Jim Denison Issues a Retraction

Posted on by November 23, 2011avatar

This is not our post for today. We have a doozy of a post coming this evening. However, this statement is noteworthy.

In an ABP release here he states:

"On Nov. 10 I combined my previous Cain and Paterno essays into my FaithLines submission. Then I made a mistake. When I came to the statement from my Herman Cain essay that cited Matthew 18:15, I combined the Paterno story by including these words: "It would have been best for the alleged abuse victims at Penn State and the NRA to go directly to those who wronged them." I was writing on deadline; had I checked the essay before submitting it, I would immediately have omitted those three words. Nonetheless, the mistake was mine alone."

TWW has made a similar mistakes and understand how this could happen.

We do wish that he had expounded on the following statement. Perhaps he will do so in another post.

"Second, Scripture teaches us what to do when we are in the wrong: "If you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift" (Matthew 5:23-24). We should seek restoration immediately." 

Comments

Jim Denison Issues a Retraction — 12 Comments

  2. Numo
    I agree. There is still some difficulty in insisting that a woman who has been harassed at work confront her abuser.There is another issue here, however. Sometimes innocent people are accused. How do we deal with that? I need to ponder this but would love input from you all.

  3. Confusion over civil and spiritual authority. When laws of the land are broken, the authorities (who enforce those laws) are to be notified. My guess is Mr. Denison probably wouldn’t suggest a battered wife call the police on her husband. Fool. cf. Romans 13.

  4. Sometimes innocent people are accused. How do we deal with that?
    Through the legal system.

    I doubt that most cases of sexual harassment get reported; the ones that do make it into court and/or public arenas seem pretty believable to me. (cf. Anita Hill’s testimony at the Thomas hearings.)

  5. It’s good that he issued a retraction, however confused. But I wonder why it took so long. He says, “On Nov. 10, I combined my previous Cain and Paterno essays into my FaithLines submission.” He said that he “was writing on deadline,” and didn’t check it before submitting it.

    Later, he writes, “On Nov. 14 the Associated Baptist Press published an essay I wrote on Herman Cain and Joe Paterno.” Assuming 4 days before publication is customary for a deadline, he or his editors had those days to check it. They apparently did not. Now his retraction comes 9 days after it was published.

    I’m a novice in these matters, but doesn’t this length of time seem strange?

  6. Also… don’t you folks think that an adult who has sexually harassed another adult should be the one to ask forgiveness?!

  7. Jeff, retractions in print publications or on-line publications usually take at least one publicationi cycle to show up, best case scenario. Weekly publications try to get retractions and apologies issued the week after mistakes happen. Monthly publications, obviously, have to do things in the next month. And quarterly publications, well, you get the idea.

    In plenty of cases they can be so immersed in writing and publishing whatever is next it takes time for readers to point out factual errors or other problems. That’s just addressing the lag between publication and retraction. Editors should have flagged down Denison’s piece as having problems rather than running with it.

    The whole bit about how certain Baptists view women is a separate subject but so far as the length of time for the retraction and apology, that’s not an inherently strange amount of time.

  8. “When I came to the statement from my Herman Cain essay that cited Matthew 18:15, I combined the Paterno story by including these words: “It would have been best for the alleged abuse victims at Penn State and the NRA to go directly to those who wronged them”

    Does not add up. Sexual Harassment (unwanted attention of a sexual nature) is usually different from sexual abuse (rape, etc). He would have called them harassment victims if talking about Cain. Cain was not accused of sexual abuse.

    In any event, ABP needs to cancel his contract since he admits to being such a shoddy editor of his own work before he turns it in.

    Where are the original articles?

  9. My view is that the error is in assuming that the victims should go to the offender. The offender should go to the one who has been offended and seek reconciliation. That probably begins with an apology.

  11. Numo,

    “Also… don’t you folks think that an adult who has sexually harassed another adult should be the one to ask forgiveness?!”

    This is why I have a serious problem with Denison’s interpretation of scripture to victims of sexual harassment and exploitation. Requiring that the victim go the abuser, show him his fault, and be restored to the abuser is not the responsibility of the victim. In fact, as I commented on the previous post, it puts the blame and responsibility back on the victim, RE-victimizes her, and causes further psychological trauma (and possibly further sexual harassment). It is very unsafe for the victim and provides no accountability for the abuser.