Why I Know That SNAP Is Not in It for the Money: Honoring Barbara Blaine, Barbara Dorris, David Clohessy, Jeff Anderson, and Amy Smith

"A hero is somebody who is selfless, who is generous in spirit, who just tries to give back as much as possible and help people. A hero to me is someone who saves people and who really deeply cares." Debi Mazar link 

link

This is a long overdue thank you note to the organization known as SNAP (Survivor's Network of Those Abused by Priests.) No one associated with the organization had any warning that I was going to write this post nor did I run this article by them before posting it at TWW. I have been meaning to do this for the longest while. Sadly, I waited until SNAP was hit by a lawsuit that I believe is unjust.

SNAP is accused of taking kickbacks by a fired, former employee. 

The Chicago Tribune reported in Ex-worker sues priest sex-abuse victims advocacy group, says it exploited survivors:

According to a lawsuit filed this week in Cook County Circuit Court, Gretchen Rachel Hammond worked as a director of development from July 2011 until she said she was fired in February 2013, shortly after asking superiors whether SNAP was referring potential clients to attorneys in exchange for donations.

In addition to the organization, defendants named in the lawsuit are Barbara Blaine, its founder and president; David Clohessy, executive director; and Barbara Dorris, outreach director.

Blaine said in a statement that "the allegations are not true."

The whistleblower claims that SNAP exploits survivors, a claim I say is utter codswallop, and I shall offer my own experience as a counterpoint. According to Religion News in Longtime leader of clergy victims group leaves as SNAP faces lawsuit:

The lawsuit by Gretchen Rachel Hammond names Clohessy and other SNAP leaders as defendants and alleges that “SNAP does not focus on protecting or helping survivors – it exploits them.”

“In exchange for the kickbacks, SNAP refers survivors as potential clients to attorneys, who then file lawsuits on behalf of the survivors against the Catholic Church. These cases often settle, to the financial benefit of the attorneys and, at times, to the financial benefit of SNAP, which has received direct payments from survivors’ settlements.”

The NY Daily News posted Nonprofit took kickbacks instead of helping priests' sex abuse victims, lawsuit claims. The ex employee, Gretchen Rachel Hammond, claims that SNAP was involved in making money for themselves by taking kickbacks from lawyers.

The lawsuit does not name any lawyers who gave money to the group.

But Jeff Anderson, a Minnesota attorney who has represented victims of clergy sex abuse in the past, said he has made donations to the organization.

“I have supported SNAP and a lot of other organizations that help survivors throughout the country, unapologetically,” he told the Chicago Tribune.

“The allegation is explosive because it’s unethical,” he continued. “I’ve never done it, nor would I ever do it.”

What are the SNAP financials?

The nonprofit group’s most recent disclosure to the IRS says it had just over $100,000 in net assets at the close of 2014. At the time, Clohessy was receiving a salary of $86,000, as was president Barbara Blaine.

Compare that with Franklin Graham and other celebrity religious leaders.

Who is Grace Hammond and what does she want?

According to the Catholic News, Kickbacks for suing the Church? Lawsuit claims major misbehavior at SNAPwe learn that:  

The suit claims that when Hammond attempted to confront superiors about the practices, they engaged in retaliation resulting in the firing. Now, the lawsuit seeks compensatory damages, attorney’s fees and other relief.

Hammond, who identifies as a transgender woman, is currently a journalist for the Chicago LGBT newspaper the Windy City Times.

CNA contacted attorneys for Hammond but did not receive comment by deadline.

According to The Boston Globe in Suit alleges anti-clergy sex abuse group got kickbacks from lawyers, Hammond claims that her stress over the SNAP situation led to weight gain…

The lawsuit says that, at the time SNAP was colluding with attorneys to raise funds, it “never reached out to, or communicated with, grief counselors or rape counselors for the purpose of providing counseling to survivors.”

At one point, the lawsuit says, SNAP “concocted a scheme” to conceal donations from attorneys by encouraging them to make donations to a “front foundation” called the Minnesota Center for Philanthropy, which in turn would make grants to SNAP.

The Globe could not find a charitable organization with that name but Hammond’s lawyer, Chicago attorney Bruce C. Howard, said it’s possible that plans to start the center never got off the ground. The existence of the alleged scheme, he said, is confirmed by documents retained by Hammond while working for SNAP.

The lawsuit says that after Hammond complained to SNAP officials about fund-raising with attorneys, SNAP officials retaliated, in part, by requiring her to make daily reports off her activities to Blaine. As a result, she suffered from stress that led to health problems, including high blood pressure and weight gain.

Hammond has started her own blog in which she touts herself as an award winning journalist.

Who is Barbara Blaine?

She is the founder of SNAP and a survivor herself. She had planned on retiring after 29 years at the helm. A restructuring of the group had been underway with a planned move from Chicago to St Louis.

Blaine founded SNAP in 1988, according to the organization’s website, which says it is the nation’s oldest and largest self-help organization for victims of clergy sexual abuse.

A survivor of assault herself, Blaine first began holding SNAP meetings in a homeless shelter she ran in Chicago. She told NBC 5 that she made the decision to resign because it’s "time for a break."

"I've been doing this for 29 years," she said, adding that "there’s no right time" to step down."

Who is David Clohessy?

David was the spokesman for the SNAP as well as being a survivor of abuse. He, too, had been planning on leaving SNAP prior to the allegations raised by Hammond. It is important to understand that this organization has been around for 29 years and plans had been underway for some time to change the governance structure as well as the location of the organization.

According to Wikipedia:

David Clohessy is the former St. Louis, Missouri-based national director and spokesman for the Survivor's Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP), the largest and oldest self-help group for victims of clergy molestation in the United States.[1]

Clohessy has been widely quoted by news organizations covering the sex abuse scandal, including the New York Times, and he has appeared on numerous television shows, including Good Morning America, The Oprah Winfrey Show, The Phil Donahue Show, and 60 Minutes.[citation needed]

Clohessy has publicly stated he was the victim of sexual abuse by a priest during his teenage years (from 1969-1973).[citation needed]

Clohessy struggled with the fact that his brother, Father Kevin Clohessy (who has since left the priesthood voluntarily), also had eventually "a credible accusation" against him for being inappropriate sexually while a priest.

Who is Barbara Dorris?

It appears that Barbara will remain with the organization as it transitions.

Barbara Dorris is the victims managing director for SNAP. As a teacher in her parish school, she caught a parish priest molesting children and unsuccessfully tried to have him removed. When church officials were recalcitrant, she came to SNAP for help. In 2002, she began working as a full time volunteer with SNAP and joined the staff two years later. In her work with SNAP, she has helped hundreds of survivors across the world and works closely with local SNAP leaders in the US (and increasingly, SNAP leaders overseas).

Dorris is herself a survivor of childhood clergy abuse who has six grown children and five grandchildren.

Who is Jeff Anderson?

Jeff Anderson & Associates pioneered the use of civil litigation to seek justice for survivors of child sexual abuse and is recognized as one of the nation’s premier law firms to represent survivors of clergy sexual abuse. Widely recognized as one of the most prolific and successful litigators of clergy sexual abuse cases against churches and other institutions, Jeff Anderson & Associates has handled priest abuse cases in numerous states throughout the nation.

According to CNN One lawyer behind many allegations of Catholic Church abuse:

For decades, Anderson has won settlements from Catholic archdioceses across the country for abuse victims and, more than any other attorney in the country, has driven American media coverage of the church abuse scandal.

Now, with the church abuse crisis embroiling Europe for the first time and raising questions about whether the pope himself did enough to respond to church abuse, Anderson is employing novel legal tactics in an attempt to take his campaign all the way to the Vatican.

"I'm getting far more aggressive because all roads are leading to Rome," Anderson, 62, said last Thursday, after filing suit against the Vatican on behalf of the alleged Wisconsin abuse victim.

"I'm pessimistic that the Vatican is capable of changing itself but I'm optimistic that external pressure will," Anderson said. "We're at a tipping point.

The CNN article states:

 "But Anderson's critics say that last week's suit against the Vatican, along with much of his other work, is aimed more at attracting publicity than getting justice."

And this is where I come in right after introducing Amy Smith.

Who is Amy Smith

Besides being a fellow "Daughter of Stan," Amy is the DFW SNAP volunteer. That means she gets no money, critics! The Deebs and Amy have collaborated on a number of posts which involve child sex abuse. Some of you may remember the infamous Village Church scandal. This woman puts it all on the line for child sex abuse victims. She writes over at Watch Keep and we consider her a dear friend.

Why I honor Barbara Blaine, David Clohessy, Barbara Dorris, Jeff Anderson and Amy Smith and why I do not buy Gretchen Rachel Hammond's allegations.

Let the Deebs take your back to the time frame leading up to the start of this blog in 2009. In 2006, Dee's former church was rocked by the arrest of a Southeastern Seminary student who had been molesting young teen boys at Dee's former church. You can read the ugly details of Doug Goodrich's arrest and subsequent conviction the following year. There were approximately 13 boys who were sickeningly molested. I truly mean that. If anyone wants to know the details of the extent of the molestation, we would be happy to oblige, offline. Neither of us has ever fully recovered from the descriptions of the abuse at the hands of this horrible man.

We had a credible report from one of the boys and his family that the church had been aware of complaints of Goodrich's sexualized behavior one year prior to the arrest. A group of us called for a church investigation into the reasons why no action was taken on the part of the church.

We will be featuring a post by a remarkable young woman who was friends with these boys. She will describe why it caused her to walk away from the church for a number of years. 

Sadly, the church leadership responded in the way one might expect, given that the lead pastor was on the council of The Gospel Coalition and considered CJ Mahaney a friend. They went for our jugular and claimed no reports of any sort were ever received by the leadership. We had a recording in which one pastor admitted to knowing about the initial report, but we were chastised for recording his admission (legal in North Carolina.)

The church went after us. We heard sermons in which the pastor accused this group of having *malice of forethought*, a lovely legal term. On one Sunday, the pastors had the congregation come forward and kneel at the altar to pray that God would take away their hatred for those working to bring to light the truth of the matter. The lovely leadership even placed a lawyer on the investigative team and told us that she was a victim advocate and neglected to mention the "lawyer" word. Thank God for Google.

As the pressure began to build, I have to admit that I was worried since legalese seemed to rule the day. So, I made the best decision of my life in this matter. I contacted SNAP. Here was a woman with nothing to offer them – no money, no victims, no nothing. Just a woman who wanted to do the right thing and expose the truth.

Over the course of several conversations, (I had the chance to talk with both Barbaras and David at one time or another), they reassured me that I had handled the situation appropriately. They even offered to fly in and host a protest in front of my former church! Once again, they would fly in at their expense, put themselves up and protest on behalf of the victims and their advocates.

Then, they did something that still brings me to tears. They gave my name and number to Jeff Anderson. Jeff promptly called me on his way home from work one night. He offered me advice on a number of fronts. He told me that he was surprised that it was those whose children were not hurt who were leading the effort and that he wanted to support us. 

Then, I asked him a question that would change the course of my life. "Can I blog about this and can I get sued for doing so?" Jeff launched into an explanation of why I could blog about what happened. He told me to always tell the truth from my perspective and to never make up any sort of allegations. That was the day I learned about the freedom that we have in the US to pursue and expose the truth. 

He then said something that drove me to tears. He said if I followed what he said to do and I got sued, he would be there for me and he gave me his cell phone number (not his office, his cell phone!) I still have it and have thankfully never had to use it.

But, I bet you might say, didn't you have access to all of those boys and wouldn't Anderson and SNAP benefit from your contact? The simple answer is "Nope." Without getting into lengthy details, it was rather clear from the beginning that a lawsuit on behalf of the victims in this situation would not be able to proceed. However, Jeff, Barbara, Barbara and David Clohessy spent time speaking with the victims, offering them support and recommendations for dealing with the aftermath of this situation.

SNAP, Amy Smith and Jeff Anderson kindly served all of us, and I will be forever grateful. 

An offer from Dee to SNAP and Jeff Anderson:

If I can ever be of help by telling my story of the altruistic kindness that you showed to me, please let me know. This time, I am the one who will fly in at my own expense, put myself up, pay for my own Chicago style pizza and tell my story to lawyers, media or a jury. Just let me know. I will be there in a heartbeat. 

I am eternally grateful to all of you. Let me end it with this. We all went to see the movie Spotlight. We caused a bit of commotion in the local movie theater. When SNAP was mentioned, we erupted in raucous applause which was noted by other attendees. We thank God for all that you do. Please know that you have your own faithful paparazzi in us!


Comments

Why I Know That SNAP Is Not in It for the Money: Honoring Barbara Blaine, Barbara Dorris, David Clohessy, Jeff Anderson, and Amy Smith — 58 Comments

  1. Not to get technical but the arrest was in 2006 and the conviction in 2007…

    Also, I’m holding my blog post hostage until I get more info on this:

    “The church went after us. We heard sermons in which the pastor accused this group of having *malice of forethought,* a lovely legal term. On one Sunday, the pastors had the congregation come forward and knell at the altar to pray that God would take away their hatred for those working to bring to light the truth of the matter.”

  2. Goodrich was a classmate of mine, though I don’t remember him. I know people that do, who went to that church, and I know it was devastating.

    I also know another male student at the time who was rating women to their faces. He seemed to believe that he was a total catch.

    I don’t remember male students standing up against these things. I remember thinking, “Why aren’t more people standing up against this?”

    SNAP stands up for people, because often people in the church do anything but the right thing, especially if they derive some sort of financial benefit or personal power over others from the church.

  3. @ Lise:
    Whoops- looks like we somehow didn’t tell you about this. Call me and I will fill you in!!! It was all on the recorded sermons on the website and it occurred just after Bill and I began the great Diaspora.

  4. dee wrote:

    Goodrich was a classmate of mine, though I don’t remember him. I know people that do, who went to that church, and I know it was devastating.

    The extent of his perversion was incredible. I am suspicious that this had been going on a long time. I wonder if any of his classmates or friends were aware of his incredible perverted weirdness.

  5. The Spotlight film is an excellent case study. Even though in the US we have religious freedom, elected officials, Rule of Law (law enforcement), and the 4th Estate (freedom of press), it takes individuals doing right in their capacity, for the right outcome to happen – truth and justice. It took years in Boston for righteous individuals to emerge and effect change.

    The dedicated individuals you have named are, yes, heroes. Thank God there are individuals who do the right thing. May they triumph.

  6. @ Brent:
    After reading the article of your link: there might be other issues (employer – employee).

    from the linked article:

    “Tracy Baim — the publisher and executive editor of the Windy City Times — told The Algemeiner she could not discuss the specific charges around Hammond.

    “‘I cannot comment on our people, but know that we stand by our reporting on our stories,’ Baim said by telephone from Chicago.

    “Pressed on whether she stood by Hammond’s reporting of the Dyke March controversy specifically, Baim answered affirmatively. ‘I was the one who edited the story,’ she added. Asked why Hammond had not filed a byline for the paper since June 28, Baim had no comment.”

  7. @ dee:

    Oh I’m calling you tomorrow! And the archives on the current website don’t go back that far. 🙁 I’m guessing you didn’t think to get a copy?

  8. David Clohessy and Barbara Dorris are two incredible people. At the time when we were in the aftermath of my son’s abuse I got a chance to speak with Barbara. She was an amazing support at that time offering advice and referring us to places where my son could receive care. David I got a chance to speak with him at length. He took time out of his day to call me and offered advice and places where my child could get care. At no time did either refer us to an attorney except let me know that the one I had found was wonderful with victims of abuse because it was her field of practice. They both offered us comfort and understanding as well as helped me process some of what we were going through with the church. These two people are filled with a wealth of information and experience in the field of child sex abuse. I support them 100% and the SNAP organization. I am saddened to hear what is now going on and I pray that the Lord will continue to bless SNAP and those who serve faithfully to victims.

  9. We heard sermons in which the pastor accused this group of having *malice of forethought*, a lovely legal term.

    Unbelievable – malice of forethought would imply that you (the Deebs) and the other members of the ‘group’ had planned, or at least had foreknowledge of and failed to prevent, the molestation just so that you could go after the pastors of PBC and accuse them of dereliction of their duties as shepherds. The implication being, of course, that all members of the group are (in effect) sociopaths who use the pain of others to advance their own agendas without caring who gets hurt in the process, which would make you worse ‘monsters’ than the paedophile intern/seminary student.

    The youth pastor I grew up at that church had been fired years before because he did not ‘tow the line’. I see it now as God’s protection on his life and his family.

  10. Small correction: The legal principle is “malice aforethought” (not “of forethought”).

  11. SNAP is getting kickbacks?
    Let me see here ……. My husband is retired military, and he donates to the Disabled Veterans National Foundation (along with a couple more veteran support foundations). Several of his former comrades do, too. Does that mean DVNF, etc. is getting kickbacks? Wouldn’t that be about the same thing for which this woman is accusing SNAP?

  12. @ Nancy2 (aka Kevlar):
    – churches (that pay pastor salaries) with their pastors tithing
    – local (public and private) school funds with admin and teachers contributions
    – libraries with personnel donating
    – medical personnel may contribute from their own pockets to humanitarian aid, and then go out on a medical mission
    etc.

    Most non-profits solicit donations from everyone because they are, by definition, non-profits. To consider this a kick-back scheme would be unusual.

    The few lawyers that have ventured into dealing with child abuse and churches may eventually profit substantially, however, this is in the context of personal injury? in which case a settlement reached may be substantial, depending on the damage done to the individual.

    In the Spotlight film, the initial lawyers were hoping to keep their license to practice while anticipating neither success nor much financial gain. It was simply just, and an uphill battle.

  13. dee wrote:

    @ Nancy2 (aka Kevlar):
    But Nancy, the stress made her fat! There are children being abused but someone thinks the stress was making her fat and that is just so awful…

    Poor thing. The fact that a non-profit accepts donations to protect children and expose sexual predators has completely stripped her of all self control!
    The fact that law enforcement employees, prison guards, and DAs make a living on the backs of tax payers must really damage her psychologically and emotionally.
    We should send her sympathy cards!

  14. roebuck wrote:

    While we’re making small corrections, the expression is ‘toe the line’, not ‘tow the line’

    I probably should omit that I used to work as a journalist and editor – that one slipped threw my fingers.

    (Haha, yes, I know, it is)

  15. @ Nancy2 (aka Kevlar):
    … after he was a fugitive running from the law, hitchhiking across Tennessee, was chased down, caught, arrested and jailed. Noble? Not. Moreover the cited assaults on children happened over 12 years ago – again, not exactly forthcoming with his misdeeds destroying someone else’s innocent childhood, while performing and presenting his family as: Christian, global, iconic, talented, stellar models.

    On the other hand, Mr. Duggar claiming that sibling molestation is common in Christian families – not buying that. Maybe in his circles, but not mainstream. Weak, trying to normalize what his son did. It is right to address what is wrong; it is not right to normalize it even though the numbers are more than meets the eye at this time.

  16. This is pedantic, but might as well get those legal terms down: it’s “malice aforethought”. It’s actually a biblical concept, from the Torah. Basically means someone does something with ill or evil intent, particularly with homicide crimes.

  17. GMFS 1 of 2

    Jesus himself stated that the worker is worthy of his wages. The context, AWWBA, was his sending the disciples out on their first missionary journey, with instructions to heal the sick and raise the dead an’ a’ tha’. In particular, he said: eat what is set before you.

    I dislike the idea that anybody, whose daily work involves the pursuit of a particular social good, must necessarily do so unwaged and unsupported, on the grounds that it is somehow improper for them to be given money. Or that it “looks bad”, or that somehow they have to live up to some artificial and distorted standard of “purity” (which involves being unable to pay their way or feed their children). Several contributors have already stated this above, with the example of public employees who personally benefit at the taxpayer’s expense, etc, etc – no, in fact they just receive a fair wage for the work they do, like everybody else.

    So I don’t in principle object to lawyers giving money to SNAP. In fact, if SNAP benefits from the proceeds of settlements, then it is effectively being funded by abusers and the communities and organisations who shelter and enable abusers.

  18. GMFS 2 of 2

    Sometimes, on a thread that arouses strong views, a regular Wartburger takes a slightly contrary stance. Occasionally this stirs up a hornets’ spanner in the works and sleeping dogs hit the fan. I can only prefix this by asking you to trust that I’m not trying to be contentious, nor to attack anybody or impugn anybody’s motives, nor do I think anybody has written anything hateful, stupid, ignorant or offensive.

    I don’t know that SNAP is not in it for the money. Specifically, I don’t know whether Gretchen Hammond’s lawsuit has any basis.

    My guess is that it’s a misunderstanding, combined with a clash of personalities and perhaps some hidden hurts, that snowballed and ran out of control. We’ve seen something like that here in Wartburg; you all know what I mean, so I won’t elaborate. But my guess is just that; it’s only a guess. I think it’s plausible.

    I’m really into evidence. When someone makes an allegation, you might believe them and call them a victim, or disbelieve them and call them a liar. But those aren’t the only two options; you can also take the issue seriously, and investigate it on its own merits independent of whether you think most allegations like it are true or false.

    But, brothers and sisters (no sarcasm implied: it is an honour to use those words) I want to note just this. In this case, one person is bringing a charge against an organisation. If the organisation were a neo-Calvinist “church”, we would not be treating the one person the way we are here.

  19. @ Nick Bulbeck:

    Yes. Well. Ahem. I did make that ‘peacemakers’ comment a while back and I am now ‘stuck with it’ so to speak, therefore and wherefore and all that I hear what you are saying and I admit that the trap of absolute alternatives (all right or all wrong) is a place where I have tripped up from time to time. It is not the worst of my acrobatic trap fallings, but it does happen. Thanks for the reminder.

  20. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    But, brothers and sisters (no sarcasm implied: it is an honour to use those words) I want to note just this. In this case, one person is bringing a charge against an organisation. If the organisation were a neo-Calvinist “church”, we would not be treating the one person the way we are here.

    Uh oh. That means I have to get the minions to pack up my trebuchets and gather at the local pub instead!

  21. @ okrapod:

    I’d forgotten that one – wasn’t particularly thinking about you, honest!

    Actually, I rather appreciate your knack of developing a line of thought. (I’m not describing it very well…)

    More broadly, Deebs are addressing a topic that ignites very strong emotions, and TBH, it should. That’s not an easy job to do, but I’m really glad someone’s had the courage to do it.

  22. I’m going to try to make it through the rest of July without writing the word “actually”.

    It could happen.

  23. Burwell wrote:

    I probably should omit that I used to work as a journalist and editor – that one slipped threw my fingers.

    An editor you say. And I almost failed freshman English. I am just not going to think about that!

  24. Tennis

    Murray is out: from 2 sets to 1 up, he lost the next two 6-1 6-1, so Sam Querrey goes on to play the winner of Muller/Cilic (who’ve just gone to a fifth set). Raonic and Fed are warming up on Centre Court the noo, the winner of that one playing Djokovic in the other semi.

    IHTIH

  25. I’ve some important news in customs (11:23 am). Doesn’t matter how it got there (accidentally, I should add); tennis fans will need to check it out.

  26. @ Thersites:

    Character witnesses are evidence, of course; though not conclusive on their own (I think we’re probably of the same view on that). Sociopaths go to great lengths to cultivate a reputation for good character, but at the same time, people of genuinely good character often have a reputation for good character too. Moreover, depending on circumstances, people sometimes do things that are out of character.

    All I really know is that somebody has done something here…

  27. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Character witnesses are evidence, of course; though not conclusive on their own

    True.
    A grown son (50 YOA?) held his elderly parents, in their home down the block, hostage for a weekend demanding $$$ for his gambling habit. In the end the son turned the gun on himself. A swat team and the coroner showed up on Sunday – no one knew. Later, his neighborly dad stopped by to say what a wonderful son he was.

  28. I have posted a prayer request.
    Now, I have to eat a late lunch and go to work on a 4 gal bucket of green beans – break up, wash, and can this afternoon. Catch ya later.

  29. ION: back to the tennis.

    So, Roger is through after a commanding display against Milos Raonic who, of course, beat him in last year’s semis before losing to Sir Andy in the final.

    I’m getting chucked out of the bedroom so Lesley can dyson the Mac. More later.

    IHTIH

  30. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    I’m really into evidence. When someone makes an allegation, you might believe them and call them a victim, or disbelieve them and call them a liar. But those aren’t the only two options; you can also take the issue seriously, and investigate it on its own merits independent of whether you think most allegations like it are true or false.

    But, brothers and sisters (no sarcasm implied: it is an honour to use those words) I want to note just this. In this case, one person is bringing a charge against an organisation. If the organisation were a neo-Calvinist “church”, we would not be treating the one person the way we are here.

    I really wanted to say the same thing here, but I doubted it would be taken seriously. I note that this blog has taken the opposite of its usual logical stance on things on this post. If there is a lesson to be learned, perhaps the next time when someone comes on here defending the people who are leaders who at one time were a big help to them that perhaps all the regulars here should respond with more grace in their comments. After all, they are only taking the exact same logical stance from their point of view that Dee has taken today.
    The only thing I will add is that the same leader who at one time was a huge personal help and blessing to me later on went on to have an affair with a woman going through a divorce that was in our own home fellowship group he led. The lady was in the middle of a divorce with a former roommate and fellow police sergeant of said leader. The situation was so horribly soap operish and shook my personal faith terribly. It took over two years for me to recover from it. So being rude to some leader covering up scandal is one thing with our commenting. Being rude to some follower who is caught up in the denial and confusion is something completely else.
    Gal. 5:15 “But if you bite and devour one another [in bickering and strife], watch out that you [along with your entire fellowship] are not consumed by one another.”
    A kinder, gentler tone might actually help salve some wounds. We should all be on the lookout for pride, it sneaks up on us and tends to turn us all into the very kind of people that we hate and speak out against. I am preaching to myself as much as anyone else here…

  31. Brent wrote:

    SNAP – gross receipts of $495,000
    [ My church is envious }

    Can you post the link so we can see the rest of the financials?

  32. Mr. Jesperson wrote:

    being rude

    Probably not a good idea, (Christlike) in any case. Ephesians 4:15.

    Speak the truth in love, is what I gather from your comment. Good idea.

    Speak. Truth. In love.

  33. Brent wrote:

    envious

    Not to quibble over semantics, maybe you meant something else? “For where you have envy and selfish ambition, there you find disorder and every evil practice.” – James 3:16.

    Notes: As in any non-profit (church or org), over and above gross $$$ received, there are uncompensated volunteers. The figure given is for what time frame and what capacity (locations), (thus details)? and the point of this figure is…? considering the mission being accomplished, locally, nationally, globally?

  34. ION: Climbing

    So, back at the wall tonight, partly to see what new routes the guys put up on Monday. And it turns out the pink brains and the orange biscuits are back! The former is a strenuous-looking route that I made a bit of a mess of about 10 feet up. Whereas the latter is a tricky, technical bridging problem needing a combination of finger-strength and technique. Given 6c apparently… be which as it may, I did it on sight! Never finished a route with the biscuits before.

    So that was chuffing.

    IHTIH

  35. Mr. Jesperson wrote:

    If there is a lesson to be learned, perhaps the next time when someone comes on here defending the people who are leaders who at one time were a big help to them that perhaps all the regulars here should respond with more grace in their comments. After all, they are only taking the exact same logical stance from their point of view that Dee has taken today.

    A good point. Also the accusation of corruption comes from only one person thus far. It appears from the lack of comments that many are taking a wait and see position. Being a character witness in this situation, before many of the facts have settled out, takes a certain amount of courage.

    I will applaud Dee for stepping out and giving a vote of confidence to some one that she knows. By doing so Dee is also knowingly putting some part of her reputation at stake. That said, after reading here for years I am also confident that if the facts prove the allegations true the blog hosts will address that honestly and not cover it up.

  36. ___

    Take It To Da Bank: “A Fist Full Of Child Sex Abuse Lawyers Abound, Perhaps?”

    hmmm…

    SNAP…You’ll pay 4 this?!?

    SKreeeeeeeeeeeeeeetch!

    The Good, The Bad, and the Layers that get paid?
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AFa1-kciCb4

    KRunch!

    Q. Is there really big money in child abuse claims?

    Kick Backs Abound?: “The Spaghetti Lawyer Orchestra…”
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RST-R5A1jZ4

    Will SNAP tell their readers why they fired this person in question in the first place. Good people have good reasons for firing questionable folks. Publishing their (SNAP) donations records could be a plus, as well…

    Right or wrong, SNAP is gonna be out some serious donated coin. ¿Por una cuestionable donación de dólares? (1)
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CpZjvbSC9_M

    …¿Ee aquel embrollo nadie se ponía de acuerdo?
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9dpNQFpeo6U

    Once upon a time truth mattered. Now the lawyers decide?!?
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kOy6M_X2MO8

    (cara triste)

    Sōpy
    ___
    (1) tr. For a questionable donation of dollars?

    🙁

  37. Beakerj wrote:

    DO you think anyone but us Brits knows what being chuffed is?

    To this Yank, it’s either the sound a tiger makes or a steam locomotive at a distance.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *