Evil is unspectacular and always human, and shares our bed and eats at our own table. W. H. Auden
The information in this post makes a statement. Actually a really bad statement. Frankly, I’m disgusted. Here is a link to the articles I wrote about Iain Campbell. I first heard about Campbell when I read an article in which the wife of Iain Campbell was being blamed for her husband’s alleged many infidelities. What worried me was that the Free Church of Scotland was going to posthumously honor Campbell.
Why? Campbell was what my deceased father would’ve called a *big shot* theologian. He was sought for positions all over the world but chose to stay in his small church on the beautiful and very Presbyterian Isle of Lewis. However, when he died rumors were circulating that he really loved the women on the Isle of Lewis. Yes, that was tongue in cheek. Some of the people blamed his dear wife for his prodigious preoccupation with serving the women of his island. (I just can’t help myself.) The other *theologians appeared ready to overlook his indiscretion because he was an incredible theologian. I wrote Looking Further at Iain Campbell and Others: What is a Dishonest Hypocrite? after I wrote the rather explosive account Blindsided: The True Story of the Circumstances Surrounding the Death of Iain Campbell
It was explosive because an individual whose identity will never be revealed sent me emails from Campbell to his paramours. Certain men of the cloth demanded to know how I had come into possession of said emails. I had a good laugh. One person who works in Edinborough told me that my post was being discussed in many circles. The information could not be ignored. And so, the Western Isles Presbytery convicted Campbell post mortem. And well they should have. Certain theologians quietly removed their *he hung the moon and stars* obituaries.
I am deeply disappointed in some individuals who appeared to want to overlook the volume of women Campbell misused in order to honor him because he was a *good* theologian. I bet some of them would say these women were not abused. They simply had affairs. Some of these theological geniuses may still believe that Campbell had simple, consensual affairs with all of those women. These dudebros overlook the power differential which was wielded by Campbell in order to get what he wanted.
I have to admit that I was pretty shocked by the theologians and pastors who continued to support him after his death by suicide. His wife confronted him when she found proof of his assignations. There were many, untold numbers in fact. Instead of dealing with his sins, he took what he thought was the easy way out. Yet supposedly he knew that judgment was waiting on the other side. This action leads me to believe that Campbell did not embrace the faith he claimed to know. You can read about the bizarre circumstances surrounding his death in the blindsided post
Who was Campbell?
As time has gone on, I have to wonder about Campbell’s faith. Yes, he was a theologian but was he a believer? They are not the same thing. I have come to believe that evil men use the church for their own ends. I believe that someone could study Calvinist theology and become a good teacher and preacher and not believe a word of it. Campbell didn’t just *slip* one time. He had sexual contact after sexual contact. He also allegedly was seeing more than one woman at a time. This went on for years.
I also have a hard time believing that none of his friends ever suspected what was going on. Here is what I wrote in Blindsided.
Friends of Iain Campbell continue to honor him.
I will not tell anyone how I got these photos and information. One thing is certain. Some people cannot let go of the exceedingly creepy Campbell. Read carefully what John MacLeod wrote. Watch as history is rewritten to make his followers *feel better.*
Good night!
- He died in tragic circumstances. Notice how they gloss over the events which caused him to commit suicide.
- Wisely, some folks, perhaps his family, chose not to honor him with a headstone.
- Unwisely, it appears his *friends* have discovered the exact place where Campbell’s bones reside and give the exact location in their tribute plaque, something it appears that the family had not intended.
- They do not mention the many women who were the victims of Campbell’s proclivities. Who cares about what happened to them, right?
- They show disrespect for the family who has apparently chosen not to erect a headstone on Campbell’s resting place. But who needs to honor their wishes, right? Theological expertise trumps Christian love, any day of the week.
- These *friends* of Campbell just can’t let it go. They, too, have a heart issue. Besides the bench looks tacky which fits with this entire situation.
Please pray for Campbell’s wife and adult children. The appearance of this *tacky tribute* can only cause more pain.
“Ignoring facts does not make them go away.” Fran Tarkenton
Jesus overturned tables.
Maybe it’s time to chop wood for a “camp”fire. Or, monogram appropriately, as in “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”. At the very least, gather books for a bonfire. There are quite a few still offered on Amazon. Add his lifestyle bro’s, RZ’s.
With all of those materials still marketed on Amazon, who is the beneficiary? Maybe that is the reason for fan$hip. There’s $$$ to be made off of the “‘big shot’ theologian(s)” (apropos term) posthumously.
It’s no surprise that his “friends” would not honor his family’s, most likely wife’s, wishes. I mean wives don’t count with this group. Only men, even abusive men, count.
Reminiscent of your article on John Howard Yoder. Saw that he reportedly studied under Karl Barth. Makes one wonder what conduct some might see from mentors / “great” thinkers as levels of validation for doing what sees right in one’s eyes, even when writing voluminously about what is right and wrong. That also goes for those who build up a theology in which they figure they can just press reset via a snap of the fingers and “I’m sorry; we good?” after they’ve had their fill of sin and self-indulgence, expecting that grace will abound — or not caring in particular.
“These *friends* of Campbell just can’t let it go. They, too, have a heart issue. Besides the bench looks tacky which fits with this entire situation.“
The crowds of enablers and cronies remain at issue time and again. It’s stunning get lamentably predictable when the facts are right in front of people (or smoky enough to do a fire check) and it makes little to no difference.
“These *friends* of Campbell just can’t let it go. They, too, have a heart issue. Besides the bench looks tacky which fits with this entire situation.“
The crowds of enablers and cronies remain at issue time and again. It’s stunning get lamentably predictable when the facts are right in front of people (or smoky enough to do a fire check) and it makes little to no difference.
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2015/02/10/john-howard-yoder-using-theology-to-defend-pacifism-and-the-sexual-abuse-of-women/
… with quotes from another article, by Michelle Van Loon:
“He [Yoder] managed to repackage his own needs and appetites by deconstructing Scripture with his well-trained mind while insisting that his more evolved spirituality was the reason he could …”
He could go on to abuse women, then reset via his church, while never apologizing to the women. On and on. Lifestyle, carefully packaged with theology.
Similar to a couple of local “big shot” lawyers who over the years were so law-savvy that they manipulated the law at their pleasure, until finally later in life landing in Federal prisons.
There’s later in life, and there’s afterlife.
Thanks for this article. I had never really thought about the power distance between pastor and parishioner in affairs. So now I was wondering: when pastors have an affair with a parishioner, does it qualify automatically as abuse? Or could there also be in some cases consensual relationships? If the latter, then how are we to discern where consent stops and abuse begins?
“We are all within an inch of succumbing to the same delusion that it is possible to be one thing in one context and something else in another. The real danger lies in the deception that whispers that we are safe behind the mask of hypocrisy. Paul counsels, “Let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall” (1 Cor. 10:12). The problem is not the standing but the thinking that we can never fall. How can we safeguard ourselves against collapse?”
Iain D Campbell
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/hypocrisy-high-places/ On Wayback machine
“I have come to believe evil men use the church for their own ends.”
Agreed, Dee. I have also long thought that God doesn’t lie, but people can and DO use the name of God to lie.
There is no consent possible when a pastor is involved with a person in his church or in his class at a school. Campbell taught courses off and on. There is an unequal power differential involved in these circumstances.
Now, if the pastor wants to cheat, he and the paramount should go to human resources in the larger church and declare their intentions to *have an affiar.* Then, the couple is quizzed and a decision is made. They then sign a contract witnessed by the resource person.
I know, I’m laughing as well.
Lowlandseer,
I read this when I was researching Campbell years ago. I wrote a post about how he was a *dishonest hypocrite.*
From the OP: he was a theologian but was he a believer? They are not the same thing.
Thank you for writing that phrase as you did, Dee. (And I wish I had the space and / or time and / or words to explain why I am grateful….)
(And I kinda like the bench 🙂 …but without the plaque and in a much different location.)
Paul had some strong words for someone like Iain Campbell in 2 Tim 3:
” 5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people.
6 They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over gullible women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires, 7 always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth. 8 Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these teachers oppose the truth. They are men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected. 9 But they will not get very far because, as in the case of those men, their folly will be clear to everyone.”
Apparently with Iain Campbell basically “working his way into homes” and taking advantage of women:
– Held to a form of godliness but denied its power
– Was always learning but never able to come to a true knowledge of Christ
Sadly it took a while for his “folly to be clear to everyone.”
It is shocking that people still seem to be supporting Iain or wanting to minimize his sin. It is also shocking that a number of people have enabled Tullian Tchividjian after his numerous affairs to especially so quickly get back in the pulpit. Tullian’s claim to fame is that he is Billy Graham’s grandson.
dee,
Dee.
-Consent?
I see where your going in your thought process, it’s a legitimate question. But, I want to point out another angle. Much of our Faith has yet to receive an official ruling from God. Is the Church a one party or two party consent institution? Clearly many leaders say one.
-Is a bench creepy?
I guess creep is in the eyes of the creeped.
What I have pointed out without a solid answer, is why James Boyce is buried under an Obelisk? Al Mohler felt the need to take his sons to said Obelisk. I view this as a pilgrimage, a token of respect and continuity with the past.
But is not an Obelisk an Egyptian phallus of religious significance?
Nathan Priddis,
Al Mohler and Sons.
https://mobile.twitter.com/albertmohler/status/845770673809248257?lang=en
“Yes, he was a theologian but was he a believer? They are not the same thing. I have come to believe that evil men use the church for their own ends. I believe that someone could study Calvinist theology and become a good teacher and preacher and not believe a word of it.” (Dee)
The watchblogs continue to expose one “man of the cloth” after another who have no evidence of being Christian. I’m convinced there are countless pastors, deacons, elders and other church leaders who don’t know Jesus.
To pick on New Calvinism again, Scripture says: “You will know them by their love” (nope, not there; no one would accuse the NeoCals of loving folks as they ought) … “You will know them by their spiritual fruit” (nope, not there; no evidence of the Holy Spirit moving in their lives) … “By their deeds you will know them” (nope, not there; heck they won’t even visit the sick in hospitals and nursing homes!).
I had to look this up in order to see the context behind the comment you made. “I knew that Karl Barth, arguably the greatest Protestant theologian of the 20th century, had a decades-long affair with his personal assistant, Charlotte von Kirschbaum.” – https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2017/october-web-only/what-to-make-of-karl-barths-steadfast-adultery.html
Notice how the writer of this article elevates the man. Who says that a man who keeps a mistress for decades is any kind of great Christian man? Is this not a case where the writer of the article got their ears tickled by Karl’s writings? Did Paul not say in 1 Cor. 6:8 “Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers and sisters.” But read the next few verses and you will see that Paul plainly states that adultery and other related sexual sin practices will bar you from inheriting the Kingdom of God? How can a theologian be GREAT if his practices earn him hell instead of The New Jerusalem?
“He died in tragic circumstances. Notice how they gloss over the events which caused him to commit suicide … They do not mention the many women who were the victims of Campbell’s proclivities. Who cares about what happened to them, right? … *tacky tribute*” (Dee)
Christendom abounds with tacky “men of God” who live tacky lives and have tacky friends. At the end, they can only offer unsuitable tacky tributes to those who fall from grace within their ranks … hoping, they too will receive such praise from the brethren when they depart to their well-deserved eternal home.
“Be sure your sin will find you out!” (Numbers 32:23)
No consent possible can also imply ‘no culpability possible’ on the part of the groomee; something I cannot fully buy into.
Think of the old film production of The Time Machine, in which the Eloi become fully hypnotized and are herded like cattle by the Morlocks upon hearing the air-raid sirens emerging out of the sphinx.
a group of lunatics is what I believe. I don’t understand this herd mentality! If you protect your club i.e. church then you get what you get when God exposes you. It’s unfortunate that people continue to look out for themselves and shame innocent people. It’s beyond my thinking.
Obelisks did have significance in the ancient Egyptian religion. I’m not an Egyptologist, but I believe it represents a ray of the sun-disk Aten, and/or the sun-god Ra.
If you spend time in well-appointed old cemeteries in the US, you’ll see obelisks. There’s also the Washington Monument in DC, and Cleopatra’s Needle in Central Park in NYC. Scotland has several major monuments built as obelisks. If they convey ancient religious meaning, then we also need to look at Doric columns, Moorish arches, and all the other architectural features we call classical.
As a grave marker, the obelisk does seem to proclaim that someone was important. Not the humblest marker, but not necessarily the most ostentatious either. Very easy to see when looking for graves.
/hmm
“Exact location” as in Pilgrimage Site?
Maybe even to lie on the grave at midnight and soak up all his Righteousness and Theological Genius?
As for “Great Theologian”, like a Manichean or Pneumatic Gnostic, he had become so Spiritual nothing he did with his flesh (Xian definition) – even suicide – could tarnish his Godliness.
This would be particularly challenging for an un-married pastor, I imagine, who is looking for an above-board, consensual relationship.
Friends from the pub or friends in ministry? It would be disturbing if the latter were still promoting the man.
I have known a few pastors who married or remarried while serving in the church. All of them handled the situation with grace and married OUTSIDE the congregation.
One of them was an old personal friend of ours, brilliant and quite good looking. He said that women in his congregation kept trying to fix him up with their daughters. This created awkward etiquette problems.
Dee, this is an unrelated but honest question. Have you seen the book by Darby Strickland called “Is it Abuse? A Biblical Guide to Identifying Domestic Abuse and Helping Victims” (published by P&R, 2020). It comes with high recommendations. Just wondered what your thoughts are on it?
here’s the amazon link: https://www.amazon.com/Abuse-Biblical-Identifying-Domestic-Helping/dp/1629956945/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8
Max,
I agree! Even if they are not the fact of the matter is they did support him and mistreat his wife. So beyond disturbing and if the ones who went along never apologized or made it right with her, shame on them.
So have I, but both happened to already be in dating relationships (serious ones that progressed to marriage) before taking a pastoral position.
I’m just wondering; my mind likes puzzles.
The scrutiny and expectations must be extraordinary… and yet being secretive does not offer much of a solution, does it?
dee,
Haha. Ok I admit that I almost thought you were serious..
About the first. Well I never thought about it this way. Need to think a bit more. I wouldn’t have thought of abuse automatically when the pastor and the woman where of the same age. But maybe the position of the pastor automatically carries a form of coercion with it in these circumstances. It’s a new perspective. Thanks 🙂
There is no “pastor” in this sentence.
Good comment, Max, though I would make a slight modification. 🙂
Given the number of church abuse scandals, there IS a “pastor” in Dee’s sentence….not likely a (real) pastor though…. 🙂
Hmm. Where I grew up there was the case of one woman who had affairs with multiple men, one of them a Baptist pastor. It started long before he came to town and continued long afterwards. I could give him a scarlet letter for adultery but in that situation I just do not see the abuse. Honestly it appeared she set her cap for him, the affair started, and then she began attending his church. After he got run off she moved on to another church and I would say began stalking her prey there. No luck so she moved on to another man.
Men, even pastors, can be ordinary run of the mill sinners. And women, even those who have sex outside of marriage with pastors, can be sinners instead of the abused also.
researcher,
“Pastor” by title only.
I do wonder how much the mind-body dichotomy, especially via Gnosticism, continues to affect Christianity. No, I don’t really wonder. I think we have a lot of problems that are at least partly from the traces of Gnosticism that still exist.
Fascinating thought.
The ethics on the pastor’s side are the same, though: don’t get sexually involved with a member of the congregation. If the pastor is married, that involvement is an even bigger taboo.
The situation you describe puts people in jeopardy if they have security clearances, positions of public trust, or other vulnerability to blackmail, public shaming, and so on.
What Russian Intelligence calls “The Honey Pot”.
It was one of the major topics at Christian Monist, both in his blog and his only nonfiction book Butterflies in the Belfry, Serpents in the Cellar.
Max, you’re approaching the “No True Scotsman” fallacy (“No True Pastor”, actually) which can invalidate your entire point.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
Your point would be a lot stronger if you could back it up from SECULAR arguments as well – Abuse from Position of Power, contrast between his Theological Morality and Actual Behavior, and destroying his credibility (AKA “What a Witness”). As a Pastor and thus Representative of Christ, he brings reproach on Who he represents. (If you want to get Biblical, “Because of him the name of Christ is made a laughingstock among the Heathen”.)
Friend–we are in total agreement that the pastor would be a vile sinner, and should be fired for having that affair. I was just saying that in that case he would “only” be guilty of those things, not of being an abuser.
Garden variety jerk.
linda,
40 years ago I was a young missionary raising support. I spent a weekend at Church A in a small town that was very kind to me and offered support. The following weekend I was at Church B, about 15 miles away from Church A, where I got an earful. “Well, you know, our pastor used to be the pastor of Church B, but they ran him out of the church because someone lied about him having an affair with the secretary. Now the secretary from Church A is also our secretary here.” I never knew what to believe, but I did get support from both churches. Maybe they thought I would tell?
linda,
Agreed, Linda! You really did get me thinking.
That sounds like an unhealthy church, or an unhealthy group within the church.
A congregation should have enough skill to refrain from blabbing sexual rumors to a visitor.
Jacob,
with its worldly parallel through Descartes-Hume-Dawkins (who had the bad vicars at his schools anyway)
It may even be a prerequisite for preferment in some cases (I shall not elaborate), though there has usually been an element of colleagues advising against it.
linda,
I note the order was “the affair started” and “then she began attending his church”. The concern about abuse is the case of “she [or he] began [or was] attending the pastor’s church” then “the affair started”.
The abuse could (but not necessarily would) go the other way if the congregant has a great deal of power (e.g., wealth and influence within the community and/or denomination) that is much greater than what the pastor has and could make or break the pastor. Admittedly the thought of Lady Catherine de Bourgh having an affair with her minister, Mr. Collins, couldn’t go very far.
That’s the typical assumption, but you never know. The woman could be stalking the pastor, or he could insist that he show up at his church Or Else. Her presence might humiliate his wife and children. It will surely unsettle the congregation if they know, suspect, or cover up. I’m rather squicked out by the whole idea of pastor, wife, and paramour at the same service.
I read this, and the earlier blogposts on Campbell, as a complete outsider. It’s a fascinating story. I have some questions and observations.
1. Campbell is said to have been an important theologian in his denomination. Can anybody summarize what was distinctive about his theological views? Who’s read his books?
2. Presbyterianism in Scotland is divided into a bewildering number of churches that have split from one another, or occasionally joined one another. Wikipedia has a chart, but most of the names are similar (hence nicknames like “Wee Frees,” which BTW is apparently used of two different groupings), so some confusion is perhaps unavoidable. Anyway, a natural question is whether Campbell’s church could be fairly described as a cult, and to what extent it dominates life on the Isle of Lewis. Apparently various rival Presbyterian churches are represented there, along with unrelated denominations, and it is not uncommon for them to split (hence the chart), or for members to switch groups. On the other hand, some ex-members do describe church life as authoritarian and oppressive, especially for clergy families (whose livelihoods depend on pleasing religious authorities). For example, some have been disciplined for receiving gifts at Christmas, or for attending Catholic funerals. There is a dress code.
Given all this, I wonder whether Campbell was happy or unhappy with this restrictive culture. Other people with high sex drives might have preferred to move away from Lewis, and perhaps switch to a more liberal denomination, but Campbell insisted on returning to Lewis. Was sex really easier for him to find that way? Or could he just not bring himself to leave his home?
3. I wonder about Campbell’s relationship with his wife, who is apparently the person responsible for refusing to allow a headstone on his grave, and apparently also wants his various lovers charged in a church court, their marriages be damned. I understand why he might have felt unhappy with her. On the other hand, for all I know, maybe he was happy in his marriage, as long as he could get away with cheating. Anyway, this strikes me as a personal matter which outsiders have no business getting involved in-except that his religion apparently permits this, hence the church courts.
4. A number of commenters have suggested that Campbell “groomed” or took advantage of his lovers, or that their relationships constituted abuse of some kind. Was it really? For example, are reverends in this church really so revered, that women would feel pressured into submitting to their advances? My impression is that these Presbyterians are quite prepared to disagree with one another on very small points, whether moral or theological, although it is a patriarchal system with strictly defined sex roles. Campbell’s lovers may have been enthusiastic co-participants.
5. Some posters accuse Campbell of sociopathy. Granting that he behaved badly–sleazily, even–I wonder whether his actions are not better explained as sex addiction. Does that make him evil? It seems like a fairly bog-standard personal conflict–man cheats on wife with various women, gets caught, wife gets mad. Except for the religious angle, and the suicide, this situation doesn’t look all that different from what one would hear every day in a divorce court.
Again, I have no dog in this fight. I wish them all well, but suspect that their religious setting has made a bad situation worse. As for Campbell’s theology, if somebody could tell me what that was, then it ought to be judged on its own merits, however that might be done in this sectarian atmosphere.
You might have missed some facts provided in earlier TWW posts. This man was a big authoritative name in an exceedingly strict denom. He cheated, apparently with seven or more women. After he took his own life, quite a few people turned on the widow. Her actions after his death do not suggest that she is somehow responsible for his infidelity.
There’s a slight contradiction in what you write. You seem to think that Presbyterian women are equipped to fight off unwanted advances by pastors. At the same time, you appear to criticize the widow for leaving a grave unmarked and seeking relief available in the church courts.
The story makes me uncomfortable, particularly as it publicizes the names of the other women. Still, maybe we owe this widow some gratitude for refusing to cover up shocking betrayal and hypocrisy.
That’s it. My comment, quote from Friend.
Zla’od,
I am quite tired tonight. Heading to bed. I will respond to your comment tomorrow but it sounds like you are blaming the widow.I know exactly what happened in this story-more so than most people. Your lack of understanding and empathy for the widow while supporting the husband in his rather prolific catfishing is disturbing. Til tomorrow.
No, I understand her anger, but I also understand why Campbell might have felt unhappy. Of course, what he really wanted / needed (lots of women) would probably have been a deal-breaker for almost anybody. Sex addicts don’t make good relationship partners.
In most churches that I’m familiar with, the priest / pastor does not have this kind of commanding presence. Maybe they do in this church, I dunno, or maybe he personally had this kind of charisma.
The whole idea of church courts seems bizarre to me (what business is it of theirs?) but I guess different religions disagree. What’s the point of going after the lovers? And allowing a grave marker seems like common courtesy, regardless of how she feels about her late husband.
Friend,
As classical architecture… The obelisk certainly has been copied in unusual locations. St. Peter’s Square I understand to not be one of them. That is an actual unused obelisk the Romans transported from Egypt. A remarkable feat in antiquity.
Context is everything. The location of the obelisk determines the context in my mind. The Washington Monument conveys to me the origin of of the US. It was a product of the Late Colonial era. The Founders where Masons. That’s the same takeaway I get walking through the local cemetery. (yes I go often)
It appears that you have not read the accounts of those abused by priests. Just about all pointed to the fact that their abuser was a preist/pastor and used twisted Scripture to justify the abuse.
Also
He had a racket going. He knew these. women well and knew ho to press their buttons.
Why would I need to read his books? The gospel boys have done that for me he would have had a position in any seminary that he chose. But he wanted to stay close to the Isle of Lewis.
You are portraying him as a man who couldn’t bear to leave his home of the Isle of Lewis and so stayed there, having lots of sex with lots of women If he only went to a liberal denomination he could have all the sex he wanted with all sorts of women? Do you hear yourself?
You don’t know her. And she doesn’t want to charge ALL the women. Do some reading on the matter.
Because she wants justice, you now appear to say that you understand why Campbell was unhappy with her? Do you hear yourself? How in the world can you make this leap in a judgment-a leap so tall that you take down his widow.
I am getting a bit worried about your narrative. If you make one more comment, blaming the wife, you are going into full time moderation.
Nathan Priddis,
Ah yes! 1) The obelisk in St. Peter’s Square is adorned with a large cross. 2) The Washington Monument was supposed to include a stone donated by the pope, but it vanished before installation, apparently stolen by the Know Nothings.
People just can’t leave well enough alone, eh? 😉
It’s comments like this that make me realize that we have a long road ahead of us. What happens to a counselor who has sex with clients? Prison time. Pastors are, at the minimum, counselors. And yes, they can use tactics to coerce a woman. I can well assure you that few of the women would be, as you said, *enthisiastic participants.
I don’t believe you. There is setting there-perhas sex addiction, perhaps something else.
Look it up yourself. It’s quite easy.; I even wrote a post on one small part of it. If I can do it, so can you.
I am unhappy with your comments. You appear to be playing a game. There is some dog in this hunt but I don’t know what it is.
Sometimes people train their wrath on the surviving spouse (“the wrong one died”). In my family, a dead man’s relatives harassed his blameless widow for years. The harassment included their highly insistent notions of how to mark his grave, and even whether or not to let his remains stay in the grave.
I don’t know what happened in the Campbells’ situation. The installation of a bench with a plaque does suggest defiance of the wishes of the next of kin, i.e., the widow. We know that people have made her life difficult.
Sex addiction is still a controversial diagnosis.
In church leadership, it’s a handy and rather swaggering excuse for any Great Man who is caught. “I can’t help liking the ladies, but now I have repented” sounds better than “I lie to my wife about business trips, lure married women into my hotel room, and threaten to fire their husbands if they don’t do what I want.” (Hypothetically.)
Conversely, sexual addiction is also set up as an internalized fear among, say, churchgoers who want to hold hands before marriage.
Back to the clinical challenge of defining the disorder, here’s an NIH article:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4712755/
I just looked up St. Peter’s Obelisk after your comment. I presumed all along it was an unused Obelisk the Romans found lying for centuries in a quary. I just read it was apparently standing in Heriopolis. And, St. Pete’s is it’s third location after reaching Rome. That’s crazy! What’s to say it wasn’t shortened during the various relocations? It’s 84 feet of marble currently.
Friend,
Loved your comment
Totally agree
I’m aware of this phenomenon, and grateful to you for reporting on it. But is that really what we’re looking at here? I didn’t see anything to suggest that these weren’t consenting adults. You seem to be arguing that consent is impossible due to power differential, him being a minister. I have my doubts about this.
I have never blamed the wife, and I think you are projecting on this. I wish her well, but have to assume that her theology was similar to his, and everyone else’s in this toxic church. I realize you have inside information, possibly from her, but this would be one side of the story. When my parents divorced, my father told a story about being unhappy for decades, while my mother tells how she was completely blindsided by his decision to leave. Maybe nobody is to blame, given how many couples end up in similar situations.
I am assuming sex addiction. Sex, love, and relationships all involve chemicals in the body, whose effects are often similar to those of certain drugs. We can easily become addicted–to sex, to the thrill of the (romantic) chase, to various paraphilias. The fact that Campbell killed himself does suggest that he felt it was out of control. Does this mean it’s not his fault? I dunno, what do we say about alcoholism? It’s a very human failing. I guess this gets into the whole “free will” question that Calvinists love so much. I personally think that “free will” is not well defined. (Do I act freely if my actions are strongly influenced by my emotions?) Anyway, Campbell was censured by his church, and is in any case dead. What is there left to punish?
We seem to have a situation in which the next of kin was a woman whom the deceased planned to divorce (or possibly vice versa, once she discovered his affairs). Her actions strike me as petty and vindictive. I don’t blame her for being furious, but other people are grieving too. (What about their children?)
I have some experience with this. My mentor in graduate school was very kind to me, and influenced me deeply. After he died, I learned that he had molested his daughters. So I have to hold both sides of him in my mind at once.
I assure you that I have never even been to the UK, let alone the Outer Hebrides, and don’t recall ever attending a Presbyterian service (although it is the largest Protestant denomination here). I haven’t even read Calvin’s ‘Institutes.’ If you mean that I am a sex addict, well, I am subject to the same lusts as any man, but am happily married and hope to remain so.
He probably helped erect the bench.
I do not assume that the children want something different from what the widow wants. Possibly they made a decision together, or the children were willing to defer to her… or she to them. You and I also don’t know that the grave will remain unmarked forever. Maybe the family just has enough to deal with right now, and will return to that topic at some point in the future.
He was the cheater.
He was the cheater.
He was the cheater.
You were mentored by a man who molested his daughters, and you see both sides?
Predators build networks. You were part of this man’s network. It seems that you might still speak highly of him in some circles.
How do you think your seeing both sides of him affects his victims?
Campbell was a sinner who found how to indulge his sinful desires while maintaining a sterling image. The stricter the church, the less likely he’d be suspected.
There are multiple online resources about this shameless guy. Dee did most of the digging to get to the bottom of it.
I am continually amazed by people who blame the wife for the husband’s infidelity. He chose to sin by adultery and then to sin by suicide. He made choices. He indulged himself for years. It was exposure that led to suicide. Seems like he was all about image and entitlement. So sad.
Friend,
I’m not excusing him, far from it. But we are more than the worst thing we have ever done. I was with his family, going through some of his papers, when I found out about this, and talked it over with them. I have followed their wishes in not making it public. (Since he is dead, there is no danger to others.)
Cheating (which NB, is on an entirely different level than daughter-molesting) is common enough, although the sheer number of affairs Campbell was able to juggle was impressive.
I freely admit that I don’t have all the facts. I’m just saying that based on what I read here, I see nothing to place Campbell’s behavior on the same level as the parade of pedophiles and little Napoleons who are usually the focus of this blog.
I agree with most of your comment but must take issue with the notion that suicide is a sin.
Campbell committed adultery and led a double life. His suicide deprives other people of hearing him explain his actions, and perhaps meting out consequences. His death left people shocked and grieving. All of those things are bad.
But let’s refrain from condemning people for taking their own lives in moments of deep crisis. In calling suicide a sin, you are evoking the days when the church refused to hold funeral services for people who took their own lives. Some were denied burial in church cemeteries.
Our societies are healthier when we recognize the destructive power of depression, and encourage people to talk, and to seek treatment. Depression is every bit as real, and potentially fatal, as cancer and heart disease. We do better when people do not hide their depression, and when surviving families do not have to hide the reasons for a death.
In the US, the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline’s telephone number is 1-800-273-8255. Online chat services are available. The Lifeline offers help in English and Spanish, and to the deaf and hard of hearing.
The web address is https://suicidepreventionlifeline.org/
I have called the Lifeline for guidance about how to help a loved one. The counselor helped me to understand what I was seeing. My loved one is still alive today, and I am deeply thankful.
Friend,
Suicide is certainly not an unforgivable sin. I’m sorry that’s how you interpreted my words. Nevertheless ending the life unjustly of anyone made in the image of God is wrong, and in Christian parlance, a sin. I don’t know that he did so in depressed state of mind. You don’t know that. Only God knows.
I have suicide in my family. I’m not condemning Campbell for this, but stating it. Like adultery it is wrong, like adultery it is forgivable.
No matter your assertions, I believe that you are trying to excuse his behavior. This man harmed many women, his wife and children, his church, and those who believed he was a great theologian. Contray to your thoughts, he did not deserve a grave marker. His idiotic friends, who built that tacky memorial, overrode the wishes of his wife, just like IC did with his life’s activities.
Everything this man has written should be suspect. Anyone who could have that many relationships with women played games with his theology and was evil, to boot.
His behavior was abhorrent and damaging to the cause of Christ. This wasn’t just some tawdry affair. It was much, much more and I’m surprised that you are unable or unwilling to see it. I wonder why?
Contrary to what you say, his actions fit quite well into the theme of this blog. You are excusing them for some reason. I won’t prtend to know what that reason is but something is off in your insistence in excusing the seriousness of this man’s sins. I bet you are one of those folks who would have contributed to that ridiculous *memorial.*
What a good laugh they all had-letting people know the coordinates of his bones. Will they go there and sing hymns on the exact, *sacred* burial spot?
Sorry, but your dogged persistence in this leads me to believe that you are somehow connected to this situation. You are certainly not on the side of the wife and I certainly am.
Which side of your mentor would tip the balance in eternity? Which side of Campbell tipped God’s judgment?
“In ‘that day’ many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, didn’t we preach in your name and do many great things in your name?’ Then I shall tell them plainly, ‘I have never known you. Go away from me, you have worked on the side of evil!’” (Matthew 7:22-23)
Thank you for writing this, Friend.
I have listened to / talked with / read things by people who have lost a loved one to suicide.
There were times I was able to warn a person whose loved one had committed suicide of the condemnation they might face from the secular and / or non-secular world, the people in those worlds who would attempt to shame or guilt-trip them.
There were people I listened to / talked with / read, who, for any number of reasons, condemned those who had committed suicide. It was all I could do not to smack that person with whom I was listening / talking / reading upside the head.
There have been so many times when, to a greater or lesser degree, I have felt suicidal….times when I avoid things like balconies….times where the route I walk crosses the street far less frequently than other routes I might walk.
There are so many people who do not (or choose not to) understand the intense pain of a suicidal person.
(And I realize that, in writing that last sentence, I might sound condemnatory. Very big sigh.)
Godith,
Thank you for your gracious response. I am very sorry that your family has been affected by suicide.
Regarding Campbell, I do not know if he was depressed, but he was certainly experiencing a crisis. Most of my comment was more general, concerning people who are suffering quietly, and those who love them.
researcher,
You are brave to share your pain here; that sounds incredibly hard to bear. I value your voice and your life, and truly do hope you have whatever you need to keep going and find relief: understanding friends and relatives, perhaps a therapist, a journal, a sketch book, activities that lift you up.
This whole year has been hard on people all over the world, and the isolation has made things worse. A young adult I know passed through a terrible time and recovered. She has now started reaching out, mentioning depression in social media posts to friends, and encouraging people to speak up when things feel hopeless; I think this outreach is helping her.
Again, I hope that you have whatever support you need. I’ll be thinking about you and holding you in prayer.
I am not. Actions have consequences, as we see.
You have somehow gotten it into your head that I am an enemy of his widow, or some sort of religious partisan. I truly wish her well.
Since I am not God, my answer amounts to mere religious opinion, but your question carries presuppositions which I do not share.
Q.Where are the offending pastoral adulultry chick testimony bits?
The news of a “memorial bench” bench erected in memory of this reprobate defrocked so called Minister of the Gospel is utterly shocking. I dread to think who these friends are as they celebrate sin and wickedness in this man, for that is what they do.
It is interesting to note that the posting on Twitter and displayed earlier in this post has been written by the journalist son of Prof Donald McLeod the Scottish Theologian who faced accusations of assault by numerous women. There is an interesting saying that “birds of a feather flock together” and this Professor’s published obituary in respect A A Campbell was fulsome in his praise stating that he had hoped this man might replace him in due time at the Edinburgh Theological College. Who needs such flocks?
Friend,
Thank you, Friend. 🙂
Thank you for confirming this. I suspected he was a family member of * the Donald.* Who in the world chortles over putting the coordinates of Campbsell’s bones? I have this vision of them invading the cemetery at night, digging up the bones, and distributing them to his sycophants to display in a church somewhere.
His wife was trashed in the press by his friends. That is despicable.We’ve got one guy on this thread appearing to say he thinks he understands why Campbell strayed…It was her fault.”
No, it wasn’t. This creep did this all on his own. Thankfully, he cannot escape justice so easily.
Sòpwyth,
Were you expecting clickbait content on TWW?
In my comment above I had a mental blank out when I used the wrong initials for the errant Campbell. The initials should read I.D NOT A.A
So sorry for the error
Will they lie on his grave at midnight to soak up his Spiritual Greatness?
No use trying to erect that bench on TWW, Zla’od. Many of the commenters here have been abused by church leaders they trusted. They have felt the sting of hurt and betrayal … not at the hand of a pedophile or little Napoleon, but “Pastor” … it has been a long agonizing journey for them … Campbell’s victims are many and many on this site feel their pain; they have no memorial bench, but what is provided here and elsewhere by those who care.
Dear Dee,
So who do you think is the John MacLeod who so * helpfully* told his readers about the quaint seat and its sneaky plaque?
My guess is he is possibly John MacLeod, the newspaper reporter son of Professor Donald MacLeod who was a friend of the late IDC.
But I could be wrong. ( delete any of the above if you don’t think it appropriate to print)
ETA… I just read back a few comments and my suspicion has been confirmed by what Hawkeye said. Sorry I should have read ALL the comments first.