cut off the paychecks.

:0|

It’s a sad world sometimes.

Here's a quote from at least as far back as 2005. R.C. has been working up to his felonious status for a long time. The fact that he felt ok about this statement says a lot of about an addict's powers of denial.

"I try, like most of us, not to be easily offended. I don't like the other idea of other people having to go about on pins and needles because of my weaknesses. But sometimes that's where we end up. We are, after all, all Christians here, and are called to bear one another's burdens. I pray one day my conscience will grow stronger, so that this wouldn't be necessary. But we're not there yet. So here it is. Would you please, so as not to cause me to stumble, stop suggesting that it is wrong to drink alcohol in moderation, or that drinking alcohol in moderation somehow is a failure to love my brothers? Thanks ever so much."

Double, Bubble, Toil and Stumble, by RC Sproul Jr.

Muff Potter wrote:

Barbara Roberts wrote:

Serous help? Haha. Sounds like needs a blood transfusion! …. which is not that far off base: he needs to be born again as this persistent pattern of behaviour shows he is NOT regenerate and is NOT in Christ at all. I wonder whether RC Sproul Senior has accepted that fact yet? I doubt it.

Not born again huh? You sure about that?

Well, according to their own theology, he’s not. When your theology is based on exclusionary principles, you have to accept the consequences when that sword cuts the other direction.

When someone and his behavior is a threat to self and others then that person and his behavior have to be dealt with, as a danger, and strong steps must be taken. It matters not if the ‘problem’ is a ‘sickness’ or a moral failure. The innocent must be protected.

One of the grandparents of my generation has relatively early dementia-the same thing that killed his mother and the same disease that has now stricken him. This is a disease, not a moral failure. He has to be protected from injuring himself or others-regardless of the fact that it is a sickness and not a crime. Nobody blames him, but nobody fails to monitor his behavior either.

We don’t need to be accepting alcohol abuse at any level merely because it may be a ‘disease’. The victim of somebody else’s alcohol is just as much a victim (dead on the road is what I saw over the years) whether the drunk person was ‘self medicating’ or whatever the reason. No excuses. Let the medical personnel deal with motivations, when and if the person ends up in treatment, if they think that is helpful. Society meanwhile needs to jerk people’s licenses away from them and remove them from their jobs when necessary including withdrawing staff privileges at the hospital or refusing admission to the pulpit much less being a truck driver-all of it.

I am so sick of hearing excuses. I can never forget the dead that were dragged in off I-95 into our ER. I can never forget the time they called me back to try to convince some drunk driver to let us get some x-rays of him and they told me that the others that he hurled his large truck into were in the morgue-man, woman and two children. At some deep emotional level if I hear ‘self medicating’ one more time used to minimize reasons, effects or societal responsibilities of alcohol abuse—Arrrgghh. Put a stop to this carnage. For everybody’s sake.

And if it is true what you all say about people looking up to preachers, then right up at the top of people who need their jobs taken away is the drunk preacher.

Off topic. Follow up.

I had surgery Monday. For those who care about ‘women’s issues’ it was an all female surgical team. The same woman surgeon from before and a woman anesthesiologist and more women in scrubs packed into the OR than I thought necessary-but they have their reasons.

But yesterday I had to go back and let them look at a post-op problem that has arisen, and the delightful surgeon in the office who saw me was a man. I liked the way he was thinking and agreed with his conclusions and really liked the way he dealt with the problem and the patient.

So-yeah for women in surgery, but yeah for the men also. Just my take on it. Sure there are some bums out there. But bum-hood is not gender specific.

Leslie wrote:

We had missionaries , elders and some pastors come to our group, they were in such pain and could not share in their Christian communities.@ Velour:

How sad.

Re Sproul, I’m kind of with Jack in that it’s hard to have sympathy for him, because I’ve seen too many other things that bother me. But I have a lot of sympathy for his kids/family, and hope he gets help for their sakes.

westerner wrote:

So here it is. Would you please, so as not to cause me to stumble, stop suggesting that it is wrong to drink alcohol in moderation, or that drinking alcohol in moderation somehow is a failure to love my brothers? Thanks ever so much.”
Double, Bubble, Toil and Stumble, by RC Sproul Jr.

This is interesting…to read his reasoning. I actually completely agree that there is nothing wrong with drinking alcohol in moderation. But to say that is what is causing him to stumble? You have to wonder if people weren’t trying to get him to cool it ages ago and this was his reaction.

Muff Potter wrote:

Barbara Roberts wrote:
Serous help? Haha. Sounds like needs a blood transfusion! …. which is not that far off base: he needs to be born again as this persistent pattern of behaviour shows he is NOT regenerate and is NOT in Christ at all. I wonder whether RC Sproul Senior has accepted that fact yet? I doubt it.
Not born again huh? You sure about that?

As I understand it RC Sproul Jr. is a Calvinist just like his father and thus hold to “TULIP.”

According to the “P” in “TULIP” they believe in the “perseverance of the saints.” This basically states that if one is a true believer or as they put it selected by God for salvation or in their term “unconditional election” this person will not backslide etc. but continue in the faith. If a person “backslides” then they teach this person never was a true believer really never given “irresistible grace.”

Thus if one interprets RC Sproul Jr.’s actions as not persevering then according to what they teach Sproul was never a believer.

I definitely don’t agree with “TULIP” but this is what he and the group is a part of incuding RC Sproul Sr. teach.

So far, nobody has mentioned Jr.’s recent second marriage. As far as CPS removing his kids goes, they probably won’t as long as she remains in the household, unless there is proof of her abetting his drunk driving with kids in the car. She may not have much say over what he does, especially anything involving his children.

@ Deb:
I have more than a few alcoholics in my family, some of whom have passed away, possibly a direct or indirect effect of the alcohol. I have an occasional drink, but honestly can barely muster up the desire for that, given what I’ve seen. Plus I don’t like the way it makes me feel.

Jack wrote:

The best thing for him and those in his orbit, his incarceration.

“His three other criminal charges, two misdemeanors and one other felony, were dismissed under a plea agreement in exchange for his pleading guilty to the one felony.

He was sentenced to 1 year and 183 days incarceration. That prison sentence was suspended and he was remanded to “1 year active adult probation.” – Spinderella Sproul web article

According to the article that Dee quoted, Sproul 2 won’t be going to jail. The best place for him to go for his ‘probation’ is an in-patient treatment facility for alcoholism (and whatever else his problems are that his intake uncovers).

dee wrote:

I believen you may not know that history with JR. He has been defrocked along with other troubles and has worked for years for his father who continued to pay him out of Ligonier funds in spite of his issues. We are looking at years and years of reports. The only way to get an alcoholic to seek treatment is to pull the rug out from under them: no money, support, etc. You get the family together and do an intervention. You get police involved if he is driving under the influence. You get CPS involved to keep checking on he welfare of the children.

Yes.

And anything less is colluding in killing the alcoholic.

Christiane wrote:

seems to me that ‘enabling’ is not the same thing as really helping
and a lot of people think they are helping when they are just enabling the status quo
a hospital detox AND good psychiatric care are NOT the same thing as ‘enabling’ because they are designed to STOP the status quo
so I think that is the way to go
agreed: if a person does not want to stop drinking, they can’t be forced; but if the person gets into enough trouble (ie. developing an alchoholic psychosis), then they have to have help to be restored enough to MAKE a decision about if they want to go forward in a good direction or not
some thoughts

Yes, I remember being part of a group meeting where a social worker talked to a crowd of us about how to deal with an alcoholic in our group. A couple things stood out to me:

– Alcoholism changes the person’s brain. You cannot reason with them because they quite literally cannot think straight. They have their own logic, and it’s different from yours. Things that make perfect sense to you do not compute for the alcoholic, and vice versa.

– When an alcoholic stays sober for a length of time, with the first drink they take, they’re right back where they left off. There is no gradual progression or build-up. (Is this still considered true? That intervention meeting was more than a decade ago, and I know theories can change over time.) If that is the case, the person who says, “Aw, come on. One little drink won’t hurt” is tragically wrong.

(And it’s my understanding that that is the exact attitude of RC Jr. and his followers towards alcoholics in their midst, including a couple of young men who came to learn from him at the Highlands Study Center.)

–

Herringbone wrote:

Muff Potter wrote:
Barbara Roberts wrote:
Serous help? Haha. Sounds like needs a blood transfusion! …. which is not that far off base: he needs to be born again as this persistent pattern of behaviour shows he is NOT regenerate and is NOT in Christ at all. I wonder whether RC Sproul Senior has accepted that fact yet? I doubt it.
Not born again huh? You sure about that?
Well, according to their own theology, he’s not. When your theology is based on exclusionary principles, you have to accept the consequences when that sword cuts the other direction.

Ah, but by their theology, he also bears a certain immunity. Leaders can fail, “like David”, don’t you know? Then as soon as they express repentance (they don’t have to show it, they just have to say the word), they’re restored, and everyone else is supposed to show understanding and forgiveness.

This only applies if you are a member of the in-crowd. If you are a subordinate leader (and maybe not always in lock-step with the top dog), you will be more likely to be asked or forced to step down.

RC Jr., of course, was “top dog” in the congregation(s) he led — because of his father’s reputation and influence, maybe?

refugee wrote:

(And it’s my understanding that that is the exact attitude of RC Jr. and his followers towards alcoholics in their midst, including a couple of young men who came to learn from him at the Highlands Study Center.)

True. RC Sproul Jr has destroyed the lives of quite a few people with alcohol, especially young men who are insecure in their manhood. RC Jr’s message has long been that heavy drinking is “manly” and if you want to be a real man (like him?) you’ll follow his example. Getting a DUI at St. Peter Presbyterian Church was no big deal and driving on a suspended license was also no big deal. Why? Because DUIs are manly.

refugee wrote:

The addict builds up a tolerance over time

Even if you aren’t an addict, you can start to build a tolerance if you drink consistently. (I actually read something recently that was talking about ‘dry January’ or something to reset your tolerance and although I’m sure that wouldn’t be promoted by some, it seems like not a bad idea as far as making sure you don’t actually have a problem.) I guess maybe that’s how this crazy high drinking starts, but imagine drinking a case or two of beer in a day? I get full after two.

Lea wrote:

I don’t know where the line is.

They don’t either. But here may be a hint. If somebody asks themselves where the line is then the line may be something they have already crossed in their own mind, or else why would they even ask.

Like calories. How much can I eat and not gain weight? Answer: not that much so dial it back.

H.A. wrote:

Sorry to burst the bubbles of any here who revere RC Sproul Sr, but as the old adage goes “The nut doesn’t fall very far from the tree.”

Sounds like RC Sr. also needs treatment as do the non-drinkers in the family.

@ Brian

Very sorry Brian. Much Love 😉

Mae wrote:

Imagine if I, a member of one of these churches, a lowly women less, was caught gambling or driving under the influence? Don’t imagine anything but being run out on a rail. Yet, for famous pastors we have excuses….amazing

Rank Hath Its Privileges,
and Rank awarded by Divine Right Hath the Most Privileges of All.

H.A. wrote:

RC Jr’s message has long been that heavy drinking is “manly” and if you want to be a real man (like him?) you’ll follow his example. Getting a DUI at St. Peter Presbyterian Church was no big deal and driving on a suspended license was also no big deal. Why? Because DUIs are manly.

Could this be Justification by “If Everybody’s Doing It…”?

As recovering alcoholic Steven King put it, “Alkies drink because that’s what Alkies do. To an Alky, the Constitutional Right to My Next Drink cannot be violated in any way.”

refugee wrote:

It sounds to me like he has a different definition for “in moderation”.

More like “As much as I can, as strong as I can, to get as hammered as I can, as fast as I can”?

H.A. wrote:

I’m convinced that’s exactly what Mr. and Mrs. (Vesta) Sproul have done to their “Precious.”

Remember what happened to Gollum and his PRECIOUSSSSSSSSSSSS…

Linn wrote:

I checked out the comments on the Spinderella blog. RC2 sponsors keggers for staff in which alcohol is served to CHILDREN!! He mocks people who don’t drink like he does.

Because if everyone drinks like he does, it then becomes NORMAL!
“EVERYBODY’S DOING IT! SEE? SEE? SEE?”
Sounds like Alcoholic Logic to me.

“instead of acting like teenage boys trying to impress each other.”

It is impressive and respectable when one man has the confidence to tell a group of men ((NO)) to drinking when he does not want to or talking vulgar with the boys.

For Sproul Jr. to only get probation and no prison term must have been the result of having a good lawyer. I am sure that Sproul Sr. paid for that. If so, a shame he did. Prison might have done Sproul some good. If nothing else get a dose of reality.

Steve240 wrote:

For Sproul Jr. to only get probation and no prison term must have been the result of having a good lawyer.

Our justice system and plea deals and the pitfalls of that could be a whole topic. I've been listening to true crime lately and there is SO much 'this person probably murdered their wife but they plead down so they only got a year' and 'this person wasn't charged for rape about 5 times for lack of evidence and then oops, they turned out to be a serial killer and none of that was on file' stuff. It's disturbing.

PaJo wrote:

Sr. can’t make Jr. stop drinking.
Sr. CAN keep Jr. from standing in the pulpit.
Sr. can’t stop Jr. from spending his money on alcohol.
Sr. CAN cut off the paychecks.

re: Sr. can keep Jr. from standing in the pulpit: This is not true. RC2 started his own brand of churches after he was defrocked by his father’s group.

It is very sad that money, power and prestige can buy one out of justice. A sort of similar tale in our county. Just last week our District Attorney got brought up on 13 felony counts. He pleaded no contest to one and the rest were dismissed. He got a $350 fine and 250 hours of community service. No prison time. He did get booted out of office and will most ptobably lose his law license .

@ okrapod:
Hope you feel better soon

Julie Anne wrote:

re: Sr. can keep Jr. from standing in the pulpit: This is not true. RC2 started his own brand of churches after he was defrocked by his father’s group.

A “brand of churches” implies plural churches like a denomination. RC Jr never did start “his own brand of churches after he was defrocked by his father’s group.” So wrong on both counts.

1. He was defrocked by the RPCGA, a denomination his father never had anything to do with. 2. After he was defrocked he stayed as head pastor of St. Peter Presbyterian Church but changed his and his church’s affiliation to Doug Wilson’s CREC. After burning his bridges there he left and joined the CPC, another denom he had nothing to do with starting. After he left St. Peter Presbyterian in 2010 to move to Orlando and join Ligonier Ministries he also part-time preached at a couple of tiny churches started by others, the first of which he was shown the door for stealing church moneys, and the second of which was started by a personal friend of his. 3. His father most definitely “CAN keep Jr. from standing in the pulpit.” Without Sr’s support Jr would have had no choice but to seek another vocation in 2006 after his defrocking. Sr is 100% responsible for keeping him in the pulpit, both via Ligonier conferences and through his personal influence. It’s all about the name “Sproul” and his father’s personal influence over other ministers. They all knew that by inviting Jr into their pulpits in their churches and at their conferences it would buy them favor with the old man. Sr didn’t dissuade them he encouraged it. Sproul Sr is his son’s enabler.

@ Velour:

In all fairness, that is not what Barbara said. She said specifically this person and she specified because of his prominence.

I would tend to agree with her about this person, assuming that he has, as some have claimed, publicly and speaking from some position of religious prominence defended his actions. That is a whole different level of bad behavior. This man, if all that is being said is true, is guilty of causing scandal-that is lots worse than just being some pitiful old drunk.

Julie Anne wrote:

started his own brand of churches after he was defrocked by his father’s group.

Ugh. I had forgotten that. Then it is up to the people who see this going on to stop it. One way or another.

I don’t have a lot of hope that this will happen, however. There are some people who can con their way into whatever position they want, even in a denomination that has a “superstructure.” 30 years ago, a minister in my then-denomination, one with a national/regional/local superstructure, had an affair with a counslee, and embezzled some money. He was fired from the local/regional, and the local/regional bore the lawsuit and payout of the woman. They guy went to another church in the same denomination and “auditioned” or whatever you call it for the head preacher job. Our church told that church’s search committee *everything* that had gone on….and they still hired the guy. Unbelievable. And guess what… Yeah. NOW he is a chaplain and accountant for a senior care facility. I think.

With all of that information available, and with all that superstructure that is supposed to protect people (and it would have had the people listened), he still gets hired.

It’s bewildering.

Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

RC Sproul has a very twisted view of the Trinity and the Crucifixion. Is it possible that his son is reacting to the terrible theology he was taught? We don’t know. But we do know what RC Sproul teaches, and it is very damaging.

Yes, indeed; RC Sproul Snr (and his buddy MacArthur) is one of the most dangerous false teachers around, spewing forth a false gospel; and wasn’t he the one who had advocated that “Christians (his version of it) should watch filthy movies and so on? He is damaging indeed, and the fruits are showing. All. Too. Clearly.

Velour wrote:

Barbara Roberts wrote:

R C Sproul Junior needs to be put out of the church and that needs to be very publicly done because he has been so significant at Ligonier. 1 Corinthians 5:11-13.

What a hateful thing to recommend that be done for someone with a serious substance abuse problem. He needs to be in an in-patient treatment program. He needs a skill-intervention by those people around him.

(P.S. I was excommunicated from my NeoCalvinist church on a trumped up charge, like the godly doctor in his 70’s before me, and a godly middle-aged woman in finance before him.)

Velour, so sorry to hear you were unjustly excommunicated. I think that experience may be clouding your reading here.

Barbara wasn’t saying that RC Jr should be thrown out of the church because he’s an alcoholic (although some might argue driving drunk with your kids in the car might qualify). She said, “he needs to be born again as this persistent pattern of behaviour shows he is NOT regenerate and is NOT in Christ at all.” In my view and experience with RC Jr she’s absolutely correct. Please explain to us how her logic is flawed. How can an unregenerate unrepentant un-remorseful drunkard be allowed to pass himself off as a member in good standing of any Bible believing church? RC Jr is all about “covenant theology.” What does it say of the covenant when all that is necessary to be a covenant member is you’ve been baptized as an infant but you can go on sinning like the devil with no remorse for your wickedness?

Would it help your perspective any to know that RC Jr has unjustly excommunicated entire families, and we’re not just talking a few, including small children, for the alleged “sins” of their parents? In most cases those “sins” were nothing more than they wanted to leave his church for another church. He calls it “contumacy” and “breaking your covenant vows.” You could join St. Peter Presbyterian easily but just try leaving without his permission, and getting permission was impossible unless you had a good reason to be moving far away. Joining another church across town was never a good enough reason.

@ Velour:

This comment is where you brought forward Barbara’s comment about the question at issue.

“R C Sproul Junior needs to be put out of the church and that needs to be very publicly done because he has been so significant at Ligonier. 1 Corinthians 5:11-13.”

I am commenting on the same statement you commented on. I just happen to see the religious and public aspects of this differently from how you see it.

H.A. wrote:

Would it help your perspective any to know that RC Jr has unjustly excommunicated entire families, and we’re not just talking a few, including small children, for the alleged “sins” of their parents?

Disgusting!

okrapod wrote:

I just happen to see the religious and public aspects of this differently from how you see it.

I think it’s a huge problem that he is still in ministry. It’s not just the alcohol abuse. IT’s all the things! I don’t know what Barbara meant specifically, but I find it hard to think well of him at all, considering what I’ve read. I also am of the opinion that alcohol does not change who a personal fundamentally is. (aside from neurological difficulties that may come after an extended time period). Alcohol is generally an excuse.

Velour wrote:

at no time did she mention in-patient medical treatment for R.C. Sproul 2’s drinking

We don’t know enough about Sproul to know if he needs inpatient or outpatient medical treatment, but neither is likely to work if he isn’t actually interested in quitting.

I am all for using these tools but they are not a panacea. They will not change who the man fundamentally is.

Lea wrote:

Velour wrote:
at no time did she mention in-patient medical treatment for R.C. Sproul 2’s drinking
We don’t know enough about Sproul to know if he needs inpatient or outpatient medical treatment, but neither is likely to work if he isn’t actually interested in quitting.
I am all for using these tools but they are not a panacea. They will not change who the man fundamentally is.

Most alcoholics go to in-patient treatment programs for 30 days to 90 days. Of course people have to ‘want’ sobriety for it to work. But getting someone into treatment is the first step of many to helping them.

Having their family members go to programs like Al-Anon helps as well, as they learn not to enable the alcoholic and to take care of themselves.

Perhaps you have very little experience with people (men and women) who have gotten clean and sober. There are many lovely ones and I count several as close friends. They are not consigned to their pasts.

Velour wrote:

Most alcoholics go to in-patient treatment programs for 30 days to 90 days.

I really doubt most alcoholics CAN go to inpatient treatment for 30 let alone 90 days. Would love to see some stats on that.

Outpatient treatment is not a bad thing.

Velour wrote:

Perhaps you have very little experience with people (men and women) who have gotten clean and sober.

You assume a lot and you would be wrong. Okrapod is a doctor and I work in mental health. I think you are misunderstanding me.

@ Boston Lady:

Thank you for your kind comment.

Hugs.

Lea wrote:

Okrapod is a doctor

That is not the point. I am not the one who is talking about diagnosis or treatment variables. I am not the one who is saying how people should get people into treatment programs. I have said nothing medical at all in any way.

I have been talking about how the church should react in the face of this sort of egregious behavior. The church. Not the family, not the legal system, not the medical people-the church.

Lea wrote:

Velour wrote:
Most alcoholics go to in-patient treatment programs for 30 days to 90 days.
I really doubt most alcoholics CAN go to inpatient treatment for 30 let alone 90 days. Would love to see some stats on that.
Outpatient treatment is not a bad thing.
Velour wrote:
Perhaps you have very little experience with people (men and women) who have gotten clean and sober.
You assume a lot and you would be wrong. Okrapod is a doctor and I work in mental health. I think you are misunderstanding me.

OK, where I live most alcoholics go to in-patient treatment. But yes, out-patient treatment would also work.

Okrapod, I thought, worked in radiology or something along those lines. I don’t think Okrapod specialized in treatment of alcoholics and substance abusers. (I figured that if you had a DSM book that you were in mental health in some capacity, and I’ve read your other comments on other threads.)

My specific concern about Barbara’s comment, and others like it, is that’s NOT how substance abusers are supposed to be handled, or for that matter their families. Yes, job loss should happen for Sproul 2, but with the church directing him and supporting him into treatment.

If RC Sproul 2 eventually gets clean and sober and makes amends, with the help of a recovery sponsor who mentors him, I am sure that he will have a lot of wreckage to clean up at his former churches.

Leslie wrote:

It is very sad that money, power and prestige can buy one out of justice. A sort of similar tale in our county. Just last week our District Attorney got brought up on 13 felony counts. He pleaded no contest to one and the rest were dismissed. He got a $350 fine and 250 hours of community service. No prison time. He did get booted out of office and will most ptobably lose his law license .

Rank Hath Its Privileges.
And One Hand Washes the Other.

H.A. wrote:

Then I agree with both of you.

Thank you for your thoughtful comment to me. I agree with what you wrote about Sproul 2 and how the different problems should be handled.

Velour wrote:

OK, where I live most alcoholics go to in-patient treatment.

30-90 day inpatient treatment is cost prohibitive for a lot of people, even if they wanted to go. 

Velour wrote:

My specific concern about Barbara’s comment, and others like it, is that’s NOT how substance abusers are supposed to be handled

I don't think barbara was making a medical argument, though. I would be very surprised if he hadn't at least been required to go to a few meetings.

A very good article by a Christian woman named Heather who is also a recovering alcoholic.
https://rachelheldevans.com/blog/ask-a-recovering-alcopholic-response-heather-kopp

Her book is called Sober Mercies

(*I am not endorsing Rachel Held Evans, this is just the website where I found the article.)

dee wrote:

Lea wrote:
I’d be pretty surprised if this plea deal/arrest didn’t come with some sort of treatment required/AA. I
Usually that requirement is listed in the sentencing.

Then the plea deal is even worse than listed. He’s not going to jail or treatment? What is that about?

Velour wrote:

The church frequently blows it on things like this, without proper training and guidance.
The proper course of action is to not enable someone and to get them into a treatment program.
By the way, you have posted before what area of medicine you worked in. Wasn’t it radiology or something like that?

Two very separate issues here. First I do not agree that it is the church’s responsibility to have any medical opinions about people, or try to channel them into any treatment options, or to espouse any particular medical opinions as the official opinions or procedures of the church. I believe that the church, as church, needs to stay out of it. You and I differ on this, and I see no agreement between us on the issue of what is the rightful place of the church in such matters.

You asked why my specialty was. After internship I started a residency in psychiatry but I did not finish the residence. Then for a while I was admitting staff physician in charge of adult female admissions at a large psychiatric hospital. I then got entirely away from that direction and went into radiology. Radiology was the only thing I was board certified in. After a total of 35 years I got entirely out of ‘clinical’ and went into what the licensure people call ‘administrative’ which is a wastebasket term for non-clinical and did that for 15 years. The job description was ‘medical officer, non-clinical’ for the VA in which I reviewed medical records and tried to explain medical things to people who had no medical training, including but not limited to the lawyers on the BVA (Board of Veterans Appeals). The federal government actually paid me to be an explainer. That was a waste of time.

And FWIW as an RN I did mostly OB except for one year in public health with my little black bag in the slums of my home town.

To my knowledge I have never expressed a medical opinion here; other opinions you bet, but never ‘as a medical professional I think…’. It would be unethical for me to do so. I have not crossed that line to my knowledge. Bear in mind the differences between (a) information, (b) personal opinion and (c) medical opinion. Vastly different things.

So, my personal opinion is that churches need to stay out of medicine and medicine needs to stay out of religion and pew people as well as leadership need to try very hard to quit trying to tell each other what to do in the areas of medicine and certain other areas which we are not discussing here right now. In keeping with that opinion I do not feel that it is my responsibility to try to make anybody agree with me on this issue, nor my responsibility to agree with anybody else not even agree with the majority opinion should there be such a thing.

Christiane wrote:

Isn’t there some kind of authoritative oversight in the Presbyterian denomination? One that would intervene when a pastor went this rogue? Jr. sounds like he’s running a cult, not a Presbyterian Church.

Yes, there sure is. It doesn’t always work when you are in the Boy’s Club or RC1’s son. Reports I have read from many who attended St. Peter indicated that it was run like a cult. When there are cover-ups to protect the leader, whole families shunned because they don’t like the church, those are certainly red flags.

okrapod wrote:

First I do not agree that it is the church’s responsibility to have any medical opinions about people, or try to channel them into any treatment options, or to espouse any particular medical opinions as the official opinions or procedures of the church. I believe that the church, as church, needs to stay out of it. You and I differ on this, and I see no agreement between us on the issue of what is the rightful place of the church in such matters.

I see getting someone into treatment for a major addiction as the responsible thing for a church/employer to do as well as a Christian act of mercy. Both for the substance abuser
and for their family who need help dealing with an alcoholic.

Churches frequently blow it on all of the ‘big issues’ — mental health, domestic violence, divorce, and sexual abuse — because they remain unteachable and think they have all of the answers. And they don’t. It would be nice if church leaders humbled themselves and got advice from professionals who know how to handle these situations.

Julie Anne wrote:

Velour wrote:
I happen to see the public health aspects of alcoholism and drug addiction differently than you and Barbara (and Julie Anne) see them.
How do you see it different from me? I don’t think I’ve revealed much of anything on my views for you to make such a statement.

Hi Julie Anne,

You responded to me that you think that Sproul 2: “should be put out based on his ongoing chronic abuse behaviors, some behaviors that have not been mentioned here (including his abuse of alcohol which has put kids in harm’s way).”

You’ve posted several comments about this and never mentioned that Sproul 2’s church should get him into treatment for alcoholism (and whatever else ails him). Why not?

How does it help children to have an alcoholic parent ‘put out’ of a church and not gotten into treatment for alcoholics?

okrapod wrote:

@ Velour:
You have a good heart. You seem to think more highly of church than I do in these matters, however, because I think that getting church to perform up to speed in these areas is a hopeless quest. Yes it would be nice, but I just don’t see it happening. In this issue I hope that your apparent hope is justified.

Thanks, Okrapod.

I just see it as our obligation as Christians to do these things: get help and services for people, point them in the right direction. The idea of just kicking someone to the curb and not getting them help (and help for their family) is not the ‘Christian’ thing to do, in my opinion.

linda wrote:

Can you find out for us if this was a New Calvinist takeover thing?

It appears so, based on this article: https://baptistnews.com/article/satisfaction-guaranteed-southern-baptists-refute-efforts-soften-atonement/#.WUxPq-mQzIU

Julie Anne wrote:

The ideal situation IMHO is to get him out of ministry entirely and get help for his family so they understand alcoholism.

Agreed, Julie Anne.

Boston Lady wrote:

Yes, indeed; RC Sproul Snr (and his buddy MacArthur) is one of the most dangerous false teachers around, spewing forth a false gospel;

Max often reminds us that most Baptist churchgoers don’t pay much attention to theology. I think it’s the same for followers of RC Sproul as well (and John MacArthur). Now that I’ve been spending more time reading what they write, I am shocked that they have any platform at all. People need to wake up.

Christiane wrote:

Velour wrote:
You could join St. Peter Presbyterian easily but just try leaving without his permission, and getting permission was impossible unless you had a good reason to be moving far away. Joining another church across town was never a good enough reason.
Isn’t there some kind of authoritative oversight in the Presbyterian denomination? One that would intervene when a pastor went this rogue? Jr. sounds like he’s running a cult, not a Presbyterian Church.

Yes! Yes! Exactly.

That is exactly what RC Jr. and like-minded men are running, and many are running their cults under the protective coloration of a mainline denomination, such as the PCA or the SBC.

We came out of one of those churches. My heart goes out to the commenter who mentioned loved ones still caught in the clutches of St. Peter’s. We have friends who still go to our former church who are blind and brainwashed.

We could not see how brainwashed we had been until we had gained some distance, time, and perspective. Now I can look back and say, “How in the world did we not see how destructive their theology and community was?”

However it might have happened, we did not see it until we were out.

mot wrote:

Wonder what will happen to churches or SBC leaders if they are not willing to sign off on this resolution?

I’m wondering what it means for people like me who are members of SBC churches that are not (yet) Calvinistic.

Velour wrote:

My specific concern about Barbara’s comment, and others like it, is that’s NOT how substance abusers are supposed to be handled, or for that matter their families. Yes, job loss should happen for Sproul 2, but with the church directing him and supporting him into treatment.

Just think of him as the Mark Driscoll of his particular church/whatever denomination he may be claiming these days.

Even if his church wanted to help him get clean and sober and go into treatment, he very likely has the people under him (the ones who stay) brainwashed enough that they believe that a) he can do no wrong, and b) if he is said to have done something wrong, it is actually persecution and not that he has done anything wrong, because… (see point “a”).

The elders at our former church were quite enamored of RC Sr, RC Jr, and their teachings.

dee wrote:

Jack wrote:

The guy may have suffered tragedy but we all do in some way, shape or form. There’s still no excuse to be an abuser of others.

To say that this is the reason he abuses alcohol is obfuscating the real fact that not everyone who goes through tragedy becomes an alcoholic. For example, when my daughter was diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor, I struggled and eventually went on a psychotropic drug for about 6-8 months that helped me considerable. I am no longer on that drug. I realized I was consumed with anxiety and I sought professional help. We have to be humble to accept help, especially if you think you should be a perfect Christian.

I always encourage people who need help to see professionals.

Your situation reminds us that there are ‘excuses’ and there are ‘reasons’ and your real anxiety over your daughter’s illness was a REASON, not an excuse for medicating ….. you were right to get help and thank God you did.

In my family, there was a sudden death and one of the parents reacted with extremely heavy drinking (binge) and ended up with delirium, shaking, and experiencing auditory hallucinations and feelings of being persecuted … a psychotic break. He was hospitalized, detoxed, and put into psychiatric care with good follow-up and today, he is not drinking and no longer has the severe symptoms. He is living under the supervision of other strong, caring family members who watch over him and he is slowly regaining his ability to function normally, as well as his dignity.

@ Velour:
Thank you. I’m glad you got out of your situation, too, and have learned much from reading your comments and resources.

dee wrote:

it is not the same as a disease which is not brought on by the choice of behavior

Agreed. If alcoholism is a “disease”, it’s the only one you can buy in a bottle. Addictive behavior can certainly impact the mind and body, so that the medical community has to eventually treat the consequences of alcohol abuse. Addiction, rather than disease, is a better way to characterize alcoholism IMO.

Years ago, I led a Bible study of workplace colleagues in which a young man confessed that he was struggling with excessive drinking because he was the son of an alcoholic. I advised him that with Jesus’ help he could choose not to walk that path. The group gathered around him to pray. After struggling with this for years, it was like a light bulb was turned on. From that day forward, he chose not to drink. That night, he was literally set free … 30 years later, I still communicate with him – he is not the alcoholic he feared he would become.

refugee wrote:

Believe me, I am all for treatment, and I am extremely frustrated that there seems to be no way to help someone who doesn’t want treatment, whether they deny they have a problem, or they admit that they have a problem but they don’t want treatment anyway.

I have heard that alcoholism which begins as a reaction to another issue, can become itself an issue as large and consuming as the original one.
In short, what began as a ‘symptom’ or ‘presenting problem’ of some deeper problem takes over and then becomes a worse issue, a consuming vicious ‘solution’ to the original suffering. In cases like this, I can’t see abandoning the person but the WORST thing to do would be to ‘stand by them’ and ‘enable’ their alcoholism. THEN, the problem grows even larger.

It’s too much for some families. Outside help IS best when family members are too emotionally close to the problem and can’t find their way alone.

Velour wrote:

To answer your question, I would feel the same way if it were my ex-NeoCalvinist pastor who was caught doing the same thing Sproul 2 has done. Trying to save children from the hell of an actively alcoholic parent is a good thing. (Besides if it were my ex-pastor, and he was working with a sponsor in a 12-step program, my name would eventually make it to the 9th Step list of the people he had harmed and had to make amends to!)

I guess I put my question badly, for I wasn’t asking if your feelings would change based on the identity of the person, but rather the nature of what that person lives and teaches and imposes on others. (Which, admittedly, was not a part of the original discussion.)

If we were discussing instead your ex-pastor, I might imagine that those who surround him would be enabling him and calling it support, as an extension of the culture of the place where they seemed to see nothing wrong with unconditionally supporting their Megan’s list friend.

My point was that RC Jr. appears to be / have been a controlling cult leader, which is similar to what your ex-pastor sounds like from what I remember reading.

Again, I realize that was not the point of the original argument. I was just thinking out loud. I thought perhaps that JA and Barbara were referring to the entirety of RC Jr’s choices and damage inflicted from his lofty position as spiritual authority, even though from the context that wasn’t obvious. I kind of understood what they were saying because I came from a church that was very chummy with Sproul Jr and his teachings.

I also see your point, that his family might be better off if he got treatment. Unfortunately, drunk or sober, he espouses patriarchy, even to the point of rumored wife-spanking.

We all pretty much know what the ideal scenarios are for alcoholics. Unfortunately, it is usually an entirely different story getting those scenarios to take place.

Velour wrote:

But interventions and treatment does work. And it’s important to try.

Amen! In the 12-point plans that are out there, an alcoholic would do well to pick Jesus as his “higher power.” You would think a preacher would have that figured out. Unfortunately, even preachers succumb to the flesh by straying from being led by the Spirit … where flesh rules over Spirit. It is not predestined – it is chosen.

Bridget wrote:

Velour wrote:
But interventions and treatment does work. And it’s important to try.
It works some of the time. Not always. Often it is tried multiple times. No one has said we shouldn’t try.

Actually, yes, several people have never mentioned treatment. Barbra said that R.C. Sproul 2 should be kicked out of his church and that he wasn’t really a believer, etc.

mot wrote:

Wonder what will happen to churches or SBC leaders if they are not willing to sign off on this resolution?

I’m wondering if a 2018 resolution will be about “depravity” or the “elect”????

Velour wrote:

If he Sproul gets clean and sober he will probably ditch many ideas that he used to justify including patriarchy.

I’m not sure about that. I know plenty of cold sober people who embrace patriarchy.

However, I do appreciate your emphasis on treatment. It is difficult to watch someone you care about who seems bent on a path of self-destruction, and be helpless to do anything but pray.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

More setting up for “But Everybody’s Doing It!”?

HUG, precisely… Paving the way, so to speak. Making the excuses in advance; yes. Sick lot.

Velour wrote:

Bridget wrote:
It works some of the time. Not always. Often it is tried multiple times. No one has said we shouldn’t try.

Velour said: Actually, yes, several people have never mentioned treatment. Barbra said that R.C. Sproul 2 should be kicked out of his church and that he wasn’t really a believer, etc.

Velour, please do not be so quick to assume that because someone failed to mention treatment, that they are against it. There is more than one issue going on with RC2: alcoholism, spiritual abuse, unrepentant heart, etc. I am not against treatment, and Barbara did not say her opinion, so until she specifies, we cannot assume.

I should add… Someone (I don't know who) has definitely enabled RC Jr to drink TO EXCESS…

Velour wrote:

If he Sproul gets clean and sober he will probably ditch many ideas that he used to justify including patriarchy.

I respectfully disagree. He’ll become a sober endorser of patriarchy.
He’s like Driscoll and so many others.
He’s has experienced tragedy and he needs treatment but at the core is still an odious personality.

These men have made fortunes off the backs of faithful, trusting people.

Without accountability, anything else is worthless.

I feel for his family and his victims but there won’t be any hugs coming from my direction.

Velour wrote:

Actually, yes, several people have never mentioned treatment. Barbra said that R.C. Sproul 2 should be kicked out of his church and that he wasn’t really a believer, etc.

I don’t think we can assume that a person not mentioning getting treatment in a blog post means they don’t “believe” in people getting treatment. They simply didn’t give an opinion about it in that comment.

any man who drives drunk with his own children in the car has got more problems than just alcoholism, yes

Some other thoughts.

It is one thing for someone like R.C. Sproul Jr to have a problem with alcohol and be getting drunk repeatedly as people are saying. That is bad enough but when the person can’t control themselves from driving when they are under the influence of alcohol makes this a lot worse in so many ways and more so when has children riding in the car with him when he is drunk. A lot of injury can be done by someone driving under the influence of alcohol.

I do wonder why so many people continue to support R.C. Sproul Jr. and even his father Sr. Do you think that this is the best use of their contributions to give to Ligonier Ministries when they are used to support someone like R.C. Sproul Jr and his drunk lifestyle etc. Hopefully exposure like with this blog and especially the Spinderalla blog helps expose it.

Why do so many people not realize they are doing what Paul refers to here in II Cor 11 19-21:

For you, being so wise, tolerate the foolish gladly. For you tolerate it if anyone enslaves you, anyone devours you, anyone takes advantage of you, anyone exalts himself, anyone hits you in the face. To my shame I must say that we have been weak by comparison.

Then again for a period of time in my life I bought into leaders like these. It can happen. The Steve Hassen Youtube link helps explain that. When you are in a bubble and surrounded by a bunch of other people buying into the same false information and teachers it can be hard to realize just how deceived the group and you are. Much easier to see when you are out of “bubble” like this.

@ Ken G:

I don’t know whether there’s a formal definition, or even consensus, on what makes an alcoholic. But I would have thought a non-alcoholic can always go without alcohol: that is, it’s an issue of choice and control.

Nancy2 (aka Kevlar) wrote:

mot wrote:

Wonder what will happen to churches or SBC leaders if they are not willing to sign off on this resolution?

I’m wondering if a 2018 resolution will be about “depravity” or the “elect”????

I would not doubt it all. Sadly the SBC expects everyone to be in lock step and they do everything they can to create fear in leader’s lives that they will lose their paying positions. For me these people are PURE EVIL!!

@ Deb:

Ouch. Double ouch. With that much trauma to the face I would tend to say that you are fortunate to not have sustained crippling injuries to your neck and/or traumatic brain injury.

And yes, the drunk chose to drive. His addiction did not force him to drive, and his addiction did not force him choose alcohol rather than treatment, assuming he was actually addicted.

mot wrote:

Nancy2 (aka Kevlar) wrote:

mot wrote:

Wonder what will happen to churches or SBC leaders if they are not willing to sign off on this resolution?

I’m wondering if a 2018 resolution will be about “depravity” or the “elect”????

I would not doubt it all. Sadly the SBC expects everyone to be in lock step and they do everything they can to create fear in leader’s lives that they will lose their paying positions. For me these people are PURE EVIL!!

I fully expect the 2000 BF&M to be modified in the future to make it more Calvinistic.

@ okrapod:
God gave me a second chance, and I’m very grateful!

@ okrapod:
Also, we know both vehicles were traveling at 60 mph upon impact. A highway patrolman searching for the drunk driver who had been reported by someone witnessed the crash.

Ken G wrote:

I know several individuals who consume large amounts of alcohol on a regular basis and seem to have normal lives and hold down great jobs or are self employed.

So… these people have a high tolerance for alcohol, habitually drink large amounts ‘on a regular basis’ and your first impression is that they may not be alcoholics? So…as far as you know they have adequate job performance, so…so did Winston Churchill. So these people are not mean or manipulative as far as you know, but the last time you saw one their wives try to tell them they had too much on board, what was their reaction…sweetness and light…thank you dear for reminding me? Or do you not know?

If they carry their lunch is there a bit of the recipe in their thermos? Do they choose their friends among other heavy drinkers? Do they look for excuses to have the equivalent of one for the road? The last time their PCP prescribed a pain killer without knowing the patients’ drinking habits what problems with the med did you notice? Are they defensive about their drinking habits, ever ready with an excuse even when one is not needed, sensitive to perceived criticism more than most? Do they criticize non-drinkers?

More than that, how do you know what their drinking habits are? Did they brag about how much they can drink, allude to their prowess with the bottle? Under what circumstances did you become aware of alcohol abuse in these people-that might be a tip off.

People do not drink large amounts habitually and still live ‘your best life now’. Those two do not go together. There is more to the story with these people.

@ Christiane:
Back in 1972 shoulder seat belts weren’t installed in vehicles. This truck had lap belts, which I’m pretty sure we weren’t using. It wasn’t a law back then.

As the kid of an alcoholic & as a (former) wife who had her husband arrested (& convicted) for drunk driving I have to admit my patience with problem drinkers is very very thin because of the levels of devastation they inflict on others. I work with a lot of young people who have an alcoholic parent – just met a new one today – & it guts families & childhoods. I feel so sorry for those kids – all my kids of alcoholics now use my term ‘stupid juice’ for alcohol because your intelligent parent becomes an intellectual & moral moron when drinking & think they can lie with impunity. It’s so embarrassing on top of everything else. And then there’s the delightful habit they have of wanting everyone around them to drink heavily – as Sproul is reported to have done – to normalise their issues.

I hope Sproul Jr gets help, but tbh his theology preaches such a hateful God that if I had to believe it I’d turn to drink too. How do you realistically deal with the tragedies he’s faced with those beliefs? Awful.

A gamer I knew got rammed and killed by a drunk driver around 20 years ago. (Guy was kind of a jerk, but still…) He was taking a shortcut home from work on his motorcycle when a drunk head-oned his bike. Talk-and-die Syndrome; taken to the hospital where they spent most of the time and effort repairing/removing his spleen; they didn’t notice the slow brain-bleed/brain swelling; went critical overnight and he died the next morning. Drunk driver got Vehicular Manslaughter (if not outright Murder) added to his DUI.

My own experience with a probable was one night when I was going down Orange Ave in Anaheim at night. The street is a two-laner through Fifties-vintage tract homes, and I was eastbound somewhere between Brookhurst & Euclid when I noticed the headlights coming towards me looked WRONG. Like they were in my lane. This was still a ways off, so I turned into the first driveway and waited. Sure enough, car driving very slowly and deliberately down the wrong side of the street.

Drunks do not necessarily drive all wild and out-of-control. They also drive very slowly and deliberately, overcontrolling.

Beakerj wrote:

all my kids of alcoholics now use my term ‘stupid juice’ for alcohol because your intelligent parent becomes an intellectual & moral moron when drinking & think they can lie with impunity. It’s so embarrassing on top of everything else.

As Mel Gibson found out the hard way a few years ago. His ethanol-fueled rant in the back seat of that cop car got described as “Instant A-hole; Just Add Alcohol.”

H.A. wrote:

Claire wrote:

He has suffered tragedies, yes. Many of us have suffered tragedies. This does not give any of us an excuse to walk in disobedience to the Lord as he has.

By creating a false correlation you just gave him the excuse he needs, and you’re not the only one here who keeps doing it

To be Faire To Claire, I rather think she was denying, not creating, the correlation, but your point is otherwise important.

His fowl testimony presumes a repeat performance.

Sopwith wrote:

“You’re not drunk if you can lean on the pulpit without holding on.” -RC Sproul Jr.

Now THAT is a Serious Sauce Hound speaking.

Nick Bulbeck wrote:

To be Faire To Claire, I rather think she was denying, not creating, the correlation

I meant no offense to Claire, nor did I intend to pick on her specifically. She was just the last in a long line of others before her who have brought it up. It needs to stop.

Deb wrote:

I have updated the post with photos of the injuries I sustained almost 45 years ago because someone chose to drink and drive.

@Deb, it’s hard for me to express the outrage I feel for the drunk driver who took the lives of your friend’s parents and for the physical and emotional suffering they inflicted on you and your friend.

Drunk driving is one of the most selfish things a human being can do. It’s absolutely inexcusable.

In a practical sense drunk drivers express a form of contempt toward others as malevolent as any ISIS terrorist. Hopefully one day our judicial system will get that. People should not have to die or be maimed before our courts meet out punishments that suit the crime.

Deb wrote:

I have updated the post with photos of the injuries I sustained almost 45 years ago because someone chose to drink and drive.
Scroll down to the bottom of the post.

Horrific…..emotionally, physically , life changing in every way.
Drunk/ drug driving maims and kills. No excuses for it, ever.

@ H.A.:
Agreed!

Julie Anne wrote:

Velour wrote:
Bridget wrote:
It works some of the time. Not always. Often it is tried multiple times. No one has said we shouldn’t try.
Velour said: Actually, yes, several people have never mentioned treatment. Barbra said that R.C. Sproul 2 should be kicked out of his church and that he wasn’t really a believer, etc.
Velour, please do not be so quick to assume that because someone failed to mention treatment, that they are against it. There is more than one issue going on with RC2: alcoholism, spiritual abuse, unrepentant heart, etc. I am not against treatment, and Barbara did not say her opinion, so until she specifies, we cannot assume.

Hi Julie Anne,

Barbara could have easily included treatment for alcoholism in her comment. Instead she said “ha ha” and discussed kicking him out of the church, complete with scripture verses to justify the deed. (For readers that don’t know Barbara, she and Jeff Crippen write over at the A Cry for Justice blog about domestic violence in the church.)

I take Barbara and what she stated. And she showed that she had no clue what kinds of intervention should be done for an alcoholic (or substance abuser) in getting them into treatment and getting help for their spouse and children. Barbara trotted out the classic evangelical line that people with these problems aren’t real Christians, aren’t bearing fruit, etc.

Yes, the church should “raise the bottom” on the alcoholic by terminating his job and not enabling him. But the church should also do their level-best to get him into treatment since he’s a full-blown alcoholic with all of the classic symptoms. The church should do their level-best to get help for his wife and children.

Here is an article by a Christian woman Heather, the author of Sober Mercies, about her own journey as a recovering alcoholic. https://rachelheldevans.com/blog/ask-a-recovering-alcopholic-response-heather-kopp

Christiane wrote:

any man who drives drunk with his own children in the car has got more problems than just alcoholism, yes

It is beyond my comprehension 🙁

Shame on Junior!

Lea wrote:

Velour wrote:
OK, where I live most alcoholics go to in-patient treatment.
30-90 day inpatient treatment is cost prohibitive for a lot of people, even if they wanted to go. 
Velour wrote:
My specific concern about Barbara’s comment, and others like it, is that’s NOT how substance abusers are supposed to be handled
I don’t think barbara was making a medical argument, though. I would be very surprised if he hadn’t at least been required to go to a few meetings.

I agree with you that the judge probably ordered that Sproul Jr. go to some 12-step recovery meetings, as that is normal what the probation department would recommend in their report to the court.

The church can also play an important role, and probably has the financial resources, to get Sproul 2 into a treatment program and to come alongside his children and second wife and get them help too.

Leslie wrote:

That was the purpose of our Parents Concerned ministry. We were basically a para church ministry. Churches through the valley recommended us to parents of teens in trouble with drugs and alcohol. Over the years we formed connections with hospitals, rehabs, special schools. The churches we worked with said they could not handle the work we did. They were grateful that they had a place for people to go.

Wonderful ministry, Leslie.

I am so glad for the help that you gave to people in our area (Silicon Valley).

Velour wrote:

Julie Anne wrote:

Velour wrote:

Hi Julie Anne,

Barbara could have easily included treatment for alcoholism in her comment. Instead she said “ha ha” and discussed kicking him out of the church, complete with scripture verses to justify the deed. …

I take Barbara and what she stated. And she showed that she had no clue what kinds of intervention should be done for an alcoholic (or substance abuser) in getting them into treatment and getting help for their spouse and children. Barbara trotted out the classic evangelical line that people with these problems aren’t real Christians, aren’t bearing fruit, etc.

Velour,

She did not show that she had no clue. She just didn’t mention it, and she didn’t need to. You are insisting on everyone saying treatment for alcoholics is the way to go (and I agree). She was saying he should be put out. You both have different and appropriate responses, so why you are putting her down is beyond me.

In fact, why don’t you just ask her opinion of treatment? You know how to contact her. To paint her as saying she is against treatment when she has said no such thing is not right. You tried to paint me with the same brush, but I happened to read your response and corrected you. Please stop.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

“Alkies drink because that’s what Alkies do. To an Alky, the Constitutional Right to My Next Drink cannot be infringed in any way.”
— Steven King, recovering alcoholic

I’ve never read that before but it gave me goosebumps. I have been on the receiving end of that sense of entitlement, & preferential treatment of alcohol over humans many times. And that blinking smug look that comes with it.

Julie Anne wrote:

Christiane wrote:
Isn’t there some kind of authoritative oversight in the Presbyterian denomination? One that would intervene when a pastor went this rogue? Jr. sounds like he’s running a cult, not a Presbyterian Church.
Yes, there sure is. It doesn’t always work when you are in the Boy’s Club or RC1’s son. Reports I have read from many who attended St. Peter indicated that it was run like a cult. When there are cover-ups to protect the leader, whole families shunned because they don’t like the church, those are certainly red flags.

I quoted this post because it has both your posts in it. Julie Anne reminded me about the path RC-Jr took, after MY post previously. (This is confusing me… ). Anyway. Christiane, you ask whether there is authoritative oversight in the Presbyterian Church. Julie Anne gave you a good part of the answer. But I’m going to respond a little further.

NO, there is no authoritative oversight, for a couple of reasons. First off, there are multiple Presbyterian denominations (Presbyterian denoting the form of government, not the theology, although most claim some degree of Reformed). What RC-Jr did was jump from one denomination to another so he could continue in his own ministry, and the denominations do not respect one another’s “defrocking” (although they usually respect one another’s ordinations).

As a matter of fact, when a denomination refuses to ordain a particular person, that person can go start his own *denomination* and set himself up as its “bishop” and be quite successful at so doing.

So no, there is no authoritative structure.

And then, even *within* a denomination, my former one being PC-USA, when a pastor is fired for cause (affairs, embezzlement), he can move across the country, and in a different regional body, talk his way back into a pastoral position. I described this happening upthread.

So no. Not authoritative.

Velour wrote:

refugee wrote:
Velour wrote:
If he Sproul gets clean and sober he will probably ditch many ideas that he used to justify including patriarchy.
I’m not sure about that. I know plenty of cold sober people who embrace patriarchy.
However, I do appreciate your emphasis on treatment. It is difficult to watch someone you care about who seems bent on a path of self-destruction, and be helpless to do anything but pray.
Are you speaking of recovered alcoholics that you know that support patriarchy?
Or just the general run of the mill people who support patriarchy (because it’s what they are used to being taught)?
The recovering alcoholics that I know who work good sobriety programs (men and women alike) have ditched many of their old ways. And they have people in their life who are honest with them and call them on it.
I don’t doubt any of the bad things that people claim that R.C. Sproul Jr. has done. I just see the hope really being in getting people like him into treatment, and getting treatment/support for their family members.
Yes, it is helpless to watch people on a path of self-destruction. And yes, we must continue to pray.

No, I am not talking about recovered alcoholics who repented of embracing patriarchy. None of the people I know who have left patriarchy are (so far as I know) recovering alcoholics. That doesn’t mean there aren’t possibly a whole host of them out there. I don’t know. I just don’t know any.

I do think that some forms of patriarchy (as lived by RC Sproul Jr, Doug Wilson, as examples) can encourage conditions that are fertile for alcoholism to develop. Part of the “real men drink” — beer and bourbon are two favorites at church picnics. The hotter it is, the faster those icy cold spirits will flow.

Wine for all (no grape juice–“what are you, some kind of wimp?”) at communion. Don’t drink wine? I guess you can just take a piece of bread, then.

I don’t know if Wilson’s church actively shames recovering alcoholics, but I have read numerous accounts of Sproul Jr’s church doing so. If Sproul Jr is going to go dry in the culture he built or helped to build in the first place, then he’s going to have to have the motivation and gumption to change that entire culture.

If he wants church support, he’s going to have to change churches, I think. And he doesn’t strike me as a would-be follower, so he’d have to start another church and lead it in a sober way, and with his record of installing yes-men to advise him in his former churches, the outlook just does not seem terribly optimistic, to be realistic.

Not impossible. But doesn’t seem all that likely.

And yes, God can do anything he wants. Even Sproul Jr says so. But he doesn’t always choose to do what we want, no matter how fervent our prayers may be.

Yes, give Sproul Jr. the right opportunities to get well.

I am just not going to be holding my breath, that’s all.

@ refugee:

I’d say that was posted by a chatbot if it weren’t for the fact that there did seem to be some semantic link between the sentences.

@ H.A.:

As you and I discussed here yesterday, I am in agreement that Sproul Jr. should be terminated from his job because he is unfit. I am not giving him a pass on his abusive behavior. He should face consequences for it.

Most of us are in agreement that Sproul Jr. needs treatment for alcoholism. I have always qualified my comments with the fact that the church should seek professional help in how to deal with him and NOT handle it themselves.

I am well aware of the failure rates of alcoholics and substance abusers. I also know plenty of men and women who are clean and sober and have had transformed lives. They and their families are all the better for it.

H.A., “However, I don’t believe their marginal successes in any merit the sort of dogmatic enthusiasm you give them.” OK, that’s not what I said or believe and since when is getting someone professional care for their problems “dogmatic”?

There is no reason for churches to be stuck in the Dark Ages on subjects such as substance abuse, sexual abuse, mental illness, domestic violence and a host of other prevalent problems that will come up in peoples’ lives.

Gram3 wrote:

Velour wrote:
Barbra said that R.C. Sproul 2 should be kicked out of his church and that he wasn’t really a believer, etc.
That is probably because some of us have been following RC1 and RC2 longer than others. As for Presbyterian polity, RC1 is ordained in the PCA, but the last I heard, he was the pastor of an *independent* Presbyterian church. Right. RC2 has been off the rails for a long time and has been able to act outrageously under his father’s overt protection. He was into the Federal Vision (Doug Wilson) heresy which caused a lot of anguish for a lot of people for years. So that is why I and possibly some others had a visceral reaction of “Remove this cancer from the Body once and for all.” Does his life bear the mark of a Christian? I don’t think so, but only God knows. According to his own theology, it does not.
That does not mean that we do not also think that he should get treatment for the good of his children and his wife and the community at large. But when we have followed the path of destruction he has left in his wake for decades, I hope you can understand why our first reaction was not “Get treatment for RC2.” It’s just that our first thought is for his past victims and future victims if he is allowed to continue.

Thanks Gram3 for your explanation of the damage that R.C. Sproul 2 has done. Your reactions make sense. He has a lot of wreckage to clean up and much damage to many peoples’ lives.

I’ve known some recovering alcoholics to go back to churches and to speak before the entire church about the damage they did to so many peoples’ lives, as well as make personal amends to people that they have harmed. Miracles happen.

R.C. Sproul 2 is still in the throes of active alcoholism and all of its destruction.
I hope his (second) wife and children get help to take care of themselves around his alcoholism and learn how to set boundaries with him.

Beakerj wrote:

all my kids of alcoholics now use my term ‘stupid juice’ for alcohol because your intelligent parent becomes an intellectual & moral moron when drinking & think they can lie with impunity.

The mental/audio equivalent of Beer Goggles.

Deb wrote:

As someone who was severely injured by a drunk driver (see bottom of the post), I don’t appreciate your “he who is without sin” diatribe.

Like Mr Sin-Leveler higher in the thread, I just chalked that up to Christianese Boilerplate.

They have absolutely NO idea how phony it sounds to someone outside the Amen Chorus.

Velour wrote:

I hope his (second) wife and children get help to take care of themselves around his alcoholism and learn how to set boundaries with him.

I cannot say “Amen” too many times to this.

refugee wrote:

I don’t know if Wilson’s church actively shames recovering alcoholics, but I have read numerous accounts of Sproul Jr’s church doing so.

Pride goeth before a fall, and what a fall RC Sproul Jr. is having.

The very people he ridiculed – recovering alcoholics – will probably be the first ones to help him.

(I have also wondered about several other NeoCal pastors, including Doug Wilson, and if they are alcoholics. They display all of the signs.)

Lisa wrote:

@ Barbara Roberts:
Rcjr had his license suspended for six months. Has been dry since Nov. 29, 2016. Had therapy and continues to do so. Much of the information posted is inaccurate both in substance and interpretation. When court go through process you are instructed by your Atty and the judge how to plea to give you time to look at all alternatives. Drug court was denied because he was not bad enough, not because he had felonies. The purpose of Drug court is for those charged w felonies to be submersed in a rehab program for 1-1.5yrs and graduate with the Judge being the one sharing that persons story and how he/she has been redeem and will acclimate as a reformed person in society- it’s a big deal. Then the sentencing happens afterward, moving felonies to misdemeanors. Rcjr is a gentle spirited man who loves his family and grieves over his sin. Everyone who knows him confesses how genuinely repentant of a person he is and how quick he is to admit his failures.
What he did was wrong and could have been much worse than it turned out to be. What it did do is wake him up to his own sins and cause effective change immediately. He who is without sin cast the first stone. It’s not about hypocrisy, it’s about the fact that we all have feet of clay and yet strive to do what is right, stumbling as we keep walking.

Lisa,

Welcome to TWW.

Apparently you don’t understand the nature of alcoholism if you don’t think his case is bad enough.

There may be other legal reasons for R.C. Sproul Jr.’s case to have been handled the way it was, and not for the reasons you cited.

While it’s good that he is in therapy, where is his accountability with other recovering alcoholics?

From what has been described here by people who know R.C. Sproul Jr.’s history, he has been terribly abusive to people and whole families and he has caused a great deal of damage. If he was working with a sponsor in a 12-step program he would be required to make a list of the people he had harmed and to make amends to them, except when do so would injure a person.

Since many of his abuses of people appear to be in front of the entire church, than at some point in his recovery besides making individual amends he should be making public amends, with the help of a sponsor guiding him in the process.

Velour wrote:

I hope his (second) wife and children get help to take care of themselves around his alcoholism and learn how to set boundaries with him.

This we can all agree on.

I’m impressed to now discover that there are multiple Celebrate Recovery groups in the Ft. Wayne area: http://www.celebraterecoveryfortwayne.com/

Hopefully someone close to Lisa Sproul is following this thread and may encourage her to attend. Odds are remote that RC Jr will ever go, but the CR program can be extremely helpful to family members. The best insights and advice a family will ever get about an alky family member is from other alkies.

The ironic thing, Velour, is that in my experience most recovering alkies, both in AA and CR, would encourage Lisa to show RC Jr “tough love.” It’s a term that comes up often in CR meetings. What that entails goes far beyond “boundaries” and often means marital separation, i.e. throw him out of the house. I say it’s ironic because you seem so terribly concerned about keeping RC Jr in his church, while your typical recovering alkie would say just the opposite. I think they probably know what works and what doesn’t.

Lisa wrote:

@ Barbara Roberts:
Rcjr had his license suspended for six months. Has been dry since Nov. 29, 2016. Had therapy and continues to do so. Much of the information posted is inaccurate both in substance and interpretation. When court go through process you are instructed by your Atty and the judge how to plea to give you time to look at all alternatives. Drug court was denied because he was not bad enough, not because he had felonies. The purpose of Drug court is for those charged w felonies to be submersed in a rehab program for 1-1.5yrs and graduate with the Judge being the one sharing that persons story and how he/she has been redeem and will acclimate as a reformed person in society- it’s a big deal. Then the sentencing happens afterward, moving felonies to misdemeanors. Rcjr is a gentle spirited man who loves his family and grieves over his sin. Everyone who knows him confesses how genuinely repentant of a person he is and how quick he is to admit his failures.
What he did was wrong and could have been much worse than it turned out to be. What it did do is wake him up to his own sins and cause effective change immediately. He who is without sin cast the first stone. It’s not about hypocrisy, it’s about the fact that we all have feet of clay and yet strive to do what is right, stumbling as we keep walking.

Are you R.C. Sproul’s wife, Lisa?

If “yes”, please consider going to at least six Al-Anon meetings (they’re free) for the family and friends of problem drinkers.

Here is a link: http://www.al-anon.alateen.org/

@ Velour:
Al-Anon was a lifesaver for my Mum when she was dealing with a severe alcoholic & 3 kids under 6 whilst thousands of miles away from home – Hong Kong.

Deb wrote:

As someone who was severely injured by a drunk driver (see bottom of the post), I don’t appreciate your “he who is without sin” diatribe. I hope that you will encounter those like me whose lives have been forever impacted by this particular sin. The pain is awful, particularly when loved ones have been snatched away because someone foolishly chose to drink and drive.

It’s beyond sin. It is criminal. There is a difference.

Velour said:

You aren’t making any sense in your belief that we’re all supposed to intuit what Barbara is thinking and therefore she ‘doesn’t have to say it’.

Velour, since the beginning this discussion, your mission has been “treatment.” Barbara has posted ONE comment. From this one statement (“R C Sproul Junior needs to be put out of the church and that needs to be very publicly done because he has been so significant at Ligonier. 1 Corinthians 5:11-13”.), you assume that Barbara is against treatment and have gone on and on about your assumption without even fact checking. That is wrong.

You are also incorrect that I am ‘putting Barbara down’ because I disagree with her. I very concerned that in this day and age with all of the resources available to help guide the church with handling serious problems including substance abuse that the only response that Barbara had was to kick Sproul out of the church.

You started talking about me the same way and I was offended by your words. I don’t like others to speak for me. I have to be careful what I say because of my blog and if you went on to say JA is against treatment for alcoholics based on what you thought, you would be giving misinformation.

Will his children ever step foot in a church again after seeing their father get publicly humiliated? Will his wife? What will other alcoholics in the pews do or substance abusers who are struggling? Will they be publicly humiliated next? What will the families of alcoholics and drug abusers do?

His alcoholism is one of the least of the family’s concerns. Remember Ashley Madison? Remember defrocking? This is normal for their family. If they leave church, it would most likely be because no one put him out and continued to let his family suffer harm.

You advocated, like Barbara, that Sproul Jr. be kicked out of his church. You didn’t, however, explain your reasoning for such a drastic step. That’s why I gave you push back, because a lot more is at stake than just him and how this is handled.

I already alluded to the fact that there is much more than the public is aware of. You can be sure that Barbara, Dee, and I sit on a lot of information that never gets released to the public. We want it to be exposed, but we must be careful, have sources checked, etc. This is the case with RC2. I’m sorry that I’m unable to divulge further, but based on what I know, I say he should be put out, period.

I have never contacted any poster here privately and asked them to clarify their views. And I’m not starting. They can clarify their views here. (Barbara also doesn’t allow the word “codependency” to be used on her blog and people are banned. Sigh. So behind the times.)

So, thankfully, I am on my week break before school starts again, because if I hadn’t been following the comment thread, you would have been comfortable saying that I do not agree with treatment for alcoholics (until I corrected you). That’s just not cool.

“Please stop”? What does that mean? Please stop advocating for his children? Or for his wife? Or for the other secret alcoholics in the pews who are struggling and ashamed and who need help? Please stop advocating for other family members of substance abusers and how the church treats them?

It means please stop adding to what Barbara said. Quoting or summarizing her words is fine, but to point blank say she is against treatment for alcoholics is wrong when she did not say that.

Ken F (aka Tweed) wrote:

mot wrote:
Wonder what will happen to churches or SBC leaders if they are not willing to sign off on this resolution?

I’m wondering what it means for people like me who are members of SBC churches that are not (yet) Calvinistic.

Same for both:
YOU WILL BE PURGED.

Julie Anne wrote:

The ideal situation IMHO is to get him out of ministry entirely and get help for his family so they understand alcoholism.

But that runs right up against CELEBRITY Syndrome and “TOUCH NOT MINE ANOINTED!”

Julie Anne wrote:

So, thankfully, I am on my week break before school starts again, because if I hadn’t been following the comment thread, you would have been comfortable saying that I do not agree with treatment for alcoholics (until I corrected you). That’s just not cool.
“Please stop”? What does that mean? Please stop advocating for his children? Or for his wife? Or for the other secret alcoholics in the pews who are struggling and ashamed and who need help? Please stop advocating for other family members of substance abusers and how the church treats them?
It means please stop adding to what Barbara said. Quoting or summarizing her words is fine, but to point blank say she is against treatment for alcoholics is wrong when she did not say that.

Hi Julie Anne,

I don’t think it’s “cool” of you to say that someone should be kicked out of their church, not explain yourself (it’s actually a VERY serious step in the church that you’re advocating) and then get upset when you get push back.

When you advocate excommunications for people, be prepared to fully explain yourself and be prepared for push back.

When Barbara starts off her comment with “Ha Ha” and trots out Scripture verses, and never makes mention of treatment for alcoholism and for the family members, than she will get push back from me too.

Barbara won’t even permit the word “codependency” to be used on her blog. Sigh. So very Dark Ages.

Julie Anne wrote:

His alcoholism is one of the least of the family’s concerns. Remember Ashley Madison?

I am not the least bit surprised by this as it’s commonplace in alcoholic behavior and something that is covered in treatment and on-going recovery programs.

Barbara Roberts wrote:

Having said that, I suggest you read the verses I gave (1 Cor 5:11-13). The Bible says that those who profess to be brothers in Christ and are drunkards need to be expelled from the church. So I was only saying what the Bible says. If you think that is ‘hateful,’ your gripe is with the Bible not with me. (And the same goes for HUG where he contemptuously described me as ‘righteous’.)
If a person professing to be a Christian and is a drunkard (i.e. his life is focused on his next drink) then God tells us to put that person out of the church — to hand him over to satan for the destruction of the flesh.
I don’t disagree with you that a drunkard also needs medical assistance to give up his addiction, and very likely would also benefit from mental health assistance to deal with other underlying issues he may have. But putting him out of the church does not stop him getting that assistance. In fact, putting him out of the church may prompt him to truly ‘hit bottom’ so he realises that he MUST get help and he takes serious steps, ongoing efforts, to get the help he needs.

Hi Barbara,

Thanks for your response. The Bible is much more complex than just a few Scripture verses on any one topic, including the ones you have cited to justify kicking problem drinkers to the curb.

You and I don’t have the compulsion to drink, so it’s easy for us to say “just don’t drink.” But I know of many people — including Christians — who have fought that battle (alcoholism) mostly in secret. Here is one wonderful article by a Christian woman in recovery, who waged her battle with alcoholism in secret and she explains what she thinks the church can do.
https://rachelheldevans.com/blog/ask-a-recovering-alcopholic-response-heather-kopp

My problem isn’t with the Bible, it’s with your lack of knowledge about how to treat addictions in the Christian community.

Take care.

Bridget wrote:

Does he have other actual convictions for DUIs or endangering the children?

And regardless of your answer, if people in his sphere (church) are aware, but ignoring the issues, then they have something to answer for as well.

As far as I know, no prior convictions. If he had then he probably wouldn’t have just gotten off with a slap on the wrist.

Totally agree with you about his “church” (and Ligonier, etc.) having some things to answer for. It’s for good reason that so many have called it a “cult.”

Julie Anne wrote:

Velour – The chronic behavior (for decades) that I and others have mentioned: spiritual abuse, Ashley Madison, putting his family in harm’s way by drinking and driving, are more than enough to get him kicked out. There was no need for pushback, just as there was no need for you to wrongly assume that we are against treatment (which Barbara clarified above).
I had already read your first comment about Barbara and codependency. That feels like another put down and I’m really uncomfortable with it. Blog owners can run their blogs how they like. But to take that info and post it here?

Hi Julie Anne,

There was a need for “push back”, since in the beginning you never outlined your reasons supporting R.C. Sproul Jr.’s excommunication. We’re not mind readers.

We’re all (finally) in agreement that the man needs treatment. And his family needs it as well for living with a problem drinker. Hopefully they get to Al-Anon and counseling. They will need it and find many facing the same problems that they are, or have faced problems that they have and have words of wisdom to share.

I know someone who has been banned from Barbara’s blog for using the term “codependency”, which Barbara doesn’t permit. I no longer read Barbara’s blog for that reason either.
So you’re “uncomfortable” with those truths. Sorry I can’t help you, friend.

readingalong wrote:

Nick Bulbeck wrote:

I don’t know whether there’s a formal definition, or even consensus, on what makes an alcoholic. But I would have thought a non-alcoholic can always go without alcohol: that is, it’s an issue of choice and control.

Here is a link to the DSM-V Criteria (manual for Psychiatric disorders) for ‘Alcohol Use Disorder’:
https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-consumption/alcohol-use-disorders

From the article. A sad statstic.

“However severe the problem may seem, most people with AUD can benefit from treatment. Unfortunately, less than 10 percent of them receive any treatment.”

Velour wrote:

The church can also play an important role, and probably has the financial resources, to get Sproul 2 into a treatment program and to come alongside his children and second wife and get them help too.

I only agree with this to the extent “the Church” is willing to do the same for any member of their church who should need the same.

Velour wrote:

Barbara could have easily included treatment for alcoholism in her comment. Instead she said “ha ha” and discussed kicking him out of the church, complete with scripture verses to justify the deed.

Velour, I said ‘haha’ about the typo which the authors of this post had inadvertently made in the text of their post. I seems you didn’t get the joke. The authors said said that RC Jnr needs ‘serous treatment’ which I assume was a typo because they meant he needs ‘serious treatment.’

Serous means to do with blood. I used to be a nurse so that word is familiar to me. I knew they’d made a typo and I found it a rather amusing typo… which is why I took it further by pointing out that RC Jr needs to be born again (which entails being washed in the blood of Christ.)

I hope you can now see why I saw a joke in the typo. I was not laughing at alcoholics. I was laughing at the double-entendre of the typo.

Velour wrote:

I would just like to add that many Al-Anon meetings are safe and warm places.

I stand corrected. I shouldn’t have used the term “unpleasant” because Al-Anon isn’t that at all. However, they are very good at confronting self-deception with reality, and that can sometimes be less than pleasant.

Velour wrote:

(Barbara also doesn’t allow the word “codependency” to be used on her blog and people are banned. Sigh. So behind the times.)

Velour, that is untrue.

We tell our readers that we prefer them not to use the word ‘codependent’ when describing victims of domestic abuse. And we explain why we think that word is an inappropriate and unhelpful when talking about domestic abuse. You can read our explanation here:
https://cryingoutforjustice.com/are-abuse-victims-codependent/

We have never banned a person from our blog for using the word ‘codependent’. We have occasionally declined to publish a comment which uses the word ‘codependent’. But more often than not, we do one or the other of the following with such comments: —

Either we publish the comment unedited and then respond on-blog encouraging the commenter to read our explanation of why we think ‘codependent’ is not a good term for abuse victims.

Or we edit the comment by replacing the word ‘codependent’ with some other word, and then publish the comment. But if we do this, we usually reply to the comment on-blog telling the commenter that we edited their comment and why we edited it.

So Velour, I ask you to please withdraw your false statements about what we do on A Cry For Justice.

@ Nancy2 (aka Kevlar):
Oh, excellent, Nancy2. I hadn’t thought of it in just that way; I just knew it was… um… foolishness.

@Velour, didn’t you just say, “We really need to drop it as this point.”? Now you’re just provoking more? In case you hadn’t noticed this article is about RC Sproul Jr, but you’re making it all about you. Would you PLEASE STOP!

Thanks for the help on fathers day it was very good to tell that story. I have been trying to put many old “demons” to rest and cancel out some of those old tapes that keep repeating. I hope everyone has a very nice day. Please keep our nation’s decision makers in prayer over the next few weeks. Thank you.

Velour wrote:

Hi Julie Anne,
We really need to drop it as this point. We have gone several rounds. I have explained myself and you have explained yourself.

So Velour, you have now ordered JulieAnne around by telling her what ‘she needs’ to do.

Do you realise how offensive that is? It’s fine for you to decide that YOU want to ‘knock it off’. But unless you are the owner of the blog it’s not okay for you to tell someone else to stop responding to you.

Barbara is correct on the I Cor.5 text. Many “Christians” are allowed to live a double life because we are afraid to confront. Loving accountability along the way always helps prevent “expulsion” because it can guard against backsliding. But, in the case of a person that just will not repent and get help, and they refuse to own their sin, I Cor 5 is pretty clear. Remember too, that Paul also confronts the church when they do not welcome the repentant brother back. It just always seemed clear to me how Paul was instructing the Corinthian church to deal with sin that caused harm to the testimony of Christ. (And we are all frustrated with the double standards we have seen!!)

I realize that our understanding of addiction today does make it complex, but I am just frustrated with the hypocrisy that makes us look pathetic to non-believers.

Velour wrote:

Max wrote:
Wartburgers, I suppose I should recuse myself from further comments on this piece. I am an old-school Southern Baptist who feels Christians would do well just to leave alcohol alone (period). I’ve seen the terrible impacts of alcohol abuse in my family, beginning with just a beer at the picnic to full-fledged alcoholism with many consequences. Call me an old fuddy-duddy, but I will upset folks if I keep talking … catch you on the next TWW piece.
I don’t draw a hard line in the sand, which I think can go to the other direction of legalism.
Many Christians, including from other cultures and countries, incorporate alcohol just fine in their lives without any problems. (I use red wine in cooking and I am glad to be out of an insufferable NeoCalvinist church that saw ‘sin’ in everything, including spaghetti sauce.)
There are people who are alcoholics and yes, the first drink (beer, etc.) leads to much worse compulsive drinking. But not everyone is an alcoholic nor should they be classified as such.

Velour, I concur with what you have said. This past Saturday, June 17, my daughter was married. We all toasted to the bride and groom with a glass of champagne. The ceiling didn’t come crashing down and God didn’t scream from the rafters, “Sinners, the lot of you! Put that drink away now!” Here as I type these words, there is a bottle of wine sitting on the kitchen counter within my view. It has been unopened for a month now, waiting for the opportune time to celebrate. Perhaps on my wedding anniversary.

Just as people say, “Guns do not kill people, people kill people.” So also, alcohol is not the problem, but the people who abuse it.

George wrote:

It just always seemed clear to me how Paul was instructing the Corinthian church to deal with sin that caused harm to the testimony of Christ. (And we are all frustrated with the double standards we have seen!!) I realize that our understanding of addiction today does make it complex, but I am just frustrated with the hypocrisy that makes us look pathetic to non-believers.

A different opinion here, perhaps, or a different way of looking at this. From 1 Cor. 5, that you mention:

“I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is
an immoral person, [sexual immorality?]
or covetous, [going after what belongs to others]
or an idolater, [worshiping false gods]
or a reviler, [verbal attack, slander, violent language]
or a drunkard, [substance abuse]
or a swindler [scams, cons]
—not even to eat with such a one.”

IMHO, these behaviors are socially dangerous, and therefore, that is why, perhaps the Bible says to not socialize with those who practice these specific 6 in the church. (The passage says these are found in the world, yes and moreover, in the church we are all sinners. However, due to the toxic nature of these 6 practices in a group fellowship, do not allow these.)

Not being a theologian at all, perhaps my interpretation is off the mark? However, that is how I see that particular passage: social danger to others, or more than looks and testimony.

A different opinion here, perhaps, or a different way of looking at this. From 1 Cor. 5, that you mention:
“I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is
an immoral person, [sexual immorality?]
or covetous, [going after what belongs to others]
or an idolater, [worshiping false gods]
or a reviler, [verbal attack, slander, violent language]

Not saying you are wrong JY, but if you read the entire chapter, including the beginning of chapter six, Paul references the “assembly” as well, and “turning over to Satan”….

It appears that the message is that if we allow someone to that has no intention of repenting to go on like “business as usual”, we are NOT helping the person and it sends the wrong message to others. Look at Paul’s comment about “a little leaven”.

I wonder if Paul accused them of “boasting” because they were more concerned with numbers and protecting their reputation by sweeping things under the rug…. where have we seen that before?

Remember too, that in a church that is functioning well, there are plenty of people that have sin issues that are sincerely repentant and asking for help, and we should be giving them loving care and it may involve counseling and financial resources.

So, perhaps Paul is assuming that we need to put resources on the brothers and sisters that are really asking for help. Galatians 6 seems to differentiate between those people who are to be restored and those in ICor 5 that are to be “put out”.

Not here to preach…. I enjoy reading here!

Beakerj wrote:

If their Dad is a hard drinker selfish enough to drink and drive with them in the car, then they’ll have probably seen a huge amount of other poor behaviours, including him not being able to act as a functional adult for them when their Mum & then their sister died. The yawning gap between what he has preached as a Pastor & how he’s been as a man is a fertile ground for stopping believing, if they ever even started.

I quoted the whole thing because it made me think of the whole PK phenomenon which may have played a role in RC2’s character formation. I am not making excuses. However, it must have been difficult to try to find yourself in the shadow of RC1 and all that entailed. And, it would have been in the interest of RC1 to try to coverup any misbehavior by RC2 that reflected poorly on RC1, especially in the “covenant child” framework of Covenant Theology. RC2 as an intelligent child and adolescent would learn to leverage that, and then we are off to the races toward where we are now. See also Tullian Tchividjian.

I think that if RC2 truly loves his children, he will get himself some serious, serious top-drawer psychological and medical help. He will also get real psychological help for his children to work through the various traumatic experiences they have been through. Otherwise, there may well be avoidable tragedy in their futures.

Lea wrote:

I have friends and family who don’t drink, for various reasons. Generally will not drink around them. I have been to bars with friends and had tea and nobody cares.

When I am around a person/s who are alcoholics, I will not drink alcohol because I don’t want to be a cause for them to be tempted to drink. I think that is the kindest thing I can do for them as they are the weaker one/s in this regard.

George wrote:

Not here to preach…. I enjoy reading here!

Ditto. The exchange of viewpoints is very effective.

I’m going to look at this again, with your comments in mind. When you brought up 1 Cor. 5, it is the opportunity I’ve been looking for, as pastors don’t really teach and preach about this much – maybe that is part of the problem. This includes the situation mentioned in this blog about a clergy family with substances abuse issues, to the point of endangering others.

Thanks for your response, thoughts, and viewpoint.

I will be the first to admit that I have a definite bias. I have studied and truly believe and understand the disease/treatment model for addictions. I think many people do not understand how alcoholism changes the brain/cognitve activities of those addicted. Their brains truly don’t work. You might as well talk to a brick wall.

But! Having been raised in a highly abusive alcoholic home (My mom) it sickens me sometimes to read about the love and compassion we should have for the addicted.And for the “we are all just sinners crowd” your ignorance is truly sickening. Can you imagine for one second the shame and embarrassment of having everyone know that your mom is a fall down drunk? To have her fall stark naked in front of you and others?
If one has not read the Adult children of alcoholic books, don’t consider yourself educated on this matter.

God in his infinite mercy intervened and all three children in this home were saved. Jesus has been helping us for over 60 years(along with many professionals) but oh the damage and hurt. If I even half told you what it did to my younger sister, people would get pitchforks. I don’t wish hell on RC Sprouls jr or any other alcoholic but I can guarantee you that their children have been through hell. Today children would be removed from such an environment, but in the deep deep South 60 years ago this was not the case

dee wrote:

Deborah wrote:
Clearly you didn’t read my comment with any understanding of what I was saying. Please read and then perhaps you will be able to respond according to what I ACTUALLY said.
– – – – – –
(Dee replied)
Once again, you are a bit strong.

I’m not totally on Deborah’s side in being so defensive of Sproul, but… in this particular matter, the other woman she was responding to (Christiane?) misunderstood her.

I got what Deborah meant when she said “addicts cannot be helped,” but the other lady who replied to her took that remark the wrong way. The key part to what Deborah added was ‘the addict has to want to be helped.’

Max wrote:

My son-in-law says that my love for fried chicken livers is a “sickness.”

I was about to defend you, until I saw the word “livers” in there.

Fried chicken yes, but fried chicken livers, no. Seek help! 🙂

Velour wrote:

Should alcoholics and drug addicts be enabled? No. They should face the consequences of their actions, including job loss.

I think that is all what she was getting at, her basic point.

Maybe she was advocating for it to be done in public (? – don’t recall, still too lazy to scroll up to re read her comment at this time) – would it be fine with you if he was fired in private?

H.A. wrote:

Would it help your perspective any to know that RC Jr has unjustly excommunicated entire families, and we’re not just talking a few, including small children, for the alleged “sins” of their parents? In most cases those “sins” were nothing more than they wanted to leave his church for another church. He calls it “contumacy” and “breaking your covenant vows.” You could join St. Peter Presbyterian easily but just try leaving without his permission, and getting permission was impossible unless you had a good reason to be moving far away. Joining another church across town was never a good enough reason.

He sounds like a great big jerk and a control freak.

I said, “Sproul Jr. has suffered tragedies, yes. Many of us have suffered tragedies. This does not give any of us an excuse to walk in disobedience to the Lord as he has.”

H.A. took exception to what I said and said I “created a false correlation”.

No sir (or ma’am), I did not create a false correlation. I clearly said there was no such correlation, that any excuse to the contrary is not accurate.

However, you did make a good point, and I’m glad you did: Sproul Jr. did indeed engage in that sin and irresponsibility before those tragedies occurred his life — which bolsters my original statement.

I spoke as “softly” as I did (from your POV) because others here apparently do not realize that drunkenness is clearly called a sin in the Bible.

Deb wrote:

Welcome to TWW! I wholeheartedly agree with your comment.

Thank you, Deb. I appreciate the kind words. 🙂

Velour wrote:

It seems that most of us are in agreement that:

1. R.C. Sproul, Jr. has a serious drinking problem;
2. That he is not qualified to serve as a pastor given his abusive history of church members, former church members, and other disqualifying behaviors;
3. That he should get treatment; and
4. That his (second) wife and children could benefit from help as well for the family members of problem drinkers so that they can learn to take care of themselves around him.

We part company, however, over the theological issue of how to deal with people who are struggling with addictions in the church. Some here believe that people with addictions should be kicked out of the church. I am not in that camp as that is an extreme position and there is much more that is known now about helping people with addictions.

I definitely agree with #1 and #2. And I agree with #3 — the kicker is, does HE want treatment? No one can make him do that.

As for whether or not other believers part company with him — that situation is delineated by Christ Jesus Himself in Matthew 18.

If RSJ confessed his sin, repented of it, and was restored to the Body of Christ, Hallelujah!

If not — again, according to Christ Jesus, Himself — it would be appropriate for the local body to withdraw fellowship.

Note, that process was taught by Christ Jesus for ANY believer. The responsibility of a pastor/leader is FAR greater, not less.

jeff wrote:

If one has not read the Adult children of alcoholic books, don’t consider yourself educated on this matter.

Thank you, Jeff, for sharing your story about growing up in an alcoholic family. I am so sorry for all of the abuses, shame, and humiliation that you and your siblings were subjected to.

I am glad you got help and that your life is better.

The books you recommended are quite good and I have read them.

Mae wrote:

Deb wrote:

I have updated the post with photos of the injuries I sustained almost 45 years ago because someone chose to drink and drive.
Scroll down to the bottom of the post.

Horrific…..emotionally, physically , life changing in every way.
Drunk/ drug driving maims and kills. No excuses for it, ever.

Deb, your photos were the first thing I saw. WOW!!! doesn’t say it nearly strongly enough.

I learned fairly early in life to fear drunk driving. When I was 12yo I began babysitting for a family who regularly attended my church. The parents would go to the local country club on Saturday nights, and they paid me well to watch their children, who were fantastic little people. We had a great time together.

The parents would always come home much later than they had said. That was great for the money I was paid, but the dad would be so drunk, he could hardly keep the car on the road (forget about the correct lane) as he took me home.

Thank God it was always so late, thus basically no traffic. (We lived out in the country.) I was always scared stiff riding with him, literally praying all the way home, and I didn’t even know the Lord then.

Years later when I was a senior dating an “older” guy (in his twenties, lol) who took me to a college party about an hour from home, I made him promise me that he would not add anything to my Coke. He promised, but when we got there and got my drink, I knew it didn’t taste right. It turned out to be rum.

It was pouring rain outside, but I gave the drink back to him and told him to take me home. He was shocked, couldn’t believe it. But I was serious and stood my ground, even though back then I was usually quite shy around older guys. He had always been so nice before, but that made me feel that I couldn’t trust him. (And that was pretty much the end of our short relationship, such as it was.)

He took me home. I got there at about 9:30. My mother couldn’t believe I was home so early, lol. Now that I’m grown and look back on that, I realize even more clearly how serious a situation that could have become — if he had had a few too many, driving home on twisting mountain roads in the pouring rain.

All this to say, I am so very glad you survived! I lost a number of friends in high school who didn’t. Two of them were guys showing out while drunk, but the others were victims of drunk drivers. 🙁

Daisy wrote:

Velour wrote:
Should alcoholics and drug addicts be enabled? No. They should face the consequences of their actions, including job loss.
I think that is all what she was getting at, her basic point.
Maybe she was advocating for it to be done in public (? – don’t recall, still too lazy to scroll up to re read her comment at this time) – would it be fine with you if he was fired in private?

In such churches (at least from my experience), excommunication is a public process.

In our former church, which I understand was similar in many ways to RC Jr’s church, it involved either calling a congregational meeting (that would be to talk about the situation before taking it to excommunication) and then acting when the congregation was gathered together for worship (the cynical part of me wants to say, “The more the merrier” but it probably has something to do with holiness and ceremony), an elder would read out a statement and pronounce the excommunication.

I remember a few times (fewer than the number of excommunications, of course), someone was also publicly welcomed back at a worship service and “biblically” restored to the body.

Mae wrote:

My FIL quit drinking, stayed sober 30 years. However, he was considered a,”dry drunk”,never stopped his stinking thinking. Never reconciled with some of his adult children, became semi reclusive. Not all former drinkers transform into likeable people.

Yep, that is true.

I’d also add that AA, in the case of one of my family members, after he stopped drinking, contributed to his so-called “stinking thinking.”

It caused him to victim-blame everyone any time they shared some struggle they were going through with him, even though they were not at fault.

(Sometimes some of the treatment programs can create another set of problems in a person.)

Daisy wrote:

Velour wrote:
You’ve posted several comments about this and never mentioned that Sproul 2’s church should get him into treatment for alcoholism (and whatever else ails him). Why not?
Hmm. Just pondering here.
It’s one thing for churches to give crummy, harmful (medical / psychological) advice to people
(which I don’t think they should be doing, such as, telling depressed persons to cope with depression by forgoing medication and “read the Bible and trust in Jesus”)…
…But is it always a church’s responsibility to tell, advise, or command a person to get some kind of medical or psychiatric treatment?
I don’t know if that is a church’s role or responsibility.
That would probably fall to the individual him or herself and/or their family.

I agree with you, Daisy, that churches should not be giving crummy advice to people. They do more harm than good.

In my comments, in case you missed them, I also talked about the importance of churches seeking professional advice for dealing with pastors (or other members) who have substance abuse problems.

For me it falls under the “love one anothers” to direct a person into substance abuse treatment as well as to care for their family and to guide them to appropriate help.

T J Mercer wrote:

Our sin is as sinful as is his.

The Bible teaches no such thing. The Bible does not teach that all sins are equal in severity. It just says any and all sin can send a person to Hell, not that all sins are the same or equal.

Velour wrote:

Barbara could have easily included treatment for alcoholism in her comment. Instead she said “ha ha” and discussed kicking him out of the church, complete with scripture verses to justify the deed. (For readers that don’t know Barbara, she and Jeff Crippen write over at the A Cry for Justice blog about domestic violence in the church.)

I did not see her post in that manner. I think you’re being a little hard on Barbara.

(And this is coming from me, who pointed out in one blog post on my Daisy Blog that I am confounded and disappointed that she and her co-blogger have prohibited discussion of codependency at their domestic violence blog.)

Daisy wrote:

Velour wrote:
Barbara trotted out the classic evangelical line that people with these problems aren’t real Christians, aren’t bearing fruit, etc.
Based on everything I’m reading about this guy in this thread and the OP by various people, (that he joined an adultery site, he’s been a bully for years, is authoritarian, he has his church ostracize ex members, etc) are you saying that this bad fruit should be ignored, all because the guy is also an alcoholic?
From what I’m seeing on this thread, RC Jr. is Mark Driscoll, but only with more beer added.

Hi Daisy:

I’m posting the list again from a few comments ago. I have already covered this in Point #2, that he is not qualified to serve. I’m not giving him a pass on any abusive behavior. I don’t support enabling him.

“Velour wrote:
It seems that most of us are in agreement that:
1. R.C. Sproul, Jr. has a serious drinking problem;
2. That he is not qualified to serve as a pastor given his abusive history of church members, former church members, and other disqualifying behaviors;
3. That he should get treatment; and
4. That his (second) wife and children could benefit from help as well for the family members of problem drinkers so that they can learn to take care of themselves around him.
We part company, however, over the theological issue of how to deal with people who are struggling with addictions in the church. Some here believe that people with addictions should be kicked out of the church. I am not in that camp as that is an extreme position and there is much more that is known now about helping people with addictions.”

T J Mercer wrote:

Gossip and Condemnation of others is no less sinful than is murder. The Church is to “restore those who are struggling in sin not” not shoot them. I need to be careful to look to Scripture for my measure of God’s Law for sin, not taking the measure from what people and tradition may say sin is. Come on People!!!! Our sin is as sinful as is his.

The old playing the “gossip card”. It is an old tactic that sadly a lot of leaders have used for a long time that has allowed them to hide their sin and or at least questionable actions. I am sure this “gossip card” is one of the factors that allowed RC Sproul Jr. to get away with what he did for long. People were afraid to discuss it.

First of all, it can be pretty hard to define just what gossip is. Groups like Sovereign Grace Churches and others have a pretty broad definition of what they consider “gossip”. They also throw in the “slander” term. When there are such broad definitions of what gossip is, many regular members are afraid to share with others their concerns and issues they see. When people are discussing or pointing this out many people begin to think they are the only seeing these problems when multiple people have these same views.

It is great in this day and age with blogs etc. People can discuss their thoughts and glaring hypocrisy so that what we are seeing with R.C. Sproul Jr. can be exposed.

Daisy wrote:

Having said that, I suggest you read the verses I gave (1 Cor 5:11-13). The Bible says that those who profess to be brothers in Christ and are drunkards need to be expelled from the church. So I was only saying what the Bible says. If you think that is ‘hateful,’ your gripe is with the Bible not with me. (And the same goes for HUG where he contemptuously described me as ‘righteous’.)

Daisy,

Perhaps you missed Barbara’s comment on Friday at 5:40 p.m. to H.U.G. and me:

“Having said that, I suggest you read the verses I gave (1 Cor 5:11-13). The Bible says that those who profess to be brothers in Christ and are drunkards need to be expelled from the church. So I was only saying what the Bible says. If you think that is ‘hateful,’ your gripe is with the Bible not with me. (And the same goes for HUG where he contemptuously described me as ‘righteous’.)”

We are called in the Bible to many other things, including loving one another, bearing each others’ burdens, than simply kicking people out who aren’t like us. Many people — including women — secretly struggle with addiction in the church. It is complex. To simply kick them out, in my opinion, is wrong.

I will not go to a church that has such Dark Ages practices.

Velour wrote:

You aren’t making any sense in your belief that we’re all supposed to intuit what Barbara is thinking and therefore she ‘doesn’t have to say it’.
You are also incorrect that I am ‘putting Barbara down’ because I disagree with her. I very concerned that in this day and age with all of the resources available to help guide the church with handling serious problems including substance abuse that the only response that Barbara had was to kick Sproul out of the church.

Why does someone have to specifically endorse treatment for someone or something in order to confirm in your mind that they are not ‘anti-treatment’?

I don’t get your reasoning on any of this.

You said,

that the only response that Barbara had was to kick Sproul out of the church.

Perhaps you are being blinded by the guy’s alcohol addiction.

Temporarily remove the alcohol factor from consideration.

Based on what I’m seeing by other people here, who have left posts (other than the one person above who says RC Jr is “gentle”), the guy sounds abusive.

He’s apparently a carbon copy of Mark Driscoll, only with an alcohol problem. I’ve never excused Driscoll’s awful behavior, why would I excuse this RC Jr. person’s?

You said,

“Please stop”? What does that mean? Please stop advocating for his children? Or for his wife? Or for the other secret alcoholics in the pews who are struggling and ashamed and who need help? Please stop advocating for other family members of substance abusers and how the church treats them?

That’s obviously not what JA meant.

Velour wrote:

Some here believe that people with addictions should be kicked out of the church.

I don’t recall anyone saying addictions alone warranted anyone being kicked out. Can you please identify the comment?

Daisy wrote:

Perhaps you are being blinded by the guy’s alcohol addiction.
Temporarily remove the alcohol factor from consideration.
Based on what I’m seeing by other people here, who have left posts (other than the one person above who says RC Jr is “gentle”), the guy sounds abusive.

Hi Daisy,

Are you not reading my comments to you? Have you not caught up?

Here’s my list again to you of the issues, and I have already covered what you have raised in my list in Point #2: That R.C. Sproul Jr. is not qualified to keep his pastoral job.

“Velour wrote:
It seems that most of us are in agreement that:
1. R.C. Sproul, Jr. has a serious drinking problem;
2. That he is not qualified to serve as a pastor given his abusive history of church members, former church members, and other disqualifying behaviors;
3. That he should get treatment; and
4. That his (second) wife and children could benefit from help as well for the family members of problem drinkers so that they can learn to take care of themselves around him.
We part company, however, over the theological issue of how to deal with people who are struggling with addictions in the church. Some here believe that people with addictions should be kicked out of the church. I am not in that camp as that is an extreme position and there is much more that is known now about helping people with addictions.”

refugee wrote:

Aha. Sin leveling at its very finest.

LOL, my thoughts, too.

If you had to be stuck on a desert island with one of three guys,
1. a serial killer,
2. a check forger, or
3. a rapist,
which guy of those 3 would you choose to be stuck with?

I don’t even think the sin leveler types would go with choices 1 or 3. 🙂

jeff wrote:

Dear friends, Now that my rant is over, I feel that if a business can tell tell an employee “Joe you have a problem that’s affecting your work, get help” then a church should be able in love to request/require an individual to get treatment. My thing has always been to understand that the addict is probably hurting others and that’s not OK.
Treatment can help only those who reach rock bottom. I feel everyone involved( church, family, job should ethically help a person reach bottom. Mr Sproul Jr has not reached the bottom. He is still employed and has his children.
I do not believe that an addict should be thrown out of church.There is afterall a disease involved, but a church should not enable. That of course is subjective and christian people will disagree on what is help and what is enabling. I am a hardliner. I think a spouse should leave and take the children (better yet kick the addict out of the house) I have seen people who lose their family and job recover and then the family can be restored. Praise God, that is truly His heart and should be ours.

Hi Jeff,

Great minds think alike! I also think that churches, like employers, play a role in getting people with addictions into treatment. It doesn’t mean it will work. But it should be tried.

The Bible calls “drunkenness” a sin. I’m not contesting that.

Drunkenness may involve more of a choice than does alcoholism. One may be a choice, the other, an illness.

I wish to God I had not had to learn what I have about addictions.

Daisy wrote:

Velour wrote:
I was very clear that R.C. Sproul Jr. should NOT be enabled in keeping his job and that he should face consequences (i.e. job loss).
I think that was what Barbara was in part advocating for up thread.

Yes, she and I are in agreement on that point.

We are theologically different, however, in how we view people with addictions. She stated in her comment to H.U.G. and me that she believes that people with addictions should be kicked out of the church and that the problem and H.U.G. and I had was with the Bible if we didn’t agree.

Ummm no.

Lots more is known about addictions these days.

PaJo wrote:

The Bible calls “drunkenness” a sin. I’m not contesting that.
Drunkenness may involve more of a choice than does alcoholism. One may be a choice, the other, an illness.
I wish to God I had not had to learn what I have about addictions.

Thank you, Pa Jo. Precisely.

Velour wrote:

My problem isn’t with the Bible, it’s with your lack of knowledge about how to treat addictions in the Christian community.

I think there’s a mixing of apples and oranges here, and it’s been going on since the very start of this thread.

Barbara’s focus is on how the church should deal with it, how to deal with someone who’s chronically misbehaving, which is a separate topic from how and when should someone receive medical attention for a problem.

Julie Anne wrote:

I had already read your first comment about Barbara and codependency. That feels like another put down and I’m really uncomfortable with it. Blog owners can run their blogs how they like. But to take that info and post it here?

JA, I addressed that in a blog post on my Miss Daisy Blog some time ago (that my posts at Barbara’s blog were censored for mentioning codependency. I found learning about that topic very helpful to me – my mother was raised in a home filled with alcoholism and domestic violence).

I’m not entirely sure why it’s considered relevant by Velour in talking to Barbara about RC Jr., though.

Velour wrote:

I know someone who has been banned from Barbara’s blog for using the term “codependency”, which Barbara doesn’t permit. I no longer read Barbara’s blog for that reason either.

I was never banned from her blog- you may have misunderstood my post on that at my blog.

I said on my blog that the TOPIC itself was banned, which I find detrimental to women who are in abusive relationships (whether marriage, friendship, at work, etc).

Daisy wrote:

Julie Anne wrote:
I had already read your first comment about Barbara and codependency. That feels like another put down and I’m really uncomfortable with it. Blog owners can run their blogs how they like. But to take that info and post it here?
JA, I addressed that in a blog post on my Miss Daisy Blog some time ago (that my posts at Barbara’s blog were censored for mentioning codependency. I found learning about that topic very helpful to me – my mother was raised in a home filled with alcoholism and domestic violence).
I’m not entirely sure why it’s considered relevant by Velour in talking to Barbara about RC Jr., though.

I appreciate Barbara’s ministry to domestic violence victims on her and Jeff Crippen’s blog.

I have been concerned for some time, like you, about her banning “codependency” terminology, which is helpful in describing the dynamics in many families.

I am even more concerned about her lack of education and information about addiction, including co-addiction (i.e. codependency).

@ Barbara Roberts:
I think Velour was confused by a post I put on my ‘Daisy’ blog.
I mentioned in a post on there that your blog (among a few other ones I’ve seen) either ban the use of the word or topic of Codependency, or make the incorrect claim that it is “victim blaming.”

She may have been confused and thought I wrote that I myself have been banned from your blog, which I never wrote or said.

I said in my post that the topic is banned on your blog (which is a shame, because learning about it has helped me immensely. My mother was codependent in part because her father used to abuser her and her mother, and she raised me to have codependent behaviors, which left me vulnerable to being exploited or abused by other people.)

George wrote:

Barbara is correct on the I Cor.5 text. Many “Christians” are allowed to live a double life because we are afraid to confront. Loving accountability along the way always helps prevent “expulsion” because it can guard against backsliding. But, in the case of a person that just will not repent and get help, and they refuse to own their sin, I Cor 5 is pretty clear. Remember too, that Paul also confronts the church when they do not welcome the repentant brother back. It just always seemed clear to me how Paul was instructing the Corinthian church to deal with sin that caused harm to the testimony of Christ. (And we are all frustrated with the double standards we have seen!!)

I realize that our understanding of addiction today does make it complex, but I am just frustrated with the hypocrisy that makes us look pathetic to non-believers.

Thank you so much for this balanced and compassionate post, George. Very well said. 🙂

Darlene wrote:

When I am around a person/s who are alcoholics, I will not drink alcohol because I don’t want to be a cause for them to be tempted to drink. I think that is the kindest thing I can do for them as they are the weaker one/s in this regard.

I don’t drink alcohol. When you’re a non-drinker at social functions, the drinkers noticed.

I’ve had people pressure me to drink when I’ve gone to parties (when they see me standing there sans drink in hand), and I’ve had a few people ask me if I’m a recovering alcoholic.

I don’t think many people in American culture know what to make of people who go to social functions and don’t stand around with a drink. It makes some of them feel uncomfortable for some reason.

jeff wrote:

I will be the first to admit that I have a definite bias. I have studied and truly believe and understand the disease/treatment model for addictions. I think many people do not understand how alcoholism changes the brain/cognitve activities of those addicted. Their brains truly don’t work. You might as well talk to a brick wall.

But! Having been raised in a highly abusive alcoholic home (My mom) it sickens me sometimes to read about the love and compassion we should have for the addicted.And for the “we are all just sinners crowd” your ignorance is truly sickening. Can you imagine for one second the shame and embarrassment of having everyone know that your mom is a fall down drunk? To have her fall stark naked in front of you and others?
If one has not read the Adult children of alcoholic books, don’t consider yourself educated on this matter.

God in his infinite mercy intervened and all three children in this home were saved. Jesus has been helping us for over 60 years(along with many professionals) but oh the damage and hurt. If I even half told you what it did to my younger sister, people would get pitchforks. I don’t wish hell on RC Sprouls jr or any other alcoholic but I can guarantee you that their children have been through hell. Today children would be removed from such an environment, but in the deep deep South 60 years ago this was not the case

Jeff, I hear you, brother. A close friend and her hub are rearing three teens (have reared them from babyhood) because their mom (their daughter) did these (ed.) very things, along with allowing a number of guys to use her as they chose, which often put her children’s lives in jeopardy.

Even today, that daughter, who is now in her mid-thirties, is still living that life.

Yes, that daughter needs HELP!!! (caps and emphasis intended)

But her children have been wounded and scarred. One’s dad ritually abused her as a baby, and another one doesn’t even know his dad.

These need compassion. These need help. Yet often they are overlooked while the oppressed one gets all the attention. I am NOT saying that the oppressed one does NOT need attention and HELP!!! I’m just acknowledging the reality of what was your life and what is their life.

I pray the Lord will heal you of all your wounds, sir. Just as I pray for them, too.

jeff wrote:

I do not believe that an addict should be thrown out of church.

I wonder if the people who are advocating for alcoholics to be removed from a church mean only specifically a person who also works in a leadership position, such as pastor? I wonder if they are applying this to all, or only to people who fill certain roles?

Daisy wrote:

Velour wrote:
In my comments, in case you missed them, I also talked about the importance of churches seeking professional advice for dealing with pastors (or other members) who have substance abuse problems.
For me it falls under the “love one anothers” to direct a person into substance abuse treatment as well as to care for their family and to guide them to appropriate help.
OK, well, I’m not sure if I am in agreement with that view or not.

I understand.

We’v had varied opinions on how to handle addictions in the church on this thread. To me, it’s the better road than the kick them out approach.

Julie Anne wrote:

I may or may not have had a glass of wine after reading this thread.

Just make sure to have some dark chocolate, no matter what you do.

Velour wrote:

Barbara made the comment to H.U.G. and me.
“Barbara’s comment on Friday at 5:40 p.m.
“Having said that, I suggest you read the verses I gave (1 Cor 5:11-13). The Bible says that those who profess to be brothers in Christ and are drunkards need to be expelled from the church. So I was only saying what the Bible says. If you think that is ‘hateful,’ your gripe is with the Bible not with me. (And the same goes for HUG where he contemptuously described me as ‘righteous’.)”

1 Corinthians 5:11-13:

11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one.

12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church[a] whom you are to judge? 13 God judges[b] those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”

Barbara/Julie Ann

I remember how lonely I was when I first walked away from the spiritually toxic environment that I found in the inner circle of that church. I say “I” because it was just I. For several weeks my wife continued going with my daughter while I stayed at home and grieved my loss. I’m talking about the loss of time with real friends who are still my friends. Those that saw the issues, which were primarily with the entrepreneurial head pastor, minimized them and advised me to hang in there and focus on my small group fellowship. I remember the anticipation of validation and consolation as some of those same people also left soon after. It never came as most of them immediately started looking for the next shiny thing. In the midst of my own imperfections, it was difficult for me to find peace in my assurance. Eventually I found assurance in my peace. On the way to that peace I found a little bit of information about ARC, which my church was affiliated with and that made all the difference in the world.

As I started to spend more time alone with God and listen to “Where Could I Go, but to the Lord”, my heart started to change. My wife walked this bumpy road with me and patiently ignored me when I reacted out of hurt. We now approach these matters much more like a spiritual team and have developed richer relationships not dependent on being part of the organization. I have forgiven that pastor in my heart and now have sympathy for the hurts that helped form his character.

Only in the past few months have I started posting a little here. I try to steer clear of saying something that might offend someone like, but I could tell that one of my comments somehow triggered the abusive experience memory of another poster, so I did my best to clarify my comment rather than double down and magnify the confusion. It was obvious that the other poster had replied out of their own painful experience. It seems to me that Velour’s initial comments were based on her own painful experience of being pushed out when she needed to be embraced instead. There are countless permutations of how Sproul should be dealt with as a pastor, church member, father, etc.; but it seems that Velour is like Christ n her desire to see this man reconciled in his relationship to God and with his fellow man. I say this in support of Velour without being critical to either one of you who may have responded from your own pain. It is my prayer that others who’ve been hurt find assurance in God’s peace.

Daisy wrote:

@ Velour:
I’ve read all your comments to this point, yes, and I’m still mystified why you are so upset with other people’s comments. I think you’re seeing something in their posts that is not there, or are misunderstanding their post.
One theme I’m getting from your numerous replies, and in spite of your protests to the contrary, is that a person’s alcoholism should out-weight all else, and excuse that person.
You’ll say in one breath that the dude should be fired or held accountable, but then you get angry with people who say he should be held accountable or be fired (in public).
I don’t really remember seeing anyone in this thread say they are anti- treatment.
I’m not getting the disconnect going on in this thread.

Hi Daisy,

At no time have I excused R.C. Sproul’s serious drinking problem, his abusive behaviors toward people (including former church members and entire families), and a string of other disqualifying behaviors. I do not believe that anyone is doing him any favors by enabling him. I’ve said so.

I think that PaJo made an excellent comment about the differences up the thread.

I am, however, shocked and disappointed that in this day and age –with all that is known about helping people with addictions — that people would advocate Dark Ages treatment that addicts should be kicked out of the church and proof-text their way to doing it.

Here’s my list again:
“Velour wrote:
It seems that most of us are in agreement that:
1. R.C. Sproul, Jr. has a serious drinking problem;
2. That he is not qualified to serve as a pastor given his abusive history of church members, former church members, and other disqualifying behaviors;
3. That he should get treatment; and
4. That his (second) wife and children could benefit from help as well for the family members of problem drinkers so that they can learn to take care of themselves around him.
We part company, however, over the theological issue of how to deal with people who are struggling with addictions in the church. Some here believe that people with addictions should be kicked out of the church. I am not in that camp as that is an extreme position and there is much more that is known now about helping people with addictions.”

Daisy wrote:

Velour wrote:
I wouldn’t call it a mixing of apples and oranges.
I would because it’s factoring into your misunderstanding or assumptions about Barbara’s first post to this thread.

No, we have theological differences about how people in the church with addictions should be handled — kicked out.

There are many women, including older women, who struggle with addictions. That’s not the answer to their problems.

The writer Anne Lamott, a recovering alcoholic, writes about going to a black church in Northern California when Anne was not sober. She just soaked up the love in the very back and left each time. She was in a very fragile place. She needed that love. And it helped her on her road to sobriety. Today that little church…is her home church.

Nobody kicked her out. They loved her.

https://sobercourage.com/2015/07/08/because-guess-what-me-too-by-anne-lamott/

::Sigh:: “…many people WHO are trained in psychology…”

scott hendrixson wrote:

Barbara/Julie Anne

It seems to me that Velour’s initial comments were based on her own painful experience of being pushed out when she needed to be embraced instead. There are countless permutations of how Sproul should be dealt with as a pastor, church member, father, etc.; but it seems that Velour is like Christ n her desire to see this man reconciled in his relationship to God and with his fellow man. I say this in support of Velour without being critical to either one of you who may have responded from your own pain. It is my prayer that others who’ve been hurt find assurance in God’s peace.

Hi Scott, what a thoughtful comment. Thank you. I, too, have wondered if there was something here that felt familiar to Velour’s abusive church experience.

Velour, is there anything in our conversation that has triggered an old experience for you? My first thought was this seems unrelated because of the alcoholism, but Scott brings up a good point about being put out. If I have said something that has caused you harm, please let me know. I would sure like to be aware of that when conversing with you.

And as far as dark chocolate goes, I didn’t have any with my wine (oops, gave it away), but I did have 1/4 of my Trader Joe’s dark chocolate and almond bar that I am savoring. It’s about time for another trip to Portland or Spokane to stock up again! 🙂

Velour wrote:

Claire wrote:

Velour said, “Some here believe that people with addictions should be kicked out of the church.”
I know that scriptures about church discipline have been posted in their proper context, even with compassion for how to treat those who have repented. But I have not seen anyone say, “Kick them out of the church!”
That is an exaggeration and overstatement.

Hi Claire,

This is what Barbara posted to H.U.G. and me on Friday evening:

““Barbara’s comment on Friday at 5:40 p.m.
“Having said that, I suggest you read the verses I gave (1 Cor 5:11-13). The Bible says that those who profess to be brothers in Christ and are drunkards need to be expelled from the church. So I was only saying what the Bible says. If you think that is ‘hateful,’ your gripe is with the Bible not with me. (And the same goes for HUG where he contemptuously described me as ‘righteous’.)”

I see that, Velour. But I don’t exactly see her saying say, “Kick them out of the church!” either. I thought she was referring to a professed believer who would not repent, but I may have been reading between her lines. She can correct me if I did.

Also, that particular passage(I probably should read it again) does not speak of putting people out of church, only of believers not having fellowship with people who do the things described in that passage — not even having a meal with them.

That was applied to believers who were professing to be believers in Christ Jesus, but were living a life of open rebellion and hypocrisy. The sort of people who are roundly criticized by unbelievers all the time.

In Matthew 18, Christ Jesus Himself taught on dealing with believers who are living lives of outright disobedience.
(RSJ’s life definitely qualifies, sad to say.) He DOES speak of a time to cut off fellowship with a believer who does not repent of sin when someone goes to him about it. That’s the Lord Himself teaching, so I don’t take that lightly.

It is also true that there is an even higher standard for church pastors and leaders — a number of scriptures address this issue.

Someone else mentioned Galatians 6. Verse 1 in that chapter is very special to me, as it addresses the right way to approach a professed brother who is living in disobedience to God.

I realize that you and I may not ever come to a point of complete agreement. But I think we do agree on some things. 🙂

I was right — I needed to read that passage in I Corinthians 5 again. I was only thinking of verse 11. This gives the full context (thanks to Daisy):

1 Corinthians 5:11-13:

11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one.

12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church[a] whom you are to judge? 13 God judges[b] those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”

I see now that verses 12-13 do indeed deal with the issue of putting an openly rebellious, unrepentant professed believer out of a church.

I cannot add to or take away from God’s Word. I believe it. I also believe we should take this in context with Matthew 18 and Galatians 6 and James 1 (and maybe others, too). All together they give the whole picture of how church leaders are supposed to deal with this type of situation.

Isn’t it ironic (and beyond sad) that this thread IS about a church leader. :'(

Claire wrote:

It is also true that there is an even higher standard for church pastors and leaders — a number of scriptures address this issue.

Hi Claire,

At no time did I say that R.C. Sproul shouldn’t get the consequences of his actions, including the loss of his job. Enabling him will help kill him, and that is no kindness.

I fully believe that, if he’s agreeable to treatment, that down the road that he should be willing to make both private amends to the people he harmed and public amends at churches where he caused harm. This is in keeping with working the steps with a sponsor in a recovery program and “cleaning up the wreckage of one’s past.”

He also needs treatment and I think his church’s leaders would be wise to consult with a professional who works in substance abuse and figure out how to support him in getting treatment.

@ Claire:
Oh, so true. My hubby and his eight siblings suffered severely under their father’s alcoholism….the youngest is now 55, but the emotional scars linger.
My cousin and wife were heroin addicts, their children suffered from neglect, were removed to foster homes….damage done.
Yes, help the addicted but not at the expense of the children, they are the true innocent party to it all, they suffer the most.

@ jeff:
Jeff I hear you. As soon as a young person who is telling me about an addicted parent & their behaviour finds out I’ve been there the sense of relief for them is overwhelming as it means I KNOW, & that their constant embarrassment & humiliation is no stranger to me. Then they really start talking.

As far as Sprouls Jr’s removal from the church goes, my thoughts would go along the line of ‘will this help him hit rock bottom & genuinely pursue help, given how long he seems to have been drinking?’, plus ‘is this a healthy environment for him?’ Given the propensity of evangelicalism to put the wrong people on a pedestal, encouraging them to continue behaviours which hurt others (i.e. tempt others into heavy drinking, act as a Pastor while not being in a fit state to do so & so on), does he actually need to be out of this environment for his & others protection? Here’s where it can be complicated to be part of the church – if the church environment is where he’s long been allowed to play out sinful behaviours should he be there right now?

Daisy wrote:

I don’t think many people in American culture know what to make of people who go to social functions and don’t stand around with a drink. It makes some of them feel uncomfortable for some reason.

If it makes someone uncomfortable, me thinks they may need to do some self examination about their drinking.

@ Deb:

so terrifying. thank you for sharing these circumstances. where driving under the influence is concerned, makes things patently clear. i’m very sorry you had to go through that.

Beakerj wrote:

As far as Sprouls Jr’s removal from the church goes, my thoughts would go along the line of ‘will this help him hit rock bottom & genuinely pursue help, given how long he seems to have been drinking?’, plus ‘is this a healthy environment for him?’ Given the propensity of evangelicalism to put the wrong people on a pedestal, encouraging them to continue behaviours which hurt others (i.e. tempt others into heavy drinking, act as a Pastor while not being in a fit state to do so & so on), does he actually need to be out of this environment for his & others protection? Here’s where it can be complicated to be part of the church – if the church environment is where he’s long been allowed to play out sinful behaviours should he be there right now?

This!! In this particular case, RC2, there is more involved than just the alcohol issue. Disfellowshipping someone who refuses repentence and change should not be a life sentence as it is not so in scripture. The point of it is to not enable the bad behavior. It should also be noted that removing someone from the church, for a time, does not mean they are declared an unbeliever. That is God’s department. In my opinion, when someone is refused fellowship in the church, there could still be close friends or pastors who keep in touch with this person until they change or refuse the contact.

Velour wrote:

Great minds think alike! I also think that churches, like employers, play a role in getting people with addictions into treatment. It doesn’t mean it will work. But it should be tried.

I haven’t seen anyone here, including the people you keep belittling, say that a church shouldn’t even try to get professional help for an alcoholic member, just the opposite. You appear to have reading comprehension problems and are far more focused on insisting that you be heard (thus you keep posting the same 4 point list, over and over again) than you are willing to consider others’ opinions.

We’re already all in agreement, Velour, about “getting people with addictions into treatment.” So please stop arguing where there is no dispute.

Here’s where we seem to fundamentally agree: After the alky refuses to cooperate, which most drunkards do (sorry for substituting the “Dark Ages” biblical term), what then? Would it be okay with you to then obey what Jesus and Paul say in the Word of God? At what point, under what circumstances, under what conditions, is it okay for us to remove the drunkard from the church and it not be “Dark Ages practices.”

So far you’ve been entirely nebulous about it. Time to get specific.

H.A. wrote:

After the alky refuses to cooperate, which most drunkards do (sorry for substituting the “Dark Ages” biblical term), what then?

lots of contempt in them there words ….. what is the story behind them?
There is usually a reason when people have strong feelings of negativity, and this issue triggers emotional responses from many of us

your anger is showing, yes

@ Deb:

What a traumatic event. So glad you are with us today.

Christiane wrote:

your anger is showing, yes

Anger, no. Frustration, yes. Okay, maybe a little anger too.

The term “Dark Ages” is Velour’s term, and one she has painted any of us with who happen to take what the Bible says literally about Matthew 18 church discipline. If she were an unbeliever it wouldn’t matter. Unbelievers have often accused Christians of “Dark Ages thinking.” But for a professing believer to attack other believers in such a manner is disturbing.

Velour wrote:

Thanks Julie Anne for asking.

As a matter of fact, I could have ended my life over what my abusive church did to me in excommunicating and shunning me. I had to be treated for major clinical depression and be put on anti-depressants. I lost all of my friends of 8 1/2 years and people were ordered to never speak to be again…and none of it was true.

Someone here posted — months ago (and they’ve done it several times) — about a police officer at their church who was excommunicated and then committed suicide.

When people here casually toss around excommunicating and shunning people…it the height of cruelty and you have no idea what will happen to them or their family.

I wouldn’t wish it on my worst enemy, including my ex-pastor who did it to me (and the doctor before me and to the woman in finance before him) or the other horrible pastors/elders.

There are ways to handle problems that other denominations use that don’t involve this evangelical shoot-from-the-hip “kick them out” response.

I wouldn’t wish spiritual abuse on my worst enemy either. I wouldn’t wish it on RC Jr.

What you experienced wasn’t Matthew 18 church discipline. It was spiritual abuse, a form of abuse that sounds remarkably similar to the same abuse RC Jr has inflicted on dozens of people. In fact in his case it goes much further than it went with you. He “excommunicates” entire families for the alleged “sins” of just one family member. Then he orders his church to shun the entire family, including small children. Talk about a great way of destroying the faith of children! If that was the objective of RC Sproul Jr he should know it’s worked!

The solution to spiritual abuse isn’t to cast aside what the Bible commands the church to do, it’s to obey the Bible.

@Velour, now I’m getting your “Dark Ages” polemic. You appear to be equating church discipline with spiritual abuse. Perhaps you’ve never witnessed Matthew 18 church discipline carried out in a loving biblical manner. I have and it can be a beautiful thing. The objective and end goal must always be “repentance unto restoration.”

I would agree the church in the dark ages had a very bad reputation when it came to church discipline, Spanish Inquisition and all that. If RC Jr could have legally used “the rack” at St. Peter Presbyterian I’m confident he would have, at the very least, held out the threat of its use. He certainly used the threat of excommunication and shunning as a form of “the rack.”

I still think I’m justified in taking offense by such a term. But now I understand why you’ve used it. I would ask that you not use it again though. Biblical church discipline is not “Dark Ages” nor cruel. It’s about loving the wayward soul back to being restored. In Sproul’s case his problems go much deeper than alcoholism. Being a drunkard is just a symptom of some much deeper issues.

@ okrapod:
I think the blood stains on that white coat might help explain that anger pretty well…. nothing worse than a drunk driver hurting innocent people and it’s NOT an ‘accident’ when a drunk gets behind the wheel and people die or are hurt terribly … and ‘being sorry’ doesn’t cut it in court

Like I said in my other comment, this issue raises a lot of emotions in a lot of people

Gram3 wrote:

Beakerj wrote:
Here’s where it can be complicated to be part of the church – if the church environment is where he’s long been allowed to play out sinful behaviours should he be there right now?

Yes, very insightful.
The church as the playground of sinful social behaviors that are demonstrably harmful to others? (Expire a life, or innocence or a reputation, or a family’s resources…, etc.) Again, 1 Cor. 5 comes to mind. Is this text taught or preached in churches? (let alone applied in practice?).

‘church discipline’ ….

honestly, if people front-loaded their development with Christian formation, then I think a lot of that Church discipline stuff wouldn’t be needed

Why?
because when a person is educated in ethical and moral behavior, they KNOW what it is and WHY departing from it is harmful and hurtful, so they are able to grow in examining their own conscience and responding accordingly ….. they are able to listen to the promptings of the Holy Spirit and make course correction before making ship-wreck of their faith

I think solid Christian formation is far more productive and healing than the miserable anecdotes I hear about of ‘Church discipline’ which seems so negative and punitive and results in public SHAMING, something that is very destructive for any person

Christian formation is education and the root of the word ‘discipline’ is that one ‘learns’ …. so I think that the front-loaded moral and ethical formation of a young person in the Church is a kind of ‘preventative’ and strengthening function, far more positive than ‘punishment’

Jack wrote:

Christiane wrote:

I think solid Christian formation is far more productive and healing than the miserable anecdotes I hear about of ‘Church discipline’ which seems so negative and punitive and results in public SHAMING, something that is very destructive for any person

I wasn’t raised with the concept that your church keeps tabs on what you’re up to.
Some might call it being accountable. It just sounds creepy to me.

I think the way these churches do it IS called ‘accountability groups’ where people are urged to ‘confess’ everything to the group and I’m not sure what happens next …. it seems too public and intrusive for most people, I think;

the worst thing I’ve heard is that the leaders of the accountability groups go running to the pastor with all the details and what is admitted to in the group comes back later to haunt the person if they attempt to leave the Church

H.A. wrote:

I wouldn’t wish spiritual abuse on my worst enemy either. I wouldn’t wish it on RC Jr.
What you experienced wasn’t Matthew 18 church discipline. It was spiritual abuse, a form of abuse that sounds remarkably similar to the same abuse RC Jr has inflicted on dozens of people. In fact in his case it goes much further than it went with you. He “excommunicates” entire families for the alleged “sins” of just one family member. Then he orders his church to shun the entire family, including small children. Talk about a great way of destroying the faith of children! If that was the objective of RC Sproul Jr he should know it’s worked!
The solution to spiritual abuse isn’t to cast aside what the Bible commands the church to do, it’s to obey the Bible.

We have already covered this multiple times. I said, as you know, that he should lose his job. I also said that down in the road, in his recovery (if he’s agreeable to getting clean and sober), he needs to make amends to people individually that he harmed, to families, and to entire churches (including publicly up front) with the help of a sponsor(sober mentor) directing him in how this process should be carried out.

There’s a lot that’s known about how to deal with people with addictions. And the policy among some here to kick them out and to the curb is indeed a Dark Ages policy and shows a complete lack of education on the subject.

There’s also a lot more to the Bible than just one verse.

Jack wrote:

I wasn’t raised with the concept that your church keeps tabs on what you’re up to.
Some might call it being accountable. It just sounds creepy to me.

I was raised with the reality that people know what you are doing and it all comes back on you-at school, at church, in your social circle, on the job and wherever. But we were in a semi-rural small town exurb and life is like that in smaller circles. It has its uses because social pressure can be brought to bear from time to time, and you do know whether to let your kids go play over at so and so’s house (not if Daddy is a drunk, for instance and keeping with this conversation) and it does get out who (married) was seen with whom (not a spouse) and what sweet young thing got into the car with whom after school after being forbidden to do that.

It certainly was not just a church thing, it was a cultural thing. However, I have seen two people disfellowshipped at a church, and both of them should have been based on scripture. In time they were each restored, one after repentance and one after a time in prison. I cannot even imagine that a church would have no means of church discipline at all, the world being what it is and scripture saying what it does. Abuse is a different issue.

H.A. wrote:

@Velour, now I’m getting your “Dark Ages” polemic. You appear to be equating church discipline with spiritual abuse. Perhaps you’ve never witnessed Matthew 18 church discipline carried out in a loving biblical manner. I have and it can be a beautiful thing. The objective and end goal must always be “repentance unto restoration.”
I would agree the church in the dark ages had a very bad reputation when it came to church discipline, Spanish Inquisition and all that. If RC Jr could have legally used “the rack” at St. Peter Presbyterian I’m confident he would have, at the very least, held out the threat of its use. He certainly used the threat of excommunication and shunning as a form of “the rack.”
I still think I’m justified in taking offense by such a term. But now I understand why you’ve used it. I would ask that you not use it again though. Biblical church discipline is not “Dark Ages” nor cruel. It’s about loving the wayward soul back to being restored. In Sproul’s case his problems go much deeper than alcoholism. Being a drunkard is just a symptom of some much deeper issues.

Hi H.A.,

Why don’t you take a break from the put downs of other people like me, telling us what to do, how to think, how to feel, and that we’re not entitled to our opinions?

So far (yesterday) you upbraided me for responding to two people and told me that I couldn’t respond to people that have made comments directly to me.

For all that you talked about how you knew about recovery programs, you showed a lack of knowledge about Al-Anon (for the family and friends of problem drinkers) and said to “Lisa” who posted here what they would tell her to do if she went, including that sponsors would advocate separation. You got it dead wrong. Al-Anon helps people take care of themselves around an alcoholic, to see clearly, so that they can make a decision that is best for their situation at the right time in their lives.

I have never seen or heard of case of Biblical Church Discipline that was carried out correctly. To the contrary, this blog is littered with stories of the failings of 9 Marks, Acts 29, and a plethora of other churches who have inflicted great harm on people before hundreds if not thousands of people.

R.C. Sproul Jr’s spiritually abusive treatment of church members and whole families. What he did was wrong. He needs to make amends to all of the people he hurt and to confess publicly at the churches where he pastored about the damage he did.

refugee wrote:

Velour wrote:
The writer Anne Lamott, a recovering alcoholic, writes about going to a black church in Northern California when Anne was not sober. She just soaked up the love in the very back and left each time. She was in a very fragile place. She needed that love. And it helped her on her road to sobriety. Today that little church…is her home church.
Nobody kicked her out. They loved her.
I get the same “apples and oranges” feeling someone else mentioned. From this description, Anne was not in leadership at her church, and she was not actively hurting others in the church, or pushing alcoholic beverages on others in that church to somehow justify her own drinking. At least, from the description.
I don’t see the comparison as connecting to RC Sproul Jr., except for the coincidence that they are both alcoholics. Kind of like connecting Lizzie Borden to a lumberjack because both of them used an ax.

Refugee,

Perhaps you missed my list up the thread from last night. Here it is again:

“Velour wrote:
It seems that most of us are in agreement that:
1. R.C. Sproul, Jr. has a serious drinking problem;
2. That he is not qualified to serve as a pastor given his abusive history of church members, former church members, and other disqualifying behaviors;
3. That he should get treatment; and
4. That his (second) wife and children could benefit from help as well for the family members of problem drinkers so that they can learn to take care of themselves around him.
We part company, however, over the theological issue of how to deal with people who are struggling with addictions in the church. Some here believe that people with addictions should be kicked out of the church. I am not in that camp as that is an extreme position and there is much more that is known now about helping people with addictions.”

There are some here who advocate kicking addicts/alcoholics out of the church. Much more is known about getting people treatment and about the nature of addictions.

okrapod wrote:

Jack wrote:
I wasn’t raised with the concept that your church keeps tabs on what you’re up to.
Some might call it being accountable. It just sounds creepy to me.
I was raised with the reality that people know what you are doing and it all comes back on you-at school, at church, in your social circle, on the job and wherever. But we were in a semi-rural small town exurb and life is like that in smaller circles. It has its uses because social pressure can be brought to bear from time to time, and you do know whether to let your kids go play over at so and so’s house (not if Daddy is a drunk, for instance and keeping with this conversation) and it does get out who (married) was seen with whom (not a spouse) and what sweet young thing got into the car with whom after school after being forbidden to do that.
It certainly was not just a church thing, it was a cultural thing. However, I have seen two people disfellowshipped at a church, and both of them should have been based on scripture. In time they were each restored, one after repentance and one after a time in prison. I cannot even imagine that a church would have no means of church discipline at all, the world being what it is and scripture saying what it does. Abuse is a different issue.

Yes to all. Cultural/societal/political issues are at play in all of life.

Jack wrote:

H.A. wrote:
If she were an unbeliever it wouldn’t matter. Unbelievers have often accused Christians of “Dark Ages thinking.” But for a professing believer to attack other believers in such a manner is disturbing.
Yeah, this is exactly why I left church behind. Any discussion that veers from the literal path is an “attack”.
I don’t know velour personally but she appears to be as much a person of faith as anyone who posts here.
I’m comfortable with my apostasy, you make being an “unbeliever” sound bad. I’d take it over blind faith any day.

Thanks Jack.

H.A. is pretty controlling. Telling me that I can’t respond to other people here who post comments to me. Telling me how to think, how to feel, that I’m not permitted to use certain terminology. And now that I’m “attacking” other Christians for saying that there is something seriously wrong with how these churches carry out Biblical Church Discipline and that it’s from the Dark Ages.

Dee and Deb have written how many horrific cases here of people who have been subjected to Biblical Church Discipline? And yes, Dark Ages applies to how the church mishandled each one of these situations.

@ refugee:
In short, Velour, I was trying to say that my experience has shaped my view of excommunication as re-defining a relationship from “fellowshipping together” to “reasoning together”.

In contrast, your experience has left you with a definition for the word that involves quashing any kind of disagreement with leadership, and shunning, and cutting off relationships altogether. It sounds so evil.

refugee wrote:

@ refugee:
In short, Velour, I was trying to say that my experience has shaped my view of excommunication as re-defining a relationship from “fellowshipping together” to “reasoning together”.
In contrast, your experience has left you with a definition for the word that involves quashing any kind of disagreement with leadership, and shunning, and cutting off relationships altogether. It sounds so evil.

I see, Refugee.

No, I can’t say that I have ever seen NeoCalvinists want to “reason together”.

Christiane wrote:

Jack wrote:
Christiane wrote:
I think solid Christian formation is far more productive and healing than the miserable anecdotes I hear about of ‘Church discipline’ which seems so negative and punitive and results in public SHAMING, something that is very destructive for any person
I wasn’t raised with the concept that your church keeps tabs on what you’re up to.
Some might call it being accountable. It just sounds creepy to me.
I think the way these churches do it IS called ‘accountability groups’ where people are urged to ‘confess’ everything to the group and I’m not sure what happens next …. it seems too public and intrusive for most people, I think;
the worst thing I’ve heard is that the leaders of the accountability groups go running to the pastor with all the details and what is admitted to in the group comes back later to haunt the person if they attempt to leave the Church

Yes, Christiane, that’s precisely how it works. It’s a form of blackmail.

Jack wrote:

Sproul’s alcoholism and the fact he’s a jerk are two separate issues.

Precisely, Jack.

R.C. Sproul Jr. should definitely be fired for his litany of abuses of church members and his other disqualifying behaviors.

How his alcoholism is handled is a separate issue, I agree, from him being a jerk to people.

With the prevalence of addictions, including in women (and that includes older women), the solution in my opinion isn’t to kick them out of the church but to come alongside them and get them (and their families) help.

Velour wrote:

It’s a form of blackmail.

Yes it is. There is no excuse for it. Father S, the RCC priest when we did RCIA, said that in the early church when somebody sinned they had to go around individually and confess and reconcile each with everybody, and that this caused problems in and of itself. He said that this was one of the reasons that private and secret confession to a priest was adopted.

Of course, if people believe that the real church somehow went dormant with the death of the last apostle and was not revived until the sixteenth century a lot of otherwise good ideas based on experience are just trashed-like the need for privacy regarding some things and how to handle both sinners and privacy within the church.

IMO, some things about the so called Dark Ages were not all that dark, and this idea is one.

elastigirl wrote:

in observing their lives, i see how common sense has served them very well. as opposed to their christian relatives who have been strapped with all manner of convoluted *& conjectured* shoulds and shouldn’ts.
they are excellent human beings.

I see this all the time too. From drinking, to how the non-Xtian men I know have treated women, to spending money…I have not seen the kind of demonic pandemonium that certain Evangelicals would have us believe results when non-Xtians do anything. You have to live into a very small world not to know that.

Ken G wrote:

Our President Donald Trump doesn’t drink at all.

Well, bang goes that theory, then.

Daisy wrote:

I wonder if the people who are advocating for alcoholics to be removed from a church mean only specifically a person who also works in a leadership position, such as pastor? I wonder if they are applying this to all, or only to people who fill certain roles?

A lovely woman in my church was an alcoholic. She was single and did not drive–harmful only to herself. Because she never appeared even tipsy, few people knew her problem. She refused help that was quietly offered. She had trouble finding work, but volunteered at church and around town about 60 hours a week. Our clergy led by example, embracing her and letting her have the full dignity of worship and service. Finally she allowed a member to take her to the hospital, but it was too late to save her life. Someone tried to organize a bedside vigil, yet this proved unnecessary: many people loved this woman, and they showed up at all hours to sit with her, although she was unconscious.

When she died, the church (silently) bore all the funeral costs. Hundreds of people showed up. The scene was an absolute tidal wave of love. There was no condemnation of her drinking, just sadness and even more love, and powerful lessons about the price of alcoholism.

Had she been confronted and expelled from church, none of this would have happened. She still would have died, but alone and condemned. I daresay that people would have learned less about alcoholism, too.

Mae wrote:

That a pastor is a drunk, is reason enough for the Congregation to fire him.

Some denominations have a structure under which an alcoholic pastor is removed and required to enter a program to address medical, psychological, and spiritual issues. The idea is to protect the congregation and also try to restore the clergy member to wholeness.

(This is different from hiding them for a little while and bringing them back on an apology/book tour.)

Velour wrote:

No, we have theological differences about how people in the church with addictions should be handled — kicked out.

But should RC Jr be permitted to stay in a pastoral role? I don’t think he should.

You could maybe argue he could be permitted to be a Pew Potato, but I don’t think he should be allowed to remain a preacher. Not just over the alcohol, but based on his other actions (using a cheating site etc) he has disqualified himself.

Velour wrote:

I had to be treated for major clinical depression and be put on anti-depressants…

One of the only reasons I came back to this thread was to add something about your insistence on people getting treatment (treatment outside of a church).

I am glad that anti-depressant medications worked for you.

What I came back to say is that just as most Christians, churches, and Christian teaching is naive and ineffectual at tackling domestic violence, alcoholism, depression, and many other issues, that secular counseling or mainstream mental health treatment does not always work, either.

I was diagnosed with clinical depression at a young age.

From the time I was a kid up until my early 30s, I saw various psychiatrists and a psychologist or two along the way.

I took doctor-prescribed anti-depressant meds for years. I was even on anti-anxiety meds for a few years.

Not only did “Christian” solutions not work for my depression and anxiety (prayer didn’t work, Bible reading didn’t work, God did not heal me, etc), but neither did the psychiatrists, psychologists, or the medications I utilized for many years.

I had to research my problems on my own to figure out what was wrong with me, and to find solutions.

Granted, some of the help I found in my research was written by other M.H.P.s, but I had to find their material on my own and figure out if, when, and how to apply it to myself.

All the years I spent visiting MHPs (mental health professionals) in person, where I drove to their offices, were basically a waste of my time.

None of the doctors ever diagnosed the root of my problem.

As it turned out, my depression was more a symptom or a side effect, not the cause of my issues – but no doctor I ever saw caught it. I had to figure it out myself later in life.

More and more articles have been released in the last 15 years containing information from studies saying that anti-depressant medications do not work for most people.

Even books I’ve read by MHPs or counselors will sometimes have a chapter cautioning people who are suffering from problems to be careful if seeking a MHP for their own use, because some MHPs are incompetent, greedy, or too arrogant to be of help.

The book by the lady who is an expert on Verbal Abuse, for instance, has a chapter near the end of her book where she advises women who are VA victims to be very cautious when choosing a MHP because most MHPs are ignorant about VA.

Same in books on domestic violence – those who are experts on DV will tell readers don’t waste time bringing your abusive husband into marriage counseling, because marriage counseling is ineffective at treating abuse.

I am not saying any of that to discourage anyone from seeing a MHP or taking medications.

I’m just saying that secular psychology or psychiatry or medications are not always successful or helpful in treating various issues, either, at least not for everyone.

So I would be cautious about “over-emphasizing” secular, mainstream, or Non-Christian solutions and treatment to hurting people, whether they are alcoholics, or are suffering from domestic abuse or from depression, or whatever they are undergoing.

Jack wrote:

I guess I was looking at it from the viewpoint of Sproul’s victims.

Also wanted to add – that is where my mind goes first too on this thread, too.

I think Sproul is a copy of Mark Driscoll. And I don’t have any sympathy for Driscoll.

Regardless of if Sproul Jr is a drinker or not, I am having a hard time mustering sympathy for him, if it’s true he’s unfairly ostracizing people from his church, using adultery sites, etc.

Christiane wrote:

lots of contempt in them there words ….. what is the story behind them?
There is usually a reason when people have strong feelings of negativity, and this issue triggers emotional responses from many of us
your anger is showing, yes

Christiane, this works both ways.

Velour was strongly pushing people on this thread for a good long time – regardless of motive, which none of us were privy too until someone much later on asked her if this topic triggered her in some fashion.

Velour wrote:

There’s a lot that’s known about how to deal with people with addictions. And the policy among some here to kick them out and to the curb is indeed a Dark Ages policy and shows a complete lack of education on the subject.

How would permitting Sproul Jr. to remain a pastor, or in regular attendance at any church, treat his alcoholism, or treat or correct his tendency to visit cheating sites, or to bully other people?

Velour wrote:

There are some here who advocate kicking addicts/alcoholics out of the church. Much more is known about getting people treatment and about the nature of addictions.

How does keeping an alcoholic in the church help that person, or, more specifically, rid them of the alcoholism?

Any time I’ve ever gone to a church, what normally happens is I attend a Sunday School class where a teacher raises some topic (not pertaining to alcoholism), then I go and sit in the large worship area where I listen to a rock band play.

Then, the preacher gets up and delivers a sermon with a title such as, “How to Have a Successful Marriage.”

I would take it that an alcoholic would have that same experience if they went to the same sort of churches I did.

I never found any of that helpful in coping with depression, anxiety, or grief after my mother died. I’m not sure how any of that stuff in and of itself would help someone to stop drinking?

Daisy wrote:

Christiane wrote:
lots of contempt in them there words ….. what is the story behind them?
There is usually a reason when people have strong feelings of negativity, and this issue triggers emotional responses from many of us
your anger is showing, yes
Christiane, this works both ways.
Velour was strongly pushing people on this thread for a good long time – regardless of motive, which none of us were privy too until someone much later on asked her if this topic triggered her in some fashion.

Daisy, You are incorrect.

Barbara made a nasty comment to H.U.G. and me and she advocated that people with addictions be kicked out of church. She told H.U.G. and me that we had a problem with the Bible.

Having been kicked out of a church (on some trumped up charges), I can say it one of the most destructive and inhumane things that I have ever seen done to human beings. There is a reason that throughout time that isolation and solitary confinement have been used in just about every culture to break people.

Many people lurk on TWW and don’t post here. Some of those people struggle with alcoholism and substance abuse problems. It is frightening for them – and overwhelming – that they could be kicked out of their church if their problem became known.

Someone just thanked me who has that struggle and who was reading here yesterday, churned up by the discussion.

Thank you.

Velour wrote:

I have noticed that you get stuck in a rut and keep going over the same thing over and over again, even though you know the issues have already been covered and logically and responsibly discussed.
Please work on that.

That is a very condescending response, Velour.

I haven’t even been posting much to this blog in the last few months.

You yourself are stuck in a rut and go over the same things over and over again. Geeze Louise.

@ Velour:

I’m not incorrect. I didn’t consider Barbara’s post to be nasty to you.

Barbara simply made some kind of reference to Scripture about biblical discipline that you don’t agree with.

If anything, you’ve shown a nasty attitude on this thread – to a few others, and now to me.

Velour wrote:

Nothing in life is full-proof. But there is very good help for many problems that has helped and changed peoples’ lives. It would be nice if you acknowledge that.

By the way if you had bothered to read the post, you can see I did find some help by way of material by MHPs, but I had to find that material on my own, because the MHPs I consulted in person over years were or no help.

I even pointed out that books BY people who are MHPs themselves mention cautions to their readers to be careful when doctor shopping because, they say, some MHPs are inept or charlatans. That is them saying that, not me.

@ Velour:

The lady in the story died of alcoholism.

It’s great the people at her church were nice to her and paid for her funeral, but from what I recall of the story, she ended up dying – even after entering a hospital? – from her years of alcohol abuse.

Sitting in a church, and attending weekly, didn’t help heal me of anxiety, depression, or help me deal with grief after a death in the family.

I’m not seeing how sitting in a church building once a week listening to sermons treats things such as depression or alcoholism.

Daisy wrote:

@ Velour:
I’m not incorrect. I didn’t consider Barbara’s post to be nasty to you.
Barbara simply made some kind of reference to Scripture about biblical discipline that you don’t agree with.
If anything, you’ve shown a nasty attitude on this thread – to a few others, and now to me.

Someone who lurks here and has a family history of alcoholism, and struggles with the issue as a Christian, found Barbara’s response to H.U.G. and me nasty too — and to the whole understanding of the complexity of the problems.

Daisy wrote:

Velour wrote:
Nothing in life is full-proof. But there is very good help for many problems that has helped and changed peoples’ lives. It would be nice if you acknowledge that.
By the way if you had bothered to read the post, you can see I did find some help by way of material by MHPs, but I had to find that material on my own, because the MHPs I consulted in person over years were or no help.
I even pointed out that books BY people who are MHPs themselves mention cautions to their readers to be careful when doctor shopping because, they say, some MHPs are inept or charlatans. That is them saying that, not me.

I did read your post, Daisy.

I am glad that you found resources.

Many resources already exist and are perfectly fine. People don’t have to reinvent the wheel to find help. It may be all they can do to get help.

Velour wrote:

Barbara advocated that people with substance abuse problems be kicked out of the church.
That is not what Jesus would have us do.

I didn’t say if they should be kicked out or not.

I’m asking, since you advocate for alcoholics to get non-church treatment AND to be allowed to sit in a pew every week…

I’m just curious, how does a person sitting in a church service every Sunday help to treat someone’s alcoholism?

I had depression for many years, and I never found sitting in a church service to bring much if any relief for that, nor did I find it help my anxiety or grief.

But see, if I ask you to clarify your position or even answer, you will accuse me of being
1. repetitive and in a rut
and
2. being too negative and saying nothing works (which I did not say in the first place)

Velour wrote:

I did read your post, Daisy.
I am glad that you found resources.
Many resources already exist and are perfectly fine. People don’t have to reinvent the wheel to find help. It may be all they can do to get help.

Not completely sure what you meant by this part,

“People don’t have to reinvent the wheel to find help. It may be all they can do to get help.”

But -I think you are over-selling non-church treatment.

Not everyone is helped through standard mental health professionals.

I saw several psychologists and psychiatrists in person over years, and none of them diagnosed me properly, and so were unable to help me.

Medications did not help me, either.

Not everyone can financially afford to see a MHP, either.

Velour wrote:

Should you have been kicked out of church because you struggled with depression, anxiety, or any other problem?

First off, I am not in a position of authority in a church, such as a pastoral position, so I don’t see this as being relevant to me as it is for someone such as Sproul Jr who works as a preacher.

Secondly, I am unaware of any Biblical passage that says that having depression is a sin or is worthy of removing someone from fellowship.

1 Corinthians 5:11-13

But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one.
12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? 13 God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”

Is depression, grief, or anxiety mentioned in that passage or a similar one in the Bible?

By the way, I am agnostic on the topic of if an alcoholic should be “kicked out” of church or not. That is your point of contention, not mine.

I am simply trying to understand how sitting in a church service once or twice a week can address the issues of alcoholism, depression, a sore throat, or anything else – how can sitting in church heal a person of those things?

Daisy wrote:

I am simply trying to understand how sitting in a church service once or twice a week can address the issues of alcoholism, depression, a sore throat, or anything else – how can sitting in church heal a person of those things?

Relationships and social interactions matter to many people. Why should they be deprived of love and fellowship?

It’s about Love. What Jesus commanded of us.

Daisy wrote:

Not everyone can financially afford to see a MHP, either.

I posted my earlier reply to you too soon and I didn’t answer your point. Sorry.

In my part of the U.S. we thankfully have a variety of lost-cost medical clinics that include psychiatric services. The county health plan and hospital also has appointments for people who can’t afford private care.

There are many programs that are funded by grants and charitable donations to pay for these services. We are very fortunate to have these services available for people who can’t afford them.

Daisy,

I assume you already know, Christ’s church isn’t a building or a place to park our butts on a pew. We are the body of Christ. We can be His hands & feet to a hurting soul, we can listen without telling, we can confess our faults to others so they understand they are not alone, we can give anonymously to people & not tithe to a church. When asked we can offer suggestions where they might find help. Velour has been advocate for many hurting people here on this blog, offering prayer lists, & reminding people to give, if they can, to help those in need on TWW, also giving of her own resources. The body has many parts.

Gail wrote:

I assume you already know, Christ’s church isn’t a building or a place to park our butts on a pew.

We are the body of Christ. We can be His hands & feet to a hurting soul, we can listen without telling, we can confess our faults to others so they understand they are not alone, we can give anonymously to people & not tithe to a church.
When asked we can offer suggestions where they might find help.
Velour has been advocate for many hurting people here on this blog, offering prayer lists, & reminding people to give, if they can, to help those in need on TWW, also giving of her own resources. The body has many parts.

I get that church is not just a building, it’s people.

During all my time of distress, nobody in the church was there for me, whether inside or outside a brick building with a cross and steeple.

I had to go things alone, with the depression and the death of a family member. I’m not so keen to hold the church up as a solution to anyone for any reason.

-Which will bum Velour out for me to say, because she thinks I’m not chipper and positive enough about things, but I am stating my reality.

So sorry my lived experience doesn’t bolster her view points and philosophy.

Am still not seeing how sitting about with other people will “cure” certain issues such as alcoholism.

It didn’t help me with depression or anxiety (that’s the truth), and I did try attending a few different churches at low points in my life.

I even opened up to church people about some of the problems I had but was met with platitudes and put downs, not support.

Being around others in a church setting may help resolve a need for companionship, but I’m not seeing how it would cure somebody of a condition that would likely need medical intervention or the attention or professionals.

You said, “When asked we can offer suggestions where they might find help.”

As I said above, in this day and age, people can use the internet to Google for names and addresses of treatment centers or psychologists.

There are phone books with that same information.

I find it a little odd that someone would seek out people in a church to ask for names and addresses of doctors, when they can get the same information online.

You said,
“Velour has been advocate for many hurting people here on this blog, offering prayer lists,”

I believe I may have been on this blog longer than Velour has, though I’ve not been posting here as much the last 2 – 3 months.

Based on Velour’s behavior in this thread especially, she isn’t quite as kind-hearted or caring as you and her other friend who usually jumps to her defense feel she is.

Velour was being hostile to a few people up thread such as Barbara and Julie Anne, and later, to me.

I feel as though I was being unjustly attacked by her. I don’t recall ever treating Velour in that fashion.

Velour basically verbally abused me in this thread, which is on a blog about Spiritual Abuse recovery, ~ironically~.

I grew up in a verbally abusive family, so I have been here before.

And having said that, I don’t think I care to re-visit this thread to read any more new comments. I doubt I will.

@ Daisy:

Daisy,

I, too, have been very disappointed in this thread. You are correct. I felt Velour was hostile towards Barbara and me, and also H.A. The domination by one person makes it difficult to have a healthy conversation.

Velour, you would be doing a kindness to yourself and everyone else by stepping back and taking time to pray and breathe.

And Velour, there’s no need to go over the issues again. We’ve all read your points over and over again.

Julie Anne wrote:

and also H.A.

Julie Anne,

I have been nice to H.A. despite the nasty barbs. I appreciate H.A.’s appropriate anger toward R.C. Sproul Jr.’s spiritual abuse of former church members and entire families.
That was wrong of Sproul Jr. and he did an incredible amount of damage. He needs to make amends for that.

The constant putdowns to me and others, calling people with addictions “alkies”, telling me that I can’t reply to comments, etc. was immature.

Daisy wrote:

she advises women who are VA victims to be very cautious when choosing a MHP because most MHPs are ignorant about VA.

Wow. We have really “lucked out” (in the old days I would have said “been blessed”) in the MHPs who are helping various members of our family. They understand verbal abuse and have offered some good, solid ideas and practical measures.

(Of course, I maintain that our coming to the particular clinic was a godsend, actually. It really was an answer to prayer, and it wasn’t the clinic that I originally picked out after an extensive internet search. But it’s a long story, and might strip away my teens’ anonymity, so I won’t go into further detail. Just that God, even when I was doubting him the most, was faithful.)

Leslie wrote:

Velour, you would be doing a kindness to yourself and everyone else by stepping back and taking time to pray and breathe.

Thanks, Leslie, for your concern. I have already done that.

I also prayed for the people who lurk here who struggle with addictions who were reeling from Barbara’s words since yesterday.

I was thanked earlier today by one of the TWW lurkers who struggles with alcohol and was terribly upset by what was said about people with this condition.

The story that Friend posted about the love, care, concern, and inclusion that their church and clergy gave to a woman alcoholic member is a testament to the Gospel at work.

Hugs.

No-one was there for me either Daisy. Which is sad & lonely. Till I found TWW & SSB. I made a few personal connections with ppl. I truly hurt for you. I will leave it to you & Velour to work it out.

I get that church is not just a building, it’s people.
During all my time of distress, nobody in the church was there for me, whether inside or outside a brick building with a cross and steeple.
I had to go things alone, with the depression and the death of a family member. I’m not so keen to hold the church up as a solution to anyone for any reason.
-Which will bum Velour out for me to say, because she thinks I’m not chipper and positive enough about things, but I am stating my reality.
So sorry my lived experience doesn’t bolster her view points and philosophy.
Am still not seeing how sitting about with other people will “cure” certain issues such as alcoholism.
It didn’t help me with depression or anxiety (that’s the truth), and I did try attending a few different churches at low points in my life.
I even opened up to church people about some of the problems I had but was met with platitudes and put downs, not support.
Being around others in a church setting may help resolve a need for companionship, but I’m not seeing how it would cure somebody of a condition that would likely need medical intervention or the attention or professionals.
You said, “When asked we can offer suggestions where they might find help.”
As I said above, in this day and age, people can use the internet to Google for names and addresses of treatment centers or psychologists.
There are phone books with that same information.
I find it a little odd that someone would seek out people in a church to ask for names and addresses of doctors, when they can get the same information online.
You said,
“Velour has been advocate for many hurting people here on this blog, offering prayer lists,”
I believe I may have been on this blog longer than Velour has, though I’ve not been posting here as much the last 2 – 3 months.
Based on Velour’s behavior in this thread especially, she isn’t quite as kind-hearted or caring as you and her other friend who usually jumps to her defense feel she is.
Velour was being hostile to a few people up thread such as Barbara and Julie Anne, and later, to me.
I feel as though I was being unjustly attacked by her. I don’t recall ever treating Velour in that fashion.
Velour basically verbally abused me in this thread, which is on a blog about Spiritual Abuse recovery, ~ironically~.
I grew up in a verbally abusive family, so I have been here before.
And having said that, I don’t think I care to re-visit this thread to read any more new comments. I doubt I will.

Hi VELOUR,
if you can remember way back some time ago, a person behaved the same way but under a different ‘name’ than H.A.

I think it’s the same person. Best to ignore the barbs. And the pile-on. The person will be encouraged to continue the behavior.
I offered H.A. an invitation to share his/her story. Maybe his/her story lies hidden in those ‘barbs’, and they are the only way this person can express themselves at this time? ‘Acting out’ is not a good substitute for the more direct communication, but sometimes the real story is so painful that there are no words. In time, this changes for the better. Think about grace being the last act in the story, which I think it may be for us all. 🙂

Gail wrote:

Based on Velour’s behavior in this thread especially, she isn’t quite as kind-hearted or caring as you and her other friend who usually jumps to her defense feel she is.
Velour was being hostile to a few people up thread such as Barbara and Julie Anne, and later, to me.
I feel as though I was being unjustly attacked by her. I don’t recall ever treating Velour in that fashion.

You just did.

Seeing a thread go down this road again makes me very sad.

12 step recovery (which I noted above is being challenged as the dominant mode of alcohol and drug addiction recovery in the US) is still pretty widespread and its tenents are a spiritual awakening via the 12 steps, followed by maintenance of a spiritual program largely of humility, honesty and service to others. I have known people in 12 step programs getting involved in churches to help maintain their spiritual program of recovery along those lines. In fact just this evening I went to mass followed by a going away party for our young and much beloved assistant pastor (who is being assigned by the Jesuits to another location much to all our distress). At mass I saw a young man I knew to be in AA whom I have never seen at our parish before. At the party afterwards I got to talk with him and the reasons I gave above are largely why he’s returning to the Faith. He’s also working with the homeless as part of our parish outreach ( i.e service to others). So someone asked how can sitting in the pews help a recovering alcoholic. Well,this is one way. It didn’t sober him up but it’s good for maintenance of the recovery. I was very happy to see him. I told him I had not been praying specifically for him (I hadn’t even been thinking of him at all) but that I had been praying in general for the conversion of souls.

Velour wrote:

Dew wrote:

So someone asked how can sitting in the pews help a recovering alcoholic. Well,this is one way. It didn’t sober him up but it’s good for maintenance of the recovery.

Nice story, Dew.

As the saying goes, “A.A. has sent more people to churches than churches have ever sent to A.A.”

just sitting in a pew is a big step for some ….. the physical act of coming into what in our Judeo-Christian ethic is ‘sanctuary’, a place of safety and peace

yeah, there are times in my life when ‘just sitting there’ was all I could manage

I guess in a way it is a ‘statement’ that is all some can make at the time, but they do it anyway. I think God understands this.

Erm, first time I’ve ever said this but I’m uncomfortable with this thread. I thought that the criticisms raised of Barbara & Julie-Anne had been well & plentifully explained by them. I just see no need for this be endlessly rehashed. Everyone here is pro-help for alcoholics, everyone here thinks that compassion is right. This thread started about S Jnr & comments were specific to his situation alone.

Velour, much as I love you & welcome your comments here can you let this go please? You need to start your own blog really as you now look to me as though you’re acting as gatekeeper/moderator here. Please.

Beakerj wrote:

Erm, first time I’ve ever said this but I’m uncomfortable with this thread.

I, too, am very disappointed with the black hole into which this thread has disappeared. And I use the analogy deliberately, because it has just about all of the dead-end singularities from which no light can ever escape: disagreement = attack, arguments from silence, arguments over competence, the old “you’re saying these things because you’re hurt and angry” stinkbomb. (A stinkbomb doesn’t have to be dropped with malicious intent to make a room uninhabitable…)

From Dee’s original article, which seems a long time ago now:

Since he pled guilty to a felony, there is no question that Sproul is an alcoholic and needs serious counseling. He made need to be hospitalized and treated by those who are not overly impressed with the Sproul name. This man needs help. If he has been drinking as long as is being alleged, Sproul is at high risk of offending again. The next time, his children or people in other cars may not be spared.

This article sits in the context of many others on TWW documenting the organisation Mr Sproul has built and the ways in which he sees fit to run it. I draw the reader’s particular attention to Dee’s phrase: … treated by those who are not overly impressed with the Sproul name…. That’s not going to happen to a church CEO within the church over which he presides. Any alcoholism (whether helplessly dependent, wantonly revelling in, or anywhere in between) going on in Mr Sproul’s life is going on in the life of a prominent minister who claims (and, it would appear, wields) authority over other believers. By the very nature of the role he occupies, he likewise claims authority over what God is or is not saying to the members of the organisation.

I would dearly love to avoid the aforesaid black hole, and so I won’t attach this point to any particular name, but I agree with it: if indeed Mr Sproul’s executive oversight of the organisation is as it has been described here, then alcohol is one more reason he needs to be removed, not just as CEO, but from membership of the organisation. Staying in it helps no-one, including himself. There is a world of difference between an alcoholic of no particular name or reputation benefiting from the love of a functional church, and an authoritarian church CEO being effectively treated in the very church in which his word has been law for years.

@ Nick Bulbeck:
Very well stated. It’s not uncommon for conversations to turn sour when people who care deeply about a topic find themselves talking past each other.

Julie Anne wrote:

I, too, have been very disappointed in this thread. You are correct. I felt Velour was hostile towards Barbara and me, and also H.A. The domination by one person makes it difficult to have a healthy conversation.

Totally agree with you, Julie Anne.

That being said, I’m also learning a few things here. What I’m seeing are a lot of hurting people who “trigger” very easily over certain things that remind them of past experiences that hurt them. They see insult where none was intended, and are quick to react and hurl barbs and insults in retaliation. It may be something as simple as a word like “alky,” spoken not in insult but merely used because it’s the word commonly used within their own circle. In my case “alky” is the term we commonly used at CR. It was never a put down, and the first time I heard it used there was by the recovering alcoholics. They were fine with either term but actually preferred “alky.” So in deference to their preferences it’s what I’ve used ever since then.

It makes me very sad that a gathering place like this, which seems to be a collection of misfits and wounded sheep (like me) can’t do any better than this. Many of us have been abused in our families of origin, which is bad enough. Many of us then turned to the church for compassion, thinking it was a safe place for full disclosure, only to be abused there too. This blog should be the last place to be unsafe though. We can do better. I forget who coined the phrase but it’s very appropriate here, “Hurting people hurt people.” I think we can do better though. So let me start.

Velour, I’m very sorry I hurt you. I reacted too strongly to some things you said. Your opinions are important and need to be validated. I did a poor job of hearing you through all your pain, a pain which is very genuine and proper considering all the terrible things you’ve likely been through. I’ll try hard to not do it again. Would you please forgive me?

Christiane wrote:

if you can remember way back some time ago, a person behaved the same way but under a different ‘name’ than H.A. I think it’s the same person.

That wouldn’t be me. I’m pretty sure this is the first time I’ve ever posted on this blog.

I offered H.A. an invitation to share his/her story. Maybe his/her story lies hidden in those ‘barbs’, and they are the only way this person can express themselves at this time? ‘Acting out’ is not a good substitute for the more direct communication, but sometimes the real story is so painful that there are no words. In time, this changes for the better. Think about grace being the last act in the story, which I think it may be for us all.

Good insights. And again, I’m very sorry for the barbs. It’s not helpful, I know. Barbs and sarcasm are a coping mechanism I’ve developed from everything I’ve been through.

Maybe someday I’ll feel comfortable sharing more of my story here. I have with Dee, and you can also gain some insights from the article itself. I’m the former member of RC Jr’s church who contacted Dee. I’m also responsible for furnishing Dee with the MADD letter. That’s way more disclosure than I’m even comfortable making right now. So for right now that’s as much as I’m going to say, at least until I can start to feel like this is a safe place.

H.A. wrote:

So for right now that’s as much as I’m going to say, at least until I can start to feel like this is a safe place.

I would advise caution. This is not all that safe sometimes. Some people seem to have agendas and sometimes people’s meanings get distorted and inferences get made all in the service of some apparent agenda. And some people have been at this for years, apparently, and have developed precision skills in defense of their agenda.

And then there are those who say stuff that is good as gold and kind to the core. And then there are the most of us who do the best we can and stumble on. But if you need some level of safety, then be cautious.

H.A. wrote:

Maybe someday I’ll feel comfortable sharing more of my story here. I have with Dee, and you can also gain some insights from the article itself. I’m the former member of RC Jr’s church who contacted Dee. I’m also responsible for furnishing Dee with the MADD letter. That’s way more disclosure than I’m even comfortable making right now. So for right now that’s as much as I’m going to say, at least until I can start to feel like this is a safe place.

Maybe feeling comfortable is too much to expect when something is not ready to be shared. I don’t see myself sharing about deep grief over the sudden loss of a loved one with anyone, especially not ‘in the family’. Even my best friend knew I could not speak of it. She said, “if you don’t want to talk, it’s okay, but write me a letter” ….. she said “just take the stationery and spill some coffee across it and sign your name and put it in envelope and SEND it.” I did. And when I did, it helped. Even that helped.

She had lost a son to illness (Lupus) when he was eleven. She understood my silence.

I guess it’s the just people who have suffered who understand. Maybe that’s how it is supposed to work?
?

@ H.A.:

H,A,, ….. you’re pretty great.

There is still much distress on this thread, but it does my heart good to see people trying to find common ground. Perhaps the Serenity Prayer, usually ascribed to Reinhold Niebuhr, will help some of us:

God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.

Friend wrote:

There is still much distress on this thread, but it does my heart good to see people trying to find common ground. Perhaps the Serenity Prayer, usually ascribed to Reinhold Niebuhr, will help some of us:
God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.

Amen, Friend.

And I can’t thank you enough for the lovely story that you wrote to us yesterday about how your church and clergy loved and cared for that woman church member who was an alcoholic and who wasn’t clean and sober. From the bottom of my heart and for all of the lurkers here who struggle with addictions who ARE Christians, thank you!

Bridget wrote:

Velour wrote:

This is a much bigger problem in the church than just R.C. Sproul, Jr.’s case.

This thread was about RC, Jr. and his many abuse issues beyond alcoholism, though. It was not about alcoholics in general, and it was certainly not about alcoholics who are in recovery or working toward that.

context is key to understanding, though, don’t you agree?