TWW Request Re: Language Used in Referencing Any Lawsuit/Ministry

This is just a gentle reminder about language in comments regarding lawsuits and ministries. 

1. Please use the word *alleged* when referring to anything within a given lawsuit. 

2. Please try to keep rough language, as much as possible, to a minimum. However, we do understand that people get angry or frustrated and will try to accommodate and understand. Also, we know that some people do not express themselves in the same way that we do and we do not wish to be judgmental therefore, we will often let language slide. 

3. Please be careful how you express a desire that a ministry might go out of business because they have done something you consider evil, bad, etc. Unscrupulous detractors might try to say that this is a threatening comment. Prestonwood Baptist Church's claimed that a former attendee's use of the word, "target," meant that he was a possible violent person and contacted the police. He did not mean it to be interpreted in such a way. We know that this is not what our readers mean but we have to be aware that this blog is now being read on a wider level and people are getting a bit irritated with us.

However,

1. It is appropriate to say that you believe one side or the other. For example, TWW is biased toward the side of victims just as other blogs, etc. are biased in favor of pastors or church leaders. We, at least, are willing to admit it.

2. You can say something that you believe to be true but you cannot say something that you know is not true.  So, you can say that you believe that a certain ministry leader did not do enough to protect children, but you cannot accuse him of being a molester unless you have evidence.

3. There are some things that people can say within certain situations. For example, we do know, for sure, that there are victims of child sexual abuse within SGM because those predators were tried and convicted. But, the issues surrounding whether or not SGM discouraged families from going to the police are *alleged.*

4. This blog attracts, and intends to attract, people from all backgrounds, including nonbelievers and those of other faiths. This is a blog that looks at the Christian faith and welcomes those who see things, and express things, very differently. 

If we see a comment that does not use the word alleged, and we think it should, we will add it along with a notation (ed.). We may also do this with explicit language, deleting a word and putting **** in its place. We might even delete a comment but will note that we did so. If this is offensive to you, please contact us. We will be happy to figure out a way to work it out.

 

Comments

TWW Request Re: Language Used in Referencing Any Lawsuit/Ministry — 87 Comments

  1. I just want to say how much I appreciate you, Dee and Deb, and all at the Wartburg Watch community who have so graciously come alongside me in shining the light of truth on behalf of the wounded, vulnerable and kids still in danger from the silence of the many in Baptist churches like Prestonwood and Morrison Heights.

    “Of course it’s the same old story. Truth usually is the same old story.” Margaret Thatcher

    Came across this quote today on twitter in awareness for the End It Movement day:

    “I am aware that many object to the severity of my language; but is there not cause for severity? I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice. On this subject, I do not wish to think, or to speak, or write, with moderation. No! No! Tell a man whose house is on fire to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hands of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen; – but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present. I am in earnest – I will not equivocate – I will not excuse – I will not retreat a single inch – AND I WILL BE HEARD.” William Lloyd Garrison

    http://pbcsilentnomore.wordpress.com/

  2. Amy

    Agreed. I do not like it when some men play the “we could by victims” card when they know it is just a legal ploy. They pretend to be men but act like little boys.

  3. Amy,

    Thanks so much for your kind comment. Dee and I are grateful for this wonderful technology that allows those who have have been silenced and/or marginalized to be heard.

    Blessings!

  4. You two have chosen a rough path that also requires a careful tread. Openly letting us know the methods required for everyone’s safety….I’m impressed!

    Amy, thanks for that quote by Garrison.

  5. May I also say that I am put off by some of the sexually charged snark in comments? It can be very unedifying and detracts from the credibility of the blog. I hesitate to send people here because of that, which is a shame since there is much worth reading here. Can we try to be a little more above reproach, as we expect others to be? Some of the stuff here could easily be construed as sexual harassment if we said it to someone personally.

  6. @ dee: I dunno about that, Dee.

    I read and comment regularly at a small music forum where almost all of the members – and moderators – are male, and likely not xtian. They want the environment to feel comfortable for everyone, kids included, so… very little is tolerated in the way of what Virginia calls “sexual snark.” (Ditto for really rough language.)

    Granted, it’s a whole different place, and they want it to be safe for kids who are learning to play, not just adults.

    All that to say that I really appreciate their sensitivity – frankly, they’re FAR better about the “above reproach” aspect than most so-called “xtian” sites and blogs that I’ve frequented.

    I know a lot of folks come here with anger and unresolved issues – I’ve been there and I think it’s good to let people vent.

    But I also don’t feel comfortable with some of the comments about sexual acts.

    Guys, no offense intended; ditto for Dee and Deb. But equally, I am concerned about how some of the comments *might* be triggering for those who’ve suffered abuse. I am certain that nobody who comments here would intentionally cause them pain, so… I hope you fellas will take my thoughts in that spirit.

    Cool?

  7. “Gleaning Truth by Blog Proxy, Perhaps?”

    hmmm…

    SGM may not have harbored and abetted pedophiles. That it is only ‘alleged’. Thank you for clearing that up Wartburg.  I am quite relieved. 

    Kirrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrk!

    Rettle, Rattle…

    Sssssssssssss…

    We must have a poor connection…
    Wartburg, are you there?What is all the UPROAR…in the background?!?

    Oh.   it’s all the legalbeagles sharpening their #2 pencils… you say?

    Well that clears that up, don’t ya think?

    Sopy

  8. I do not always comment here, but love to browse amongst Dee and Debs posts. I have really loved the “on the journey” comments by Eagle. Eagle you have really inspired me and gave me hope that God so lovingly takes those who are struggling with Him and shows the beauty of His handiwork in a persons life- thank you for being real. 🙂
    I will admit I do struggle with comments here sometimes, but I also understand the complexity of the Christian faith and each of us are in a individual race with our heavenly Father- He deals with each of His children in different ways.
    So Deb and Dee thank you for your desire to do what is necessary to keep this blog running and clean.

  9. @ trust4himonly- Faith:
    trust4himonly- Faith wrote:

    will admit I do struggle with comments here sometimes, but I also understand the complexity of the Christian faith and each of us are in a individual race with our heavenly Father- He deals with each of His children in different ways.

    This is the reasoning that goes on behind the scenes. And there has been much positive that has occurred. Thank you.

  10. @ dee:
    I agree with Virginia and Numo about the language. Here’s something I have trouble believing, however. Blogger xxx wrote, “Some of their commenters were crying out for people to hack my site and destroy it. A few were expressing themselves in profanity and threats of physical violence.” Profanity– yes– I’ve seen that. But threats of hacking and physical violence? I wonder just which comments blogger xxx is interpreting that way. The title “cross-hairs” perhaps? (Like commentators who alleged that the alleged congresswoman-shooter was incited by crosshairs on a political map?) Seriously, if any real threats of physical violence were made, I hope bloggers have already found and deleted them!

  11. Dave A A wrote:

    Some of their commenters were crying out for people to hack my site and destroy it. A few were expressing themselves in profanity and threats of physical violence.

    We have looked on our site and others for those who threatened physical violence and hacking. We don’t see it naywhere but perhaps he is referring to another site? We used the word “Cross”Hairs as a takeoff on “Cruci (Cross) form Press but that hardly ranks as a threat but a play on words, something an intelligent reader would understand.

  12. Dee

    Well, I guess those who are literalists could have misunderstood ‘cross’ hairs. Never mind that cross was in single quotations. 😉

  13. In my allegedly humble opinion, I think “blogger xxx” is a really smart guy who can understand a play on words. So until he substantiates his charge of threatened physical violence (along with the less-serious but still immoral and illegal hacking), my opinion will be that the charge is baseless, I looked at the comments of several likely blogs also and saw nothing naywhere, neither.

  14. About people upset with crude discussion. I’m not too fond of crassness myself.

    I guess in some cases it can be avoided, but when discussing some of the gender complementarian or patriarchy guys, and the sex-obsessed, such as preacher Mark Driscoll (who frequently uses crude language himself and uses detailed descriptions of sexual acts in his books, sermons, videos, and blogs), I don’t know how one can altogether avoid it when discussing these specific topics and personalities.

    As I’ve parted with Christianity a little bit (I’m in this area where I’m kind of still a believer but am considering agnosticism), I find that occasional mentions of vulgarity or crude humor doesn’t bother me as much as it used to.

  15. Virginia Knowles wrote:

    May I also say that I am put off by some of the sexually charged snark in comments?

    Yes. I will too.

    There have been comments about behaving like the alleged perpetrators, setting up churches which conduct themselves in that manner, etc., which have really bothered me. If I were the person who had suffered particular sexual and physical abuse and saw the same abuse being used as a joke on this blog I would not feel that this was a place where I was respected or safe.

    The perpetrators are not held accountable by mockery but by the truth.

    Abuse, either alleged or definite, is not a joking matter.

  16. Daisy wrote:

    such as preacher Mark Driscoll (who frequently uses crude language himself and uses detailed descriptions of sexual acts in his books, sermons, videos, and blogs), I don’t know how one can altogether avoid it when discussing these specific topics and personalities.

    I blame the crude pastors who have sexified the church culture with contributing to this discussion. We have become a reflection of the bad boy preachers. So, when certain bloggers discuss profanity, I wonder if they feel the same way about their “role model” preacher.

  17. I do agree that some of the sex comments/jokes have been over the top. I hope I didn’t (unwittingly) contribute to any of this or accidentally trigger anybody at any time… : (

  18. @ dee:Take a look what Challies says about Driscoll
    “If we are to judge Mark Driscoll, his church and its church planting movement by its fruits, we will have to conclude that God is choosing to bless them and to bless them in abundance. Like it or not (and for some reason I think too many “discerning” people don’t like it and refuse to admit it!), God is using this guy for His glory.”

    So, does that mean if our blog is getting big, that God is blessing us?

  19. @ Eagle: Dude, you know I like you, but please… no more cigar or bj or pedophilia or other “jokes,” OK?

    I’m *not* saying don’t talk about this stuff, but I am saying that there are better ways to go about it. (At least, I think so…)

    A *lot* of people who have been sexually abused and/or have friends/relatives/children who’ve been sexually abused come to this site. I really don’t think you want to say stuff that might be triggering for them, do you?

    I also realize that talking about MD’s statements, etc. is important at times, but I don’t like stooping to his level, personally…

  20. @ Eagle: all that aside, you have a *lot* of insightful and enjoyable and valuable things to say – so why waste your time with the other stuff?

  21. dee wrote:

    Dave A A wrote:
    Some of their commenters were crying out for people to hack my site and destroy it. A few were expressing themselves in profanity and threats of physical violence.
    We have looked on our site and others for those who threatened physical violence and hacking. We don’t see it naywhere but perhaps he is referring to another site?

    IjustCant on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 12:54 AM said:

    Challies is, very subtly, one of the worst offenders. He’s built an entire profession off of reinforcing the Calvinista worldview. He lives on his computer all day and gets speaking arrangements because of it.
    I hate to ask, but… can someone just DDoS him and call it a day?

  22. My first thought was that Dee and Deb are overreacting. Then I remembered how a person I knew ended up in some unbelievably serious legal trouble (ultimately involving a stay in jail) because three words (those would be the word “missile,” the word “cruise” and the word “tom”) were considered a terroristic threat. The denouement of this wasn’t all that long ago; I got my nearly six year old cat as a kitten at the time the person was serving his sentence in jail for the “threat.”

  23. Reasonable

    At the risk of seeming really stupid, I thought ddos or Denial of Service  meant, “just don’t read him”. I had to look it up.

    Here is a site http://www.chacha.com/question/what-does-ddos-

    “mean that says engage in; 2:give rise to; cause to happen or occur, not always intentionally; 3:carry out or perform an action; 4:get (something) done; 5:proceed or get along; 6:behave in a certain manner; show a certain behavior; conduct or comport oneself; 7:carry out or practice; as of jobs and professions; 8:create or design, often in a certain way; 9:be sufficient; be adequate, either in quality or quantity; 10:the federal department in the United States that sets and maintains foreign policies.”

    Now I am told it means something nefarious as well? From this 

    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110409102853AAmUl6f

    D- Distributed (the trojan is distributed)

    DoS – Denial of service (the server cannot provide a service since it has been overloaded)

    So, what did this reader mean? I have no idea since there are many definitions. I think people assume that we understand all the hip lingo because we do a blog. We don’t.

    It is ridiculous to think we would want anyone to take down a website. We are very big on freedom of expression and duking it out with words, not with stopping the flow of words. I fact, we do not like Challies “not recommending” a bunch of books, primarily because we believe in a diversity of opinions and the intelligence of the reader to discern what is, or is not, appropriate.

    So, I need help. Is that commenter truly saying to hack into a site with a virus or is he implying any other definition? Could our readers weigh in? Should we *know* that it means to hack into a site?

     

  24. dee wrote:

    If we are to judge Mark Driscoll, his church and its church planting movement by its fruits, we will have to conclude that God is choosing to bless them and to bless them in abundance. Like it or not (and for some reason I think too many “discerning” people don’t like it and refuse to admit it!), God is using this guy for His glory.”

    Is Challies familiar with Joel Osteen? So much for “discernment”. Growth means God is blessing it? Oh dear, the bad examples of such thinking are endless.

    And what about Sodomy and porno visions for God’s Glory? Surely Challies has more discernment than that?

  25. “If we are to judge Mark Driscoll, his church and its church planting movement by its fruits, we will have to conclude that God is choosing to bless them and to bless them in abundance.”

    And yet we are told over and over again not to go along with something just because it’s popular. And stuff about people who say “Lord, Lord” but are excluded. Numbers don’t mean squat.

    These guys could also try being consistent with their own theological tradition and break out some of that good ole fashioned Calvinist conversion-testing and assurance literature…

  26. @ Eagle: Eagle, I have friends in two (former) SGM churches, and in one case, well… I *hope* nothing happened to their children, but I have very real concerns that something might have.

    i *know* the SGM system is sick and rotten to the core.

    Discussing things at an appropriate time is one thing, though… making cracks about spoons and cigars and all of that is another. I am not sure if you realize how some of your comments come across.

    I know you’re angry, and I can’t blame you. But I wonder if there isn’t some other way for you to be able to vent – in a way (or ways) that are constructive?

    I’ve watched – and learned a lot – from your comments, and i really feel for you in what you’ve gone through and in what you’re still processing.

    Equally – though it really isn’t my place to say, because it’s not my blog – there are times when I feel like some comments cross a line.

    We love you, Eagle. You have such a fire for justice and mercy inside you, and I’m so glad you do – so many people are, imo, afraid to speak out, because of what it will cost them (and likely their children, too) in lost relationships, being kicked out of sick, twisted organizations – the works.

    I think everyone who comments her regularly – and certainly Deb and Dee – are as passionate as you are about seeing the right thing done for the “alleged” victims (those involved in the lawsuit, as well as the many “alleged” victims who have yet to come forward, or who are in the process of deciding what to do).

    It make me wonder if there is something you can do – in your offline life – to help people who have been hurt? Someplace you could pitch in and make a difference in someone’s life – like that of a child?

    I’m being upfront with you, because I think you have a lot to offer, and you live in an area where there are a *lot* of people in need.

    Think about it, OK?

  27. @ Eagle: I know you won’t! 😉 (“Go authoritarian.”)

    and I’m not for one second suggesting that you not talk about certain things – but there are ways of doing so that might be more helpful than others, yes? (Holds true for me and everyone else who comments here.)

    Again, though, it’s Dee and Deb’s purview, not mine. I just want to see you putting all that passion to good use!

  28. Eagle wrote:

    But at the same time I also understand why the details need to be written. Had it not been for the details many people would dismiss it.

    Bingo. White washing evil has a way of making it less evil. It is sort of bizarre to me that it was considered a sin to mention what Driscoll said in sermons on some Reformed blogs! And these were blogs where many commenters were promoting his book Real Marriage at their churches!

    Sinning by repeating what Mark says publicly?

    What they were trying to do is keep that stuff under the radar because “he preaches the Gospel”.

  29. @ dee:
    FWIW, I took the comment to mean a “Denial of Service” attack. But, I could have misunderstood.

  30. Been There

    When you say Denial of Service attack, do you mean for someone to put a virus into someone’s comments in order to take down a website? Is that easily done?

  31. @ dee:
    It is an attack on the website, but I don’t think it’s technically a virus. I believe it’s a concerted effort by many to flood a website with so many hits that its service is suspended. (Somebody correct me if I’m wrong)

  32. numo wrote:

    Guys, no offense intended; ditto for Dee and Deb. But equally, I am concerned about how some of the comments *might* be triggering for those who’ve suffered abuse. I am certain that nobody who comments here would intentionally cause them pain, so… I hope you fellas will take my thoughts in that spirit.

    The problem with this is what you mean. Unfortunately you would have to give examples and there we go…..

    But what might seem offensive to you might be an example of something Driscoll said or CJ said. What then? I would hope we could be clear because vague rebukes don’t help anyone and only bring confusion and subtle censorship for fear of offending you.

  33. @ Anon 1: I don’t want to have to quote previous comments on other posts by some of our regular commenters. I am not going to do that, out of respect for them, since Deb and Dee are more than capable of handling things off-list and I probably said more than I ought to have done.

    I think you realize what I’m referring to and I will not be drawn into an argument about it, OK?

    Please see my 1st comment in this thread: http://thewartburgwatch.com/2013/04/09/tww-request-re-language-used-in-referencing-any-lawsuitministry/#comment-92117

  34. @ BeenThereDoneThat:
    That’s one method. It’s been a few years since my computer forensics class so take what I say with a grain of salt. One method know of is to build “bots” (robots) which are programs that use a form of chat (like I said years) to multiply and then attack. Trojans, worms, viruses are all types of malware though not the only ones. Depends on their programming. Depends on the hacker and their resources.

  35. @ numo: fwiw, it has *nothing* to do with “offending me,” as I stated very clearly in comments upthread.

    ‘Nuff said.

  36. Distributed Denial of Service Attack

    When a system is flooded with more requests than it can handle from a lot of computers which then makes the target computer unresponsive to requests for service. (Web page, email, whatever).

    An attack of this type is typically done by people who control “bot” nets. These are computers that can be anywhere on the world that are infected with software that allows someone “you have not authorized” to control the computer. Typically without the owner having any idea that something is up.

    And it has become so sophisticated that if you want to deal with the “bad” guys you can “rent” bots for specific purposes. SPAM sending, DDOS, whatever. The bad guys have collections of 1000s or 1000000s of computers they can rent out to you.

    So this does NOT involve a Virus or such on the targeted computer but almost certainly does involve the use of infected computers for the attack.

    And a big reason this is a big deal is typically a DDOS does not target a computer running a single web site as most all web sites are run on computers that serve up 1000s or 10,000s of web sites. So an attack on one computer/web site can take down 1000s or 10s of 1000s of sites. So a successful DDOS gets a LOT of attention. Fast. Places like Microsoft, Amazon, Google, GoDaddy, etc… have full time staff monitoring such things and have procedures to deflect a lot of attacks before they get too bad.

  37. @ Pacbox:
    That’s neat you took classes to learn that stuff. I’ve just picked things up along the way. TWW has been very educational. 🙂

    I checked out Wikipedia’s write up:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial-of-service_attack

    I didn’t know that a DoS can sometimes be unintentional. To use Wiki’s example, if a popular news website puts a link to a less popular website, the latter website can receive more hits than the server can handle and disrupt service.

  38. GBTC

    Why this is so upsetting to me is that Challies is stating that he is being threatened with being physically attacked as well as having his website hacked! I would never, ever advocate for anyone doing something bad to another’s blog or website. Needless to say, I am a nurse and would never want to hurt anyone. I cringe when I have to kill a cockroach.

    I just put up a short post to explain my thoughts on this matter.

  39. GBTC
    If I explained this wrong in the post, please feel to correct the computer geek stuff. I am still not sure I understand this fully. Some days I wonder if I should pack it in and take up gliding or beekeeping.

  40. numo wrote:

    @ Anon 1: I don’t want to have to quote previous comments on other posts by some of our regular commenters. I am not going to do that, out of respect for them, since Deb and Dee are more than capable of handling things off-list and I probably said more than I ought to have done.

    I think you realize what I’m referring to and I will not be drawn into an argument about it, OK?

    Please see my 1st comment in this thread: http://thewartburgwatch.com/2013/04/09/tww-request-re-language-used-in-referencing-any-lawsuitministry/#comment-92117

    Sorry Numo, still confused but never wanted to argue. Just gave my opinion. Is that allowed? :o)

  41. @ dee:
    Beekeeping is pretty cool. (Unless you happen to be allergic to bee stings.)

    The really intricate computer knowledge is very daunting! (Fortunately, my Oracle-software-programmer brother is always a text message or phone call away whenever I have trouble.) That doesn’t mean you aren’t an awesome blogger and a compassionate victims’ advocate. We all have different gifts. I’m glad you’re here.

  42. What if our discussions here end up sending so much traffic to a site it shuts down? Could that be an accusation of Denial of Service without it really being an attack?

    I can remember a while back a discussion on a blog about a particular church and so many people went to the church site it shut down for a whole day. So I am wondering if something similar could happen.

  43. Sometimes sites do crash due to traffic generated by news stories and/or blog posts about said sites, though I don’t think massive traffic generated by an article or blog post is at all the same thing as DDoS, and if pressed, a hosting company would likely be able to prove that by making the relevant portions of their logs public.

    (GBTC, I hope I said that without making grave errors! ;))

  44. dee wrote:

    @ Anon 1:I have heard of that as well. Then, could the site that discussed it get in trouble?

    I do not see how but it would be easy for the site that was overwhelmed to claim it was a purposeful attack. Who would know the difference unless it all went legal? In some cases, especially in the Christian blogging world, all it would take was an accusation and most of their followers would believe it.

    What really bothers me a lot is how so many guys in ministry play the victim/persecution card with such suggestions. For example, Challies has not been “attacked” here in any way. His words and deeds have been analyzed and criticized, which to him is the same thing because he has maturity problems. They are too thin skinned to play in the public arena.

  45. @ dee:
    If I were an assuming type, I’d say its safe to assume that the comment implying (or inferred to be) threats of physical violence is not too far removed on the same thread. I skimmed through it and did see one Tue. Mar 5 in the PM. IMO, you’d have to be literal-minded, but it does refer to “safely out of range”. I now stand stand convinced by the evidence in the “hacking” case, although it does not appear to have been at all a serious suggestion.

  46. I also saw, not long after the offending comment, one which MIGHT be interpreted as calling down the wrath of the Almighty upon TWW. Certainly far more ominous than a “discernment” website going down!

  47. Overwhelming a web site.

    There are two basic categories. Intentional harm and just too much interest.

    The too much interest case is commonly called The Slash Dot Effect. This saying comes from the very widely read (and much of the time very nerdy) site slashdot.org . When something interesting gets mentioned there it will usually cause a few 1000 or more people to go see what’s up and “back in the day” that would usually either overwhelm many small computers hosting a site or blow out the bandwidth limit for a site and either incur huge excess bandwidth fees or shut the site down till the next billing cycle. The computers hosting most web sites today typically can handle 100s or 1000s of hits at a time and most webs sites have either unlimited bandwidth plans or very large data caps.

    The intentional harm category is where the term DDOS comes in. There are many variations on this but basically it is like a few 1000 kids running up to your front door one after the other, ringing your door bell, then running away. You cannot get anything done as you spend all your time answering the door and no one is there.

  48. @ dee:
    He probably was making a flippant joke about Denial of Service attacks. It was kinda tasteless but probably not meant seriously. There are people out there trying to do that (seriously) all the time anyway.

  49. Glad this discussion is happening … thanks Dee and Deb for hosting it here! We all have different tolerance levels and triggers. And here at TWW we’re so often talking about issues that rattle the core of our being. It’s sometimes hard to stage engaged. How many of us have been desensitized because we’ve been overexposed to being talked to/about insensitively? So, if there are ways to reduce the numbness, and consider how best to dialogue about these serious issues in ways that keep the maximum number of people engaged — I’m in!

    That said, I’m a linguist and editor by training, and I find language usage difficult in the best of times. But it can be particularly dicey in this realm of crimes and lawsuits involving forms of violence and sexual violation and their results.

    I’m not sure I have “the” answers, but I have had to wrestle with a lot of questions over the years. Much of this comes from my editing projects dealing with “heavy,” trigger-riddled issues like: domestic violence, child sexual abuse, sexual assault, gender peacemaking instead of misogyny (hatred of women) and misandry (hatred of men), men’s counseling issues involving sexual addiction, gender identity disorders, spiritual abuse, dystopian societies, human rights violations, etc.

    Many in the audiences for these articles, books, and resource centers are survivors of various kinds of abuse. For a lot of them, their responses to abuse have also led them into destructive behavior patterns and addictions. “Triggers” can affect them all, so I’ve had to find work-arounds that hopefully maximize getting crucial and constructive information across, but minimize the probability of triggers or overloading their tolerance on sensitive topics. In doing this, I’m not a therapist, I’m a research/resource writer and editor. So, here are some things to think about, based on my experiences of talking with people from these various kinds of backgrounds and writing or editing positive recovery materials for them and those who suffer from similar issues. I think it can apply to blog comments as much as to articles/blog posts or books.

    * What triggers flashbacks or new episodes of acting out may not be the same for survivors of sexual abuse as for those dealing with sexual addiction. We would do well to consider both groups. Sometimes the topic or details may make it a trigger for one but not the other, or potentially even both at the same time.

    * What acts as a trigger is complicated by the fact that different learning styles make us more aware of different details. For instance, not everyone is aroused sexually by visual images that leave little to their imagination; it might just as easily be by words on a page that trigger their imagination.

    With that in mind, I would suggest that the probability of something we say or write being a trigger to survivors and/or to those with addictions INCREASES:

    * The more detailed the depiction is overall. Even if this description is accurate, does it provide too much of a “picture”?

    * The more explicit it is about the sexual activities or violence that took place. Can I state or suggest what happened without getting too graphic?

    * The closer the language is to slang or street terms. Can I restate this in more “clinical terms” that accurately label a behavior but don’t make it read like an X-rated/”red band” movie trailer? [There is a potential problem when talking about lawsuits or criminal cases that involve child sexual abuse or other kinds of sexual assault. If the descriptions are “too clean and clinical,” it potentially sanitizes and minimizes what often proves to be the most devastating form of personal violation and violation possible. The best balance is probably somewhere in between, with an emphasis geared toward the probable audience. Complacent leaders may need the shock of a more graphic description; victims/survivors in healing may need clear enough language to label what happened to them as abuse but not to sensationalize it.]

    * If the comment was intentionally designed to label someone or otherwise be clever, rude, or sarcastic, it may be offensive not necessarily because it is merely a sexual comment, but because it objectifies, demeans, and dehumanizes people. Objectification of people is the core of power lust, and hence spiritual abuse of power, not just pornographic lust. I wonder if anyone gets victimized who was not first objectified … So, anyway, is there another way to express our genuine/reasonable dislike, disgust, and/or righteous anger without resorting to sexual innuendos or any kinds of dehumanizing labels?

    On the other topic of lawsuits and cautions, the suggestions Dee gave are stellar. It is important to use “allegedly” and related kinds of terms consistently. Such legitimate caution adds credibility.

    I did have one suggestion to think about. It’s a technique you may have seen me use in writing/commenting about lawsuits. The first time I use a person’s name, I give his/her first and last name. Next time, it generally is Mr. ABC or Ms. XYZ. I use that for everyone — plaintiffs, defendants, witnesses, parents, pastors, congregation members, etc. This is a conventional kind of journalistic practice, but I use because I find it helps me maintain a more “civil” tone — especially when talking about an alleged or convicted perpetrator of a horrific crime like sexual abuse. I can’t tell you how often it helps me rein in what might otherwise turn aggressive. I could quickly degenerate into — in the immortal words of the B-level superhero Mr. Furious in *Mystery Men* — “going all Pompei on them!” Certainly we should not be known for anger as our “super power.” I very easily could, and I know it. And this technique helps me keep that tendency in check.

  50. Brad – – – That was very helpful. And I have seen you address unsavory people very respectfully and have always thought that was amazing. I have a hard time typing some people’s names.

    “going all Pompei on them!” That made me laugh!!@ Brad:

  51. @ brad/futuristguy: Bravo, Brad!

    superb comment/suggestions on ways to defuse tense language while presenting difficult issues in a way that’s respectful toward those who have suffered abuses of all sorts.

  52. @ dee: I remember reading something about people actually gilding roses on the Today show at Martha Stewart’s behest, many moons ago.

    why she would think anyone would have the time or patience for that is beyond me, especially seeing as she has staff to work up all of those projects so that she can spend her time dreaming up new paint colors (or at least, trying to color-match her chickens’ eggs with prototype paint chips for whichever company it is that markets the stuff for her…).

  53. @ numo: Not kidding about the chickens and egg colors, either – her first “collection” of paints was based on the colors of the eggs they laid.

    The paint was unbelievably expensive, though I’ve gotta admit that the colors were nifty – she has some rare birds (from other parts of the world originally) that lay eggs in various blue-green shades. (Not joking; am sure there’s info. about this on the intarwebs. :))

  54. Hester wrote:

    Tim Challies: “If we are to judge Mark Driscoll, his church and its church planting movement by its fruits, we will have to conclude that God is choosing to bless them and to bless them in abundance.”

    Hester: And yet we are told over and over again not to go along with something just because it’s popular. And stuff about people who say “Lord, Lord” but are excluded. Numbers don’t mean squat.

    This point needs making forcefully and often. As Dee pointed out, the same argument can be made in favour of TWW. And, indeed, of Jehovah’s Witnesses or of Islam. If all of these are growing because God is blessing their theology, is God not therefore perhaps a little confused?

    We could take this further, of course. The gay rights movement began as exactly that – a group of people with a vision to make homosexuals accepted by society, and a clear strategy for doing it. Does that not give Tim Challies et al pause, since they will be forced to conclude that God has chosen to bless the gay rights movement and to bless them in abundance? The “feminists” likewise?

    Actually, God sends rain on the just and the unjust. It’s easy to become intellectually lazy on this one. If I do well, God’s blessing me, and if I struggle, then God’s proving and testing me (and/or the enemies of God are persecuting me). On the other hand… if you struggle, then God’s judging you, and if you prosper, it’s only because God’s temporarily allowing the devil to deceive you.

  55. Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks are used by “groups” for various reasons. The one current situation I happen to be more familiar with than I wish is the DDoS currently afflicting major US financial institution. An organzation called the Izz Al-Din Al-Qassim Battalion regularly hits bank websites with huge amounts of data, seeking to either take them down or make it difficult to impossible for legitimate customers to transact business. And by “huge amounts of data,” we’re talking hundreds of gigabytes per second being thrown at a bank’s website by thousands of computers controlled by a botnet.

    (Here’s a discussion of the impact of DDoS on banks, taken from their 10k financial filings: http://www.bankinfosecurity.com/top-banks-offer-new-ddos-details-a-5667 )

    I’m going to be blunt–DDoS is a crime and the government will hunt you down and prosecute you. Rick Ross (not the rapper, the anti-cult guy who runs rickross.com) was subject to a DDoS and the guy who did that went to jail. If the government could get their hands on Izz Al-Qassim, they’d be seeing the inside of a barry place too. However, I would also note that a DDoS can’t be approached casually anymore. You really do have to have an illegal infrastructure such as a botnet behind you to pull off something like this today.

    As for Tim Challies, I’d just like to note the hypocrisy of him whining about “discernment bloggers” when he’s in the business of telling people what’s godly to read. Canada generally has good exports, but Challies, I’d like to throw him back!

  56. Well said Nick Bulbeck!

    Personally I prefer not to have sexually-charged “snark”, but I also think equally importantly (if not more so) there have sometimes been comments where the problem has been one of bitterness or snideness, which arguably is more offensive. This doesn’t apply just to fans of TWW but also to a couple of posters representing the other side of the argument (as it turned out) who I believe have been banned.

    But equally I know that people have been hurt, sometimes very badly, and who am I to judge other people’s foibles? If God is working in someone’s life then He will deal with it in his own way, and my cack-handed intervention would probably detract from that.

    Brad’s post was very good. Eagle also has a point too when talking about reporting of certain things – for example even an austere (if occasionally amused) publication like the Economist ended up having to report on details of Bill Clinton’s sex life. They didn’t wallow in it, but when such a publication does make comment on it, it makes it all the more telling.

    Brad, your mention of “Mystery Men” shows you are a true cinema aficionado! But does this mean Dee or Deb is the Bowler? And does that make Guy Behind the Curtain the Sphinx?

  57. Re DDOS btw, I think (though I’m no expert) that this is becoming a weapon of national cyberwarfare now between nations, mentioning no names….. (let’s face it, it’s a lot easier for nations to organise that sort of cyberinfrastructure than individuals).

  58. Eagle…I think it’s good you discuss the things that Driscoll and others say, or have been written by them, but I think you cross the line when you say “sick bastard.” I think you should just stick with the issues, and could tone it down a bit to enhance the conversation. We are in your corner…but namecalling won’t help.

  59. Kolya wrote:

    let’s face it, it’s a lot easier for nations to organise that sort of cyberinfrastructure than individuals

    Not really. The Russian, Ukraine, and other interesting locals which don’t really care what the local criminals do seem to be the best at running bot nets. Outside of NK and a few other countries most CIA like organizations have SOME ethical rules.

    If you want a bot net the easiest way to rent one is via various Ukrainian and Russian organizations at this time. You just have to remember that if you want to wrestle or dance with pigs both of you will get muddy but the pigs will enjoy it.

  60. Guy

    That’s it! Its my Russian background. They must think I have Russian mafia ties!! 🙂 The only thing I know about this stuff is how to make pierogis and dance the polka.

  61. GBTC, although Russia did cross my mind (esp re some strange DDOS attacks against Estonia not so long ago), I was thinking of a certain PLA unit based somewhere in C*i*a 😉

    I agree most countries do have some ethical rules, ie there has to be a legit justification for using their services in this way.

    Dee, can you really dance the polka? 😉 Pirogis sound good!

  62. @ BeenThereDoneThat:
    Thanks. The class was actually part of my studies for my Criminal Justice degree. Though at this point some of what I leared is probably outdated and I know I’ve forgotten some or at least can’t easily remember it.

  63. As a general add-on comment to what I wrote earlier about writing as respectfully as possible: Maybe it’s more for my benefit than for theirs. It reminds me to preserve their human dignity, even for people who don’t “deserve” it for their heinous activities. But they still are bearers of God’s image, and it doesn’t help their way to potential repentance when I vilify them and plant the pathway back with so many landmines that their shame is unbearable. It is a tension, though, between leaving the way to Jesus open for all, and yet making the Church and the churches a safe place for all …

    The best example of treating people with dignity in the midst of the most inhumane of circumstances comes from *Grey is the Colour of Hope* — the diary of Irina Ratushinskaya’s first year in the Soviet gulag as a political prisoner for being a human rights activist. I believe her story shows us how to reason well with people from different backgrounds from our own, and “fight fair” when we need to push back on individual bullies and dehumanizing systems. The only book I’ve read 10 times …

    http://www.amazon.com/Grey-Color-Hope-Irina-Ratushinskaya/dp/0679724478/

    Also, @ Kolya re: *Mystery Men* and who’s who …

    Maybe in a reverse parallel universe, Dee and Deb are Tony C and Tony P (the “disco twins”), only with waaay more substance. And without disco. Or polyester.

    I could totally see GBTC as the Sphinx, who appears at critical moments with cryptic wisdom for problem resolution, or to rally the team to victory.

    And we unfortunately find ourselves, at times, going up against various incarnations of “Captain Amazing” — but just because someone wears a superhero suit doesn’t mean they are either a leader or amazing. Like this anti-superhero, underneath it all they’re just pimping their persona and their products. And they do deserve to have their deeds drawn into the light.

    Yup … movies are a great source of SHOWING what abstract concepts look like in embodied forms, for those of us who are more concrete in our learning styles. I try to use them whenever I can.

  64. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Actually, God sends rain on the just and the unjust. It’s easy to become intellectually lazy on this one. If I do well, God’s blessing me, and if I struggle, then God’s proving and testing me (and/or the enemies of God are persecuting me). On the other hand… if you struggle, then God’s judging you, and if you prosper, it’s only because God’s temporarily allowing the devil to deceive you.

    AKA “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose.”

  65. I am one of those regulars that engage in a good bit of snark and I’ll try to behave (Note: I generally do not snark in threads that are discussing molestations because my heart is so sickened and I just can’t generate sarcastic humor but…..
    …….

    …… Challies speaks glowingly of Driscoll’s fruit and my mind goes there, can’t help it, Challies is talking about numbers and Driscoll is talking about his own fruit it is numbers of swimmers whoops, alleged numbers of alleged swimmers.

    So if Challies or anyone else is too worked up that my mind went there, whose fault is it that I’m allegedly thinking the wrong fruit when discussing Mark Driscoll?

    Or Mahaney mahem for that matter?

    On a more serious note, where does Challies factor in the people hurt by these allegedly fruitful orgs? When I think of all the people I know in real life that were harmed by my former SGM church, those people cannot be overlooked.

  66. @ Debra Baker:
    Debra, I can be a real snarker too, at times.
    But really, with all the arrogant lunacy that comes out of these men, I’m pretty sure snarking a bit is a far better coping mechanism than snapping and going postal or DDOS on them.

    Snark is safe.
    Snapping isn’t.

  67. Debra

    I dont think they truly thin of those hurt by these groups. Perhaps they only see it from an organizational point of view. Lots of people =God’s blessing. Fame=God’s blessing. Published books=God’s blessing. So, as long as peopel are streaming in the front door and attending conferences and buying books, why be concerned?

    Jesus, on the other hand, had a different mind set. He stayed in a relatively small geolgraphicl location and picked up all sorts of nobodies along the way. Many of these were people that would not be sought after in today’s megachurch rah rah clubs. He seems to have envisioned a different kind of economy.

  68. Dee,

    Reminds me of the saying that the best way to judge a person is to observe the way that person treats others that will never be able to help him or her.

    A good illustration of this can be found in the story my daughter tells of going to visit a certain medical school as a prospective student. Someone on the admissions committee made it his mission to observe these students to see how they interacted with the janitorial staff and the receptionist. The receptionist actually had a say in who was accepted into their program. (Daughter found out about this when she was a medical student.)

    Insert the allegeds in their proper place as I have no clue where they belong.

  69. Pingback: Wartburg Watch: RC Sproul Jr un-friend Discernment Bloggers - The TollingBell.org

  70. Pingback: Writing Respectfully and Defusing “Triggers” | futuristguy