Abusers Are Welcome and The Abused Are Just Bitter

No one ever told me that grief felt so like fear. C. S. Lewis link

StefyMante artist- wikicommons

StefyMante artist- wikicommons

Deb had some things come up and I am doing the post which I had planned to do on Friday. Deb will do the rest of her Mars Hill post tomorrow.

*Trigger alert*
Some discussion of child pornography

Repentant pedophiles do not act to cause further pain to their victims.

Last summer, we wrote a series of posts on a well-churched pedophile that we knew in our community. This man served his time in jail. After a few years, his restrictions on living near children were lifted and he moved back into his house in the neighborhood in which he had abused children. The neighbors were deeply upset. A friend and I decided to intervene in the situation.You can read about it here and here.

Why did we decide to get involved? It was our opinion that a repentant pedophile would never want to inflict further pain on his victims. We also believe that his church should have done more to prevent this from happening. Through the grace of God, and some carefully applied pressure, he moved out of the home within a week.

Some churches tend to focus on the needs of abuser over the needs of the abused.

We posted a story here in which a local pastor went to bat for a man arrested for long term use of hideous child pornography. The pastor believed that the man had begun attending a Bible study and should therefore be shown lenience in the terms of his sentencing. The pastor and the child porn addict did not appear to express any concern for the children who were sexually abused for the personal pleasure of this man and others. Can you imagine a man having a jolly good time, for years, watching children getting raped and screaming for their mommies???  It was all about the poor abuser who had now "seen the light." Thankfully the judge was wise and sent the man to prison.

The victim becomes the church pariah.

Jeff Crippen and Anna Woods, in a Cry For Justice: How the Evils of Domestic Abuse Hides in Your Church link address the subject of how some churches and pastors minimize the abuse and protect the abuser. (P. 168-169)

8. As time passes, the victim becomes the guilty party in the eyes of the pastor and others. She is the one causing the commotion. She is pressured by the pastor and others to stop rebelling, to submit to her husband, and stop causing division in the church.

9. After, very often, a long, long time (even years), the victim separates from or divorces the abuser. The church has refused to believe her, persistently covered up the abuse, failed to obey the law and report the abuse to the police, and refused to exercise church discipline against the abuser.

10. The final terrible injustice is that the victim must leave the church while the abuser, having successfully duped the pastor and church into believing his victim was the real problem, remains a member in good standing.

How does a church deal with this tendency to protect the abuser? (P.186-187, f.92)

1. Believe the victim. Most cases of those who report abuse are speaking with honesty. 
2. Do not act with favoritism regardless of who the abuser is .
3. Understand that abuse of any kin is serious.
4. Embrace the conviction that your purpose is to effect justice and protection for the victim as a priority. In domestic violence abuse cases, the abuser will need to cease from fellowship in your church, especially if the victim decides to separate from him. This does not mean, however, "passing him off" to another unsuspecting church!
5. Report to the police immediately.
6. Let the justice system deal with the perpetrator as with anyone else. Do not ask for mercy or special treatment. (See above story on the child porn user.)
7. Protect the victim from the people's accusations.
8. Do not cover it up. Announce the abuse to your congregation.
9. Accept the fact that whatever you do is going to bring criticism and may well cost you relationships.
10. Touch on abuse regularly from the pulpit.

The well-being of the victim is still the priority, even after the abuser had repented.

So, let's assume that a domestic abuser has received counseling, paid his debt to society via the law and prison and is now repentant. Is it back to normal for the church and victim? No. There are long term consequences to abuse. Here are a couple of stories to consider.

Sarah at Sarah Over the Moon link wrote a post When My Abuser Is Welcome at the Table, I Am Not.

EVERYONE is welcome. But more and more it seems the “EVERYONE” that Christians are really going after is abusers.

And why not? How radical and Jesus-like does that sound? Abusers and survivors, sitting at the same table. Sharing the same bread and wine. The lion lying down next to the lamb.

Sure. That sounds great. Excuse me while I go have a panic attack or two.

I don’t know how to respond to this trend anymore. When I express discomfort about calling a rapist my “brother in Christ,” people accuse me of being a  bitter,  grace-hating person. When I say that I can’t get over the hurt my abuser caused me, people tell me to get over my “perpetual victimhood.” When I ask for a safe space, people tell me I’m acting just like the exclusionary fundamentalists, and that I need to learn that Christianity isn’t about being uncomfortable.

There’s no grace for me, as I try to work through all the festering hate toward my rapist that I don’t know what the hell to do with. There’s no grace as I try to figure out whether I ever want to forgive a man who hurts me more each day even though we haven’t spoken in six years. Maybe they’re right and I am the bitter, hateful person they think I am, but what about all this talk of grace? 

Let's review her points.

  • Everyone is welcome at the communion table, even abusers.
  • She is supposed to recognize her rapist as a Christian brother.
  • Sarah was raped. When she sees him at communion, she gets a panic attack.
  • She is accused of perpetual victimhood, bitterness, being an exclusionary fundamentalist (this is a main line church).

Wendy Alsup, at Practical Theology for Women, expanded on Sarah's post in Abusers at the Communion Table link. She begins with  this statement:

First, I can't say in strong enough terms that we have NO GOOD NEWS if we deny repentant abusers a place at the communion table.

Then she adds the BUT.

However, we must also consider what simple love demands. Love is after all the GREATEST command. We must show consideration to one struggling as a victim in such a circumstance. We must lay down our rights.

She outlined her own story of abuse in the church. Her family left that church and joined another. The abuser showed up at her new church which caused her family pain. She makes this cogent observation:

 A key point is that there were multiple churches in our area at which they could worship. We attended a good church. I understood why this person wanted to come to our church. But we had deliberately found this new place to heal from the previous turmoil centered around this other person. Our church was a respite of grace and community for us, and it seemed another bitter betrayal for this person to invade our respite.

Here is her bottom line for abusers:

 A key point is that there were multiple churches in our area at which they could worship. We attended a good church. I understood why this person wanted to come to our church. But we had deliberately found this new place to heal from the previous turmoil centered around this other person. Our church was a respite of grace and community for us, and it seemed another bitter betrayal for this person to invade our respite.

And for pastors:

 And those counseling and pastoring repentant abusers need to lead on this as well.

In other words, help the repentant abuser to find another church.

The same grace we celebrate at the communion table equips repentant sinners to respect the need of those they wounded to heal in a safe place.

We will continue to keep our eyes and ears out for stories on domestic abuse and the response of the church. If you are suffering at the hands of an abuser, we heartily recommend that you contact the good people at the Crying Out For Justice website. We have added their link to our blog roll. These folks get it.

If TWW can be of assistance in helping you find resources for yourself or loved ones or if you have a story to tell, please contact us.

Lydia's Corner: 1 Kings 22:1-53 Acts 13:16-41 Psalm 138:1-8 Proverbs 17:17-18

Comments

Abusers Are Welcome and The Abused Are Just Bitter — 86 Comments

  1. This reminds me so much of a dear friend who was essentially swindled out of money by someone in the church. It was a horrible, abusing, shattering situation. The person who stole the money was very cruel to the victim. The church sided with the money-stealer. Eventually the victim and the victim’s family stopped going to the church because of that, and the church did not even follow up to make sure this family (who had attended for years, by the way) had a new church home.

    Makes me sick just thinking about it. The stealing family continued to be lauded as pillars in the church community, and continued to lead church activities, while they continued to live off the profits of the money they had stolen.

  2. The rape case has interesting connotations vis-a-vis biblical ultraliteralists that think we should just make all law exactly the same as the old testament law of Israel because DIVINE WISDOM AND WE CAN’T POSSIBLY EVER MAKE BETTER LAWS THAN THAT.

    In Deuteronomy 22, the punishment for rape is as follows:

    Scenario A: You are betrothed/engaged.

    Rapist gets executed. Because apparently, even though the woman is engaged and not actually married she still is considered the wife, thus adultery, thus death.

    Scenario B: You are not betrothed/engaged.

    Rapist pays 50 shekels of silver to your dad (To translate, that’s $343.20 USD at the current price of silver) and then you are forced to marry him. Not only that, but you can’t get away because it explicitly states AND HE CAN NEVER DIVORCE HER EVER.

  3. Addendum to previous comment:

    And I think after that, nobody can really argue that we can’t make better laws than Moses.

  4. Indeed. Excellent article.

    Just as another addendum to my post… I’m not demeaning the OT. I’m demeaning the people who believe firmly that life would be so much better if we transformed all of society back into ancient near eastern Israel. (And even that we are COMMANDED by God to do it, because of the passages with Jesus saying he did not come to abolish the law)

  5. Just a bit off topic…but in a way it fits.

    The Gospel Coalition just posted another 9Marks article about the importance of church membership. After reading so many of these articles, you begin wondering why 9Marks churches are insistent that you become a member of their churches. After all, many church attenders are not members, yet they give to the church and willingly spend hours volunteering where needed.

    But here’s a 9 Marks pastor still trying to convince you that only bad people resist becoming a member of a church …
    1. You aren’t a member because you cannot deny yourself (paragraph 3).
    2. You aren’t a member because you are self-centered (Para 3)
    3. You aren’t a member because you aren’t willing to sacrifice yourself to help your neighbors (para 5)
    4. You aren’t a member because you have an exalted self-image (para 8-9)
    5. You go to other churches because you want to make a statement about who you are. (para 13). [I guess they don’t think you are looking for a church that offers a loving community that reflects the way God is working in your life.]
    http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2013/06/26/wendell-berry-and-the-beauty-of-membership/?comments#comments

    Notice how you really cannot belong to “one people” in a 9 Marks church until you become a member (“off the market”). (last paragraph) [That’s strange, Scripture says we’re supposed to treat all believers with hospitality and brotherly love.]

    Why is membership so important to 9 Marks pastors and leaders?

    Well, 9Marks pastors and staff tell why. Here they explain it in their own words on their own blog:

    Pastor Deepak Reju’s admission that he looks forward to monitoring you – http://www.9marks.org/blog/gospel-minded-churches-cooperating-pastoring

    Jonathan Leeman’s very unsettling post on making life miserable for former church members – http://www.9marks.org/blog/churches-cooperating-discipline

    Deepak Reju again talking about maintaining information on your family members –
    http://www.9marks.org/blog/why-use-house-church-membership-directory

  6. @ Janey:

    It’s hard to fathom how they allowed some writing by Wendell Berry to stand in as a sales pitch for more membership in their churches. Don’t get me wrong, I adore Berry’s stuff because he tends to be a Godless liberal socialist just like me. I wonder too if they vetted him enough, or if they just aren’t all that worried that their people chance upon this:

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2013/01/15/bulletin-from-the-mad-farmer-liberation-front-wendell-berry-on-same-sex-marriage/

  7. About abuse in SGM (maybe a little off topic) Rachel Held Evan’s has an former SGM-raised women on her post today – very interesting how she shows that training their kids to be submissive just set them up for abuse.

    http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/growing-up-in-sovereign-grace-ministries-abuse#disqus_thread

    Churches also, are not very equipped to be the healing/reconciling centres for abusers and abused that many try to be. Churches don’t have access to medical records, psychiatric assessments or criminal evidence and, they have shown beyond a grain of doubt that they don’t have the know-how or expertise to deal with the harm done or ability to discern someone’s repented ways. All they have are the words of two people – one an alleged or convicted criminal and the other a child. They should take the role of protective parent of the victim, not the doctor who declares someone cured/healed. Many more congregant also need to start speaking up like You two ladies did at your church. A pastor’s pay cheque comes from his congregants, if they take a stand, he will have to tow the line or find a new church.

  8. Janey wrote:

    Why is membership so important to 9 Marks pastors and leaders?
    Well, 9Marks pastors and staff tell why.

    Thank you for this find Janey.

  9. Val wrote:

    very interesting how she shows that training their kids to be submissive just set them up for abuse.

    That was a problem with my upbringing, too. Being submissive also has to do with lack of boundaries.

    My Mom didn’t have boundaries, and she raised me it’s wrong and selfish to have them.

    When you lack boundaries and are too passive and won’t defend yourself, if you will not be assertive – you will attract abusive, cruel, egotistical, rude, selfish people, and other types of people with other bad traits to you, because such people intentionally look for weak people to exploit.

    These are the very traits (being passive, meek, sweet, non-assertive, agreeable- no- matter- what, etc) which fall under the umbrella of codependency, and which some churches teach as gender complementarianism or as biblical gender roles.

    Training females up to be that way sets them up to be used, taken advantage of, or abused over their lives. I don’t think people who push for ‘biblical gender roles’ realize any of this and how dangerous it is, or maybe they do and just do not care.

  10. JustSomeGuy wrote:

    Addendum to previous comment:
    And I think after that, nobody can really argue that we can’t make better laws than Moses.

    I hope this is a joke, otherwise I’m going to be hurling.

    Protip: Women are not property to be given to their rapists forever. That is all.

    (And yes, I understand the social conditions of the time that would indicate this was a better circumstance than being turned out as damaged goods, but still, the whole thing indicates that the position of women in that society is one of being animate property. And, as a woman, I state bluntly that I am more than animate property and not to be shuffled off as if I don’t matter.)

  11. Injun Joe wrote:

    It’s hard to fathom how they allowed some writing by Wendell Berry to stand in as a sales pitch for more membership in their churches. Don’t get me wrong, I adore Berry’s stuff because he tends to be a Godless liberal socialist just like me. I wonder too if they vetted him enough, or if they just aren’t all that worried that their people chance upon this:

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2013/01/15/bulletin-from-the-mad-farmer-liberation-front-wendell-berry-on-same-sex-marriage/

    Injun Joe — Oh my goodness. You’re not kidding. Yes, I’ll bet they didn’t check him out very closely. He sounds like a “godly liberal socialist” though, rather than a godless one. Ha. Thanks for the link.

  12. Anon wrote:

    Thank you for this find Janey.

    Anon — It’s really shocking, isn’t it? What amazes me is that these people are so disconnected from reality that they don’t have the shame and embarrassment that normal people would have. Most authors, or at least a good blog admin, would have made these articles disappear, but they don’t. They cannot seem to find true North.

  13. I have the same question I always have about these stories. Was the abuser a professing Christian while abusing? If yes, what do we do with that? What does it mean to be a believer while, for example, raping someone? Is this part of the all sins are the same thinking?

    Quite frankly, I see this all the time. The abused person is expected to be what folks think is a real Christian by pretending it never happened or “rising above it”. That would be Christianity to so many people these days it is astonishing. It is barbarian.

  14. JustSomeGuy wrote:

    The rape case has interesting connotations vis-a-vis biblical ultraliteralists that think we should just make all law exactly the same as the old testament law of Israel because DIVINE WISDOM AND WE CAN’T POSSIBLY EVER MAKE BETTER LAWS THAN THAT.

    Isn’t that what Islamic Republics say about Shari’a?

    Scenario B: You are not betrothed/engaged.

    Rapist pays 50 shekels of silver to your dad (To translate, that’s $343.20 USD at the current price of silver) and then you are forced to marry him. Not only that, but you can’t get away because it explicitly states AND HE CAN NEVER DIVORCE HER EVER.

    .
    Welcome to the world of Iron Age Semitic tribal society

  15. Injun Joe wrote:

    It’s hard to fathom how they allowed some writing by Wendell Berry to stand in as a sales pitch for more membership in their churches. Don’t get me wrong, I adore Berry’s stuff because he tends to be a Godless liberal socialist just like me. I wonder too if they vetted him enough, or if they just aren’t all that worried that their people chance upon this:

    Injun, Slactivist is from the progressive arm of the church—Satan’s end, otherwise known as “liberal”. 🙂 They believe that truth is truth wherever it’s found, and well, Wendell Berry tells a LOT of truth. Fred Clark is very well read.

    Moreover, they don’t intend their writing to be sales pitches for membership. They discuss issues they think pertinent to current life. Like TWW, it’s intention is not “missional”.

  16. Anon 1 wrote:

    Was the abuser a professing Christian while abusing? If yes, what do we do with that? What does it mean to be a believer while, for example, raping someone? Is this part of the all sins are the same thinking?

    A person who rapes (or abuses) is sooo deeply separated from the principles of love that there is no way he can be allied with the God who is Love. If he truly knew God, he would never do something so destructive to another. And if, perchance, there were that rare time when rape (or abuse) occurred in conjunction with faith, he would be prostrate afterwards, as deeply destroyed in his being as the person he wrecked. That this nearly never happens (I’ve not heard of it) shows the state of the rapists’ (abusers’) souls.

    It’s ridiculous to think that all sins are the same. Where did that come from, anyway? There is the idea that we are all sinners, and a small sin will show that fact as readily as a large one. But beyond that, to insist that “all sins are the same” merely defangs horrible sins with a general “tsk tsk!” If a person shakes his finger in front of a raging wolf, he is liable to get bit in the neck.

  17. @ Janey:
    Wow. So much could be said on the McCullough article. Too bad I have to be somewhere and don’t have the time to pontificate.

    I will say just one thing on this:

    On the terms of 1 Corinthians 12, we must embrace our status as a mere hand, ear, or foot, helpless apart from the other members and happy so long as Christ is exalted and the body is thriving.

    Nowhere in the passage cited to we get any kind of feeling about being “mere” anything. The whole thrust of the passage is in the exact opposite direction. Paul says, “And those members of the body which we think to be less honorable, on these we bestow greater honor.” There is NO sense of mere anything. On the contrary, the INDIVIDUAL “hand,” which individuality McCullough derides, is rather to NOT regard itself as less because it is “only” a “mere” hand. But because he derides individualism and the importance of the individual as an individual, the entire tone of McCullough’s article sends you reeling in exactly the wrong direction. We are not important individuals who together make an important group but rather are only important in so fast as we are part of the group, and even then not really. It is the group that is important.

    Gaaah!

  18. @ dee:
    I am speechless. If someone did that to a piece of art I made, I would have to be stopped from slapping them.

  19. Being a Texan, I look at this a little different…..Year ago Karla Faye Tucker was all the rage as murder who converted to Christianity. Her testimony was all the rage and was on all the major Christian programs.
    There were even some ministers who came forward and said that the governor should change her death sentence to life in prison….In the end, she was given capital punishment. If you do the crime, you got to pay the price. Forgiveness can only go so far…

  20. anonymous wrote:

    entire tone of McCullough’s article sends you reeling in exactly the wrong direction.

    anonymous — I agree with your comment. It’s so disrespectful to treat people as though they are just your insignificant minions. We minions will just walk out and find another church.

  21. Patrice wrote:

    If a person shakes his finger in front of a raging wolf, he is liable to get bit in the neck.

    Win-Win for the raging wolf.

    Especially if the raging wolf is the one in the pulpit Laying Down the Law for the sheep.

  22. Janey wrote:

    Anon — It’s really shocking, isn’t it? What amazes me is that these people are so disconnected from reality that they don’t have the shame and embarrassment that normal people would have.

    Divine Right of God’s Speshul Pets, the Predestined Elect.

  23. Patrice wrote:

    If someone did that to a piece of art I made, I would have to be stopped from slapping them.

    Patrice — Maybe someone should tell Wendell Berry. Ha. But I’ll bet that Berry, as a good Kansas farmer, will just smile and shake his head and know that the joke is on McCullough.

  24. @ Janey:

    “Why is membership so important to 9 Marks pastors and leaders?”

    I think it’s because of the emphasis they place on authority structures. Both in the family and in the church. The fact that a pastor/elder is in authority over you is a very big deal. Thus the emphasis on membership. You need to place membership, or sign the church covenant or whatever to close that authority “loop”. Then authority can be legitimately exercised.

    It’s hard to be a mere attendee at these kinds of churches. Much easier to enact church discipline when you have submitted to their authority.

  25. Brian wrote:

    You need to place membership, or sign the church covenant or whatever to close that authority “loop”. Then authority can be legitimately exercised.

    It’s hard to be a mere attendee at these kinds of churches. Much easier to enact church discipline when you have submitted to their authority.

    Sounds just like cult groups.

  26. @ dee:

    Too often we try on new churches like we try on new clothes and for much the same reason. We’re looking for style and fit, for what meets our needs and makes the appropriate statement about who we are. We put our churches in service of our desire to be somebody, and our commitment doesn’t outlast the better options of Elsewhere. But this posture—beside its offense to the cross—leads to self-absorption, restlessness, and isolation.

    While I agree that “some” people may do this, he can’t possibly know the motivations of “all” Christians who want no part of many local churches. To paint those who won’t sign membership agreements (which is not the intent of the NT Church) as a “posture—beside its offense to the cross—leads to self-absorption, restlessness, and isolation,” is just wrong and condemning.

    The commitment that Christians show to one another in community is based on relationship and love, not a membership agreement for the purpose of proving where you belong and who can discipline you. It’s not for better or worse (which is marriage language). You are part of the body because you are a disciple of Christ, not because you belong to a church organization.

  27. @ Bridget:

    The first paragraph should be indented as it is a quote from the article Dee referenced. My indenting didn’t work. I’m sure it was my bad.

  28. Janey wrote:

    Just a bit off topic…but in a way it fits.
    The Gospel Coalition just posted another 9Marks article about the importance of church membership. After reading so many of these articles, you begin wondering why 9Marks churches are insistent that you become a member of their churches. After all, many church attenders are not members, yet they give to the church and willingly spend hours volunteering where needed.
    But here’s a 9 Marks pastor still trying to convince you that only bad people resist becoming a member of a church …
    1. You aren’t a member because you cannot deny yourself (paragraph 3).
    2. You aren’t a member because you are self-centered (Para 3)
    3. You aren’t a member because you aren’t willing to sacrifice yourself to help your neighbors (para 5)
    4. You aren’t a member because you have an exalted self-image (para 8-9)
    5. You go to other churches because you want to make a statement about who you are. (para 13). [I guess they don’t think you are looking for a church that offers a loving community that reflects the way God is working in your life.]
    http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2013/06/26/wendell-berry-and-the-beauty-of-membership/?comments#comments
    Notice how you really cannot belong to “one people” in a 9 Marks church until you become a member (“off the market”). (last paragraph) [That’s strange, Scripture says we’re supposed to treat all believers with hospitality and brotherly love.]
    Why is membership so important to 9 Marks pastors and leaders?
    Well, 9Marks pastors and staff tell why. Here they explain it in their own words on their own blog:
    Pastor Deepak Reju’s admission that he looks forward to monitoring you – http://www.9marks.org/blog/gospel-minded-churches-cooperating-pastoring
    Jonathan Leeman’s very unsettling post on making life miserable for former church members – http://www.9marks.org/blog/churches-cooperating-discipline
    Deepak Reju again talking about maintaining information on your family members –
    http://www.9marks.org/blog/why-use-house-church-membership-directory

    The GC article would be better titled A Step Towards Gilead.

  29. JustSomeGuy wrote:

    In Deuteronomy 22, the punishment for rape is as follows:
    Scenario A: You are betrothed/engaged.
    Rapist gets executed. Because apparently, even though the woman is engaged and not actually married she still is considered the wife, thus adultery, thus death.
    Scenario B: You are not betrothed/engaged.
    Rapist pays 50 shekels of silver to your dad (To translate, that’s $343.20 USD at the current price of silver) and then you are forced to marry him. Not only that, but you can’t get away because it explicitly states AND HE CAN NEVER DIVORCE HER EVER.

    This story “the Bible say women should marry their rapists” is simply cherry picking the worst possible English translation of the passage and using that as a basis to hate the Bible (and traumatize/trigger rape victims by calling the worst translation “the Bible say…”)
    Out of the many English Bibles, most all talk of this as “If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, that is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found” and only one or two English translations of rape. Considering the Hebrew, the majority of translations are right to not call it rape. It certainly does not contain the Hebrew word for rape used a few verses earlier where the rapist get the death penalty. (Nor does 22:24, because in that society with tents – no soundproof walls – close together and little privacy, there will always be people close by if she shouts for help.)
    The term used in Deut 22:28 is never used for rape in the Bible, but for handling things, especially handling them skillfully. For example, for what a harp player does with a harp.
    Look up “taphas rape Deutronomy 22” in a search engine, as the word badly translated with rape in very few translations is taphas.
    As for the amount of silver being a small price, silver was a lot more valuable then – not so much already in circulation, not so many other moldable substances known to man, mining was harder without modern tools.

  30. Even if you find the translation correct, Deut 22:28 repeats Exod 22:16-17. There it certainly talks of not rape but an unmarried woman and man who slept together, and says that he will only have a wife if her father say so, otherwise it is just the financial penalty. (She will need the money- which was not so little then- if she don’t get a husband because of the rape,) No women in the Bible is recorded as marrying her rapist.
    Actually, when reading these two texts, the inequality is this:
    If a man and woman sleep together, and the woman is single, her family has a choice whether she should marry. He has no choice. He has to pay money, she does not.

  31. Retha Faurie wrote:

    The term used in Deut 22:28 is never used for rape in the Bible, but for handling things, especially handling them skillfully. For example, for what a harp player does with a harp.

    More “Seduction/Manipulation” than rape. That puts a whole new spin on things.

    However, translating it as “Rape” with all the accompanying baggage fits in with too many Agendas both pro and con, so “Rape” it remains.

  32. Well in that case my mistake.

    But that being so, I think more than a few translations get it wrong. I compared the same verse with 5 different versions and they all said “seize and lie”

    And just so you know, I’m not trying to spread discord about the bible. I’m a Christian to ya know. There are quite a few extremely strange laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy.

  33. Janey wrote:

    He sounds like a “godly liberal socialist” though, rather than a godless one. Ha. Thanks for the link.

    My statement was purely hyperbolic. The terms ‘godly’ and ‘godless’ are almost entirely subjective, depending of course upon one’s viewing angle.

  34. Patrice wrote:

    Moreover, they don’t intend their writing to be sales pitches for membership. They discuss issues they think pertinent to current life. Like TWW, it’s intention is not “missional”.

    Sorry for the confusion. My original comment stemmed from Berry being featured in a gospel coalition post, in which they do indeed attempt to use him as a sales pitch for their ideology of unquestioned ‘membership’ in something larger than one’s self. You’re quite right about slacktivist though and their er… um.. liberal bent, which is why I wondered if the more conservative and reformed folks at gospel coalition vetted Berry enough.

  35. @ JustSomeGuy:

    @ Headless Unicorn Guy:

    I’m sick of lofty theoretical OT discussions by comfy Western “biblical literalists” – this is not directed at you, Just Some Guy.

    I’m just expressing my general dismay at the disconnect of such discussions when the real world in the here and now exists, thankyouverymuch.

    Thank God for Minister Abdelgani who will now likely take a lot of heat for speaking up herself.

    Unity state concerned by two Rubkotna rape cases

    Sudantribune.com Bentiu, 27/6/2013 – A 15-year old girl was raped on Wednesday in Nhialdiu Payam [district] of Rubkotna county by a 25 year old man, according to Unity state minister of gender, child and social welfare.

    Lubna Abdelgani told Sudan Tribune the culprit had been arrested but the parents of the girl had allowed the man to be released without charge after the man agreed to pay the family a dowry of three cows in order to marry the girl.

    Despite this Abdelgani said the government would be “following up the case seriously to bring the wrongdoers into book despite parents’ agreement with culprit.”

    The girl was admitted to Bentiu hospital the day after the attack for a treatment, before both parents agreed accept the dowry from their daughters rapist.

    Abdelgani said eradicating rape attacks in rural areas would be challenging due to ignorance and poverty. Informing parents and advocating for girl’s rights should not be left for the government and human rights activists alone, she said, urging the general public to play a role.

    “We need to open our eyes on all angles to eliminate the re-occurrence of all sorts of violence against women”, said the minister.

    The minister says she is following up the case with the state’s police commissioner to find out why he was released.

  36. Just Some Guy

    I rather enjoy discussing some of the stranger texts of the OT. Actually, I have been thinking about your comment from yesterday and have decided that you made a very good point. It is sad that God had to make a law for rapists to marry their victims because the victims would have been ostracized from society and very likely have starved to death. Thankfully, in this country, in this time, the chances of that happening are far less than those ancient days.

  37. JustSomeGuy wrote:

    Perhaps the strangest of all being Deuteronomy 25:11-12.

    Here is what that verse says from Bible Gateway:
    11 If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, 12 you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.
    Anyone got this one down?

  38. @ dee: I did think of wrestling rules in which men can’t hurt each others’ private areas. However, this verse is not the equivalent for rules in WW Smackdown either.

  39. Regarding the view of forgiving a criminal because we are all sinners:

    The Bible says if you can’t trust someone with a little, you can’t trust them with a lot. The Bible says those who harm/prevent children from coming to Christ should be thrown into the deep ocean with a large stone around their necks. Jesus calls the Pharisees “sons of hell” who disciple their followers to become “twice the son’s of hell” that they are. Jesus himself divides people into those who are wicked and those who aren’t and HE TREATS THEM ACCORDINGLY.

    Paul’s moaning/lamenting about his own wickedness is to show how much he has changed, and show how little his prefect jewishness transformed him. It was his new Christianity that transformed him. Let’s consider that when calling himself wicked, he was a murderer, so it wasn’t like he stole a cookie from the jar and was calling it equivalent to a rapist.

    What frustrates me with this idea that we are all equally bad, is that it makes no one’s sins bad. Part of the problem in reformed and other evangelical views, is the focus on soteriology (are we saved?) SInce we can’t get to heaven without Jesus, then everyone not going must be equally bad (and, for reformers only, there is no way we truly know who is actually going to heaven). The early church just wasn’t focused on the afterlife. It was the transformative power of life now. Since the early church changed from the spiritually powerful apostolic age to more and more bureaucracy, getting to heaven became the tool the church began to use to keep people in line.

    The unrepentant won’t be going to heaven. That is also clear. But what is repentant? Just blabbing I’m sorry? No, it is a complete transformation – Moses ran off to the desert, Paul went to Saudi Arabia for years, David was exiled from Israel. When they came back, utterly changed, then the murderers were allowed to lead. When a person rapes a child, they need to be run out of every church around. There can be no “safe” place for them. They need to go off. Live away from communities with family for many years – arctic drilling rigs, fly-in labour camps, wherever. Just away from other children. They need a long self-imposed exile. Both Moses and Paul fled because they were overwhelmed with the enormity of their crime. Not because some ancient court imposed this on them (Moses and Paul both had too high a ranking in their societies to have suffered much under the authorities). A truly repentant pedophile is overwhelmed by what an awful thing he has done. He can’t stand the thought of it happening again, and he would not be trying to meet (and often intimidate) his victim. He would comprehend their feelings towards him and want to avoid cause more pain. He would refuse to meet with the victim, it should never be forced on a truly repentant man, it wouldn’t need to be, he himself would leave the church/community of his victim(s).

    If he makes excuses, doesn’t see a problem with attending church with his hurting victims, he isn’t repentant. He is a selfish twit who will likely do it again.

  40. @ dee:
    @ JustSomeGuy:
    Here is what is said on a Catholic forum which then brings up even more difficulties

    The passage is part of a body of what might be called “family law”. The woman is severely dealt with because of the great importance of the perpetuation of the family: a man who cannot beget children, cannot marry his brother’s widow so as to keep his brother’s name alive; nor can he beget offspring to perpetuate his own family. Deuteronomy 23 excludes eunuchs & bastards from the Chosen People, presumably for similar reasons: see also Isaiah 56 & Acts 8, where eunuchs are admitted to the People of God
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=240350

  41. @ dee:

    I’m a flaming-chariots-supernatural-tormented-minor-prophets kinda gal myself and I still find obscure edicts from Deuteronomy to be mind-boggling.

  42. Val wrote:

    When a person rapes a child, they need to be run out of every church around. There can be no “safe” place for them.

    Right on, Val. Great post.

  43. Injun Joe wrote:

    My statement was purely hyperbolic. The terms ‘godly’ and ‘godless’ are almost entirely subjective, depending of course upon one’s viewing angle.

    True dat.

  44. @ Injun Joe:
    I don’t know you so obviously got off track. 😉

    I am certain that the Gospel Coalition et al have no idea how to derive meaning from art because they can’t even handle the metaphors, similes, poems, parables in the Bible.

    But I am glad they give it a try now&then because who knows when something will sink in? I wouldn’t be surprised the book was read because the libruls wrote about him. Attempting relevancy.

    Anyway, the artwork remains standing even after they put their grubby little literalized/legalized fingers all over it.

  45. @ Janey:
    Yah, I’m sure Berry’s heard far worse and since he’s also heard far better, it’s likely a wash for him. But I’m not as sanguine as Berry and therefore will sputter when someone uses another’s art to make didactic points of one’s own choosing. It’s reeeaaallllyyy cheesy.

  46. Notice the lamb in the title picture does NOT have any deliberately-broken legs.

  47. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Especially if the raging wolf is the one in the pulpit Laying Down the Law for the sheep.

    I’d like to see that raging pulpit wolf Laying Down His Life for the “wee-little” sheepies. I’d gladly help him do it with my “great-big” shepherd’s crook. Christian Non-domestic Discipline, apse-olutely sanctified for the sanctuary of all saints. Urp.

  48. Janey wrote:

    Lucy (out of lurking) Pevensie wrote:

    The GC article would be better titled A Step Towards Gilead.

    Do explain. And by the way, welcome to the non-lurking world.

    I suspect a Handmaid’s Tale reference. After all, the author said she got the idea from her dystopia — the Holy Theocratic Republic of Gilead — not from what was going on in Iran but from a comp/patrio church she’d personally attended.

    And there are the 200-year-Quiverfull-plan Dominionists and Christian Reconstructionists to whom The Handmaid’s Tale is a How-To Manual for their Restored Christian America. (Have they ever thought of what happens AFTER they seize power and Take Back America? What do predators eat after they’ve killed off all the prey?)

  49. Patrice wrote:

    I’d like to see that raging pulpit wolf Laying Down His Life for the “wee-little” sheepies. I’d gladly help him do it with my “great-big” shepherd’s crook.

    Over the head or right in the nutsack?

  50. Dee/Deb and Guy Behind the Curtain: I don’t mean to make more work for you by getting repeatedly caught in moderation. I will work harder/smarter to “discern” your secret algorithms.

  51. Muff Potter wrote:

    Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
    Notice the lamb in the title picture does NOT have any deliberately-broken legs.
    “Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man.”
    ~ Thomas Paine ~

    You know, I came across something by a shepherd couple once who said the whole breaking the sheep’s leg thing was bunk and no shepherd would ever do that.

  52. Janey, I meant Gilead as in Republic of Gilead, from A Handmaid’s Tale. I am dumbfounded to see American Christians so willing to march into bondage.

    It is becoming very hard these days to find a simple church, teaching and living the simple truth of the Gospel. In the nondenominational world, seems it’s either rockstar worship with a watery message or something hyperauthoritarian. Where oh where is the reasonable middle?

    Thank you, Dee & Deb, for starting this blog. You and the others here have helped validate my observations. I know now that I am not the “not-really-saved” crazy one.

    And I wish there were a like button. So many great comments!

  53. anonymous wrote:

    You know, I came across something by a shepherd couple once who said the whole breaking the sheep’s leg thing was bunk and no shepherd would ever do that.

    If I had bought just ten shares of Apple stock for each time I’ve heard Calvary Chapel pastors preach this piffle, I’d be fabulously wealthy right now.

  54. @ anonymous: I can’t imagine *why* anyone would do that – in addition to the pain inflicted, the likelihood of infection and subsequent death is so high that even a person who has no feeling for animals (other than profit) would be crazy to risk losing even one by doing such a thing.

    It sickens me to think that this idiotic and cruel story seems to be enshrined in Evangelical Land. I wonder if someone misinterpreted one of the pictures (or stained-glass windows) that shows Christ carrying a lamb across his shoulders… seems likely to me. Urban legends start somewhere, after all.

  55. @ Patrice: Did you know i got caught in moderation myself? Someone uses a name on this blog which could be misconstrued to be racial epithet. It is not but that is how the list works. GBTC is not around this weekend and he would not be pleased if i gave you all a clue. When the cat’s away…

  56. dee wrote:

    Someone uses a name on this blog which could be misconstrued to be racial epithet.

    Did you know that there was move a couple of years back by some well meaning academics in the education establishment to expurgate the dreaded n-word from Twain’s works? Almost like HUG’s Orwellian newspeak huh?

  57. Off topic, but one of my favourite quotes in the entire English language is one of Muhammed Ali’s. Explaining why he refused the draft to fight in Vietnam, the great man said:

    Ain’t no Viet Cong ever call me n****r.

    Of course, he didn’t censor it. I read one tragic and pitiful mis-quote of Ali, as saying “Ain’t no Viet Cong ever done nothing to me”. Which, trying to protect the sensibilities of the quoter, empties the quote of nearly all its original meaning. Which was, of course, that Ali refused to risk his life for a country in which he was a second-class citizen on no grounds other than the colour of his skin.

  58. Patrice wrote:

    I am certain that the Gospel Coalition et al have no idea how to derive meaning from art because they can’t even handle the metaphors, similes, poems, parables in the Bible.

    The 9 Marks “membership” teachings rarely, if ever, even address Paul’s metaphor of the Church as Christ’s body and all believers as body-parts (ie members). Rather, *members* are like members of the Water Buffaloes Lodge or the Garden Society– you search for and if lucky find a group with common interests and you volunteer to *join*. If you fail to do so, or go AWOL, it’s very very baaaaad. But none of my parts ever volunteered to join my body. If they have my life in them, they’re joined. Wherever I go, there they all are. And wherever 2 or 3 of them are– there I am! Etc etc…

  59. Muff Potter wrote:

    Did you know that there was move a couple of years back by some well meaning academics in the education establishment to expurgate the dreaded n-word from Twain’s works? Almost like HUG’s Orwellian newspeak huh?

    There’s always some Kyle’s Mom who’s Saving the Unwashed Sheeple from Themselves. Doublepluswarmfeelies for the Concerned and Compassionate Activist/Kyle’s Mom, collateral damage for all the rest of us. Red shirt NPCs in the role-playing game of My Heroic Cause.

  60. Anon 1 wrote:

    I have the same question I always have about these stories. Was the abuser a professing Christian while abusing? If yes, what do we do with that? What does it mean to be a believer while, for example, raping someone? Is this part of the all sins are the same thinking?
    Quite frankly, I see this all the time. The abused person is expected to be what folks think is a real Christian by pretending it never happened or “rising above it”. That would be Christianity to so many people these days it is astonishing. It is barbarian.

    Yep. We’re supposed to smile and immediately say, “I forgive them.” I wrote this sentence on my blog: We expect them to swallow an aspirin for their headache when what they really need is chemotherapy for their cancer.

  61. Lucy Pevensie wrote:

    Janey, I meant Gilead as in Republic of Gilead, from A Handmaid’s Tale. I am dumbfounded to see American Christians so willing to march into bondage.

    They don’t think of it as “bondage”. Bondage means you’re the one under the whip; they figure they’re going to be the ones holding the whip. The black tunic and armband instead of the striped rags. God’s Speshul Chosen, Rulers of Tomorrow!

  62. dee wrote:

    @ dee:
    @ JustSomeGuy:
    Here is what is said on a Catholic forum which then brings up even more difficulties
    The passage is part of a body of what might be called “family law”. The woman is severely dealt with because of the great importance of the perpetuation of the family: a man who cannot beget children, cannot marry his brother’s widow so as to keep his brother’s name alive; nor can he beget offspring to perpetuate his own family. Deuteronomy 23 excludes eunuchs & bastards from the Chosen People, presumably for similar reasons: see also Isaiah 56 & Acts 8, where eunuchs are admitted to the People of God
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=240350

    Well at least they had a go at it.

    I’ve read tons of commentaries looking to see what they would say about that verse… pretty much all of them, even from dominionist types (Like Rushdoony) that usually analyze every single mosiac law to death, skip right over it without comment like it doesn’t even exist.

    As for why I am talking about these things in this thread, since I seem to be disturbing some of you guys(And I hope you are not misreading me and thinking I endorse sending society back to the bronze age):

    I think some of this attitude toward abuse victims might be at least partially rooted in too much, uh how should I put this… respect? liking? desire? (I don’t really know what the right word for it is but I hope you understand what I mean) for the mosaic law code.

    Lots of these teachers really, really, really like rules, and they like to root those rules mostly in the OT mosaic law. While they insist that it’s not binding they end up just saying that it is in a roundabout way, because they have some strange desire for life to be a black and white set of absolute rules that they can continually foist on themselves and others so they will be “obviously holy”.

    Anyway sorry to be confusing, I hope you understand what I’m trying to say here lol.

  63. As for that what I think of that verse itself… to be completely honest I just discard it as being legit from God.

    I thought about it for a long time, but I could not reconcile it with Jesus’s “two great commands that all the law is built on”. While this may seem like a little thing… I don’t really think so. With study and context (historical and otherwise) pretty much all of the laws can be traced back to that. Some may say that this is determining morality for myself, but I don’t think so. I mean, I was trying to apply God’s standard to measure with after all. Shouldn’t a law made by God match up to God’s own basis for said law system?

    So failing that, I went looking around to see what other people say about it, because maybe I was just missing something. However when I did that… I discovered that pretty much everyone was as stumped as I was about it, most even going so far as to just skip right over it and continue on.

    So… the only option I was left with was to simply discard it. I know a bit about biblical criticism, so it’s easily possible it could have just been written in at some point, much like the adulterous woman story may have been.

    Until presented with a better option I see no other position besides the one where God declares it right to cut of women’s hands just because they smacked some guy in the balls who was attacking their husband.

    Anyway, sorry to ramble in such an offtopic direction.

  64. Have noticed some references here recently to Phillips, Dominionism, Reconstructionism, Doug Wilson, Rushdooney. Sounds like dots are getting connected to some camps in Shepherding/Patriarchy, and imo, those dots line up pretty well.

  65. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    (Have they ever thought of what happens AFTER they seize power and Take Back America? What do predators eat after they’ve killed off all the prey?)

    Why, each other, of course.

    Or was that a rhetorical question? 😉

  66. JustSomeGuy wrote:

    Lots of these teachers really, really, really like rules, and they like to root those rules mostly in the OT mosaic law.

    SHARI’A, Taliban Style.

  67. About difficult Bible passages, the quickest way to get the answers of a few Christian scholars on them is to type “apologetics” and the verse reference into a search engine. For example “apologetics Deuteronomy 25:11-12” , and to judge for yourself how good the answers are.

  68. Well, I have to say, that is the best explanation I have seen so far for that verse.

    But that explain brings up another interesting question, which is why everyone wants to translate it as cutting hands off.

  69. The sexual predator can never be reabilated. Law enforcement has long know this as fact. Given the fact, why are they tolerated in the church? A friend of Charles Spurgeon was asked if such could ever be restored to fellowship, let alone return to the pulpit His reply was, “Only when his repenternce

  70. The sexual predator can never be reabilated. Law enforcement has long know this as fact. Given the fact, why are they tolerated in the church? A friend of Charles Spurgeon was asked if such could ever be restored to fellowship, let alone return to the pulpit His reply was, “Only when his repentance was more notorious than his sin.” I have never met such as well as heard of one.

  71. Muff Potter wrote:

    anonymous wrote:

    You know, I came across something by a shepherd couple once who said the whole breaking the sheep’s leg thing was bunk and no shepherd would ever do that.

    If I had bought just ten shares of Apple stock for each time I’ve heard Calvary Chapel pastors preach this piffle, I’d be fabulously wealthy right now.

    Maybe CC pastors “preach this piffle” because they’re the type who’d gladly break the legs of the sheep in their pews?

  72. JustSomeGuy wrote:

    I’ve read tons of commentaries looking to see what they would say about that verse… pretty much all of them, even from dominionist types (Like Rushdoony) that usually analyze every single mosiac law to death, skip right over it without comment like it doesn’t even exist.

    doubleplusunggod ref doubleplusunverse.

    Amazing how that happens when it goes AGAINST you personally benefiting.

  73. Lucy Pevensie wrote:

    Thank you, Dee & Deb, for starting this blog. You and the others here have helped validate my observations. I know now that I am not the “not-really-saved” crazy one.

    Lucy Pevensie:

    When I phone my regular writing partner cross-country, the most common thing I ask is “Did we go crazy, or did everybody else?”

    And he answers me with a quote from one of the Desert Fathers:

    “There will come a time when men will go Mad. And they will lay hands on the sane among them, saying ‘You are not like Us! You must be Mad!'”