Post of IDC Will Be Delayed

We have decided that we want to do a more thorough job at looking at the writings of Iain D Campbell so we are going to delay posting. If anyone would like to read something written by him and would like to submit it to be included in a future post, please email us.


Comments

Post of IDC Will Be Delayed — 149 Comments

  1. Commenting on Exodus 2:23-25, Ian D Campbell writes in his commentary “Opening Up Exodus”

    “What is a covenant? It is a formal bond that ties two people, or two nations—any two parties—together. Perhaps the best illustration of a covenant is a marriage union. Two people fall in love and want to spend their lives with each other. There is a deep, personal attachment between them. In a sense, nothing can add to, or take away from that relationship. But it is important to guard the personal relationship with a formal, binding commitment—which is what marriage is. Once a couple is married, the relationship is different. The love and personal commitment are the same, but it now operates within the security of a public commitment. The marriage commitment is there simply to allow the personal love to grow and develop.”

    He then says, when discussing The Ten Commandments at Exodus 20:1-21

    “Obeying the law means keeping the covenant. Let’s come back to our marriage illustration: if husbands and wives remain faithful to each other, they will enjoy the blessings and happiness which marriage promises. If a husband is unfaithful to his wife, then he remains married, but his unfaithfulness leads him into a web of deception, unhappiness and hurt which may take a long time to recover from. So God gave laws to his people which made it clear that the blessings of the covenant were related to the way their lives were to be lived. The path of obedience was the path of covenant blessing; the path of disobedience was the path on which blessings would be forfeited.”

    (Opening up Exodus, Day One Publications, 2006, available on Logos)

    Moving on to his commentary “Opening up Matthew’s Gospel”, he writes the following when commenting on Matthew 5:27-28

    “The second has to do with the commandment on adultery (vv. 27–30). Again, there were those who prided themselves on the fact that they had never committed adultery simply because they had never carried through the physical act of sleeping with another woman. But Jesus says that our righteousness has to go deeper than this. Adultery does not begin in the bed, but in the heart. What about the lust factor in our lives? That’s where the sin is committed and where its influence must be dealt with and cut off.”

    (Opening up Matthew’s Gospel, Day One Publications, 2008, available on Logos)

  2. Something about the name “Iain”:
    Is that a local variant (spelling and/or pronunciation) of “Ian”?

  3. Lowlandseer wrote:

    “The second has to do with the commandment on adultery (vv. 27–30). Again, there were those who prided themselves on the fact that they had never committed adultery simply because they had never carried through the physical act of sleeping with another woman. But Jesus says that our righteousness has to go deeper than this. Adultery does not begin in the bed, but in the heart. What about the lust factor in our lives? That’s where the sin is committed and where its influence must be dealt with and cut off.”
    (Opening up Matthew’s Gospel, Day One Publications, 2008, available on Logos)

    A pity IDC did not follow his own advice.

  4. Estelle wrote:

    IDC: “Again, there were those who prided themselves on the fact that they had never committed adultery simply because they had never carried through the physical act”

    I wonder if this can’t be twisted to a type of sin leveling, as if to say “we are all guilty of lust and I am no worse if I ‘carried through the physical act'”. It may also be the ugly side of a theology that all sin is the same in the eyes of God, it can become a transition to “in for a penny, in for a pound” or if I am going to sin I’m going to get my money’s worth.

  5. I get the impression that everyone here at TWW is simply looking for the perfect church.

    What I would say is, if you ever find the perfect church, don’t join it – you’ll spoil it.

    Yours sincerely,

    Arnold Smartarse

  6. Lowlandseer wrote:

    If a husband is unfaithful to his wife, then he remains married, but his unfaithfulness leads him into a web of deception, unhappiness and hurt which may take a long time to recover from.

    Takes one to know one.

  7. Arnold Smartarse wrote:

    What I would say is, if you ever find the perfect church, don’t join it – you’ll spoil it.

    Just hoping to find one without a predator in the pulpit.

  8. “Once a couple is married, the relationship is different. The love and personal commitment are the same, but it now operates within the security of a public commitment. The marriage commitment is there simply to allow the personal love to grow and develop.”

    I’m all for the security of a public commitment, but that last line reminded me of the courtship and betrothal movements. That’s what you get taking descriptive things from the Bible and making them prescriptive.

  9. NJ wrote:

    Takes one to know one.

    Right? Even then it’s all ‘oh I’m so unhappy and hurt because of the things I am doing. Woah is me.’

    So don’t do that?

  10. Take your time and make sure you get the story right. I do suggest given recent media reports that you verify that IDC is actually still dead.

  11. Discovery – Last Days Of The Sneak: “The persistent derivation elation of a Free Church of Scotland pastoral pulpit pounder proves fatal, perhaps?”

    hmmm…

    Religion to Iain D. Campbell was apparently to became a professional opportunity, and a private means, and not necessarily a devout sincere biblical devotion. 🙁

    FYI : Wartburg, examination of his writings will provide illumination of his profession writings, but not ‘necessarily’ his ‘questionable’ discoverable inclination.

    FYI: It is rather doubtful logos.com will remove Iain D. Campbell publications from their purchasable online offerings.(1)

    LOGOS.COM : About Iain D. Campbell;
    Iain D. Campbell is Minister of Back Free Church of Scotland, Isle of Lewis, Scotland, UK. He is the author of Opening Up Exodus in the Opening Up Commentary and On the First Day of the Week: God, the Christian and the Sabbath in the Day One Biblical and Theological Studies Collection (24 vols.). Other works are referenced as well.

    See also published works: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iain_D._Campbell#Published_work

    ATB

    Sòpy

    (1)
    https://www.logos.com/products/search?q=Iain+D.+Campbell&ssi=0

    – –

  12. Lowlandseer wrote:

    In a sense, nothing can add to, or take away from that relationship.

    What a bunch of nonsense. His statements are contradictory. If this was true, then why get formally married? YBYSA that something can “take away from the relationship” – try adultery. Try serial adultery. Try years of lies and deception. This guy (IDC) didn’t have a clue. And in light of his action, his statements are straight from the pit of h*ll.

    To paraphrase Pharaoh in the film “The Ten Commandments”, “Let the name of IDC be stricken from even stone and tablet, from every obelisk and pilon, etc…” His name should be synonymous with the most disgusting cretin anyone could ever imagine. Too bad “Calvin” is already taken.

  13. I would love to know how this blog in any way seeks to glorify Christ.
    You write about a man and a family who you do not know (certainly not well enough to be offering the kind of insights you do) and for what purpose? So you can look down on another sinner?
    It is not your duty to bring this to light, and neither should it be. Let the church deal with it.

    ‘Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her’

  14. Lowlandseer wrote:

    If a husband is unfaithful to his wife, then he remains married, but his unfaithfulness leads him into a web of deception, unhappiness and hurt which may take a long time to recover from.

    Huh? Remains married? Sounds to me like the adulterer has it made in that world. The wife is stuck with a deceptive cheater.

    Buffalo feathers!

  15. Macleod wrote:

    I would love to know how this blog in any way seeks to glorify Christ.
    ‘Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her’

    Are you throwing a stone at this blog? Just curious.

  16. Macleod wrote:

    You write about a man and a family who you do not know (certainly not well enough to be offering the kind of insights you do) and for what purpose?

    You are making assumption upon assumption and you do not what you are talking about. The world is very, very small these days and friendships can be maintained across oceans rather easily. I know a whole lot more than I wrote about and intend to write more one of these day. Certainly, your comment makes me inclined to do so even more quickly. Neither you nor anyone else will learn the names of all from whom I have been in contact and I am extremely comfortable with this post.

    I likely would not have written about IDC until I saw the comments about his dear wife…lots and lots of comments about his long-suffering wife. Do people on the Isle of Lewis and in the Presbytery know that anything derogatory they say in public, even in a shop, is readily accessible all over the world, especially if they talk on social media?

    Secondly, I have a hard time believing that you are as naive is you pretend. IDC didn’t have an affair. He appears to have been a serial sexual predator who used his influence to feed his decades long habit. He groomed women for his selfish purposes. IDC was not a pastor, he was a snake and the Bible I read has a whole lot to say about snakes.

    As for what my duty is, I am not part of your church. However, the minute IDC started posting his thoughts on social media and his BFFs encouraged the faithful to read his words, he became open to public critique. No, sir, you do not get to jump up and down and say *read this* or *come hear him here*. and then get a pass when he turns out to be a wolf in sheep’s clothing. When you play in public, you pay in public.

    I have as much right to critique his words and his life as does anyone else in the public sphere. I have been reading IDC’s and others’ papers and writings. In fact, I have been doing quite a bit of reading about the odd situation about Don MacLeod. It is curious that you chose his name as your nom de plume.

    I do not know what you all teach in your Wee Free Church about the subject of what constitutes a church but I am as much a part of the church as you are, albeit not part of your select, tight knit group. I have read enough to know that some may try to resurrect his image and use his papers as examples of theological excellence. Well, they are not. His work served to conceal his dastardly enterprise for a very long time. He was a skellum, not a theologian.

    So, you think I look down on another sinner? You are not with me each week as I confess my sins with everyone in the church. What I am doing is protecting the members of the church from predators like IDC by exposing their methods and the tactics of the who would sinfully try to cover up and conceal this behavior from the world. By doing so, those individuals allow wolves to run free and devour those who come to the church for solace and strength.

    Sadly, you have not once mentioned the need to protect the members of he church from men like IDC and others. That is how I know that you are involved in the cover up of his reputation. Well, your words ring hollow to me. Maybe you could try again.

    Finally, I am watching for how Anne Campbell is being treated by the church. I am frankly appalled at the number of people who have said things on media blaming her for her husband’s sick predilections. If you are a real man of God, MacLeod, get off your bottom and be charitable as opposed to thinking that you are going to change my mind about the embarrassing legacy of IDC.

  17. drstevej wrote:

    Are you throwing a stone at this blog? Just curious.

    I have a feeling that the Wee Free boys are a bit intimidated by this being discussed outside of their ability to control the narrative.I love the fact he used the name “MacLeod.” I guarantee you that he knows about the scandal of Don MacLeod that was glossed over by the church. I have all the documents and to keep them guessing, the big PDF came from London, not Lewis.

  18. Macleod wrote:

    Let the church deal with it.

    No one here is writing about the family, except to support the family. “The family” did nothing wrong. Iain Campbell did that by himself.

    Most of us here are the Church. Iain Campbell was a very public figure within the Church. As far as throwing out your proof scripture, I could throw out many scriptures about exposing wickedness in the Church, but I won’t use scripture that way.

    Basically, you are simply attempting to silence people who have a problem with this serial adulterer who mascaraded as a pastor in the Church.

  19. dee wrote:

    I guarantee you that he knows about the scandal of Don MacLeod that was glossed over by the church.

    Oh no. I loved Donald MacLeod’s book The Person of Christ. Perhaps we are speaking of two different Don MacLeods? Pretty please?

  20. Lydia wrote:

    Lowlandseer wrote:
    If a husband is unfaithful to his wife, then he remains married, but his unfaithfulness leads him into a web of deception, unhappiness and hurt which may take a long time to recover from.

    Huh? Remains married?

    Right. Also, nothing says you have to lie to your wife when you’re cheating on her, does it? That is a choice. That’s not an unfortunately traumatic consequence of ‘remaining married’! That is the thing you do, lying, in order TO remain married. What a mixed up way of looking at it.

    Contrary to what MacLeod thinks, it will be interesting to analyze the writings with the truth of what was happening in mind. Do these guys not understand the benefit of doing case studies? Post-mortems? They aren’t, ultimately, about this specific problem or ‘sin’ or casting stones. [Are we supposed to be casting stones on a man who is already dead? That’s a mixed up analogy.] They are about seeing what was true, what really happened, and what it looked like from the outside and why it was MISSED. And preventing ourselves from taking possibly bad theology from a man who in reality may have merely been excusing his own behavior. Or alternately winking at the world by condemning behavior he was engaging in. That’s fascinating to me.

  21. @ Macleod:
    I would like to know how Iain Campbell sought to glorify Christ?

    Is it not important because his brand of “correct Doctrine” is more important than his living out the truth?

  22. @ Lea:
    I think what they are most scared of is that people will think it’s bad theology.

    Their exacting Doctrine is what keeps them in power. There are people in this world who really enjoy reading Sproul, for example. Knowing what I know about him I can’t take a thing he says seriously. And if I didn’t know all that bad stuff from 2006, I still find his teaching a big black abyss.

    Therefore don’t talk about it or you are sinning. (Of course that’s very familiar to many of us) and we all know that works perfectly in their little bubble churches.

    Must be extremely frustrating to them that they can’t control it outside their camp.

  23. Lea wrote:

    The first thing I thought of was the Highlander.

    And when I write about Don MacLeod, you will remember him swell.

  24. Lydia wrote:

    Must be extremely frustrating to them that they can’t control it outside their camp.

    And across the ocean with a woman who has successfully extracted herself from the Calvinists crowd.

  25. Lydia wrote:

    @ Lea:
    I think what they are most scared of is that people will think it’s bad theology.

    The thing is, I think people like this can theoretically be right on theology and simply bad at being decent people. I think the bible even says that, you can be right on everything but lacking love and it doesn’t count.

    But we shouldn’t *trust* them, especially if we know they have a problem. I wouldn’t trust an adulterers or abusers theology on marriage, because it is likely to drift into being self serving. What happens when the one caught embezzling gets up to give a sermon about forgiveness? Self Serving drivel, often.

  26. Macleod wrote:

    ‘Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her’

    How does your commentary jibe with this:

    1 Corinthians 5

    It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate:

    ….I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world.

    11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.

    12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?

    13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”

  27. dee wrote:

    As for what my duty is, I am not part of your church. However, the minute IDC started posting his thoughts on social media and his BFFs encouraged the faithful to read his words, he became open to public critique.

    The guy in question, this IDC pastor dude, claimed to be a Christian, and as far as I can tell, that’s all that makes 1 Cor 5 applicable (please see my post above).

    All Christians are members of the “church.”

    You, as a self professing Christian, don’t have to attend the physical brick and mortar building another self professing Christian attends to be able to call them out on unrepentant sin

    Note especially, and IIRC, this pastor’s sins were publicized in papers online such as the Daily Mail.

    Not only does that open him up to further criticism by other professing believers, but it needs to be called out and condemned, because not to do so will make Christianity look even more bogus to Non-Christians.

  28. Daisy wrote:

    11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.

    That’s like, half of pastorhood. Much easier to just kick out women and call it a day.

  29. Burwell wrote:

    systematic theology at SEBTS.

    Upon reflection I read the book in a Christology elective not systematic theology. And it may not have been mentioned because I took a class prior to 2006.

  30. @ Macleod:

    Excellent points. It’s about time someone called out this hornets’ nest of vipers that calls itself a blog.

    Just because someone wrote articles and books that were marketed to, and avidly read in, your stupid excuses for “church circles”, that doesn’t mean you have any business having an opinion of them. You should just read their stuff and shut up. And it’s quite correct that you should let the church deal with it, because you don’t count as the church – you’re just the consumers. The church was covering it all up perfectly well without you over the last twenty-odd years, after all – and everyone was happy then.

    You’re all rubbish.

    Up Yours,

    Roger Bombast

  31. Lydia wrote:

    Is it not important because his brand of “correct Doctrine” is more important than his living out the truth?

    What I have observed is that they think that right belief (orthodoxy) will always lead to right behavior/practice (orthopraxy).

    Unfortunately, it’s not automatic.

  32. Burwell wrote:

    What I have observed is that they think that right belief (orthodoxy) will always lead to right behavior/practice (orthopraxy).

    Unfortunately, it’s not automatic.

    “Right Belief” = “Ideological Purity”?

    Just ask the survivors of Cambodia’s Killing Fields.

  33. @ Roger Bombast:

    For some reason, Lesley finds this idiot funny.

    Anyway, I’ve updated my avatar fotie location, from Conival to Cairnsmore of Carsphairn. Thought it might be nice to have some blue sky in the background.

    IHTIH

  34. @ Nick Bulbeck:

    It’s obvious you’re looking for the perfect church.

    What I would say is, if you ever find the perfect church, don’t join it – you’ll spoil it.

    Yours sincerely,

    Arnold Smartarse

  35. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Thought it might be nice to have some blue sky in the background.

    God wrote:

    Some would call this a coincidence!

    ROFL! I may need you to raise the troops for me when they come sailing across the big pond to attack Raleigh!

  36. Burwell wrote:

    What I have observed is that they think that right belief (orthodoxy) will always lead to right behavior/practice (orthopraxy).
    Unfortunately, it’s not automatic.

    What’s unfortunate is that you’re looking for the perfect church.

    What I would say is, if you ever find the perfect church, don’t join it – you’ll spoil it.

    Yours sincerely,

    Arnold Smartarse

  37. @ Macleod:

    They’re all looking for the perfect church.

    What I would say is, if you ever find the perfect church, don’t join it – you’ll spoil it.

    Yours sincerely,

    Arnold Smartarse

  38. Burwell wrote:

    Lydia wrote:
    Is it not important because his brand of “correct Doctrine” is more important than his living out the truth?

    What I have observed is that they think that right belief (orthodoxy) will always lead to right behavior/practice (orthopraxy).

    Unfortunately, it’s not automatic.

    I don’t know if they believe it or not. Hard to tell, there are so many liars who knows what they believe!

    If they did believe that, it would only take one example to falsify that theory and we have many.

  39. @ God:
    Dear God
    I would love to visit the Isle of Lewis? Can you make it happen? Also, do you have a good recipe for clootie dumplings?

  40. Lea wrote:

    dee wrote:
    I love the fact he used the name “MacLeod.”
    The first thing I thought of was the Highlander.

    Ah, that brings back memories.

    “There can only be one”

  41. If you have the documents, publish them all (names withheld, of course). The church did not deal with the situation, far from it. Those involved have always denied involvement, and the one mentioned in the previous post is living life to the full. I could say a lot more, but quite frankly, the whole thing has been a cover up. I can’t imagine AC getting justice from this, or recovering her name, this should not be the case. The church only cares for its reputation. That was quite clear in the previous mentioned MacLeod scandal. It’s time it stopped.

  42. Arnold Smartarse wrote:

    What I would say is, if you ever find the perfect church, don’t join it – you’ll spoil it.

    Mr. Smartarse,

    I did find the perfect church, I joined it and I didn’t spoil it.

    So far there is only one member and the church is not looking for any additional members. The doors are closed.

  43. Lea wrote:

    The thing is, I think people like this can theoretically be right on theology and simply bad at being decent people. I think the bible even says that, you can be right on everything but lacking love and it doesn’t count.

    I think Jesus sort of also addressed this when he said,
    “Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say?

  44. @ ConcernedResident:
    My heart goes out to those who were treated so poorly by those who claim to represent our Lord. My interest in this all began by simply reading some media accounts. It was clear to me that something was terribly wrong. Shortly after my post on the matter, I began to hear from lots of people. I will be writing more in the future. Anyone who contacts me can be assured of absolute, strict confidentiality.

  45. DEE,

    I have been out of the loop for a while and had forgotten how good you really are! After my absence, I tune into TWW to find a post by you that says you are delaying the post … and you still get 60+ comments! You are good!!

  46. I hope I will be forgiven for this, but I sat in a city council meeting for about six hours, which is not really a big deal, I have sat in city meetings for over 14 hours when addressing issues for people with disabilities. There were no fistfights or people telling me I am pond scum but there were other meetings. I wont go into my experience especially church meetings. Anyway, I decided to ask, that was hard enough, and the mayor was very gracious. So I came here to ask for help/prayer. As my health issues have affected my work I am looking at having to retire, I dont want to but if I cannot serve my students and provide safety well. My right leg keeps failing due to a disc bulge and I cannot safely push a person in a wheelchair. That is just one aspect of it. I “failed” several tests so I am convinced I am not faking it, which was constant, and I do mean constant refrain from my real world faith community back in the day. But you all have heard that before.

    I want to give back, I know shame on me, but I do. So I put forward a proposal to provide legacy hardware laptops, desktops, and tablets tech with open source software to help people with disabilities in the community. I had a bit of an interaction with the mayor and wrote a 4-page proposal off “the cuff” to the city. If I go this way I will start all over from scratch which I have done before but I need to think about medical coverage and financial issues. Anyway I am asking for help in starting a nonprofit, develop best practices and present it to funding sources. I decided to not hate myself for asking for help as that is stupid. If you can I appreciate it if not I totally understand. I have funded this on my own for the last well 37 years off and on. But I think my ideas can really help. Thanks Brian

  47. Macleod wrote:

    ‘Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her’

    You correctly use lowercase when referring to the church as “her”, for she is often an aberration of The Body of Christ. She still holds captive members of the Body, while others have broken free, but still bear the wounds she inflicted. If there were no victims, you might find justification in the words of Jesus to leave her alone. If it were just a public squabble over points of doctrine, then I would completely agree with your point. But, there are victims! The husband mentioned in an earlier post is one of those victims. Although, somewhat deluded in his thinking, his humility and desire for peace are marks of a true follower of Christ. Many of the victims mentioned here and the people that post here likewise bear those wounds, but still follow Christ and show the fruits of the transformation he brings. This is a refuge for many.

    When Christ came to earth, he did strike back at the institutionalized and distorted religion that enslaved the people. IDC was a prominent leader of such a system where many were likely complicit in his abuse. Whether they realize it or not, this systemic abuse hurts everyone involved. You are correct when you infer that we are all sinners. I pray that the righteousness of Jesus prevails so that our self-righteousness doesn’t.

    Hopefully this is a refuge for sinners who’s faith is teetering and who have nowhere else to go. Hopefully we all examine ourselves as we comment about the activities of others. It seems to me that the right spirit does prevail here.

  48. Macleod wrote:

    I would love to know how this blog in any way seeks to glorify Christ.
    You write about a man and a family who you do not know (certainly not well enough to be offering the kind of insights you do) and for what purpose? So you can look down on another sinner?
    It is not your duty to bring this to light, and neither should it be. Let the church deal with it.
    ‘Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her’

    Dear Macleod,

    Please listen to the sermon preached by Mr Campbell, a few weeks before he died. The subject was “All have sinned” Romans 3:23, particularly around the 10:56 mark where he says “I am in the middle of sin. God made me for Him, …. for His glory, but I come short of his glory, don’t I? And I am turned in on myself. There is no fear of God before my eyes and so I have not known the way of peace.”

    The whole sermon is worth listening to, and it is a stark reminder of the terrible tragedy that took place. No one is casting stones (ironically at the woman caught in sin), people are grieving at the pain and hurt of those involved and are asking why was this allowed to happen? This was not done in a corner. It took place in and before the church over many years.

    You can find the sermon here

    https://www.sermonaudio.com/saplayer/playpopup.asp?SID=1113161055180

  49. Lowlandseer wrote:

    The whole sermon is worth listening to, and it is a stark reminder of the terrible tragedy that took place.

    It’s almost like reading a SK manifesto after the fact, these sermons, except they were given in public. I think I mentioned duping delight before, but I also look for these things in hindsight.

    “duping delight is the pleasure we get over having someone else in our control and being able to manipulate them”. The psychopath does feel powerful when he lies.

    Now, I don’t know if Campbell was a psychopath and I can’t dx him. But sometimes you see things that when you know the truth look very much like that. Others you see regret, or pathos.

  50. What Happened wrote:

    You correctly use lowercase when referring to the church as “her”, for she is often an aberration of The Body of Christ. She still holds captive members of the Body, while others have broken free, but still bear the wounds she inflicted.

    To such a church, Jesus still shouts “Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins.”

  51. “When Christ came to earth, he did strike back at the institutionalized and distorted religion that enslaved the people. “

    Bingo. And history keeps repeating itself.

  52. @ Lowlandseer:

    Thank you for the link to that sermon. This is exactly what I am getting at. I am trying to listen to and read IDC’s words to figure out if there was a clue to his predatory lifestyle. How did he reconcile it to the faith that he professed? Did he just brush it off as pervasive sin? Or, did he find the study of theology intellectually satisfying but not necessarily life changing when it came to himself or others whom he pursued.

    We must never forget Scripture that warns us that even the Devil knows the truth of Scripture.

    There’re many victims in this awful situation. Let me list some.
    His wife
    His family
    The families and husbands of the women
    The church members
    Then there is the issue faith. How did his activities affect that? The faith of:
    the women
    their families
    church members
    the outside world

    He left behind a broken hearted wife and adult children. Their lives have been turned upside down. Imagine being confronted with the fact that your entire life was based on a lie? Nothing was as it seems.

    I am looking for an outpouring of love, support and understanding for his family. Imagine their. turmoil.

    Finally, I want to see the theologians who supported him begin to do the hard work of picking up the pieces. Replacing the occupants of the manse and marching on with a *too bad; so sad* approach is not Biblical. It is a tediously average response.

  53. Lea wrote:

    I think I mentioned duping delight before, but I also look for these things in hindsight.

    I had never heard of this term before. Thank you.

  54. I’ve created a new reddit for people to discuss Sovereign Grace Ministries issues if anyone is interested

  55. dee wrote:

    One of these days we must have a cuppa!

    Don’t forget that if you fly into London I am but a mere 50 miles away 🙂

  56. Macleod wrote:

    It is not your duty to bring this to light, and neither should it be. Let the church deal with it.
    ‘Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her’

    When the money changers in the temple committed public sins, did Jesus took them aside to rebuke them privately? No. Jesus whip them good right there in public. Also his story must be made public as a warning to others, as it was written:

    1 Timothy 5:20 But those elders who are sinning you are to reprove before everyone, so that the others may take warning.

    And in case you are wondering about 1 Timothy 5:19, there are many solid Christians who are acting as witnesses against Iain. Not eye-witnesses as neo-Calvinists would (wrongly) demand, but solid Christians witnesses who has looked at all the facts and concluded that Iain is indeed guilty. Hence Iain must be reproved in public, so the world will know that his eldership and his pastorship are both meaningless since he is a false Christian.

    Christians has a nothing to learn from a child of Satan who disguise himself as an angel of light.

  57. Iain Campbell was a featured writer for Tabletalk’s October, 2009 edition (the theme for the month being hypocrisy). His article was entitled “Hypocrisy in High Places.”

  58. CHIPS wrote:

    solid Christians witnesses who has looked at all the facts and concluded that Iain is indeed guilty

    Good for them, but didn’t IDC confess to a number of people: wife, mistresses, the husbands of his liaisons? What is there to “conclude” regarding the facts?

    The implications of IDC’s duplicity, however, do raise quetions. How he played the game, preyed upon the church – that is a study, a profile, a dangerous personality, a ruse.

  59. JYJames wrote:

    The implications of IDC’s duplicity

    The question is: what were folks seeing? or not seeing?

    This is like the guy I worked with that murdered his wife and staged it as a suicide. The Klondike Kops (locals) brought in the FBI, found the forensic evidence, and put him away for life. The question was not regarding the husband as murderer, but WHY oh why did no one see this man for who he was. Never would have guessed. He was so “normal”. Decent. Family guy.

  60. Beakerj wrote:

    Don’t forget that if you fly into London I am but a mere 50 miles away

    And you’ll probably have to fly into London (or maybe Manchester), as there aren’t many direct transatlantic flights into Scotland. There are no transatlantic flights into Lewis. And rightly so – Eilean Siar do not need an international airport. Though they do have smaller local airports, and are served by several routes from Edinburgh. Famously, Barra airport is the beach. It gets re-surfaced twice a day…

  61. I’m sure that Anne knew something was “off” about her husband for years. I’m sure she saw things that caused red flags such as private phone calls, keeping his laptop password-protected or in a locked briefcase, emotional distance, etc. And she could never talk about it to anyone because he was such a saint in everyone’s eyes. But a woman who is uneasy with her popular husband can show signs of discomfort in public that make people think something is wrong with HER!

    This article from the Daily Mail quotes a character named Torquil Macleod (related to Don?) who says “A jealous wife can always misconstrue anything. Anne is a very difficult person. . . Anne is one angry lady.”

    Another interesting tidbit in this article. An unnamed source says, “A few years ago, after he had turned down a promotion, he became a fanatical cyclist and runner, always out in his Lycra gear. He even did a sponsored cycle. I’m thinking now that out on the road, in the hills, out of mobile contact and out of sight … Well, it would have been an ideal cover for assignations even for one of the best-known men on the island. He could have been leading a complete double life.”

    I can imagine Anne watching him leave the house in his lycra gear and getting a knot in the pit of her stomach.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4449270/Suspicious-wife-vindicated-husband-affairs.html

  62. @ dee:

    I find it interesting that many of us come from/have experienced “controlling” sects/subgroups within Christianity that have partially made a name for themselves by bashing other sects/subgroups of Christianity… Roman Catholicism is always a great whipping boy, but various Protestant groups can go at each other with as much nastiness. (One of WW “subjects”, Al Mohler, is on the record saying his brand is really the “only place for people to go” for example).

    From what Dee posts above, it sounds like the sect that this Iain D Campbell guy was associated with also “set itself apart” from other Protestants groups. But, as soon as someone points out the hypocrisies (or worse in the case of this predator) within these “sects”, they immediately whine about how we on the outside can not through stones… yet that is how these “sects” set themselves apart??

  63. Himalaya wrote:

    This article from the Daily Mail quotes a character named Torquil Macleod (related to Don?) who says “A jealous wife can always misconstrue anything. Anne is a very difficult person. . . Anne is one angry lady.”

    Society misses the clues. Smart abusers and adulterers are hard to catch. They ones who evade detection are charming, smiling flatterers. And their victims — the ones who know the truth — come off as bitter, mean, and “difficult.”

    I used to jump to the same conclusions. But now ask myself: Is this a loving kind woman, whose only bursts of bitterness are reserved for her husband?

    Watch for bitter women married to charming men. It may be a tip-off to the reality behind closed doors.

  64. Himalaya wrote:

    Torquil Macleod (related to Don?) who says “A jealous wife can always misconstrue anything. Anne is a very difficult person. . . Anne is one angry lady.”

    What Torquil evidences here is that an enabler can always misconstrue anything.

  65. Janey wrote:

    Watch for bitter women married to charming men. It may be a tip-off to the reality behind closed doors.

    This is an *excellent* point. If the husband is really that great, do they never wonder why these women are so unhappy?

  66. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    What Torquil evidences here is that an enabler can always misconstrue anything.

    That’s the word I have been looking for. Some of the boyz are enablers. What Torquil said is despicable. One day, he will stand before God but maybe he just doesn’t care.

  67. I came across this in today’s Challies.com. It is an article by someone who doesn’t like Barth very much. Apparently Barth was, for lack of a better word, an adulterer, who tried to justify his “threesomel. It might explain why the powers that be are reluctant to condemn the behaviour of IDC – his theology should be decided on its merits, not his behaviour! And I was just beginning to like Barth!

    This is what he said.

    “But Barth’s appalling behavior notwithstanding, I’m uncomfortable using this issue as a decisive theological criterion. The question of the rightness or wrongness of Barth’s theology should be decided on the merits. But in order to examine these merits, we need to see how we got to this point.”

    The full article is here.

    https://theecclesialcalvinist.wordpress.com/2017/10/02/why-i-still-dont-much-care-for-karl-barth/

    How can anyone say such a thing? “A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of.” Luke 6:45

  68. @ Lea:
    Catch-22.
    Vicious circle.
    He cheats.
    She fumes.
    He cheats some more because she is so sour, difficult to live with.
    When caught, he says that the nasty wife back home made him do it. Her fault.

  69. LDC or LDS? Whether the teaching is good or not, obviously LDC is not a person to be imitated. The ministry people that have amazed me during my lifetime first lived a giving self sacrificing life themselves. These people wouldn’t let be known public the good works they did yet the results were (and still are after they passed on) influential and a blessing to many people then, now and for generations to come. It is one thing to be a great orator (too many to mention here) and another thing for one person to live out the good news. LDC was obviously a great orator and sold many ideas that might have sounded correct (personally not taking the time to look at his teachings). The sadder part of the LDC story is of the people that will fall away from Jesus due to hanging onto oratation rather than placing their confidence in Jesus (the true creator and best teacher ever)

  70. LancasterCaster wrote:

    I’ve created a new reddit for people to discuss Sovereign Grace Ministries issues if anyone is interested

    Hi LancasterCaster,
    I took a look at your Reddit page. You seem to be asking the right questions, but
    honestly, many of us ex-SGMers have already hashed out and worked through the answers in the 6 years since the “SGM wikileaks” docs were released.
    Fortunately, SGM Survivors is still hosting its website with all of our tortured discussions. There is an excellent summary here, that may answer many of your questions:
    http://www.sgmsurvivors.com/2011/09/02/why-sovereign-grace-ministries-doesnt-like-victims/

    Having said that, I found the Reddit page kind of uncomfortable to use, compared to, say, here at WW. It could be that’s another reason for the light traffic, in addition to the time factor I mentioned above – many of us have left SGM in the rear view mirror and aren’t as apt to focus on that particular cult’s problems.
    May God bless your search for Him!
    Also, keep in mind there are several other ex-SGMers like me who are regulars here, who may be able to answer your questions.

  71. Himalaya wrote:

    Torq

    Himalaya wrote:

    Torquil Macleod (related to Don?)

    LOL. Do you have any idea how many MacLeods there are in Scotland? Or any idea of how disloyal MacLeods are to their own relatives?

  72. @ Jeffrey J Chalmers:
    When I first started researching reformed groups, I was stunned. The attacks on each other on blogs and websites were vitriolic over obscure finer points of doctrine. It was like reading the Luther insulter. Doug Wilson is one example but there were many lesser-known in the OPC and other smaller reformed sects. It was usually those who make their living or have authority in that world, whether professor, pastor, writer, elder, etc.

    I had no idea. That was not a world I was familiar with except for the more mainline Frozen chosen or social justice types.

    The mega world I came from always agreed on everything in public and went to great lengths to show they got along with everybody. In other words they went to a lot of trouble to position themselves as the nicest people in the world. But they were totally deceptive and Machiavellian behind the curtain in plotting strategy.

    With the outwardly mean people at least one knows what they are dealing with. 🙂

  73. @ Himalaya:
    Anne had everything working against her. Small place fish bowl, oppressive doctrine, group think, worshiped husband, the financial angle, lack of a support system, etc.

    But she was mean? Not the totally deceptive and fake religious leader?

    Btw, a mega person I knew back in the day became an avid hiker out of nowhere. I won’t say how online but I received non requested proof (quite by creepy accident) several years later that it was about such clandestine meetings.

  74. Lowlandseer wrote:

    I came across this in today’s Challies.com. It is an article by someone who doesn’t like Barth very much. Apparently Barth was, for lack of a better word, an adulterer, who tried to justify his “threesomel. It might explain why the powers that be are reluctant to condemn the behaviour of IDC – his theology should be decided on its merits, not his behaviour! And I was just beginning to like Barth!
    This is what he said.
    “But Barth’s appalling behavior notwithstanding, I’m uncomfortable using this issue as a decisive theological criterion. The question of the rightness or wrongness of Barth’s theology should be decided on the merits. B

    Good night! Thank you so much for this find! I am going to put it into a post-sooner rather than later. I am looking for things like this. Tom Challies is a huge supporter of CJ Mahaney who presided over one of the worst child sex abuse scandals in US evangelical circles. I guess it all boils down to doctrine as opposed to behavior.

    Excellent! Thank you.

  75. @ dee:

    This is more disturbing to me due to the many wayward pastors that Challies has supported.

    “Pastors shepherd God’s people by leading them. Sheep are wandering creatures who are prone to meander out of safety and into all kinds of danger. They need a shepherd who will lead and guide them. In much the same way, Christians need pastors who will provide leadership. This is a specific form of leadership, though, that better equips them to fulfill the ministry to which God has called them. They carry out this leadership by setting an example in godly character, knowing that the pastor’s standard for character is really the standard for every Christian. “Shepherd the flock of God that is among you … being examples to the flock” (1 Peter 5:2-3).” Tim Challies

    I think pastors are more prone to wander than sheep . . .

  76. JYJames wrote:

    Catch-22.
    Vicious circle.
    He cheats.
    She fumes.
    He cheats some more because she is so sour, difficult to live with.
    When caught, he says that the nasty wife back home made him do it. Her fault.

    Transactional Analysis was a pop psychology of the Seventies; in Games People Play, it coined the term “mind games”. One of these Mind Games was a synergy between two Games: “Bitch and Nag” married to “Drunk and Proud of It”. His drinking gives her (righteous) justification to Bitch and Nag; her bitching and nagging gives him (righteous) justification to drink. The description ends with “And they both live unhappily ever after.”

  77. Bridget wrote:

    @ dee:
    The article is not written by Challies. Challies links to this article. The person who wrote the article is
    https://theecclesialcalvinist.wordpress.com/about/

    Perhaps this should have been clearer. However, if you listen to this podcast by Tim Challies on Scandal in the Church, particularly if it’s broadcast on the internet, you will hear him say that it’s probably better not to mention the scandal to others or highlight it. In other words, it’s better to keep quiet, even when your silence might be construed as complicit. One of the quotes is “The evangelical Illuminati don’t exist”. Another is that it’s harder to trust bloggers and what they say because you don’t know them or how thorough their research is and at the end of the day it might be only one side of the story.

  78. Lowlandseer wrote:

    This is the link
    https://www.challies.com/podcast/the-art-of-godliness-episode-4-scandal-in-the-church/

    Thanks for that Lowlandseer. There is much that could be said of that podcast. Surely many assumptions about people’s motives. But we should always trust what is on his blog . . .

    Could you point me to where on Challies’ website that he linked to the article about Barth? I don’t see it in this podcast. I am curious to see what prompted Challies to link to it.

  79. Bridget wrote:

    I think pastors are more prone to wander than sheep .

    Here is the problem of a wondering pastor. he leads many, many others astray. Think of the damage IDC has done. How many families? How many people in the church? How many people looking on?

  80. @ Bridget:
    Challies posted it on his website.He likes Karl Barth as do many of his BFFs in The Gospel Coalition. I think he let the author say it for him because he is a bit chicken

  81. dee wrote:

    Here is the problem of a wondering pastor. he leads many, many others astray. Think of the damage IDC has done. How many families? How many people in the church? How many people looking on?

    I completely agree!

  82. Himalaya wrote:

    This article from the Daily Mail quotes a character named Torquil Macleod (related to Don?)

    As Alora pointed out, Macleod (with various spellings) is a fairly common name in Scotland. There’s probably a fair few laddies called Connor Macleod as well.

    The name “Torquil” is interesting (although I think all names are interesting, TBH). It’s an anglicisation of the Scots Gaelic “Torcaill”, itself derived from Old Norse; it means “Thor’s kettle”.

    Torquil Macleod was a historical figure, being the historic head of the branch of the Clann MhicLeòid on Lewis (the other branch was on Skye).

    It is highly unlikely that Torquil Macleod was the commenter’s real name. It is also highly unlikely that (s)he will be commenting again, unless perhaps under yet another alias.

  83. Lydia wrote:

    Anne had everything working against her. Small place fish bowl, oppressive doctrine, group think, worshiped husband, the financial angle, lack of a support system, etc.

    It really sounds like a nightmare situation. Imagine being isolated on an island, and being expected to maintain your husband’s theologian/pastor reputation, all the while knowing things are not what they seem. No wonder some people thought she was “difficult.”

  84. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    It is highly unlikely that Torquil Macleod was the commenter’s real name. It is also highly unlikely that (s)he will be commenting again, unless perhaps under yet another alias.

    Nick, are you saying that the guy quoted in the Daily Mail article was using a pseudonym? The article refers to him as “Dr Campbell’s long-standing friend, retired customer services manager Torquil MacLeod.” Is this a name that somebody might use if they want everyone to know it’s not their real name, like someone might use the name “George Washington” in the states?

  85. Himalaya wrote:

    Nick, are you saying that the guy quoted in the Daily Mail article was using a pseudonym? The article refers to him as “Dr Campbell’s long-standing friend, retired customer services manager Torquil MacLeod.”

    Ah – sorry, I wasn’t concentrating there! For some reason I got it into mah heid that the laddie in question was commenting here. Which he hasn’t, of course. (#embarrassedEmoji)

    No, it’s quite plausible that Iain Campbell did have a friend named Torquil Macleod who spoke to the Daily Mail IRL.

    Just ignore me…

  86. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Something about the name “Iain”:
    Is that a local variant (spelling and/or pronunciation) of “Ian”?

    The name Iain is the Gaelic name for John whereas Ian is an english name in it’s own right

  87. @ Himalaya:
    There is no question that Torquil was a BFF of IDC and is doing his best to make sure IDC’s behavior is covered up and downplayed.

  88. @ Lowlandseer:
    I have to admit that I giggled when reading. Imagine finding out he was justifying having threesomes and then all the boyz trying to figure out what to do since Karl Barth™ is a certified important person.

  89. dee wrote:

    @ Rev Calum Russell:
    Thank you for the information.

    An interesting interjection from someone who may have served in Western Isles Council with the late IDC. This from UID Church of Scotland Facebook page in 2014
    “Chaplaincy
    Following the retirement of Rev Calum Russell, Rev. T.K. Shadakshari has been promoted to the post of Lead Chaplain for NHS Eilean Siar. His colleague Mrs Helen Gallagher has been promoted to become the full-time Chaplain for Ospadal nan Eilean Siar.
    Oversight for Spiritual Care part of which relates to Religious Care across NHS Eilean Siar is the responsibility of the Spiritual Care Committee of NHS Eilean Siar.
    Rev Iain D. Campbell, Free Church representative is the Convener of this Committee and Mrs Mina Shelpherd, Bahai’ representative is the Vice-Convener.”
    https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=613084665486701&id=401145943347242

  90. @ dee:
    Yes! My family members have loved that church for many years.
    On another note, my husband and I joined a Baptist church here in Raleigh that has women deacons and women associate pastors. We’ve been there a year and aside from noticing that people are people no matter where you go (shout out to Mr. Smartarse), no red flags. It’s a good place for my daughters.

  91. NJ wrote:

    “Once a couple is married, the relationship is different. The love and personal commitment are the same, but it now operates within the security of a public commitment. The marriage commitment is there simply to allow the personal love to grow and develop.”
    I’m all for the security of a public commitment, but that last line reminded me of the courtship and betrothal movements. That’s what you get taking descriptive things from the Bible and making them prescriptive.

    To me, it brings the image of locking shackles on the woman’s wrists. (There may be virtual iron bracelets on the man’s, as well, except that the church leaders like the one under discussion seem to consider theirs “virtual” and their wife’s “binding”.)

    Yeah, when she’s safely prevented from getting away (even if her husband is proved to be a pedophile, as in the TVC situation), then she has all the time in the world to work on respect, as demanded of her.

    And her husband has all the time in the world to work on love, if he ever feels the need to do so. Which he may or may not.

  92. Lydia wrote:

    I think what they are most scared of is that people will think it’s bad theology.
    Their exacting Doctrine is what keeps them in power.

    Bingo. Give that commenter a cigar. (Actually, I would prefer a slice of warm apple pie topped with a lacing of cream instead of a cigar, should I ever win the internet some day.)

  93. Lydia wrote:

    Knowing what I know about him I can’t take a thing he says seriously. And if I didn’t know all that bad stuff from 2006

    Wait, what? We were still in the heavily-Sproul-influenced cult in 2006, so I might have missed that.

    I used to enjoy listening to him even though his radio spot was on impossibly early in the morning (for me, anyhow). We recycled all of his books that we had bought over the years (literally sent them for pulping) when we purged our bookshelves after we left the toxic, controlling, hyperCalvinist church, though.

  94. Lea wrote:

    Daisy wrote:
    11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.
    That’s like, half of pastorhood. Much easier to just kick out women and call it a day.

    If you had bolded “drunkard” it would also have covered the recent Sproul Jr. “debate” (or do I mean debacle?).

  95. @ brian:
    Brian, there is a nonprofit we used to volunteer with before we moved away, called FreeGeek, that does this sort of thing. They recycle old computers and rehabilitate the ones that are fixable to give them away. You might be able to glean some ideas from them.

    freegeek.org

  96. @ dee:
    I remember hearing Barth’s name dropped frequently in our toxic, controlling, hyper-calvinist former church.

Leave a Reply

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