The ultimate tragedy is not the oppression and cruelty by the bad people but the silence over that by the good people.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Mary Magdalen Crying -Vassil
I apologize for any confusion in in our post of the amended lawsuit yesterday. I had some glitches that have been resolved (I think). We are postponing the planned posts on abortion and contraception until next week in order to deal with this developing story.
The allegations of child abuse (sexual and otherwise) cover up in Sovereign Grace Ministries continue to garner national attention as an amended lawsuit adds five names to the ongoing civil litigation. WJLA in Washington here, the Washington Post here, The Louisville Courier Journal here, and the San Francisco Chronicle here are the first to report on this heartbreaking story. Due to the allegations, which include a child pedophile ring and an adult aged female being forced to remove her panties and get whacked by a pastor, we suspect that this story will garner international attention in the coming days. Could this story see further individuals being added to the lawsuit? One need only look at the Catholic church scandal to see that such an outcome is entirely possible.
TWW has posted the amended lawsuit as a pdf file which can be found on our SGM Resource page. The reason we are sticking to the pdf file is to assure that the document cannot be modified on our site.
Deb and I began to discuss SGM before we started to blog. We had discovered the SGM Survivors site and we were jolted by the comments that we read there. So, although neither one of us has ever been (and you can be pretty darned sure never will be) associated with this "family of churches," we followed the stories with great interest. We would try to figure out how such alleged incidents could occur in a supposedly dedicated, "gospel" group of churches.
As time passed, we slowly came to the realization that CJ Mahaney, formerly self-designated Apostle, was admired by all of the current stars in the firmament of the Neo-Calvinist movement. These would include The Gospel Coalition, T4G, Acts29 and such luminaries as Al Mohler, President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Mark Dever, Tim Challies, Tim Keller, Matt Chandler and (off and on) Mark Driscoll. (Could someone please notify us when Driscoll is deemed "in" again? We can't see to keep track.) Mahaney was "appointed" to be Mark Driscoll's mentor (I am being dead serious) and invited to speak at every major Neo-Calvinist event around the globe. His books are pushed by many of those named above.
As our readers know, the initial lawsuit was filed in October here. The reports of this suit were covered by both the national and international press. But, there was a notable silence. All of the above individuals, along with many of their fans, followers and associates, have joined together in not speaking one word about the lawsuit.
Dee got her nose out of joint and began counting the days of silence which now stand at 78. (Most likely a bit more but we got counting late). Surely it wouldn't be business as usual? Wouldn't these men of the "gospel" reach out to the victims, or, at the minimum, express concern? If they have, it certainly hasn't been made public and these guys appear to love their publicity.
Unfortunately, CJ Mahaney is being invited to all of the "gospel" conferences and is still being held up as a role model of Christian leadership. In fact, CJ Mahaney will be the honored guest at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary on January 31 when he addresses chapel attendees. He is also speaking at the SEBTS 20/20 Collegiate Conference, which takes place February 1-2. The local ads on Christian radio are frequent and encourage students to come and listen to this wonderful Christian leader. How embarrassing is that?
Or are they embarrassed at all? Is there an agenda here that will not be suspended even in the light of serious accusations? Has anyone taught these guys the meaning of propriety? Here is what Al Mohler said about CJ Mahaney after he stepped down in the summer of 2011 after a bunch of documents were leaked which showed Mahaney in a distinctly unsavory light. The highlighting is mine.
- I always have had only the highest estimation of C.J. Mahaney as a man and a minister,”
- That continues absolutely unchanged. There is nothing in this current situation which would leave me to have even the slightest pause of confidence in him.
- There is nothing disqualifying in terms of anything that is disclosed in this .It’s just evidence we knew all along, that C.J. is human but a deeply committed Christian and a visionary Christian leader.
- Basically there are people who are very uncomfortable with the strong kind of spiritual direction that comes through the Sovereign Grace Ministries.
- Any time you’re going to take on the role of leadership, you’re going to have critics.
- It basically comes down to the criticism, ‘I don’t like that.’”
Sorta makes you want to question whether someone has the "gift of discernment", doesn't it? (Special thanks to Eagle). The article goes on to say that Mohler regularly appears at conferences with Mahaney. It also states that Mohler
has worked closely with Mahaney for years as leaders of a revival of teaching on Calvinist theology,male authority and church discipline among some conservative evangelicals
So, it would seem to indicate that, if one agrees with a certain subset of theological constructs, then one is part of the "in crowd" and the "in crowd" appears to be more concerned with themselves than about the victims, aka the "out-crowd." These leaders have all written "me too" pieces, stating their concerns with pedophilia and other forms of abuse, but, when it comes time to get specific about one of their own, the cone of silence rules the day
Then Tim Challies, another one of the insiders penned an article here called CJ Mahaney and Difficult Days. It was written after the release of Brent Detweiler's documents. In it he says:
I believe the Bible makes it clear that we should not be whistleblower when it comes to interpersonal conflict of the kind that exists between Mahaney and Detwiler, which in turn means that it was wrong for Detwiler to make these documents public. Though interpersonal conflict is a sad reality in a sinful world, it is one that God calls us to resolve biblically or to be willing to leave in his hands. If we genuinely trust in God’s sovereignty, we ought to trust him enough to leave certain things in his care—even and especially personally painful things.
It is important to note that these documents appear to have revealed some sort of blackmailing type incident involving CJ Mahaney and Larry Tomczak which, in this amended lawsuit, could be significant. But Challies appears to be advocating silence. This is even more apparent when TWW receives a report here that Challies later, in another piece, reportedly deletes a comment which asks about CJ Mahaney. We wrote:
Darrell Dow (Benevolent Dictator of Stuff Fundies Like) posted a serious comment on it basically asking if this was Challies’s way:
“to test the waters on how his circles are feeling about Mahaney these days”.
It was deleted within minutes.
I have two reason that I believe that there is a cone of silence (either intentional or unintentional) around CJ Mahaney and SGM.
Reason 1: The exodus of churches from the SGM network has been studiously ignored.
Do you think that The Gospel Coalition might write all sorts of articles if 5,491 churches up and left the SBC in short order? According to Lifeway link there are 45,764 churches in the SBC. 12% of that number works out to 5,491 churches. You see, according to the Sovereign Grace Ministries website, there are currently 100 churches in their "denomination." Have you read that SGM has reportedly recently lost 12 churches, which include such as influential churches Covenant Life Church, SGM Fairfax and SGM Chesapeake? Here is one count found at SGM Survivors.
VA: Charlottesville (Berault), Arlington (Simmons), Fairfax (Mullery) (3)
FL: Daytona Beach (Jarvis), St. Pete (Cisar), Sarasota (Nguyen), Miami (Prado) (4)
CA: Pleasonton (Shin), San Francisco (Kurth), San Diego (Lauterbach) (3)
Canada: Surrey, BC(Pat Sczebel) (1)
MD: CLC (Harris)(1)That totals 12 who have left. As far as we know there is still 1 pending: Virginia Beach.
So, The Gospel Coalition,which emphasizes church planting, knows of the SGM church exodus and their response is one of silence. This is a major story so one must question their inarticulateness. (It is a word, I checked).
Reason 2 -If TGC, et al, might claim that this lawsuit is merely full of allegations and there have been no convictions, then why would they violate their own rules if it involves someone who is not part of the "gospel in-crowd?"
One January 12, 2012, 5 months before Jerry Sandusky was convicted of child sexual abuse, Collin Hansen, the editorial director for TGC, penned an article posted at TGC here titled,When Good Is Not Good Enough. You might wonder if they should give SGM leadership some of the same advice. Or does it only matter if you are not one of theirs?
When Paterno learned that trusted former assistant Jerry Sandusky may have been raping boys—in Penn State facilities, no less—the coach did not investigate further. He passed responsibility up the chain of command. But his superiors (in name only) didn't do enough, either. The abuse allegedly continued until someone outside the cloistered community finally sounded the alarm. All that good–gone in a moment everyone would deeply regret.
"I made a lot of mistakes in my life," Paterno told Sports Illustrated writer Joe Posnanskiin his final days. "But I thought people could see that I tried my best to do the right things. I tried to do the right thing with Sandusky too."
Unfortunately for Paterno, he committed one of our society's unforgivable sins. In the public reckoning, he would have been better off cheating on his wife or his taxes. But child molesters and those who harbor them will not find forgiveness in this culture.
Paterno's fame revealed his great sin of omission, something he left undone. Examine yourself. What have you left undone? Or what have you done wrong, your sins of commission? What if they were revealed to your neighbors, your family, the media? Would you fare any better than Paterno? Truth be told, no one can withstand such scrutiny. "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us," 1 John 1:8 reads. Furthermore, we deceive ourselves if we think we do not sin in such a way that would bring such shame if exposed.
The days ahead will prove to be difficult ones for SGM. Tomorrow, we will begin to highlight some of the stories found in the lawsuit. Today's NeoCalvinist leaders have been placed in a precarious position by the leadership at Sovereign Grace Ministries. When such allegiance is held in spite of allegation after allegation of horrific abuse, one has to wonder if these men are following Jesus who cared for the lost, the let down, and the broken or are they upholding the Pharisees whom Jesus referred to as "white washed tombs?"
Lydia's Corner: Numbers 30:1-31:54 Luke 4:1-30 Psalm 63:1-11 Proverbs 11:20-21
“Today’s NeoCalvinist leaders have been placed in a precarious position by the leadership at Sovereign Grace Ministries. When such allegiance is held in spite of allegation after allegation of horrific abuse, one has to wonder if these men are following Jesus who cared for the lost, the let down, and the broken or are they upholding the Pharisees whom Jesus referred to as ‘white washed tombs?'”
This hits the nail on the head. And shame on them for caring more about their own agendas than about the truth and about caring for Christ’s Beloved.
Also, forgive me if you all have already seen this, but I thought you might be interested to see that Associated Baptist Press ran this brief story on the lawsuit today: http://www.abpnews.com/ministry/organizations/item/8136-new-charges-filed-in-abuse-lawsuit#.UPXYsyeUYav
Just a note of correction. WJLA is a Washington station. It was front and center on their web site earlier today.
Roadwork
Thank for the correction
Readers: Keep your eyes on the news
I need to do an errand. There is a report on one blog, the Tolling Bell, of an arrest. http://thetollingbell.org/. This may be pure speculation and not based on any facts.
No wonder there is a ever increasing number of people leaving the church.
It seems the first to really pick up on these stories will be the secular news sources. Then, non-reformed Christian voices will pop up. The Reformed community will be the last one to address this.
Pingback: The Tolling Bell | The Back of the World
Jeff Crippen has written against this sort of “sweep it under the rug” stuff. Paul wrote to Timothy and said “Alexander the coppersmith did me great harm” – no sweeping it under the rug or waiting for the civil authorities to hand down arrests and indictments, huh?
I can’t get over the insanity of this. Christians need to recognize that the civil authorities need to handle crime – and “mega churches” and huge media-driven “ministries” are our biggest downfall.
Miguel,
Spot on!
We are witnessing God's sovereignty while the Calvinistas desperately try to ignore or deny it.
Dee
It is important to note that an earlier incident of Sandusky with a boy was reported to the authorities, turned over to a prosecuting attorney, and NOTHING HAPPENED. I think that may have swayed Paterno about what to do in the incident reported to him that kicked off the recent investigation. It does not excuse those above him in the administration however.
Christianity Today now has a story running about the amended lawsuit:
http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2013/01/child-abuse-lawsuit-against-sovereign-grace-ministries-adds-names-and-charges.html
Okay I haven’t been able to go back and keep up with all of the history – but I am gathering from the story here that CJ was accused of blackmailing Larry over sexual abuse of girls in the church? (I don’t know what the “Brent Detweiler documents” refers to)
So Tim Challies and Al Mohler are saying that it should have been kept private? That the sexual abuse of girls/children in the church, and the subsequent blackmail, is NOBODY’S BUSINESS??
@ Deb:
Where IS Piper on the “sovereignty of God” when you need him? He never shuts up when difficult things happen except, apparently, when it comes to the household of God. Isn’t this actually where Christians should be speaking out — addressing their own?
Bridget,
Excellent comment! Forget the bridge collapse and the tornadoes.
How about the debacle in a ministry he has endorsed (SGM)?
I am sick to death of these “visionary leaders”. I don’t get what the church is supposed to need them for, Jesus has already told us what to do: love Him passionately, love one another with a pure heart fervently, and love this aching, broken world that needs all the love it can get. Every time a ‘visionary leader’ pops up, real people get crushed and destroyed under the steamroller of his (usually self-serving) ‘vision’. Give me an ordinary pastor who humbly struggles to serve his or her people constantly — that’s where the real church is at.
Did you see that Mohler has just published a book on Leadership? It was mini-reviewed on Challies yesterday http://www.challies.com/resources/new-notable-book-reviews-7
Maybe I’m misreading, but to me that article on Paterno/Sandusky seemed to be minimising the sin of sexual abuse. It is “the culture” that finds it so unforgivable, rather than the writer. Also, it is immediately turned onto the reader, with the old Calvinista trick of all sins are damnable, so no sin is worse than any other, and we all have done things just as bad. Is that how they really view paedopihilia in Calvinista-land?
I really resent CJ Mahaney’s practice being called “Spiritual direction”. I am a spiritual director, certified graduate of a three year program and coordinator of the Southeast Texas Chapter, Assosciation of Spiritual Directors. A true spiritual director knows the Holy Spirit is the real spiritual director. He or she also knows that the goal of spiritual director is helping the directee to discover the areas God wants to move in his or her life instead of impositing his or her wishes, desires and authority.
@ Lynne T:
Lynne – CJ for a while was tweeting quotes from Mohler’s book. It was nauseating. I wanted to tweet back that reading doesn’t do any good if you do not apply it. But then we could say the same thing with his own book on Humility, couldn’t we?
K – the blackmailing had to do with Larry’s son and his indiscretions, not Larry’s. However, it appears Larry has some answering to do with regard to the new amended lawsuit. They are two separate issues.
@ Lynne T:
Theology of glory vs. theology of the cross. Too long to get in a blog comment, but google it. Most of the Calvinista circles wear their theology of glory like a morale patch.
Dee: You’d be interested in this from Ken Silva from his article (http://goo.gl/beOTy):
Ken discusses how he was trying to get info on the story of the lawsuit: As it was surfacing, I was lacking time to look into it. I was, however, in contact with some “names” well known within the Christian blogosphere who said that they were aware of it and found it not worth reporting.
Per “The Tolling Bell”: arrest and indictment of Nathaniel Morales confirmed.
http://thetollingbell.org/1/post/2013/01/sex-abuser-arrested-indicted.html
Perhaps the following could be read in every SGM church this weekend:
“The moral and legal responsibility of every Christian — and especially every Christian leader and minister — must be to report any suspicion of the abuse of a child to law enforcement authorities. Christians are sometimes reluctant to do this, but this reluctance is both deadly and wrong.
Sometimes Christians are reluctant to report suspected sexual abuse because they do not feel that they know enough about the situation. They are afraid of making a false accusation. This is the wrong instinct. We do not have the ability to conduct the kind of investigation that is needed, nor is this assigned to the church. This is the function of government as instituted by God (Romans 13). Waiting for further information allows a predator to continue and puts children at risk. This is itself an immoral act that needs to be seen for what it is.
A Christian hearing a report of sexual abuse within a church, Christian organization, or Christian school, needs to act in exactly the same manner called for if the abuse is reported in any other context. The church and Christian organizations must not become safe places for abusers. These must be safe places for children, and for all. Any report of sexual abuse must lead immediately to action. That action cannot fall short of contacting law enforcement authorities. A clear lesson of the Penn State scandal is this: Internal reporting is simply not enough.”
This is from the pen of Mohler himself. He wrote this Thursday, November 10, 2011, just five days after Sandusky was arrested.
http://www.albertmohler.com/2011/11/10/the-tragic-lessons-of-penn-state-a-call-to-action/
My heart goes out to the victims who have suffered at the hands of these cruel abusers and their cronies. I applaud the brave ones who have the courage to say “this happened to me”.
@ Roadwork: In Washington State? Nope – Washington, D.C.!
http://www.wjla.com/
Those of you who know me know that I can be very critical of Sydney Anglicans, but let me be the first to say that this is one area they handle well. Every adult member who might ever have anything to do with children (even taking someone else’s toddler to the kitchen for a glass of water) has to do Safe Ministry Training (with a refresher update every 3 years) where we are taught about safe and appropriate touch with other people’s kids, not to be alone with a child, signs of abuse to be aware of and what to do if you see them, or a child discloses something. Every Anglican rector in this diocese is a Mandatory Reporter, who legally MUST follow through anything they are informed about relating to the safety of children. You are not allowed to have anything to do with children unless you have done this course, and everyone doing this course has to sign a form giving permission for a police criminal record check
Also, did you know that last week our (female) Prime Minister announced a Royal Commission into child sex abuse in institutional settings?
Hi Numo.
I believe I said, “… Is a Washington station.”, not “state”. I thought about saying, “… is a D.C. Station.” but changed it to Washington instead. No issues. There’s a lot to read right now.
I’m an old “Washingtonian”.
Very thankful for this post from a godly man (most likely a Calvinist, and clearly NOT a “Calvinista”): http://mattbredmond.com/2013/01/15/about-the-amended-complaint-filed-against-sgm/
Lynne T wrote:
A lot of Christian pastors, the conservative ones, who opine constantly about sexual sin and love to tell teenagers that “true love waits, so get married before having sex” do the same thing in other aspects of sexuality (they minimize celibacy and sexual sin).
This page explains what I mean (the author is a Christian):
Where are America’s virgins? Discouraging the virtuous
Ah ok I have sorted out Larry’s son’s deeds vs. Larry’s deeds. My this is a crash course in the infectious disease aspects of sexual abuse, isn’t it?
This part from the lawsuit though:
Regarding “Robin Roe” …I don’t get this, why would the church stick its nose in after the perp has been to jail, trying to get this man custody of the child he assaulted? This isn’t just a cover-up like with Sandusky – they were actively trying to get this girl assaulted again. The evil here is mind boggling.
Does anyone know the arrested person, Nathaniel Morales, or how he fits into this scenario?
pcapastor, I am looking forward to reading Matthew Redmonds book, The God of the Mundane. Thanks for linking to him.
@ Roadwork: Sorry! I obviously read too quickly – old Washingtonian myself, though I no longer live there.
K asked, “why would the church stick its nose in after the perp has been to jail, trying to get this man custody of the child he assaulted?”
The church didn’t wait till after he had been to jail to stick its nose in — they were involved and tried to orchestrate things from the very beginning.
If you haven’t read any of the survivor stories, click on the links on the right-hand side of this page, labeled “Links to personal testimonies of….” I believe the details of this particular situation can be found in exclcer’s story.
anon1/pca pastor
I have just finished Matt Redmond’s excellent book The Gd of the Mundane. I will review it here shortly. It is excellent. I call it the modern day version of God of Brother Lawrence’s book The Practice of the Presence of God.
Nickname
I may be speaking out of turn but there seems to be some who speculate (and it is merely that-speculation) that he is the nonpastor participant in the alleged pedophile ring. Apparently, he is known as Nate.
K
We will start looking at the allegations of the victims of this lawsuit tomorrow. The circumstances make me ill. There are some men out there who should have trouble sleeping at night. Maybe TWW can assist them in remaining awake by reviewing the accusations.
pcapastor
Matt Redmond is a good man. He is definitely NOT a Calvinista. I will be reviewing his wonderful new book, The God of the Mundane, shortly.
@Lynne T – Tue Jan 15, 2013 at 09:03 PM
I think the Royal Commission here couldn’t come soon enough, though I’ve heard wise talk, ‘don’t get your hopes up’ – it could take over ten years? They’re going to have quite a bit of work to do. Have you seen the Terms of Reference yet? I would hope it would cover New Zealand and other Pacific islands also, due to the paedophile off-shore shuffling that has been taking place. Related links are below:
http://asopa.typepad.com/asopa_people/2012/11/abusive-priest-fr-denis-mcalinden-the-png-link.html
http://asopa.typepad.com/asopa_people/2012/11/was-png-a-training-ground-for-priestly-child-molesters.html
http://asopa.typepad.com/asopa_people/2012/11/precedent-for-png-dumping-ground-for-abusive-priests.html
@ Lynne:
“Maybe I’m misreading, but to me that article on Paterno/Sandusky seemed to be minimising the sin of sexual abuse. It is ‘the culture’ that finds it so unforgivable, rather than the writer.”
Glad I wasn’t the only one who got this vibe!
Hester
I concur. It does sound if it is being minimized.
Hey all
Check out this articale of Larry Tomczak and the lawsuit. http://www.tennessean.com/article/20130115/NEWS01/301150088/Franklin-pastor-accused-of-abuse-in-lawsuit
Love Matt Redmond. Great music.
Clock is ticking CJ. You can’t scramble around, assemble new players, rename the team or move to a new city this time. Nope. You can’t control the flow of information. Pity. The internet is all over you like white on rice. Tick, tick, tick. Admit it, the game is o-v-e-r. One of the ladies will gladly lead you off the field.
dee wrote:
Dee, in the article Larry T says he knew nothing about any sexual abuse. How can that be true, assuming his own child has been implicated. And if he – being the author of a book on raising children and a Christian leader – could have a son who gets involved in sexually abusing children, why would he sound like its essentially a non-issue in his life? Wouldn’t the incident have created in him a certain degree of vigilance and a keen sensitivity? Is he still trying to protect his son more than being concerned for those that were victimized? I really don’t understand. Its like its wrong for these men to tell the truth!
Evie wrote:
Well, he was named in the amendment to the lawsuit as one of the abusers, so I’m not surprised he’s denying…..
We used to sing quite a few Matt Redmond songs in our SGM church. Is this the same Matt Redmond? I am MORE than impressed!
I’ve never heard of the songwriter, sorry. Not the same fellow.
The Larry T. accusations are not about sexual abuse, but physical abuse. The guy who wrote “God, The Rod, and Your Child’s Bod” would not consider spanking to be abusive. There have been no formal accusations of his son participating in sexual abuse. At this point, I do not know if the son’s problems (the basis of CJ’s blackmail of Larry) were something that would’ve been even considered sinful in another church setting — or if, on the other end of the spectrum, they were something that should’ve been reported as abuse. I guess at some point, someone will investigate and find out.
When it comes to the lawsuit, it is mostly not against the perps themselves(except now for LT being named as a perp), but against the church leaders who acted illegally or immorally by not reporting, or by lying, misrepresenting, & treating the victims in callous & reprehensible manners. In some of the cases cited, I believe the perps actually were convicted, or served time, and some were actually forgiven by victims who were of appropriate maturity to do so — but the allegations here reach past the perps to those who protected them at the expense of innocent victims. It’s apparent that some of these allegations will result in arrests which would be handled by law enforcement and courts completely separate from the lawsuit.
Back to one of the main points of this post: Why the SILENCE from the Al Mohlers and John Pipers and other supporters/enablers of this extended tragedy?
Their twisted but strangely reasonable sounding theology teaches two key things:
1. Because we are all sinners, all this proves is that C. J. Mahaney is “human,” nothing more.
2. Further, because C. J. Mahaney, according to them, is an awesome Christian leader (like them), if you’ve got a problem with him then you are the one with the problem. In other words, being an awesome Christian leader puts a man above reproach, by definition.
Al Mohler will, indeed, continue to fool some of the people some of the time with this sort of nonsense. But, as so often happens, the world sees right through it. I think of the hilarious piece in today’s satirical news site, The Onion, “Haven’t We All Done Steroids, In A Way?”
A MUST READ! With just a bit of work, a similar piece could be written in C. J. Mahaney’s voice. Sometimes if you don’t laugh you’ll never stop crying.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/havent-we-all-done-steroids-in-a-way,29317/?ref=auto
A word to the wise:
Any pastor who claims that he is “the biggest sinner he knows” is trying to manipulate you. Period.
And almost certainly trying to normalize his own aberrations ahead of time, so that anyone that would think, umm, shouldn’t we strip Lance Armstrong of his titles?, is made to look like an arrogant and vengeful judge.
@ pcapastor:
Laughing . . . but it is so incredibly sad. Change a few words and I’ve heard it out of CJ’s mouth.
Nickname wrote:
You know, I wonder about this – – – if a young lady is past the age of “majority”, would it be considered to be a sexual crime in addition to physical crime to spank her naked buttocks?
If any stranger forced someone to pull their panties down, wouldn’t it be a sexual crime even without the spanks?
pcapastor – I hate to mention this but beside Mohler & Piper who you've mentioned, there's also Ligon Duncan. Are you aware of what he wrote in support of Mahaney? Surely you must be if you are a "pcapastor."
Julie Anne,
On reading between the lines of the lawsuit, it appeared to me that this ugly situation occurred between parent and child; a parent whose spanking became harder and harder as time went on when the child's behavior did not improve to his liking, and continued in a worsening way throughout her growing up years — the lawsuit does not label it as sexual, but who knows what the court will do? In any event, it was excessively harsh, physically abusive and completely inappropriate. I recently did some reading on sexual abuse laws in another state; the defining test of sexual abuse seemed to lie within whether or not there was some kind of sexual gratification desired by the culprit, whether or not it was actually achieved. I think people who wish their victims to feel more pain would remove clothing whether or not there was sexual intent. Perhaps an attorney can tell us if the courts view child sexual abuse as worse than child abuse, or if they are equally heinous in the eyes of the law. The immediate difference would be the requirement for the offender to become part of the sex offender registry. It seems to me that sexual abusers would always be looking for victims, whereas physical abusers might be people whose anger becomes uncontrolled and they strike out without the premeditation involved in a sex crime. But I am far from being an attorney; am not at all court savvy. My gut feeling on T is that he is not a sex offender, but he is an anger offender. Could be wrong.
dee wrote:
A book called “The Little Book of Correction,” for sale on Tomczak’s website, advises parents to use a stick to spank their children. He stands by that advice today.
“That book has helped thousands of parents around the world,” he said.
What did it do to the kids, Larry?
2+2=
http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/inquiry/inquiryDetail.jis?caseId=121884C&loc=68&detailLoc=MCCR
pcapastor
Awhile back I said that if CJ is the biggest sinner he knows, let's believe him. Perhaps he knows something we don't. 🙂 Then hire someone who is the 13th worst sinner. You'd be better off.
Evie
Larry Tomczak and CJ have been playing games since the 70s. Remember, their paradigm was that a pastor could not have "bad" children. Bad children meant they would have to step down. That is how they controlled people they hired-a threat was always hanging over their heads. They had to isolate themselves from the backlash.So, when CJ's son had his little hoo hoo, he worked around it. They are the leaders-untouchable and they set it up that way.
There is something sinister in these "beat your kids" books. Not only do the authors believe you must do it this way, so do their followers. The paradigm must never be questioned. If you do, all hell breaks loose. We prompted a strong reprimand when Deb and I asked a local mega pastor to reconsider Ezzo's book on child rearing. It has been condemned by pediatrics groups and even Ezzo's home church. You would have thought we had told him that he was a Satin worshipper. He went on a tirade that lasted months-even condemning us from the pulpit-but not by name. Oh yeah, at the same time we asked him to intervene with his buddy CJ and urged him to look at these abuse comments.
Funny-how CJ, Tomczak and these odd authors all seem to go hand in hand. And the Calvinista leaders back them up. There is a systemic sickness that may now be exposed.
pcapastor
That is an awesome parody. It actually extends into what I bet will be claimed as these SGM stories come to light. We are all sinners. We have all abused children. We have all gotten rich on the backs of tithers. So let he who is without sin cast the first stone. I am putting that into a file to use one of these days. Loved it.
Gavin,
I cannot access that file with that information. Need either the name or the court and case number. Please update.
Technical question regarding the lawsuit for Dee or Deb or anyone well versed in the law:
How was the group of defendants selected for this civil suit? Was it the legal Board of Directors of SGM at the time of the filing?
Can the current group of defendants be expanded in future amendments, and if yes, what is the timeframe in which this must be done?
@ pcapastor:
The Onion always ALWAYS provides that much-needed perspective, no? 🙂 Great points regarding Mohler, Piper, et.al. too.
I really don't know if spanking a grown adult or spanking a six month old baby is more horrifying.
What I do know is the attempt to minimize this now that it is out in the open is. To call this an interpersonal spat between Mahaney and Detwiler is beyond a logical fallacy. And I think this is only the beginning.
Nickname
Anyone who forces an adult woman (related or not) to remove her panties and expose her bare bottom while he beats her has some serious head problems. There are, in my opinion, definite sexual undertones and I bet a jury, along with the court of public opinion, would see that as well. If he did this to an adult, I bet he has done other things as well. It now makes me deeply suspicious of what was going on in that home. There is more to this than meets the eye.
I do have a question. Are there any adults now who had any sort of strange encounters with Tomczak when they were kids? I wonder if the lawsuit publicity will bring out more folks.
Yup, I was kicked out of Harvey’s church because I dared to hold an alternative perspective on parenting (like the Golden Rule extends to children.) I sent CJ documentation of my concerns and he never read the material but sided with Harvey.
And Mohler and Piper and their ilk still admire these men, who do they need to beat or bugger to fall out of favor?
@ dee:
Dee, the national controversy in the U.S. (or should I say dialogue?) over the issue of spanking has definitely not gone away. In the last 3 weeks in fact I saw a Yahoo! news story on a new study that concluded harmful effects.
Please note: I do not wish to start a debate here on the pros and cons of spanking. I am not a parent. I have not even given the topic a great deal of thought. So please do not assume my reference to an “anti” study means I have a firm opinion either for or against.
That said, as the Tomczak allegations from the amended suit garner more media attention such as the Tennessean article, it will SURELY provide fuel for that debate! Which I don’t believe is a problem at all!
To further clarify – I’m talking about corporal punishment for KIDS, maybe up to the age of 5.
Beyond age 5 or so I can’t even see the need for a spanking, seriously.
And the Tomczak allegation? Involving an ADULT? Totally creepy and beyond any understanding or even belief.
Evie, I was aware and it was disturbing to me. Still is.
From USA Today:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2013/01/15/lawsuit-accuses-pastor-of-abuse/1566390/
Guys like Tomzak are sick. Most often, spanking has nothing to do with discipline, its just a way for the parent to satisfy their own anger. When it comes to children that aren’t their own, it really seems to be more sadism than anything else.
dee wrote:
Kip McKean of the International Churches of Christ did something similar. If leaders’ children “fell away” (i.e. left the ICOC), they had to stop being leaders. Kip’s own children have left the ICOC . . . which was one of the reasons why *he* resigned positions he held in the ICOC . . . and then he wound up starting his own movement (the International Christian Churches, aka the “Sold-Out Discipling Movement.”)
Apparently it’s a trend in abusive religious groups to say that if I’m “the” leader, the rules don’t apply to me.
@ Daisy:
With all due respect, the exaltation of virginity is highly overrated. I see it as a remnant of the days when women were considered property and fathers were expected to turn over intact property (i.e., their daughters) to husbands at marriage. As a middle-aged, never-married, non-celibate female, I own and *am responsible for* my own sexuality and sexual activity.
I really dislike the idea of scaring adults into this idea that one must be either celibate or married. What that does is lead people into this idea that they have to get married to have sex. Which is precisely the WRONG reason to get married.
I’d rather see people love their neighbors as themselves, serve the elderly, poor, homeless and others, instead of obsessing about virginity.
And, for the record, I am only talking about consenting adults here. People who sexually assault children or teens AND the people who protect them are near the top of my permanent $### list.
Rafiki
The writer of the USA piece calls SGM a “denomination.” CJ’s attempts to deny it are not playing in the secualr media. “Family of churches”, indeed! Now “Dysfunctional family of churches” has some merit….
pcapastor wrote:
I found it disturbing as well. In fact Duncan’s statement angered me, and I’m not easily angered.
Do you know, did anyone from within the PCA challenge Duncan after he issued his statement?
@ dee:
The idea of a man spanking a grown woman on the bare bottom having sexual undertones is not at all far-fetched. It happened not long ago in a church.
http://www.dallasobserver.com/2008-02-21/news/pentecostal-preacher-sherman-allen-turns-out-to-be-reverend-spanky/
It’s a long article. But it gets the point across as to just how serious this behavior is.
@ 56 years a Baptist, mostly SBC:
Click the “Agree” box and “Continue” box. On the next page enter the name Nathaniel Morales and you will see the charges. There are many. I’m not sure which victim these charges correlate with though.
@ pcapastor:
It’s even more ironic when a preacher the stature of Piper claims to be the “biggest” sinner he knows. He’s quite possibly the “smallest.” 😛
“”””I really dislike the idea of scaring adults into this idea that one must be either celibate or married. What that does is lead people into this idea that they have to get married to have sex. Which is precisely the WRONG reason to get married. “”””
You bring up an interesting point……kids getting married to have sex. I’ve seen over the last 12/15 years too many young couples coming to the marriage alter dressed and acting as if they were in the bedroom…..or going there any minute. Wedding dresses that bare all, giggling at the alter,etc. And I’m not a prude either. The behavior is quite immature, silly like. And worse still, (some pastors)work the virginity theme into the ceremony! As if the only reason the two before him are getting married is so they can go have some great,awesome sex! This virgin approach so diminishes marriage and glorifies sex….HOLY SEX, instead of Holy Matrimony.
Another issue that greatly bothers me with patriarchy (complimentary dogma) are these virginity pledges and rings (often given by the girls father to the daughter at a church banquet or dance) Why on earth is a father giving his daughter a ring about these things? How can she say no?
It paints an ugly picture in my mind of overtures of incest. Not that I believe the incest is physically acted out. Still, it smacks to me of some type of sexual mind voyeurism is being engaged in.
Just some thoughts on the church in regards to the ever over emphasis on virginity and sex.
@ Southwestern Discomfort:
To our readers: Off topic. Mars Hill stretches the truth Link
Claims to volunteer the AIDs Alliance. They don’t and get called on it.
@ pcapastor
RE: “Just human”.
I would consider such a statement a logic failure. Jesus was fully human, and he never sinned. While we have an “old man”, it is not part of our being human, but an imposition from the Devil that will some day be eradicated. And of course, there are different kinds of sins as well as just plain old foolishness. And covering up sexual abuse is probably the worst of both.
Absolutely it was sexual. A person can be spanked just fine with their drawers up. Usually to get it with your pants down, you have to pay for it…
To our readers: Off topic. Mars Hill stretches the truth
Claims to volunteer the AIDs Alliance. They don’t and get called on it.
Mars Hill telling an untruth – coulda knocked me over with a sledgehammer.
Why do I get the feeling that if this was happening to an Arminian denomination or the Roman Catholic church, the Calvinistas would have no qualms about calling it on the carpet? No, it takes the unbelieving world to hold a mirror up to us because we refuse to walk in repentance. We’d rather play it safe and not offend/throw under the bus somebody who might boost our career. Watch, if guilty verdicts are rendered, and the secular media blows it up, THEN the Calvinistas will finally come out and say something – only after it’s incontrovertible and safe. How prophetic.
My belief is that those who think and act alike(Mohler,Mac Arthur, Mahaney,etc) will defend each other,always. If they cared about the truth, it would be evident.We would see it in their actions.They are the blind leading the blind. They possess way to much power and are very narcissistic.
Miguel wrote:
🙁 Sad but true.
In my opinion, a grown man forcing a woman in her twenties to pull down her pants and spank her bare bottom is sexual abuse. It might not have been a sexual assault-per se-but it is a form of sexual humiliation.
It takes a very sick mind to convince themselves that this is an ok form of discipline for any child at any age-let alone a grown woman.
I had a conversation with a young lady who grew up in this kind of environment and whether or not the person spanking got any sexual pleasure from spanking a bare bottom, it does something to the psyche of the one being spanked. It’s first of all humiliating. Secondly, it can and often does affect them sexually – – -years later. This person (also a young lady) told me that it has affected her life sexually.
This just made me infuriated, K. I didn’t think about it that way, but MY GOD! It’s so glaringly obvious. But if they wanted the girl to be assaulted again, or even if they just didn’t care that she was, what gain was there for them? There had to be something in it for them to fight so hard for this man to get back his daughter, with whom he was raping.
K wrote:
@ Julie Anne:
Julie Anne, I find that very interesting and sad. My father trie dspanking us well into our teen years until we began to fight back. He was and always has been a very angry person. I do not have a relationship with him. I would say, yes, that there are many ramifications of demeaning and abusing your child in this way. I do believe, also, that there are some sexual side effects from it, especially when it comes to trust. It takes a lot for some people to trust being intimate with another, especially when you’ve been abused. And yes, being spanked is also humiliating. It sends the message that your value is nothing. And so results in a very low self-worth. Sometimes, for me, it is very hard to trust men, let alone understand them. And in my experience, it caused me to never ever connect with my father or even love him. Even to this day, while I know that I have forgiven him, I cannot specifically say that I love him. I just dont have any feelings for him whatsoever, except for disgust when he continues to behave so irrationally. But I dont have to deal with him much, and basically have put down boundaries in my life where he doesn’t have access. It was all very much needed and I am glad that I Have had great friends and counselors to help me through such a tough place in my life.
Would your friend mind if you shared some of the effects this has had on her sexually? I really think it is something that needs to be talked about out in the open. People dont understand how abuse of this nature affects children and young people when they become adults. It really stunts your life in ways where others are able to move on beyond certain places of development, whereas you are left behind feeling confused, angry, alone, and different beyond repair.
Couldn’t help noticing in the post that Mohler has openly moved from male servant leadership to male authority.
Quite a difference!
@ Trina:
Trina – you can contact me if you like (bgbcsurvivors @ gmail dot com)
I will most likely do a blog post on this because I’ve been slowly tearing apart the homeschool movement of which SGM has been connected. Each of us bloggers have our pet peeves. Deb and Dee have great common sense and BS meters when looking at the full picture. They understand corrupt systems and expose them. I love that they are champions for victims. My perspective is from being in an abusive church (and the lawsuit) and the homeschool movement for 20+ yrs without being aware that it was a movement. Once I realized my spiritually abusive church situation, it caused me to dig deeper and I saw similar abusive patterns in the homeschool movement of which SGM is most definitely connected. I’ve been able to see the patterns across the nation (frequent military moves, many churches). So while we deal right now specifically with SGM, I am making the case that it is far broader than SGM because SGM has key leaders whose works have spread throughout the homeschool movement (Josh Harris, I Kissed Dating Good-bye). This spanking thing is part of it – not that it started at SGM, but SGM continued the momentum in the homeschool communities. blech. It’s so weird, as I just typed this, I got a wave of nausea. This stuff is sickening.
When you are a blogger – as Dee and Deb can attest – – we are sent private stories – and they remain private – – heart-wrenching stories that only validate and underscore what we have already seen. Part of my brain wants to say – – “no, I’m just exaggerating this – – or they are just embellishing the story” – – but time and again, I find out that people haven’t been exaggerating and as the recent amended lawsuit pointed out, the stories are even worse than we could have imagined. One thing I have noticed – I have not come across a victim’s story that has changed. The primary facts and story remain constant even when multiple people discuss it. But when you talk to abusers – their stories are all over the place with inconsistencies. Hmm, wonder why?
pcapastor wrote:
It’s hard to laugh at this disgusting situation, but if I were to find anything hiLARious at this point – that hits the nail on the head. Lord. Have. Mercy.
I’m so mad. TGC is promoting its list of speakers for their upcoming conference. CJ is on the list. They conveniently left CJ’s name off the tweet, but he’s on the list. Oh yea, I tweeted back.
Julie, what did you say in your tweet back?
Click on my name, it should take you to my blog post. I just added a new tweet to the #TGC13 which is the hashtag to use for this conference. The squeaky wheel . . . .
Sorry – I forgot to switch the address over on this computer. Now it should work, or go here:
http://spiritualsoundingboard.com/2013/01/16/cj-mahaney-scheduled-to-speak-at-tgc/
Hester wrote:
No. I got that too.
Sorry PCA/Pastor
This is a transcript
Circuit Court of Maryland
Go Back
Case Information
Court System: Circuit Court for Montgomery County – Criminal System
Case Number: 121884C Sub Type: INDICTMENT
Tracking Number: 12-1001-98192-5 DistrictCourt Number: 3D00282355
Date Filed: 12/13/2012
Case Status: OPEN
Defendant Information
(Each Alias, Address, and Attorney for the Defendant is displayed)
Name: MORALES, NATHANIEL
Gender: Male DOB: 11/16/1957
Address: 8122 W FLAMINGO ROAD 96
LAS VEGAS NV 89147
Attorney(s) for the Defendant
Name: DREW, ALAN C
Address: ASSISTANT PUBLIC DEFENDER
191 EAST JEFFERSON ST
ROCKVILLE MD 20850
Phone: 301-563-8910
Court Scheduling Information
(Schedule is subject to change)
Event Date: 01/25/2013
Description: DISCOVERY COMPLETED
Event Date: 02/08/2013 Event Time: 09:30 AM Judge: MCGANN, TERRENCE J
Location: 50 Maryland Avenue 8th Floor Courtroom: 7
Description: PRETRIAL
Event Date: 02/21/2013 Event Time: 01:30 PM Judge: MCGANN, TERRENCE J
Location: 50 Maryland Avenue 8th Floor Courtroom: 7
Description: STATUS HEARING
Event Date: 02/21/2013
Description: MOTION HEARING DATE*
Event Date: 05/20/2013 Event Time: 09:30 AM Judge: MCGANN, TERRENCE J
Location: 50 Maryland Avenue 8th Floor Courtroom: 7
Description: TRIAL – JURY
Charge and Disposition Information
(Each Charge is listed separately)
Count No: 1 ArticleSectionSubsection: 273-5CB
Charge Description: CHILD ABUSE
Citation Number: Plea:
Count No: 2 ArticleSectionSubsection: 274-64A
Charge Description: SEX OFFENSE SECOND DEGREE
Citation Number: Plea:
Count No: 3 ArticleSectionSubsection: 274-64A
Charge Description: SEX OFFENSE SECOND DEGREE
Citation Number: Plea:
Count No: 4 ArticleSectionSubsection: 273-5CB
Charge Description: CHILD ABUSE
Citation Number: Plea:
Count No: 5 ArticleSectionSubsection: 274-64A
Charge Description: SEX OFFENSE SECOND DEGREE
Citation Number: Plea:
Count No: 6 ArticleSectionSubsection: 274-64A
Charge Description: SEX OFFENSE SECOND DEGREE
Citation Number: Plea:
Count No: 7 ArticleSectionSubsection: 273-5CB
Charge Description: CHILD ABUSE
Citation Number: Plea:
Count No: 8 ArticleSectionSubsection: 273-5CB
Charge Description: CHILD ABUSE
Citation Number: Plea:
Count No: 9 ArticleSectionSubsection: 274-64A
Charge Description: SEX OFFENSE SECOND DEGREE
Citation Number: Plea:
Count No: 10 ArticleSectionSubsection: 274-64A
Charge Description: SEX OFFENSE SECOND DEGREE
Citation Number: Plea:
Document Tracking
Docket Date: 12/13/2012 Docket Number: 1
Docket Description: DISTRICT COURT CASE NUMBER
Docket Type: Docket Filed By: Court
Docket Text: DISTRICT COURT CASE NO. 3D00282355; TRACKING NO. 121001981925.
Docket Date: 12/13/2012 Docket Number: 2
Docket Description: INDICTMENT
Docket Type: Docket Filed By: State
Docket Text: INDICTMENT; TRUE BILL, FILED. (4-215 HEARING SET)
Docket Date: 12/13/2012 Docket Number: 3
Docket Description: LINE ENTERING APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL
Docket Type: Docket Filed By: State
Docket Text: LINE ENTERING THE APPEARANCE OF AMANDA MICHALSKI AS COUNSEL FOR STATE, FILED.
Docket Date: 12/13/2012 Docket Number: 4
Docket Description: SUMMONS ISSUED
Docket Type: Docket Filed By: Court
Docket Text: SUMMONS ISSUED RETURNABLE: DECEMBER 21, 2012 AT 8:30 A.M.
Docket Date: 12/14/2012 Docket Number: 5
Docket Description: LINE ENTERING APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL
Docket Type: Docket Filed By: Defendant
Docket Text: LINE ENTERING THE APPEARANCE OF PUBLIC DEFENDER, ALAN C. DREW, AS COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT, FILED. (LP)
Docket Date: 12/14/2012 Docket Number: 6
Docket Description: DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR SPEEDY TRIAL
Docket Type: Docket Filed By: Defendant
Docket Text: DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SPEEDY TRIAL, FILED. (LP)
Docket Date: 12/14/2012 Docket Number: 7
Docket Description: DISCOVERY
Docket Type: Docket Filed By: Defendant
Docket Text: DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY, FILED. (LP)
Docket Date: 12/14/2012 Docket Number: 8
Docket Description: REQUEST, PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Docket Type: Docket Filed By: Defendant
Docket Text: DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS, FILED. (LP)
Docket Date: 12/14/2012 Docket Number: 9
Docket Description: MOTION, PURSUANT TO RULE 4-252
Docket Type: Motion Filed By: Defendant Status: Open
Docket Text: DEFENDANT’S MOTION PURSUANT TO MARYLAND RULE 4-252 & 4-253, POINTS AND AUTHORITIES, FILED. (LP)
Docket Date: 12/14/2012 Docket Number: 10
Docket Description: MOTION, GRAND JURY TESTIMONY
Docket Type: Motion Filed By: Defendant Status: Granted
Reference Docket(s): Ruling: 23
Docket Text: DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR GRAND JURY TESTIMONY, FILED. (LP)
Docket Date: 12/19/2012 Docket Number: 11
Docket Description: ORIGINAL RECORD RECEIVED FROM DISTRICT COURT
Docket Type: Docket Filed By: Court
Docket Text: ORIGINAL RECORD AND COPY OF DOCKET ENTRIES RECEIVED FROM DISTRICT COURT IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY, CASE NUMBER 3D00282355, FILED (LP)
Docket Date: 12/21/2012 Docket Number: 12
Docket Description: RULE 4-215/SCHEDULING HEARING
Docket Type: Docket Filed By: Court
Ruling Judge: DEBELIUS, JOHN W III
Docket Text: RULE 4-215/SCHEDULING HEARING (DEBELIUS, J.) . STATE’S ATTORNEY, MS. MICHALSKI.
Audio Media: 01-122112 Start: 08:54:04 Stop: 08:55:55
Docket Date: 12/21/2012 Docket Number: 13
Docket Description: DEFENDANT’S INITIAL APPEARANCE
Docket Type: Docket Filed By: Defendant
Ruling Judge: DEBELIUS, JOHN W III
Docket Text: DEFENDANT’S INITIAL APPEARANCE.
Docket Date: 12/21/2012 Docket Number: 14
Docket Description: DEFENDANT NOT PRESENT OR NOT TRANSPORTED
Docket Type: Docket Filed By: Court
Ruling Judge: DEBELIUS, JOHN W III
Docket Text: MR. DREW APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT WHO WAS NOT TRANSPORTED.
Docket Date: 12/21/2012 Docket Number: 15
Docket Description: DCM TRACK CHANGED
Docket Type: Docket Filed By: Court
Ruling Judge: DEBELIUS, JOHN W III
Docket Text: COURT (DEBELIUS, J.) CHANGES CASE TO TRACK 4.
Docket Date: 12/21/2012 Docket Number: 16
Docket Description: COURT SETS
Docket Type: Docket Filed By: Court
Ruling Judge: DEBELIUS, JOHN W III
Docket Text: COURT (DEBELIUS, J.) SETS TRIAL DATE AND ISSUES SCHEDULING ORDER.
Docket Date: 12/21/2012 Docket Number: 17
Docket Description: SCHEDULING ORDERS DISTRIBUTED
Docket Type: Docket Filed By: Court
Ruling Judge: DEBELIUS, JOHN W III
Docket Text: SCHEDULING ORDERS DISTRIBUTED TO ALL PARTIES PRESENT. ORDER TO BE SERVED ON THE DEFENDANT BY THE SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT AT MCDC.
Docket Date: 12/21/2012 Docket Number: 18
Docket Description: STATE’S CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
Docket Type: Docket Filed By: State
Docket Text: STATE’S CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE OF VICTIM NOTIFICATION FORM, FILED.
Docket Date: 12/21/2012 Docket Number: 19
Docket Description: SHERIFF’S RETURN ON SUMMONS: SERVED
Docket Type: Docket Filed By: Court
Docket Text: SHERIFF’S RETURN ON SUMMONS-SERVED AS TO NATHANIEL MORALES ON 12/19/2012, FILED.
Docket Date: 12/26/2012 Docket Number: 20
Docket Description: UNDELIVERABLE MAIL RETURNED
Docket Type: Docket Filed By: Court
Docket Text: UNDELIVERABLE MAIL RETURNED – RETURN TO SENDER; ATTEMPTED; NOT KNOWN.
Docket Date: 12/27/2012 Docket Number: 21
Docket Description: ORDER, SCHEDULING
Docket Type: Docket Filed By: Court
Ruling Judge: DEBELIUS, JOHN W III
Docket Text: SCHEDULING ORDER (DEBELIUS, J.) , ENTERED. (COPIES MAILED)
Docket Date: 01/07/2013 Docket Number: 22
Docket Description: UNDELIVERABLE MAIL RETURNED
Docket Type: Docket Filed By: Court
Docket Text: UNDELIVERABLE MAIL RETURNED.
Docket Date: 01/14/2013 Docket Number: 23
Docket Description: ORDER, GRAND JURY TESTIMONY
Docket Type: Ruling Filed By: Court Status: Granted
Ruling Judge: MCGANN, TERRENCE J
Reference Docket(s): Motion: 10
Docket Text: ORDER OF COURT (MCGANN, J.) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR GRAND JURY TESTIMONY, ENTERED. (COPIES MAILED)
This is an electronic case record. Full case information cannot be made available either because of legal restrictions on access to case records found in Maryland rules 16-1001 through 16-1011, or because of the practical difficulties inherent in reducing a case record into an electronic format.
Go Back
Wow, the registration costs for the TGC conference is outrageous. These guys continue to be indifferent to what others are going through financialy in this country. Mac Arthur is another one who is promoting a conference right now.
Wow, the registration costs for the TGC conference is outrageous.
God’s Anointed have to make it through the Second Great Depression somehow. See how God prospers His Anointed Elect? Be one of the Celebrity Elect and God WILL make you rich!
Be one of the Celebrity Elect and God WILL make you rich!
C.J.Mahaney scheduled to speak at TGC Conference…
Humbly, of course.
Julie Anne wrote:
“Spanking” as in quarter-inch plumbing supply line, twelve-inch gluesticks, technique to avoid leaving any marks for CPS, continue whacking until “manipulative” crying is replaced by gasping for breath, starting at birth?
Or “Spanking” as in “Erotica”?
I heard that a LOT of Christianese child-discipline/spank spank spanking manuals were actually based on Victorian “erotic spanking”/”flagellation” porn. You see, the Victorians were very indirect about anything sexual, including their porn. Without knowledge of the symbology and circumlocution and secret codes, someone from our time might not recognize it as porn. And flagellation/spanking was very popular in Victorian porn.
dee wrote:
“One hand washes the other…”
I don’t remember the disciples ever having conferences. I guess it’s different now…
pcapastor wrote:
And HUMBLE.
A God Can Do No Wrong. (HUMBLY, of course.)
“A God can do no wrong.(humbly,of course.)” Exactly…
Julie Anne wrote:
I think I need to spend more time perusing your blog. Your history is similar to mine.
Article “God teaches narcissim” “God has a plan for you”
This is not God’s teaching.It is mans.
Stormy wrote:
A lot of what she is reacting to is bad theology- but it is bad popular theology. It’s not out in left field that she’d feel a need to protect her children from this and thinking that atheism is the way. I think she’s wrong, obviously, but I “get it”.
@ Julie Anne:
“Once I realized my spiritually abusive church situation, it caused me to dig deeper and I saw similar abusive patterns in the homeschool movement of which SGM is most definitely connected. I’ve been able to see the patterns across the nation (frequent military moves, many churches). So while we deal right now specifically with SGM, I am making the case that it is far broader than SGM because SGM has key leaders whose works have spread throughout the homeschool movement (Josh Harris, I Kissed Dating Good-bye). This spanking thing is part of it – not that it started at SGM, but SGM continued the momentum in the homeschool communities.”
Whatever bad theology gets into the church also gets into the Christian homeschool community by default. It is then marketed to death and probably worked into a number of curricula. And yes, spanking is a de facto thing in Christian homeschool circles.
gavin white wrote:
For people trying to access this and having a problem.
When you first go to this site you have to agree to their terms. This causes the link to loose all the search terms to bring up the indicated record.
What you have to do is click on the link, get to the other site, answer the question, close the tab/window, click on the link a second time and you should then get straight to the information.
GBTC
RE: Southwestern Discomfort on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 09:51 AM,
I am in agreement. I no longer believe that marriage is an absolute black-and-white requirement for two consenting adults to enter into a sexual relationship so long as it’s responsible and not in violation of the laws of the land regarding children, animals, mayhem, etc.
I also suspect that many evangelicals now hold this opinion internally but wouldn’t dare and admit it for fear of incurring the indignation & wrath of their peers in evangelicalism.
@ Muff Potter:
Is this syncretism or do you back it up biblically? Not starting a fight, just asking.
@ Hester:
You are right. It’s been interesting to talk with church leaders how homeschoolers are “infiltrating” their churches with outside philosophies and theology which then causes (or has potential to cause) rifts in their churches. They bring new ideas into their church, trying to show people the “right way.” I’ve spoken to a couple of pastors about this recently. It never dawned on me the impact that some zealous homeschoolers were having in their churches by causing division with these new ideas.
Stormy wrote:
Yeah. When did Paul and Timothy gather up their buddies, ride around on a circuit preaching some of Jesus’ secret good stuff, and charge the gentiles an arm and a leg?
The conference thing is stupid. Hollywood Christianity makes me vomit.
@ Muff Potter: I think your instinct on this is correct, Muff…
An interesting study is how marriage was conducted in the OT and in Roman occupied territories in the 1st Century even for Jews. Anyone have any expertise on this?
If you think about how divorce was handled in the OT it gets even more interesting. the thinking was more along the lines the divorce happened with the neglect or adultery. We tend to read our Western thinking back into scripture.
@ anon 1:
I’m reading Instone-Brewer’s book on that topic right now. It is quite fascinating. It clearly shows that divorce happened for neglect, abuse, & adultery. And that remarriage was the reason for the divorce certificate.
The Romans allowed either spouse to divorce each other for “any reason” and the Jews were partaking of the practice. But as far as “2 consenting adults hooking up w/o a commitment” – ah, no. That’s clearly not shown anywhere in the scriptures.
I meant “not permitted” – not that fornicating wasn’t referenced all over the place. sorry !
“But as far as “2 consenting adults hooking up w/o a commitment” – ah, no. That’s clearly not shown anywhere in the scriptures.
”
I agree with you. What I was focused on was the process/religious/ civil law of marriage during the times of scripture.
Athough I will say there was a lot of bizarre sexual stuff in the OT that is inexplicable when you think of it. David sure hooked up with a lot of wives. Solomon took the cake, though. Abraham handed over his sister/wife sleep with the king and the king was more godly about than Abraham! Do you think God overlooked these things? Was there any bad consequence from it? (I think there was)
Well I guess I don’t know any specific prohibition on premarital sex, either. There’s a lot about “sexual immorality” and fornication though, which I think would include premarital sex, but I’m no scholar. However, as I understand it even being in the room alone with someone of the opposite sex might have been considered sexually immoral culturally.
This whole topic did get more relevant to me recently, but I think even if I were convinced it were permissible, I still couldn’t do it. It just seems way too intimate a step for me outside of marriage.
Southwestern Discomfort wrote:
I’m a Christian woman waiting until marriage to have sex, but I’m early 40s (marriage has not happened for me yet). This was a decision I made for myself based on several reasons, one of which is the Bible’s teaching that sex is to be reserved for marriage and marriage alone. I am proof that it is possible to remain a virgin past 30 years of age.
The problem is not that virginity is exalted as you say, but that it is not exalted enough.
Those of us Christians who have remained virgins into our 30s and beyond get no support or encouragement from the Christian community.
Most churches only encourage celibacy for teens to people up to age 25, and only give practical advice and help to that group.
Once you reach age 25, the church ignores this issue – and you.
Celibacy is never mentioned in church sermons. Instead of being supported for remaining celibate, we Christian virgins over the age of 25/30 are insulted by some segments of conservative Christianity who tell us that remaining single and not having children is a sin (see the writings of Al Mohler and Debbie Maken).
The church is way, way too forgiving of sexual sins to the point it is assumed by most American Christians that one cannot control one’s sexual urges and will commit fornication.
So one frequently hears comments from pastors about “God will forgive your sexual sin, so do not be concerned about it.”
This sends the message to older singles such as myself that I might as well be engaging in fornication since it is depicted as not being a big deal at all.
If you want to read more about why the church is not truly supporting or exalting virginity, please see the book “Singled Out” by Bonnie Field and co-author Colon.
Ironically, by not exalting virginity, this has led to a lot of problems in contemporary Christianity and in Christian marriages and dating, a few of which are…
A lax view of sex by American Christians – has led to more sexual sin; messed up relations between the genders (making it harder for singles who want marriage to get married);
wrong views of marriage (marriage is portrayed as a prize for successful Christians, that one must be married to have happiness in life, with sex being the ultimate cherry on top of that gift),
Christian relationship books that paint a picture that a divorced person needs to re-marry immediately (which leads to other problems for the person who takes that advice), etc.
Eagle wrote:
That had crossed my mind too. Driscoll claimed to have visions of adults committing adultery etc but never once saw that children were being abused?
Covenant Life Church pastors respond.
http://www.covlife.org/blog/update_on_amended_lawsuit
@ dee:
Dee, thanks for posting that link concerning Mars Hill getting called out. Looks like they tried to look better but didn’t fall through, interesting.
@ Daisy:
I’m divorced from an abuser and happily single. I haven’t had too much trouble with staying celibate, and that’s probably because I’m sort of careful about who I hang around with and what I spend my time on..
I have met single men on the prowl whose attitude is they can’t control their sex drive (professing to be Christians!)
Daisy, Just a little something to consider. And I would not even bring this up but it was brought up to me years ago but a friend of mine. I had no idea she had been raped as a teenager But years later still not married one of the most grueling things that she would hear would be about remaining a virgin until married. Now we know she is not at fault but all the focus on purity in those days really did a number on her.
And I realize after my days on the board at the rape crisis center that rape is more common than we realize.
Hmmm…..concerning the term ‘fornication’. I have studied this a bit because of some accusations and condemnations a friend went through. The word that the King James translators translated into ‘fornication’ is the Greek word (transliterated) ‘Porneia’, I have learned not to consult ‘Christian” lexicons, because they contain the same biases that entered into the translations. So….the Greek word, when looked up in a Greek dictionary translates as ‘prostitution’. Just something to think about.
As to the idolizing virginity thing, from my perspective, it is over-emphasized. As a child experiencing sexual abuse, it was a cause for great fear and hopelessness – how do you attain something that has already been stolen? How about how the message of ‘purity’ affects the victims of rape? I was never given the choice to be an adult virgin and there is absolutely no support for that in the church.
Not only do many churches try to cover up abuses as they happen, they do not want to hear about past abuses. They really have no time or use for anyone that has been abused – especially if they want help in dealing with it and healing from it.
Eagle wrote:
I skimmed over the page.
As someone who has been on the border the past few months -I’ve been a devout Christian since a very young age, but really doubting aspects of the faith lately- I just take issue with the views I skimmed over.
The woman who wrote it presents a strawmen arguments against God at some points (if she is trying to discuss the God of the Bible, at least).
Teaching a kid that “God has a plan for them” is not a form of “narcissism.”
Elsewhere, she equates a belief in God to a belief in Santa Claus, which is simplistic and insulting of her.
Her “God is a bad parent” / “God is not logical” / “God does not protect the innocent” objections (where she heavily relies on the ‘Problem of Evil’ line of argumentation):
The ‘Problem of Evil’ is a tough one, but the manner in which she frames it…
So what does she want God to do, personally intervene each and every single time someone is about to do something bad to hurt someone else?
How would people learn about negative consequences to their actions and choices if he did that? Wouldn’t God personally intervening all the time really turn us all into puppets, rendering our choices moot or of no import? Why is God being held personally accountable by her for the evil actions of people?
I’m sensitive to some of her struggles, like the ones about unanswered prayer and such, but a lot of this goes back to Genesis and the Fall, which partially explains some of her questions. Has she never read Genesis for herself?
At the end of the day, God was under no obligation to take on the form of a man and die on a cross to reconcile us to Himself.
Instead of focusing on all the bad things that God permits (those bad things a result of mankind’s rejection or disbelief of God in Eden), why don’t people like this lady ever consider God did not turn His back on us and leave us, as he could have if he had wanted – why does He not get any kudos for that?
Her argument under “God is not present.”
But sometimes He is. I’ve felt His presence at times in my life.
But mostly, I think that is why God tells His followers to help one another – you are to be God’s representative to other hurting people here on earth.
God does sometime speak directly to people, or send angels to help, but most often, He expects people to act as his hands and eyes.
This is why after I suffered a loss in my family and went to other Christians for empathy – expecting to receive it- but instead got judgement and criticism, I was so disillusioned.
A lot of atheists say they have “intellectual” reasons for dismissing (the Judeo Christian) God but often, they seem to have emotional reasons, or prejudices against a particular denomination or a few Christians who hurt them, so they write off God altogether.
I try to be sympathetic towards people who are having a sincere struggle with theism or Christianity, but a lot of that woman’s page – I found it annoying. She seems to be parroting the usual anti-theist cliches and does not display even a basic understanding of God (as portrayed in the Bible).
I’ve read other material online before by other people who were doubting God’s existence that was more compelling.
@ Anon 1:
yes I agree. Where things went overboard on the purity stuff: when virginity = your value as a woman
Have to remember that we serve a merciful loving God.
Jeff S wrote:
The Bible is not okay with fornication, an premarital sex falls under that heading. It talks about the marriage bed not being defiled, about getting married to have sex (if one is burning with lust).
@ Jeannette Altes:
Amen..
@ Lin:
As I think about the heavy emphasis on purity teaching in SGM, and then I think about what was being done to the children behind the scenes….it was an added layer of messing with the mind. When I talk to my therapist matter of factly about what happened when I was a child and what the church I grew up in taught, she looks at me and says,’it is a amazing you’re not schizophrenic.’ This stuff really messes with you. To be taught in church that in order to be okay with God, you have to do this, and then behind closed doors, you are forced (and often told God requires you) to do the opposite, it is called a double bind and it can cause serious mental problems.
@ K:
Yes thank God he looks at our very, personal and private circumstances.
@ Trina:
Why did they help a perp get his daughter back? I would guess they are more in love with Patriarchy than God. They find the passages in the Bible that reflect Paul’s, Jesus’ and every other Bible Character’s world and use it to make endless rules to put their congregations under (cause, yeah, Christians aren’t really free from the law, we just needed a new one the whole time).
Pharisees loved being right, controlling everyone else, and burdening them by using the law. These guys at SGM love being in charge and they way to be in charge is to control everyone else – the amount of boundary crossing/ not respecting other’s boundaries that these guys did in Phoenix’s story is a red flag in itself. They don’t care if the man burdens his whole family, apparently even to the the point of abusing a child, as long as he remains the head.
This reminds me of Piper’s first video about wives staying with their abusive husbands for a night, then his follow up video, stating how, maybe, she could phone the police in a spirit of contrite humility – only with the view to getting back together with her “head”.
Personal competence and ability count for nothing, their “law” says husbands are head of the family, regardless weather they are great guys or pedophiles. Since their law says man leads, and since they see all sin as equal, they likely feel “God wanted it this way” or he wouldn’t have made the guy a man in the first place.
This is where those of us with a better grip on the Bible and the truth need to point out, Jesus would say – “put God above Marriage”
Luke 14:26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, *wife* and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.
Luke 12:57 “Why don’t you judge for yourselves what is right?
Lule 12:51 Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division.
Just all this to say: This is hardly “marriage is a law” or “marriage has a formula” in the Bible, on the contrary, the NT is pretty hostile to marriage in general, and it is worth noting a huge number of the early Christian Martyrs went to their death for defying their father’s or even, in one case, a suitor’s (who had a high government position), demand that they marry. Dedication to celibacy was one of the main reasons early Christians were martyred. Fathers dragged their daughters to the arena for defying their authority over their child and disobeying his demands that they marry.
During this time, Roman male citizens began to live more and more decadent (partying) lifestyles, and often neglected to marry at all – concubine children were not full inheritors a patriarch’s estate. They preferred parties and wealth to citizenship duties, demanding officials keep Romans fed, entertained and clothed well. Refusing to allow them to up taxes to pay for far off wars, yet not producing any taxable heirs. Finally, in a fit of desperation, Roman citizenship was only offered to men who married and had legitimate (inheritable) children.
Meanwhile, those pesky Christian woman were outright refusing to marry, getting dragged off for public execution to be made an example of what happened to those defying the father-rule (aka pater=father, arch=rule; pater-arch or patriarchy) of Roman law. Needless to say, this was very disturbing to the Roman rulers.
Now, compare all that to CJ’s church, and it is not recognizable as the same religion.
In CJ’s church, adult women are supposed to obey their father’s, or get spanked with their pants down. In CJ’s church, wives and kids don’t defy their fathers, they are supposed to put up with a father abusing them. In CJ’s church people aren’t allowed to mention a child molester is in the midst, that would be gossip. Endangering kids is all fine, they just get them to meet with their molester and forgive them (even if they are three).
No, CJ’s church is not recognizable to the early church. In the early church women lead (Junia, an apostle Romans 16:7), taught (Pricilla and Phoebe), prophesied. Then, they took a stand against the patriarchal rule of their time, and refused to become some earthy person’s wife, they were beaten, thrown out and killed for their defiance, and the church grew and grew. the glory days of Christianity were throwing patriarchy on its head. It wasn’t until Rome forced mass Christianity on everyone, in a desperate attempt to save a weakening empire, that this behaviour of young Christian girls and women stopped. Now, since, according to Rome, everyone was a Christian, there was no need to not marry a man a father choice.
So, in CJ’s twisted rule, reinstating a marriage with a convicted pedophile is more “right” and important than a divorce to protect the child. Because, that is really clear in the Bible – except to the first 10 generations of Christians.
Daisy, The marriage bed was defiled all over the Old Testament with God’s consent. We are talking about the heroes of the faith defiling the marriage bed. That does not condone it. But it should give pause for any sort of Legalistic view. If you were raped walking to your car 1 night… you would not be a virgin but you would still be pure.
Janette has it right about fornication and its definition. And she has it right about how to go about researching a Greek word. I often use secular resources because the bad interpretations are not written back in.
Jeannette Altes wrote:
My posts were not high lighting purity vis a vis rape or child molestation victims, to be clear.
God does not sanction (consensual) sex outside of marriage. I was talking about teens and adults who can make choices, not about a young girl who gets fondled by an adult.
I’m not sure why so many on the thread are splitting hairs on semantics, whether it’s the term or phrase “pre marital sex” or “fornication,” or whatever.
Obviously, people who are raped aren’t to blame for being raped and should not feel devalued via purity teachings.
I’m talking about how the church has adopted many of the views of secular culture in regards to fornication, pre marital sex, hooking up, (whatever you call it), and how this makes remaining celibate a harder duty for celibates.
There is an obsession with sex even in evangelical churches (while they complain all the time about secular culture being obsessed with it), and many Christians believe that it’s fine and dandy, and not a sin, for two consenting adults to have sex (which we’ve seen here in this thread already).
Further, it is assumed (by Christians – not just the Non Christians), nobody can control sexual urges, and it is inevitable that every unmarried Christian person over the age of 15 or 25 will cave in and have sex.
Most people today are not waiting until marriage to have sex and (willingly – not talking about child molestation or rape victims) lose their virginity by the time they are 18 – 25, but there is a percentage of Christians, such as me, who are over 40 and still virgins (we are waiting ’til marriage to have sex).
We do exist. The church would have you believe there is no such thing as an over- 25- year- old virgin.
I think the church needs to walk the middle ground on the topic.
It’s fine to tell people God will forgive them of willful sexual sin, but it cheapens the notion of sexual purity if this teaching is used carelessly or too frequently, which it has been.
Those of us who have actually lived celibacy out- to use the “God will forgive you of sexual sin, so skip along now,” or, “It’s fine if you were promiscuous all during your 20s and 30s, because you can be a “spiritual virgin” now” type teachings which are prominent in mainstream conservative Christian circles…
That makes an utter joke out of Christian standards of purity. It cheapens the struggles I’ve been thru in wanting marriage (and sex) but not getting marriage (and hence no sex).
Some Christians, like me, have lived out sexual purity. We are choosing to refrain from having sex outside of marriage, but we get (will sound like Rodney Dangerfield here) no respect for it.
Having sex outside of marriage, even to conservative Christian circles, is expected. There is no serious expectation by most Christians that any never- married person over 25 can withstand the pressure.
The expectation should be that all Christians will wait until marriage to have sex – but this isn’t being taught by Christians to other Christians (other than the age 15 – 25 group.)
Also, it needs to be stressed that marriage may not happen for all, which means you may be celibate your entire life. That needs to be discussed, but most Christians don’t want to go near that topic.
It’s easier for preachers to assure Christians that all of them will marry in a timely fashion so that they can have biblically- sanctioned sex.
The virginity topic is a lot like the singles topic:
As married Christians don’t tend to notice how their unmarried brothers and sisters in Christ are either treated poorly or overlooked, the same thing happens to Christians past a certain age who remain virgins (due to conviction, and fidelity to biblical teachings, not lack of opportunity).
If you are a married Christian person who is having regular sex with your spouse, or you are divorced but used to have regular sex with your mate, you are not as likely to notice the prejudices or lack of support the non-sexually active Christians receive from the church.
Anon 1 wrote:
Not with God’s consent no. That was not his design. The people of the OT days lived in a culture of polygamy – God didn’t give his okay to that, but worked through and with whatever culture his people were in at the time
Further, the New Testament says believers are to marry if they want to engage in sexual activity.
Anon 1 wrote:
I’m talking about people who make the willful choice to have sex. I don’t think I should have to spell out and make qualifying comments about rape, child molestation, etc.
The Bible’s standards are that sex is to be reserved for marriage. I’ve lived it out, I don’t have sex since I am not married. It’s not impossible to do.
But some of what you see on this thread is exactly what I’m talking about; there is no respect or support for Christians who abstain.
There is this expectation that all will choose to have sex outside of marriage, and some look for loopholes in the Bible to say it’s okay.
There was a period of time, about the time of Jesus life on earth, when the Romans had a big problem with children born out of wedlock from a fairly loose morals. The emperor passed a law making sex outside of marriage illegal and punishable. So a new practice developed where the host of the party would have a qualified person at the party to marry the couples at the party so they could proceed to have sex without violating the law. Then, the next week, there would be a divorce, prior to the next party. Legal, hook-up type sex. It is one of the factors behind some of the NT scripture about marriage and divorce. The Romans treated both marriage and divorce rather casually.
So the Bible is totally silent on adults hooking up without a commitment? – Kinda hard to believe God is neutral on it, since He seems to spend a lot of time warning us about stuff that does us harm. I can tell you a hundred stories about friends (myself included) that were very injured by casual sex.
Once again – that pendulum swings both ways.
K wrote:
K, yes, a lot of Christians are being taught that they cannot control their sexual urges.
It’s ironic that it’s a view that is even being taught and spread by conservative Christians, such as Southern Baptists.
This is why you see some of them, such as Mohler, telling Christian teens to get married as soon as they turn 18 or 19, because it is assumed they will be so randy that they will give in and have sex by the time they are 20.
I used to try Christian dating sites and was appalled to see how so many so called Christian men discuss sex on their profile pages, what kind of sex they want, how often, and they want women who enjoy sex, and so on and so forth.
To me, that kind of information is something you’d only bring up if you’re engaged to a woman for awhile, not something you put up on your main dating page profile.
There is something very wrong in the world of Christian sexual ethics, dating, marriage, etc, when “Christian” men feel perfectly okay putting sex talk and sex preferences all over a dating profile where Christian women who’ve never met them before, that is one of the first things they see or learn about the man.
It’s because sexual purity has actually not been stressed or respected enough (in the mainstream, not talking about the fringe Patriarchy movements).
@Daisy yes our culture absolutely gives no value to virginity or abstinence. That shouldn’t bother you in the slightest. I know it doesn’t bother me – I’m still going to model chastity as a single woman. For my daughter’s sake!
regarding the SGM leadership attempting to get a known pedophile custody of his victim : I can’t view it any other way than those men attempting to re-assault that girl. They didn’t care what was going to happen when that man got within reach of her again. That tells me everything I need to know about this whole “family of churches”
@ Evie:
Evie, I do not know if that has happened.
@ Val:
Val – you’re 7:53 comment was excellent. Thank you. I think I’ve read and reread it 3 times now.
@ John:
Spot on.
It’s a very tough area as sexuality is part of what defines us as biological entities. God in his wisdom made humanity mammals, with all the attendant desires that go with being mammals. Had he made us reptiles, birds or amphibians, say, then we would only experience sexual desire at certain times of year and just not think about it for the other x months.
An alternate view, of course, is that after the Fall humanity lost much of its self-control.
Whichever view you take (both may be possible), we have to make the best of the situation we are in, by God’s grace.
Re the Scriptures on this subject, firstly it seems to me from my reading that polygamy was mostly a complicated affair that caused more problems than pleasure. Abraham’s child-breeding attempts with Hagar proved a sorry story. The mean-spiritedness shown by Hannah’s rival in 1 Sam 1 is another example. David married many wives, true, but Solomon’s complete excess in this area led his heart away from God. In the New Testament, Jesus and Paul make it clear that the Christian standard is one spouse.
I can’t comment on the use of the word “porneia”/fornication. However it seems to me that the traditional view, that of sex being part of a permanent commitment, is most likely the correct one. Given the very devalued view of sex over here in the UK, where one-night stands (if you’re sober enough) are considered perfectly normal in many places and the govt has already had to put out health ads about STDs, perhaps I’m leaning more towards upholding celibacy outside of marriage. On the other hand, in the UK it is virtually the career kiss of death for a minister, pastor or vicar to be caught in sexual misdemeanour, especially adultery.
Daisy and K, I strongly sympathise. Singles in the church are often indeed treated with a mixture of condescension and pity, and yet at the same time are sometimes treated like children and almost kept at arm’s length from one another in the desire for “purity”. I’ve noticed it myself.
Daisy, to be clear, I’m with you on premarital sex. I am (now) single and I will not date someone who believes it is OK to have premarital sex. I’m not totally sold that the scripture is clear on this point, but my personal conviction is.
What I have difficulty with is knowing what is OK and what isn’t (before you even get to sex). I have a personal idea, but I’m not certain it’s “Biblical”. It is just what feels right to me.
As for the broader issue, I’m with both sides on this one. It is largely overlooked, it seems, as a matter of convenience because casual sex is rampant in the culture. So you have pastors who “regret” their pasts of sexual sin before marriage, but you’ll rarely find a congregation who accepts a divorced pastor. I remember a friend of mine who helped me through my divorce and he had had lots of premarital sex and even destroyed an engagement due to cheating. Yet in the end, he cleaned up his act, repented (and he really did- years of faithfulness have shown this) and married an elder’s daughter. They have a wonderful marriage. But me? No sex before marriage and always faithful. But I divorced so no way would the church ever allow me near any woman romantically.
I’m not saying my friend should have been punished, but it stings how differently we were treated and how much grace he received that I did not.
And this idea that men cannot control their lust is just bogus. If that were true I’d have had an affair, or at the least not remained celibate post divorce. And I probably wouldn’t have made it to the altar a virgin the first time around, either.
On the flip side, though, if you ask me when my son is 18 if I would prefer him to be sexually active or marry too soon, I’ll take the former. I think a lot of parents would accept the latter just to maintain purity and risk destroying their child’s life in an unhealthy marriage (because marriage is not a cure for lust), but not me. My hope is that he will be able to maintain purity and not rush headlong into an early marriage the way many believers do.
RE: Lynn on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 04:32 PM,
Short answer:
1) Yes it is a syncretism of sorts, based on pragmatic reason and common sense.
2) The only two trajectories I’d back up as you say “Biblically”, are a) be kind & b) do no hurt to others.
Daisy wrote:
Daisy, I will be 50 in a couple of months. I have had sex (if you can call being manipulated by a predator having sex) once as an adult and that was more than 22 years ago. I know the difficulties of celibacy in this culture and how that gets treated in the church. And although I have not had sex for more than 22 years, I do not consider myself a virgin. I haven’t been a virgin since I was 2 1/2. And the whole ‘you’re forgiven and God gives you back your virginity’ thing always rang hollow for me. That innocence – that encounter with evil – is not something that just disappears. And, of course, that concept added injury, because it emphasized that I had done something that I needed to repent of – and that still messes with me.
I don’t feel as though I was splitting hairs on this. The culture of virginity worship in the church causes added torment to sexual abuse victims/survivors – and to those who screwed up or who got saved later in life and have a past. I am going to say this as carefully as I can, because I don’t believe this was your heart, but there are those who hold their ability to remain celibate as a badge of honor and that is a source of pain for those who had no choice in that matter. In a thread about child sexual abuse, promoting celibacy can hurt.
Jeff S wrote:
This is exactly what I meant by pragmatic reality and common sense. A faith based ideal is one thing, and don’t get me wrong, it’s a good thing, but when all other considerations are rescinded in the service of an ideal, it can devolve into a bad thing.
“But some of what you see on this thread is exactly what I’m talking about; there is no respect or support for Christians who abstain.”
Gosh, I have total respect for it. And I am sorry my comments have communicated anything different but I can see how they might have. My problem is that the evangelical church focuses entirely too much on sex, period. I am so sick of it. People are obsessed with it in all areas. I do not know how single people can stand it and I think the focus and discussion on it, sermons, books, etc, lead to it being elevated to a status in life that is not healthy and it can become a problem for those who have perversions. I think it creates a culture where that is the focus. I often think of Richard Wurmbrand when Driscoll is brought up on this topic. He was imprisoned for his faith in Romania for 15 years. Separated from his wife and child. His story makes guys like Driscoll and Mahaney sound like petulant shallow little boys.
I guess I was raised in a place where people did not discuss their personal experiences. I often laugh when reading the YRR blogs talking about sex and how the church has not focused on it enough. This was back when they were defending Driscoll’s focus on it and his new book. They view anyone over 40 as frigid and not capable of hot jungle love.
I am offended for everyone. Singles, married people who would rather this be a private matter, widows, etc. I do not go to church to be taught about sex by some 30 year old. People have figured this out for thousands of years. Even the heathens know marriage is best for a sexual relationship even if they don’t practice it. Christians have no excuse.
The point I was badly trying to make is that we should be careful about being legalistic about it either way. When you were writing I had all that purity ball stuff in my mind with the I kissed dating goodbye stuff, too. And I thought of my friend who was raped and listening to that stuff back in the 90’s from the pulpit and how much it hurt her. Obviously, I now know that is not where you were going. I hope I have explained it better. :o)
Jeannette Altes wrote:
I’m Catholic — you remember, “Ever-virgin Mary” and all that?
Well, I remember from RCIA catechism that “a virgin who was raped (which presumably includes molestation at 2 1/2) remains a virgin.” As I understand it, the Church’s official position is that virginity has to be VOLUNTARILY lost. Forced or coerced sex does not count against virginity.
Daisy wrote:
I’m 57 and in the same boat. All the patrio boys who insist on a virgin bride? Same here, except I figured “saving yourself for marriage” cut BOTH ways. Me as well as her. Even when I was under heavy pressure (including ridicule) from my family to “be normal” and get laid.
Nowadays? It’s like “saving yourself for marriage” means you will NEVER, EVER marry. Like virgins have cooties.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Hmmm…a nice concept, but it is not what I learned growing up….honestly, I don’t remember rape or molestation every being talked about in a religious context growing up. And the theology of ‘if it’s in the Bible, God ordained it’ messed with me when I read passages (at 12 years old – yes, I wanted to study the Bible even then) like Lot offering his daughters to the angry mob to rape or the Levite’s concubine in Judges, or David’s lack of compassion for his daughter, Tamar. I am still working on learning (God’s helping 🙂 ) that God does not have no use for ‘tainted’ or ‘ruined’ women – that he does not, in fact, only tolerate women. Although, I am still in the process of unpacking what I learned, including the warped things the abusers told me about what they were doing made me, I still don’t think I will ever be able to consider myself a virgin…..
I don’t see the problem re. public ads and the like about STDs, AIDS, etc.
This *is* a matter of great concern in public health and I don’t see print ads, commercials, etc. as condoning X behavior so much as trying to save peoples’ health – and in some cases (AIDS) their lives.
Maybe that makes me some sort of heathen – so be it. I’ll proudly stand with everyone who approves of HPV vaccines for children, as that’s a horrible disease and I hate to think of anyone being unprotected. Kinda like DPT, measles, tetanus etc. vaccines.
If I may play Devil’s Advocate for a moment: Though it seems highly unlikely that the allegations in the lawsuit are false, the defendants have not had their day in court. I don’t think that this excuses the complete silence on the lawsuit by the RBD. However, if they dropped Mahaney from the conferences, the message would be that they think that he is guilty. This would probably cause a degree of prejudice or bias against him during the trial. It sickens me that he is still speaking at these things, but I can see why the RBD won’t drop him due to allegations. Now, if he is found guilty, and the Big Dogs continue to let him continue as a speaker, or continue to defend him, then they are despicable.
Paterno admitted BEFORE the trial that he didn’t do enough. So, it seems to me, he was fair game for criticism. Mahaney, of course, has admitted nothing.
@ JeffB:
Tough as it is for those who were abused in the SGM system, and for those of us who were not but would like to see some distance placed between SGM and other national Christian organizations – I agree with JeffB.
This is a civil suit that needs to work its way through the system. It will take time. Until then, as shocking as the allegations are in the amended suit, unfortunately we do need to remember that in the U.S. one is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
That does NOT mean that the allegations are without merit – in fact, they seem to be airtight and very detailed, and having read a bit about Susan Burke, the lead attorney, I suspect she doesn’t make a move without firmly dotted “i’s” and crossed “t’s.” The bar of proof in the legal system is simply too high.
While I am sure the SGM victims are following this very very closely (why wouldn’t they?) these poor people are going to have to brace themselves for some incredibly vague statements from SGM, CLC, and the 12 churches that have departed SGM. There will be no clear statements of contrition, sorrow, or acknowledgement of the abuse until the (legal) fat lady has sung. It’s just the nature of litigation.
Those organizations are now lawyered up tighter than a tick and there is no way they are going to make any statement that places them in any sort of legal jeopardy until the suit is settled or tried.
Honestly, if I were an SGM victim, I’d stay away from reading any lawyer-parsed public statements on the civil case from SGM, CLC, or FFX, etc. Because those statements are now part of the ongoing legal defense strategy and are meaningless in their intent. Those statements are not meant to provide explanation, contrition, comfort or solace to the victims, current or past church members, or even the broader Christian community. You will not find justice in these PR statements.
It may be the most loving thing for those who are concerned for the victims to gently urge them to not get their hopes up in reading stuff coming from SGM, and to ignore it until the court case runs its course.
As for the national Christian organizations that have extended speaking invitations to CJ for future conferences: first of all, shame on them. The evidence of his unfit “leadership” via the Detweiler documentationa and the blogs has been out for years, even before the suit was filed. Again, shame on them for continuing to “nurture” this guy.
That said, these mega-conferences are not put together in 2 weeks – planning for something like this starts 12-18 months out. I’m not making excuses, but we need to be realistic that CJ was invited as a conference speaker a long time before the suit was filed. And there may be some real legal/liability issues if conference organizers just outright cancelled their contract with him. Yikes I know that last statement reeks of legalese but that’s the nature of the liability culture of the U.S.
My point is, perhaps there are some off-book behind-the-scenes discussions between these conference organizers and CJ’s “people” to persuade him to cancel his appearance due to “a scheduling conflict” or something, just so everyone can save face. Again, this will NOT be of any comfort to those of us who are concerned for the victims.
Another point I’d like to make is that based on the sometimes painful wranglings of the U.S. legal system, the SGM victims who pursued the lawsuit must be DOUBLY praised to the hills and strongly supported for their bravery and courage.
What a difficult, difficult journey to undertake this must be for them. I have no doubt that justice will prevail in the end, but until then there is going to be ample opportunity for further hurt from the process for these dear people.
I am really truly humbled by their courage.
@ Daisy:
“I used to try Christian dating sites and was appalled to see how so many so called Christian men discuss sex on their profile pages, what kind of sex they want, how often, and they want women who enjoy sex, and so on and so forth. … There is something very wrong in the world of Christian sexual ethics, dating, marriage, etc, when ‘Christian’ men feel perfectly okay putting sex talk and sex preferences all over a dating profile where Christian women who’ve never met them before, that is one of the first things they see or learn about the man.”
Okay, that’s scary. I guess that’s what Driscoll-worship will get you.
@ Rafiki:
“It may be the most loving thing for those who are concerned for the victims to gently urge them to not get their hopes up in reading stuff coming from SGM, and to ignore it until the court case runs its course.”
Of course. If SGM had wanted to admit their guilt, there would be no need for a lawsuit.
JeffB
CJ did admit that he had problems last year. Then he said ,”Never mind.” That is an admission.
@ anon 1:
I don’t have any info on 1st century Palestine, but Cindy Kunsman did a series a few years ago where she went through a book called “The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage” by an Orthodox rabbi. Suffice to say the Orthodox rabbi had a much higher view of women that many Christian pastors. Here is the article in which he explained the three historical methods of marriage/betrothal (sex is one of them, incidentally) and a link to the whole series.
http://undermuchgrace.blogspot.com/2008/05/acqustion-of-wife-jewish-way.html
http://undermoregrace.blogspot.com/search/label/Women%20in%20Judaism%20versus%20Patriarchy
Also, I was just reading this yesterday in Norman Cantor’s Civilization of the Middle Ages. It appears that, among peasants at least, most people were married simply by initiating cohabitation.
“The Fourth Lateran Council’s [1215] listing of marriage as a sacrament was an important step in a trend that had been gaining momentum in the previous century – demanding a church ceremony for legitimation of a marriage. In the year 1000 the majority of people in Christian Europe were not married in a church ceremony. Marriage involved Germanic-style cohabitation, frequently signified by the giving of a ring. By 1200 perhaps half the people in Western Europe, particularly among the wealthier and more literate classes, were married by a priest. After the Fourth Lateran Council, sacramental marriage in the church became the prescribed norm, although in 1500 there will still many peasants who were married by the simple rite of cohabitation. If the family involved had property, church marriage was now a necessity in order to assure legitimacy of offspring and uncontested inheritance. This was a way of increasing the importance of the priesthood in everyday life.”
Jeff S,
I have listened to enough sermons by CJ, read enough articles by CJ, watched enough YouTube clips of CJ to know that at the very least, he has fostered an environment that is breeding ground for all sorts of abuse. Patriarchy, oppression, control, lack of professional counselling etc. was, and is, all very evident even in SGM members and some past SGM members but who were never involved in sexual or physical abuse personally in SGM. To me it is a no brainer that he would be guilty of obstruction of justice at sometime during his ministry. To me it’s kind of like that tootsie pop video I posted of Larry. I mean if he’s that dull to see that videoing himself with a brief case of tootsie pops for kids isn’t creepy, when a charge is made against him, what are people to think? same with CJ publicly posting sermons, articles and books about his beliefs and practice is like telling in itself.
Anyway, these guys give themselves away, if we would only listen more to those ‘checks’ in our spirits than to the men on the stages……what’s that saying about ” fool me once?” we really really need to look at the environment and not just hope against hope that we can be involved in shepherd kind of churching without abuse.
@ dee:
True, but it was so vague as to be almost meaningless. And it was unclear if it had to do with any issues of the lawsuit. If Paterno had been that vague, the press might have speculated, but that’s all.
Believe me, I hope they nail (no pun intended) Mahaney and the other creeps.
JeffB wrote:
Jeff, we can all rest assured they will. The courts have not taken kindly to high ranking Catholic officials in sex abuse proceedings, and neither will they with high ranking calvinistas.
Hester, thanks for the links!~
Nate Morales was a member and youth group leader at CLC as well as a teacher at the affiliated high school MCCA (that most CLC middle and high school age children attended since the church school only went up to about 6th or 7th grade). He is linked to this case in that his repetitive sexual assault of several boys in the school and in the SGM gaithersburg church was reported by victims and others to the pastors of SGM gaithersburg and they never reported it to authorities. But Morales is not the teacher accused in the amended lawsuit. There are so many more known and unknown victims, and tragically I believe there will many more to come forward. I would not be surprised to see more criminal investigations and indictments arise from the facts coming out as this goes forward.
bazinga
We will do a write up on Nate Morales. I had heard that he was at MCCA. The lawsuit mentions the pedophile ring. Was he part of that? Also, there is a pastor mentioned. I read over at SGM Survivors that he has not been named. However, isn’t it possible that he has? Could it be one of the names on the list?
I am deeply concerned about the past leadership at SGM. When one sees so many of these abuse cases being reported, one has to wonder if something was happening at the highest of levels that could have created a culture of coddling sex abusers. Mere specualtion, of course. I am not only talking about coverup. One only has to look at the trajectory of the Catholic church cases to get a feel for this sort of thing.
@ Jeannette Altes:
David’s lack of compassion for Tamar may have been part of the complications arising from having several wives, or perhaps more from his own culpable conduct with Bathsheba a short while previously. Nathan did warn him that the affair of Uriah the Hittite would cause him to have family strife from then on, and the rape of Tamar was the trigger for Absalom’s violent revenge and the beginning of the threads unravelling for David. It doesn’t excuse his lack of compassion, of course.
The stories of Lot offering his daughters up to the crazed mob, and of the Levite throwing out his concubine, probably are intended to show how these men’s moral sensibilities had become alarmingly blunted by the environment in which they lived. In no way should they be read as commendations, but rather condemnations.
@ numo:
Numo, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with govt-sponsored health warnings on STDs either. I think it is a sad necessity at the moment. Certainly in WWII most Western armies took STDs (then mainly syphilis and gonorrhea) seriously enough to warn their men about the consequences of it, sometimes in very graphic detail.
I do know that at least one of the pastors who was told about Morales at the time and did not report is still a current top pastor there at the gaithersburg church right now. Of course, my personal opinion is that the only kind of person who could sympathize with or protect a child predator would be a child predator….I’m sure there are more names that will come out in due course.
@ Hester:
Hi Hester, I understand what you’re saying. I think firstly that most men (and I suspect most women) would want a partner who does enjoy sex, and would feel a bit cheated if they found out after getting married that the other person was in fact not at all inclined to it. On the other hand I think there’s a time and a place for everything, and I would agree with you that on a profile on dating sites isn’t it. Really I think it’s the sort of thing you should probably discuss after you’ve got a bit more serious with one person. Also sex is important but not the whole package in marriage.
Kolya wrote:
David violated the rules that God set for Kings in Deut 17:17:
17 And he shall not acquire many wives for himself, lest his heart turn away, nor shall he acquire for himself excessive silver and gold.
The acquiring a many wives had an even worse affect on David’s son Solomon then it did on David.
@ bazinga:
Could you explain this statement. I don’t understand what you mean by this.
@ bazinga:
If you have information that is pertinent to the case you should certainly contact the lawyer.
@ Kolya: Kolya… there’s been a lot of resistance to public education (etc.) here in the US from certain segments of the populace. They wanted – ans still want – “abstinence- only” sex ed (where’s the “ed” in that?!) and go further, with alarmism and outcry over things like the HPV vaccine.
You can connect the dots as to who is advocating for “abstinence-only,” I’m sure. But we’re living with the fallout – the harm inflicted on many kids who are now adults – via this mindset. Sadly, I am certain that many are suffering in silence, and feeling a great deal of shame.
Bridget wrote:
I may be wrong, but what I took from this statement is something I’ve witnessed: predators protect each other, or abusers defend abusers. When someone defends an abuser and tries to help conceal the evidence, it is usually because they see nothing wrong with the abuse itself. I am talking about those who know the abuse happened, not those who doubt their vaunted idol could be abusive. So…in this context, I agree that those leaders covering the abuses of others are probably hiding abuses of their own.
@ Numo & Kolya:
Abstinence-only sex ed sounds good on the surface – “Abstinence is the most effective form of birth control!” (which is true, if you actually do abstain). But the idea that there should be no education about birth control has some scary underlying assumptions once you think it out. This debate is only ever framed in the context of premarital sex, but that’s not the only sex most people will have. So if teens never need to know about birth control, even though premarital sex is not the only kind of sex, then ergo either 1) married couples will/should never use birth control, or 2) married couples will never have sex! And we know it’s not option 2 so it must be option 1. Welcome to Planet Quiverfull and Baylyworld.
@ Jeannette Altes:
The implications of what he/she is saying is beyond words!
Bridget wrote:
Bridget, I sometimes wish I didn’t know this first hand. The implications are sickening….but not as sickening as what I’ve witnessed behind closed doors.
Jeannette Altes wrote:
So sorry you have been through this, Jeannette. I hope one day there will be no remembrance of the pain we have had in this life.
@ Bridget:
Thank you. Me, too.
Jeannette Altes wrote:
Jeannette,
I’m so sorry for what you experienced. I just want to thank you for this comment that you left earlier. It was very insightful for me. I’m glad that you share here so that we can all benefit from what you’ve learned.
@ Hester: It’s not just birth control – it’s STDs. And there are too many ways for people *not* to get the message about them if abstinence-only is the only thing – or the primary thing – that’s taught.
@ Jeannette Altes:
Good point,
If it was really about “everyone’s a sinner” or “all sins are equal”, then why did church members fear gossiping – just our nature, right? or disobeying the cell/home group leader? Sin is sin, hey we all do it! Or talking about a pastor behind his back – because, hey all sins are equal, and you said you were the worst sinner, so this little session can’t be that bad ; ) .
But, of course it isn’t about that. If it were just about the lawsuit, then the case where the kids were forced to live with their abusive dad – after he served time for it – doesn’t fit either – since the lawsuit and jail-time were over and done.
I can see your point, and it sounds good, but … that’s a lot of people! Although I would guess some were still trying to protect C.J.’s influence/reputation, even if it were only half of the people involved in the cover-ups, that is still a huge number.
@ Numo:
In my experience kids generally at least know the names of STDs…but when the only transmission method mentioned in their Christian textbooks is “disobeying God” (complete with heavy allusions to gay men), I doubt they learned much else. Though to be fair, they did mention blood transfusion as an afterthought.
Jeanette is right on and that is exactly what I meant. I myself can only imagine only abusers would protect abusers, and only someone someone hiding something would want to help someone with something to hide. I cant imagine another man wanting to protect a man who was abusing a woman or child at the cost of that woman or child. It is in our male nature to want to protect. Where is their sense of justice? And yes, I have sent the lawyer all the information I know about these things. I’m just saying that the lawsuit says there is another teacher and a pastor who were themselves abusers and it is inconceivable that all these incidents were going on without most if not all of the pastors knowing about it. So what if it was only 3 or 5 or 8 pastors who knew….it only takes one, ONE good man to say hey wait, has someone called the police here, what about the victims! And not one of them did, over and over. I think that is telling.
Steve240
Thank you for reminding me of that verse.
“David violated the rules that God set for Kings in Deut 17:17:
17 And he shall not acquire many wives for himself, lest his heart turn away, nor shall he acquire for himself excessive silver and gold.”
Bridget
RE: Bazinga’s point at 9:50. I believe that he/she is saying something that is difficult to admit but must but something that has also crossed my mind. When there are a slew of complaints of child sexual abuse, one has to wonder about those who created the climate and, even after being informed of the abuse, allowed it to continue for years and years. Again, I reference tha Catholic church scandals, which to me appear to be (of course on a larger scale), a mirror for the SGM scandal. As time has gone on in that story, one has seen that there were higher ups that were not merely covering up, but part of the problem.
Already, in the complaint, there is a pastor who is alleged to have been part of the pedophile ring. Larry Tomczak is alleged to be involved in some rather bizarre abuse of spanking an adult woman with her panties pulled down. Ask anyone outside SGM about that and they will definitely go down the road to such an act being sexual. I bet you a fudge sundae that in depth background checks on all the priniples are underway. And well it should. It is despicable that this has gone on for so long.
Jeanette
That is something I have thought about as well. Just look at the Catholic church scandal.
@ dee:
Up until now I believed that the climate was ripe due to the doctrines that were taught. But now there may be other reasons that the climate was ripe for abuse . . . a possible ring of covering up and sympathy towards those who abused. The doctrines so ingrained in the average SGMer’s mind have played well for those who were in a place to wield them. It is sadder every day.
Stormy wrote:
The majority of the MacArthurite family of churches contain much the same patriarchal and authoritarian climate as the SGM churches. CJ is a friend of MacArthur’s and a fellow conference headliner. I doubt MacArthur will say anything about the lawsuit. It might discourage people from attending the conferences.
This quote can be found in a letter from MacArthur on the GCC website, dated today: “As followers of Jesus Christ, we should be leading the way in defending the defenseless (cf. Proverbs 31:8) and honoring the image of God in all people (Genesis 1:27; cf. 9:6). … However, some things are so horrible that it becomes difficult for us to think about them for too long. It is tempting to avoid such thoughts for the sake of our peace of mind. Yet this is where we need to be encouraged and exhorted. As grisly as it is, Christians must be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus (2 Timothy 2:1) and face this discomforting reality head-on.” He’s referring to abortion. Wish he would express the same sentiments for victims of abuse.
“As for the national Christian organizations that have extended speaking invitations to CJ for future conferences: first of all, shame on them. The evidence of his unfit “leadership” via the Detweiler documentationa and the blogs has been out for years, even before the suit was filed. Again, shame on them for continuing to “nurture” this guy.
That said, these mega-conferences are not put together in 2 weeks – planning for something like this starts 12-18 months out. I’m not making excuses, but we need to be realistic that CJ was invited as a conference speaker a long time before the suit was filed. And there may be some real legal/liability issues if conference organizers just outright cancelled their contract with him. Yikes I know that last statement reeks of legalese but that’s the nature of the liability culture of the U.S.
My point is, perhaps there are some off-book behind-the-scenes discussions between these conference organizers and CJ’s “people” to persuade him to cancel his appearance due to “a scheduling conflict” or something, just so everyone can save face. Again, this will NOT be of any comfort to those of us who are concerned for the victims.”
Rafiki,
I understand your point, but I don’t think legal consequences should deter an organization from breaking a contract with a speaker embroiled in a sexual abuse lawsuit. I agree with you that it is shameful for organizations to keep these guys on the itinerary. As Dee mentioned, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary is hosting a “collegiate conference” next month at which CJ Mahaney is scheduled to speak. They are aggressively marketing this conference on Facebook and elsewhere. Shouldn’t they cancel Mahaney to protect their seminary, their students, the college students from other churches, and others who will attend – not to mention to show compassion for Mahaney’s and SGM’s victims – regardless of potential consequences?
Hey, President Obama’s Second Inauguration planners didn’t have a problem canceling Lou Giglio’s prayer spot in a heartbeat at the last minute when they heard about anti-homosexual statements he had made 20 years prior.
True, they had it in Giglio’s own words. Nevertheless, these church conference guys could ditch CJ if they wanted to. They could say something smooth or they could do it with a simple announcement that he would not be speaking, followed by no further comment.
After all, they are pretty good at stonewalling, disallowing comments and questions, silencing speculation, forbidding gossip and slander, and staying in their lofty towers above the fray.
Wendy wrote:
YES.
Will they? Seems unlikely as each day goes by. 🙁 Wendy, I think they’re in too deep, and they are protecting their respective organizations. The concern is not for their students, students from other churches, laypeople, or compassion.
It’s been almost a week since the amendment came out and the crickets are chirping zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz …
They’re holding out against hope that the first wave of publicity will pass and everything will be “normal.” Move along, nothing to see here, these are not the ‘droids you are looking for.
When I wrote my post earlier in the week I was trying to underscore the point that defending the institution and steering clear of further liability (in the case of a broken contract) were the priorities, and that fact is incredibly disappointing.
I likely didn’t make my point too well hence my “yikes” at how horrible such phony PR sounds upon typing it out. 🙁
Never Again wrote:
Excellent point.
Rafiki and Never Again,
On Friday afternoon, I posted a respectful comment under an ad for the 20/20 collegiate conference on Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary’s Facebook page. It was deleted within a half hour. Later that night, I posted a similar comment with a link to an article about the lawsuit. Deleted within a couple of minutes. Apparently, they had someone sitting there eyeballing Facebook the rest of the evening. I’m now officially blocked from making comments on the page. 🙂
I know I shouldn’t be surprised. But their spiritual arrogance, entitlement, narcissism, and complete lack of responsibility and credibility still shock me.