The Puritan's idea of hell is a place where everybody has to mind his own business. Wendell Phillips, attributed
George Orwell got it right in Nineteen Eighty Four. Words can be manipulated to mean whatever we want them to mean. Take a look at a few examples from the book
As the government, the Party controls the population with four ministries:
the Ministry of Peace (Minipax), which deals with war,
the Ministry of Plenty (Miniplenty), which deals with economic affairs (rationing and starvation),
the Ministry of Love (Miniluv), which deals with law and order (torture),
the Ministry of Truth (Minitrue), which deals with propaganda (news, entertainment, education and art)
I always find it amusing when someone attempts to define a secondary issue by starting with the words "The Bible says…" Everyone who holds to a conviction, be it the age of the earth, election, the role of women, forms of church discipline, etc., will spout their "proof texts" and appear startled when another person does not see the obvious biblical logic of their argument. That is the reason that there are a gazillion denominations and Christianity is divided between Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox expression. Every last one of them are absolutely convinced they have the truth and that everyone else is just plain illogical.
Gossip and slander are often used interchangeably.
A number of months ago, I did a post on the use of the word slander in the Bible called Slander or an Inconvenient Truth. In the post we explored the Bible verses surrounding slander to prove a point.
It is vital to the discussion to understand that slander is an act of making a false statement in order to damage another's reputation, etc. It is a big fat lie, and the person making it knows it, just as Satan knows it.
Therefore, the expression of a legitimate concern, based on a number of reports, is not slander but a form of Christian love. It is meant to protect the church from serious error; to help those who are being hurt by the church; to prevent harm to others in the church; and to exhort those in leadership to follow the example of Jesus.
Slander is a lie and the person making the claim knows that it is a lie. Unfortunately, many use the word to mean saying anything negative about an individual. What is interesting is that word "gossip" often appears in the same list of sins as slander. 2 Corinthians 12:20
For I am afraid that when I come I may not find you as I want you to be, and you may not find me as you want me to be. I fear that there may be discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, slander, gossip,arrogance and disorder.
What I found even more fascinating is that, when I plugged in the word "gossip" into word search sites, I found the majority which listed verses that had the word "slander" even without the word "gossip" being mentioned( here and here.) I found it interesting when Justin Taylor wrote How to Stop Church Killing Gossip, he does not use the Bible to prove his chosen definition of gossip which is:
Gossip involves saying behind a person’s back what you would never say to his or her face.
When I researched the word gossip, I found a number of business and psychology websites which deal with gossip in the workplace and in any other venue in which people gather. It is obvious that gossip is of interest to Christians and non-Christians alike. In general, it is considered a net negative
Gossip has been around since the dawn of man. In a Forbes article, we learn some of the history of gossip.
Talking trash is hardly a modern invention. It’s been around for ages, dating back to caveman days, when sharing information about others (Is he faithful? Is she a hard worker?) contributed to basic survival.
In ancient Egypt a hieroglyph from 1550 B.C. detailed the spread of gossip and suggested ways to curtail it. The Romans also partook: In Scorpion Tongues: The Irresistible History of Gossip in American Politics, Gail Collins notes that Mark Antony spread word that Caesar Augustus assumed the throne by bedding Julius Caesar.
Definitions for gossip include:
- a person who habitually reveals personal or sensational facts about others
- rumor or report of an intimate nature (Merriam Webster)
A number of other sources connect gossip with slander. (Wikipedia) I believe that this connection is key.
Gossip is idle talk or rumor, especially about personal or private affairs of others. It is one of the oldest and most common means of sharing facts, views and slander. This term is used pejoratively by its reputation for the introduction of errors and variations into the information transmitted, and it also describes idle chat, a rumor of personal, or trivial nature.
When is gossip bad?
It is obviously bad when it is slander which means a false tale which is intended to hurt another. However, sometimes the intent is good but the results are bad. This occurs when a confidence is shared with the expectation that it will be kept. It is vital to know the rules of the game when one is talking confidentially as I learned the hard way.
True story:
Years ago, I was in a Bible study with a family whose husband had done something very hurtful to his wife. In fact, it was grounds for a divorce and that was being discussed. We all were trying to support the entire family but especially the wife. Several Bible studies were filled up trying to give her support and letting her vent. The day before the third meeting, another neighbor was joining the study. Due to the anticipated nature of the discussion, I decided to inform this person of the issue so that she would be prepared. I told her of the confidential nature of the problem and assumed all would be well since I had known her for years.
Hours before the study, the woman who was so hurt called me, crying hysterically. That neighbor had decided to inform a few other neighbors of the issue and now it was all in the open. I tried to explain my reasoning to her but to no avail. She told me that I had no right to say anything and that she had planned on not discussing the matter that evening. She was right. I apologized. Lesson learned. Even good intent can sometimes lead to inadvertent pain. That was one incident that I should have discussed with the hurt wife before I discussed it with anyone else, even a prospective member of the group.
The key may be found in the public nature of the person or organization.
We are a culture of gossips. People Magazine, Perez Hilton, the supermarket tabloids, etc. are replete with stories and rumors of public figures. When you are a public figure, you can expect the public to focus on you.You trade your private life for the public arena. Therefore, you open yourself up to examination and critique.
The law recognizes deliberate slander which is a lie with the intent to harm another person. You, as the critic, can say what you believe to be true. For example, there are many who still believe that Casey Anthony is guilty in the death of her daughter even though she is innocent in the eyes of the law. Many talking heads have stated their beliefs on this matter. However, they cannot not say that Casey Anthony has murdered other people since no such evidence has been found or discussed.
Does the person or organization vie for attention in the media or community?
When a person opens themselves up to public recognition and/or declares themselves to be a role model, they are open for critique. How many politicians, espousing "family values" have been caught in embarrassing situations which appear to contradict their belief system? How many pastors have done the same thing?
Even more importantly, many of today's Christian leaders and pastors often hold themselves us to be examples for the Christian and secular community. As I often say, they jump up and down, wanting to be recognized so that people will come to their church. They are handing out an invitation to the world to look at them, quite closely. When they do so, they should expect that their lives will come under the microscope.
They cannot tell others to sacrifice and still hold onto their houses and private jet rides. They cannot condemn Jerry Sandusky and expect a pass on a poorly handled pedophile situation in their friend's church.
One church leader put out a stupid tweet in which he declared that God caused a destructive hurricane because the USA was looking at ratifying gay marriage. Then he, and his friends, got bent out of shape when people disagreed with his apparent understanding of the Almighty. It was his fault. He went public, he gets to be criticized in the public. If you can't take the heat of being under a microscope, then don't run for Congress and don't be a pastor. It is part of the territory. To claim that discussing a stupid tweet is gossip, is ridiculous.
Accusations of gossip are often "gag orders."
The vast majority of posts under a Google search for "gossip" comes from churches and are written by pastors or leaders condemning gossip. I found an excellent post by Joy at Joy in the Journey called Gossip, Accountability and the Myth of Pastor Infallibility commenting on gossip. She called the following pastor's assumptions a "gag order."
I recently read a series on gossip written by the pastor of a local church. In it, he defines gossip as “secret slander. Or as one lexicon defines it, gossip is ‘providing harmful information about a person, often spoken in whispers or in low voice, with the implication that such information is not widely known and therefore should presumably be kept secret.’” In the series, he describes at length all the harm that can be done by engaging in this kind of talk, whether or not it’s the truth about a person, and he calls on people to Jesus Christ’s standard of perfection – only godly speech always.
Churches and leaders are still sinful.
Joy continues
We have to accept that people at all levels are going to screw up, mistreat one another, break laws, and then try to cover it up. What are we to do then? If we are forbidden from ever discussing issues with anyone except the person involved, how can we hold one another accountable? How can we bring abuse, lying, stealing, cheating, manipulation, and any other sort of corruption to light?
The key to discussing negative things is the word "Why."
Are you trying to trash their reputation? Or are you seeking their best interests, and those of everyone else involved? Are you trying to confirm whether your impressions or observations are true or accurate? Have you gone to that person directly and been rebuffed? Are you trying to remedy a bad situation, protect someone from being abused, prevent laws from being broken, or just help a person do the right thing or break a harmful habit? These are all right, good, healthy, and important reasons to discuss something harmful about a person.
When is it not gossip?
It is really quite simple. It is not gossip when you, as a church member, have a question or concern and need an answer. If one is a member of a church, (s)he has the right, and even the obligation, to question the use of tithes and the lifestyles of the pastors and church leaders. They have a moral duty to raise concerns about the safety and care of children as well as any doctrine that is being taught. They should question changes in church bylaws and constitutions. They have a right to know about the theological stances of the pastors and leaders They should expect that pastors and church leaders will answer both thoroughly and truthfully.
Church leaders and pastors need to pull on their big boy pants and be willing to discuss the concerns of any member, even if it is awkward. They should be willing to take critique and role model how big boys in Christ handle criticism and concerns. Otherwise, they will come off looking like wussy Pharisees.
Here are some examples of problems which should be discussed and do not constitute gossip. In each of these circumstances, the people involved have been accused of gossip and slander.Some details have been changed.
- Recently we received communication from a woman who expressed concern about the handling of money matters in her church. It appears that the lead pastor (YRR megachurch) had moved to a very large home. During this time, he has been involved in massive fund raising in the church. The budget was presented to the congregation with little time to look it over prior to the vote. There was a significant amount of money that was being held in an account to "bless the pastors." When she raised her had and asked a question about this, she was told that they needed the money to hold onto the great pastors they already had. They refused to answer more questions. This person had given a great deal of money to the church and was now questioning the use of that money.The elders refuse to answer any further inquiries on the matter.
- There is a large church in which a pedophile badly harmed a group of boys. He is serving a lengthy sentence for his crimes. A mother of one of the boys let some church members know that they had reported an incident a year previous to the church. Their report was not only ignored but the psychological well-being of her son was called into question. The church had elected not to report the incident and did not have to because of lax reporting laws in that state.
- A pastor, along with his buddies, run up a $60 million debt. The pastor is living in a $2 million home. He is asking people to sacrifice to pay of the debt and he is still living in his mansion.
- The Sovereign Grace Survivors site has documented years of alleged reports of child sex abuse and harsh discipline. Lawsuits have been filed. Yet many of the YRR crowd defend the ministry.
- A husband and wife spent many years telling people how to live a biblical, Christian marriage. They gave classes and were brought in on tough situations. They often made people feel bad because they would hold up their marriage as an example on how to do marriage. They got a divorce. Some folks who were the recipients of their "wisdom" have discussed it with one another, trying to figure what went wrong.
- A pastor who decided to change the entire Sunday school program to better prepare kids for "the world" was highly critical of parents who enjoyed the old system. He was adamant, saying this program would prevent children from leaving the faith when they went to college. Two of his kids have left the faith after years of the "perfect" SS program.
In each of the above circumstances, the people attempting to confront the situation were accused of gossip and slander. But, was it? I would say no.
In Justin Taylor's post How to Stop Church Killing Gossip, he quotes Ray Ortlund who lists the outcomes of "gossip." It is important to remember that Ray Ortlund has been a supporter of CJ Mahaney. As you read the following list, I have an assignment for you. Read it in light of today's church scandals and ask this question. "Is he talking about gossip or gag orders?" I also have a question. Where are the Bible verses to back up his assertions?
Gossip is our dark moral fervor eagerly seeking gratification.
Gossip makes us feel important and needed as we declare our judgments.
It makes us feel powerful to cut someone else down to size, especially someone we are jealous of.
Gossip is a sin rarely disciplined but often more socially destructive than the sensational sins.
Gossip leaves a wide trail of devastation wherever and however it goes – word of mouth, email, blogging, YouTube.
It ruins hard-won reputations with cowardly but effective weapons of misrepresentation.
It makes the Body of Christ look like the Body of Antichrist – destroyers rather than healers.
It exposes the hostility in our hearts and discredits the gospel in the eyes of the world. Then we wonder why we don’t see more conversions, why “the ground is so hard.”
Lydia's Corner: 2 Chronicles 35:1-36:23 1 Corinthians 1:1-17 Psalm 27:1-6 Proverbs 20:20-21
In my experience people only pull the gossip card when what they are trying to kill is cold hard fact.
I know that I went without answers to my questions about CLC and SGM for years due to the fear of gossiping about the pastors. It felt good when I finally was able to discuss my concerns with friends and get validation.
However, on the flip side, when I was leaving the church, I got together with some folks who were also disillusioned, and I eventually had to either separate myself from some of the folks or set boundaries to not keep discussing things over and over, which was preventing me from moving on and keeping me in a very negative place. It is very important to process things, but I had to make sure I was processing and not wallowing. The combination approach worked well for me, along with counseling, to seek truth.
In another experience in a separate small church plant, the pastor was totally uncomfortable with an awkward conversation, and when he had it with several people in a row (I was the second one), most of us ended up walking with our feet – after he strongly suggested it. Needless to say, that church is no longer around.
The truth is an iron clad defense against slander. If the accusation is true, it is by definition not slander.
I agree that gossip can be really bad for a church. And I even agree that it is “talking about something when you are not part of the problem or the solution” (or however it is said). Where I disagree is that a lot of times people are labeled as not part of the solution when they are exactly that. Bringing issues to light that need to be in the light is not Gossip. And the truth can never be slander.
“Gossip is our dark moral fervor eagerly seeking gratification.
Gossip makes us feel important and needed as we declare our judgments.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
so, trying to make people afraid of their own conscience, common sense, survival instinct, intuition.
sounds like mind-control
breaking a person down in their mind, to build them back up again reprogrammed.
–One’s conscience & common sense reprogrammed as something to be suspicious of.
–Self-worth reprogrammed as self-importance.
–Survival instinct reprogrammed as self-centeredness.
–A sense of justice reprogrammed as anger & vengefulness.
All of these healthy, life-promoting drives reprogrammed as undesirable, unholy, unsanctified, ungodly, and reason to be emblazoned with the letter “F” for failure in your church’s eyes and God’s eyes.
Whatever “dark moral fervor” is, I think Ray Ortlund’s personal stash is making an unwitting appearance here.
(“dark moral fervor”…. good grief, Ray)
@ elastigirl:
I was just asking myself that same question.
Another thing gossip and slander aren’t: telling your own story of what happened to you.
Some years ago, my family started attending a new church. Several of the elders knew who we were and that we had gone to a specific church previously. They asked us why we were now going to that church. We were uncomfortable with telling them why, but did anyway because they wanted/needed to know. It was because of how we were treated at the former church.
Several months later, in a meeting with the new church’s elders, they accused us of gossip and slander against our former church. All for telling our own story using facts and truth that the elders demanded anyway.
If you ask a question, you must be able to handle a truthful answer. If not, don’t ask it.
@ Hester:
@ elastigirl:
Well, the way these things usually play out, “dark moral fervor” is whatever they (including Ray) deem it to be. In other words, it is always undefined to you and me, but ‘clear as glass’ to them (as in see through) 🙂
Bridget wrote:
As it was to the Thought Police of the Ministry of Love (minluv).
elastigirl wrote:
As was done in the Ministry of Love (minluv).
In my case, I only inform.
In your case, you gossip.
elastigirl wrote:
Name for a metal band, maybe?
Steve Scott wrote:
A sudden image of Jack Nicholson in military garb just flashed through my mind.
Wow Steve, what a terrible thing to happen to your family. I’m sorry the new church treated you that way.
Trying to figure out how to apply your experience to my circumstances as we begin to make our own transition from a church gone neo-Puritan to a new place of worship. May be best to talk with my spouse and come up with a vague pat answer about our previous church experience, at least until we find a safe place to land.
@ numo:
sigh….. pretentious wordsmithing
++++++
but, yes, GREAT name for a metal band! DMF “hey, just got tickets to the DMF concert!” “Whatcha listin’ to?” “DMF”
Jeff S wrote:
Interesting observation. Upon my removal from the local church, the elders told the congregation that I was a slanderer, then told them that they were not to discuss this charge with me as this would be gossip. They said they would entertain questions only from my friends, then when one friend dared to inquire, she was told she was “neither part of the problem or part of the solution.” Case closed! Next!
I googled “not part of the solution gossip slander” and I learned that this is an incredibly wide-spread pat answer among Christian writers/bloggers. When I was MALR (middle aged, listless, reformed), I realize now that I relished pat answers to the hardest biblical passages (think Sproul; no question left unequivically answered). “Come let us reason together…” Think I’ll take Him up on that.
Janet wrote:
Yes, I’ve heard it a lot. And I think a lot of people probably react strongly to the definition because it has been so widely used, especially to dismiss people. And perhaps because it is, as you say, a “pat answer”.
But the underlying flaw is this idea that keeping things in the dark is healthier for the church and the way to peace. In fact, if I am part of the family of God and a dear brother or sister is in trouble, I am called to be part of the solution. Now if I am breaching confidentiality, that is one thing- but asking questions of genuine concern, that is not gossip. So I’m OK with defining gossip as “neither part of the problem or part of the solution”, as long as we understand that being “part of the solution” involves the community and not hiding things in the dark.
I’m sorry that you had to go through that with your church. I don’t know how they justified using those words with you, but clearly they were misusing them.
Jeff, I agree with your comment. Clearly, erring on the side of discretion when there is questionable benefit to involving oneself in a matter is prudent. But I think this experience more than any other in my life has exposed cowardice under the mantle of shepherd and overseer of souls more than any other, and I want to debunk this false level of protection. While not always so (as you pointed out), it can be as phony as “touching not the Lord’s anointed.”
Steve Scott wrote:
Steve — What a story. I feel for you and your family. What a frustrating group of elders. Self-righteousness + power = Pharisee-ism.
It all comes down to motive. If a person in a church asks a question in a public forum, that cannot be gossip unless private info is relayed. To question church leaders…hold them accountable…is healthy for a church. If you don’t want people looking at how you live, then don’t be a leader in a church. The NT talks about teachers having “double honor” and that they should be above reproach. So get over it if you are in leadership. If you want anonymity, just show up for morning service and then run home. To me gossip is when my private problems that are NOT public are shared to bring me down. I have been the victim of this, and it hurts. But to equate questioning, looking for answers, sharing pain and confusion with gossip is a bit of a stretch. Get over it, pastors, and be open and honest with your congregation. See what happens.
@ justabeliever:
How true. Of course, the trouble with motive is that we’re not privy to a person’s motives, and that stick points both ways – bad motives can be made to appear good, and good motives can be made to appear bad. This enabled, for instance, Park Fiscal to demonise elders Meyer and Petry with vague accusations of having “pride” in the knowledge that he was king of the pecking order, people were predisposed to believe him, and they would therefore find it almost impossible to refute the charge regardless of whether or not it was true.
This is why Jesus commanded us to know a tree by its fruit, and to establish a matter by two or three witnesses (and given the OT strictures against bribes and conspiracy in the judicial process, I think it’s quite reasonable to require that these by truly independent witnesses).
There’s an article on my own blog here on this subject that is so brilliant it could literally change the world. The point is that Lesley and I had to cease fellowship with a person in the first instance because we just couldn’t get on with her – we found her company highly unedifying. It was appropriate to discuss this with a mutual friend, not least to put our own side of the story. We did not, or instance, have problems in our marriage as the woman in question had alleged/speculated.
None of this gave us the right to pronounce a public judgement against her and we did not do so. Neither did we accuse her privately of vague and overarching sins. These could all have been honest misunderstandings. As it turned out, the person concerned is divisive and (in the real sense of the word) a gossip, who habitually and unrepentantly spreads false and/or damaging rumours about people. We and others know this because she demonstrated that behaviour repeatedly in separate and independent settings.
As a final note, no more than a tiny handful of people on earth would, on reading this, know who the person is. There remains no need to expose her identity.
Apologies for two confusing typos in the above (as well as the tasteless humour..!). In line 9, “by” should read “be”, and in line 13, “or instance” should obviously read “for instance”.
justabeliever wrote:
JAB — Well said.
@ JustSomeGuy:Agreed.
Jeff S wrote:
Scenario: You are a member of a church and discover that there is a slush fund used to retain pastors with all sorts of bonuses, etc. The elders blow you off. You then wonder, “Am I nuts” to think this is a problem? So, you ask a few people who are also involved but no elders. You learn that, in fact few people realize what is going on and do not give a hoot. You decided to quit the church. When asked, you say that you do not approve of the level of accountability in terms of the fund.
You are neither a part of the problem or the solution. Is that gossip?
@ dee:
D’accord.
Put another way: an eldership whose deeds are evil, will love darkness.
elastigirl wrote:
I think we should enter that statement into the contest that gives awards each year for over the top writing. Now back to controlling my dark, moral fervor by drinking more coffee.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
There are many leaders and elders who go along because it is in “the best interest” of the church-gospel witness and all that jazz. The stuff down their feelings of awkwardness and become cold.
Steve Scott wrote:
Something similar happened to us over a pedophile situation. I have a new rule. Never, ever tell anyone in a new church your difficult story until you have been there for a long, long time.You need to get to know the leaders and where their loyalties lie. This could take a couple of years or more.
The way things are these days, you are only opening yourself up to criticism and pain.
Best excuse as to why you left a former church? Think up some mild disagreement with theology that is not present in your new church.(Age of earth, style of baptism, eschatology-whatever). Many of today’s churches love it when you affirm their peculiar bent. Hmmm, I am sounding cynical…
@ Seneca:
Best comment by Seneca in years!
numo wrote:
Thank you for a good laugh.
Janet wrote:
Sorry about your experience with your previous church. This happens all the time. The most important thing is to talk about it and laugh hysterically when they call it gossip.
As for pat answers…the way I view the faith is quite simple. Christianity gives me the most answers for the world that I see around me. It does not give me all the answers. That is called faith. Many young people are attracted to theology that has “all the answers.” Until, one day, they are stunned when it doesn’t. You and I are there for them when that happens. Faith is learning to see God in the darkness, when simple answers do not suffice.
@ dee:
One more and then I’ll settle down and get on with some actual ****** work (slaps self on wrist)..!
In the scenario described, you could fairly be said to be part of the problem insofar as it affects you as a member of the congregation. I don’t mean the problem is partly your fault, please note, but that it exists and you’re a part of it, and as a member of the gathering of believers you retain some responsibility to act on what you discover.
You’re certainly a part of the solution. You can’t solve the whole thing on your own, and certainly not if nobody else gives a hoot. But in discussing it with the elders and then with others, you’re taking the obvious first two steps towards addressing it. You find you can’t get any further with it, nor in conscience can you just let it lie. The net result is that you’ve brought something hidden out into the open; the judgement of the congregation is that it’s fine and doesn’t need to change; and you move on for openly declared reasons that everyone is aware of. Which means, usefully, that nobody needs to speculate or second-guess about why you “really” left.
justabeliever wrote:
I agree with this as you can see from my post. Life has gotten quit weird. The drama of private lives is now being played out in the media. In some ways, I think we come to expect that we should know everything about everybody. Look at the uproar over Miley Cyrus. I now know what “twerking”is. Wish I didn’t….
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
I have just added your blog, which will literally change the world, to our blog links.Thank you for making me smile.
Pride is one of those sins that one can always pull out of the bag because everyone on the planet has some sort of pride. It is the ubiquitous sin. Any church leader who uses this one is a jerk and a prideful jerk at that.
@ Nick Bulbeck: Agreed. Most authoritarian church would not, however. They are in charge and you are to shut up and pay up.
There’s an old-fashioned test that looks at it the other way: i.e., when is it not gossip. You ask the following three questions:
1) Is it true?
2) Is it kind?
3) Is it necessary?
It’s still only a rule of thumb – you’ll always be able to think of some scenario where it might not work – but it’s a good rule of thumb nonetheless.
Now I’m really going to get on with some work.
dee wrote:
For The Collective Good….
dee wrote:
Whether that “Theology that has All The Answers” comes from Calvin, Mohammed, Karl Marx, or Ayn Rand.
Steve Scott wrote:
Enlightened Self-Criticism before Commissars of The Party…
@ dee:
Thankyou for your gracious confidence!
I hide my pride in plain sight… hopefully even I’ll be able to see it out there!
dee wrote:
grin
P.S. I did do some actual work in between posts.
dee wrote:
You are part of the problem if you were a member of an organization doing something you didn’t agree with, and you are a part of the solution when you decided to no longer be a part of the organization.
Not gossip in my book.
Lucy Pevensie wrote:
A vague pat answer is always good in the beginning. I have often joked with my husband that I might respond by saying: (Tears in eyes, head down)..I am having a dark night of the soul. That should cause them to run.
@ dee: Listen, she didn’t really twerk. (Seriously.)
I am NO fan of that kind of choreography/performance (and the teddy bears were especially creepy, what with the whole sexualized kiddie thing that was going on), but you know… I wasn’t surprised by it all, because there are lots of other performers who are doing the same thing. it’s just that this was especially egregious, given her age and the overall exploitative-ness of it.
dee wrote:
Even a couple of years is sometimes too short. I once went to a very small church (probably about 30 people) for six years. Nice people, everyone was very close with each other, thought I knew them well. Then all of a sudden they got on this Westminster confession/rules/joining a denomination craze (they had been completely non denominational for the whole time before this, it was a complete 180 from where they had been). They also started making everyone become official members and sign the fabled membership/slave agreement.
Some of the members got disturbed and confronted the pastor and the elder about this sudden alarming turn off events. They were basically told to shut up, we don’t care what you guys think. All these people plus myself left. The church imploded six months later and no longer exists, and everyone went their separate ways.
Just when you think you know people…
When our kids were enrolled in a classical Christian school made in the Holy Image of Doug Wilson, you couldn’t even talk about a concern about your own child to another parent if the school was a part of the story; that was “gossip” in their eyes. Saying things to another parent like, “I was a little taken aback they got so much homework tonight since the spring musical program this evening runs for 2 hours” would get you into hot water – it was seen as unjustified gossip about the teacher who assigned the homework. No, we didn’t stay there … but we did stay too long.
So well said! We are much happier with clear/pat answers than the struggle. Love the MALR moniker! Janet wrote:
Hester wrote:
I’m scratching my head at that as well.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
This is pretty much the one I go with, except I have to watch out for the temptation to subsume #3 to #2. If it’s necessary then it’s necessary. One seeks to phrase things in the least inflammatory manner, but someone is going to be mad about it and call it unkind anyway. Pretty much guaranteed.
‘Dark moral fervor’ makes me want to shout ‘rural juror’ really loud. Maybe also ‘urban fervor’….
I know what “dark” and “moral” are, but what’s “fervor”? Is it a phonetic spelling of a Cockney describing something that is more distant?
(That’ll probably make more sense to the right of the Atlantic.)
Could he have meant “fervour”? Can there be any defence for taking such licence? When will these people realise? In the autumn, I suppose. He clearly isn’t the kind of man who wears his pants outside his trousers.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Ha ha Nick…I did cringe when typing the *wrong* spelling…but everything I quoted was written by an American so I felt it was the right thing to do.
@ Beakerj: LOLZ!
A couple of things strike me about these leaders who see any questioning as gossip. First, they are far more interested in policing “gossip” when it’s about them, but as far as I can tell have precious little interest when the subject of the “gossip” is someone else. Seems rather self-centered.
Second, their attitude and pride is copied by people in the pews in too many cases. This is the case with one of my family members. Some of us had some very legitimate concerns about the ethics of some of their actions. It wasn’t long before we were chided for our “restlessness” and our questions and pleading with this person to reconsider their actions were characterized as “harassment.” We got shut down and shut out in short order.
They don’t care what happens to anyone else, but question God’s anointed and they’ll circle the wagons quicker than you can blink. If that isn’t hubris and spiritual elitism at its worst, I don’t know what is.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
@ Beakerj:
Hehehe. 😆
@ John:
“Restlessness”?
formerly anonymous wrote:
Yup. That and “discontent.” Well, at least the discontent part was true. I’ve been known to show discontent when injustice is happening.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
makes perfect sense here on the edge of the Pacific, if you can adam & eve it.
@ Beakerj:
you sound like my brit husband (“…such a small dictionary you americans have”)
John wrote:
Wow- another code word to go along with pride, sinfully craving answers, and bitter. These guys are just so tedious. I am sorry for your experience.
@ numo:
I am not surprised that I do not understand the intricacies of judging twerking. I just learned the term this weekend.
Leila wrote:
You were in trouble before you even started! And from what I know about Wilson, paranoia would not be out of the question.
John wrote:
But what does that mean that you are “restless”? I don’t get it.
(And I gather it means something different from the young, restless, reformed where I take it restlessness is a good thing.)
@ formerly anonymous:
As Dee said, it’s another code word for “you don’t need to know or understand . . . ye of little faith.” It’s a put down in an attempt to squelch questioning and concern. “Belittling” is the common respknse from many leaders who are in the authoritative mode.
No. Not a good thing 🙁
@ Bridget:
. . . that’s ‘response.’
@ dee: afaik, it comes from New Orleans originally, from a style of dance music known as bounce. it’s kind of a portmanteau word; a combination of “twist” and
“work it.”
It’s not exactly a move for the faint of heart, believe me! (And definitely NOT something I would ever attempt.)
I have regrets about sticking my neck out to defend others against a child molesting pastor. But it’s how He made me and I trust that He has a plan no matter how it effects me.
@ Tim Taylor:
Tim,
can you elaborate on “regrets”?
elastigirl wrote:
Blimey, guvnor.
numo wrote:
I knew someone would get it. I also thought it might be you 🙂
Pingback: Slander or Coverup? « Crossroad Junction
formerly anonymous wrote:
The typical response of this tight knit group. If they did it, it is good. If we did it, it is bad.
@ numo: I get it! You must be young and flexible to attain it. Would you say it is this generation’s belly dance?
@ Tim Taylor: Could you tell us your story? There are many here who have done the same, including your two hosts.
@ Beakerj: This is what I like about having more time to comment. Are we discussing the British tendency to add “u” into words with “o’s?” I think it looks petty cool. You do know that merely having British accent raises your IQ in the eyes of your listeners by 20 points?
When I write scientific papers even for British journals I am tempted not use “u” because the American reviewers think I cannot spell…. ‘two great nations separated by a common language’ (George Bernard Shaw – I think) – is what I wrote gossip?
dee wrote:
I believe it was the other way around. The American spelling *removed* the “u” for some reason. And also the “a” in words like pediatrician – properly spelled paediatrician, from the Greek.
numo wrote:
True that. There’s nothing new under the sun (*cough* Rammstein *cough*).
I think if the time comes that I need to part ways with my current church, I’m going to say something like “I feel that I’ve completed the work that God called me here to do, and God has now called me to another place where I am needed to serve.” Hey, if it’s good enough for the big shots… 😉
@ dee: No, I don’t, really.
Belly dance is Middle Eastern/North African; this Move (it’s not a dance per se) is from black New Orleans.
Seriously, there are *huge* differences. Besides, real “belly” dance is very artful and not necessarily as sexually suggestive as it’s often presented in the West.
@ dee: Not to mention “tyres” (as opposed to “tires”).
formerly anonymous wrote:
It’s code for any energy spent opposing or questioning them. These were not the YRR crowd, so it was definitely not a positive. It’s code for “you are supposed to be at peace with whatever we do and not oppose it; anything else is sin on your part.”
John wrote:
Oh. OK. Wow. That’s obnoxious enough to become self fulfilling….
Through a glass darkly wrote:
Touche!
@ Dee:
That’s “Toche!” over here…
dee –
“Which au courant SE megapastor is building a 16,000 sq ft house on 20 acres and is still crying for money?”
I realize that this blog provides a valuable service by calling out abuses in churches, but this seems to me to be a coy, gossipy way to do it. Reminds me of “blind items” in self-named gossip columns. Why not just name the person in an article? It’s possible that you (and, I guess, deb) assume that most people here will know about whom you are speaking. Anyway, I don’t.
I see this as an anomaly in your very good blog.
You may find it amusing when one’s point to the Bible in support of some area of truth but I find it downright hypocritical of you to then fill your post with supposedly biblical (as well as secular) absolutes about what slander and gossip are, how to deal with it, etc.
Are you not guilty of the same thing you look down on others for doing?
Is slander and gossip not something you would consider a secondary issue?
You, like many others, seem to look down on what you call secondary issues as if there is no truth that we should all unitedly embrace about such issues and as if Jesus’s statement that whoever keeps and teaches the least issue (along with the others) will be called great in the Kingdom of God.
Carlos
@ Carlos:
“Jesus’s statement that whoever keeps and teaches the least issue (along with the others) will be called great in the Kingdom of God.”
Can you remind me where Jesus says that?
I don’t believe that anyone said that there is no truth in secondary issues. There are many interpretations regarding secondary issues, as well as first issues. This makes it difficult to be united about all issues, especially secondary ones.
@ Carlos:
There’s a difference between being open handed about an issue and saying that it doesn’t matter.
It seems the definition of “Gossip” is up for debate, but slander can never mean, and never will mean, telling the truth. Slander is by definition built on a lie. Words have meaning, and lying is core to the meaning of the word “Slander”. A person telling the truth may be guilty of something, but it isn’t slander.
@ Carlos:
OK, but I’d like to make two points in defence of Deebs’ intent here.
ONE: the post wasn’t about the exact definition of slander and gossip, nor was it saying that slander and gossip don’t matter and we can do both if we feel like it. It was about the way in which believers are often wrongly accused of slander/gossip in order to protect the strong and trample on the weak. That’s not a secondary issue.
Which brings me to TWO: well, a secondary issue just means an issue that Christians are free to differ on. I think – correct me if I’ve misunderstood you – you too are, perhaps, implying that the way we treat one another is not secondary. I agree, and I’m sure Deebs do too, because that’s the very reason they started TWW. There are too many believers being attacked in churches and, because they do not have publishing deals or big reputations, these believers had nobody to defend them or get outraged on their behalf.
@ Bridget:
I think Carlos was thinking of Matthew 5:
To our UK friends,
Please use the u whenever you can. I can read it in the Queens English and it sounds so much better in my brain. It makes me feel smarter for some reason.
The pastoral team of a church we used to attend released a special memo for the whole church because, due to several high profile snafus, there were growing concerns about this pastor’s competency in a number of different ministerial arenas.
The memo was essentially a gag order on critiquing the pastor. It literally said, “You are not allowed to critique the pastor.” It also said, “You are not allowed to gossip.” Here is the kicker, and here is when I went from warning bells to full-on air raid sirens: “In this church gossip is defined as anything negative said about anyone when they are not present.”
The problem with this is that, while the Bible certainly condemns gossip and slander, the original Hebrew and Greek behind both of these terms carries the connotation of false speech, intended to do evil (harm, deceive, etc.). The Bible never confuses honest critique with gossip/slander. In fact, there is a lot of honest critique in both Old and New Testaments. In the OT, the prophets do a lot of “critiquing”(in some very provocative language!) that Calvinistas today would probably label as “sinful.” And in the NT, Jesus situates himself with within Israel’s prophetic tradition by launching some of the most scathing critiques in all of Scripture!
And not that I need to use extra-biblical evidence, but if we look at the literature of Luther, Calvin, and Knox, we see some pretty potent critique as well. Would the Calvinistas label the Reformers’ critique as gossip/slander?
(For some educational fun, try out the Luther Insulter at http://ergofabulous.org/luther/)
On a related note (sorry for the double post):
I’d be happy to write up a brief overview of the original meaning of the words many modern translations render as “gossip” and “slander.”
It’s actually a very interesting exegetical issue that has the potential to fundamentally alter some very common (but perhaps inadequate) readings of famous biblical stories. (For example: Gen. 37 and Num. 13-14)
Mr. H,
Please do. I am personally wondering what Joseph’s story has to do with gossip or slander.
@ Mr.H:
Mr H, that link is hilarious
@ Anon 1:
Indeed. I particularly like this one:
Could be adapted for people who do read books but assume they’re the only people who can. Then again, could be a warning to me to keep my statements of opinion circumspect.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
BTW – your blog has given me hope, has restored my faith in Christianity somewhat – if the church has any future, this is how it starts.
@ gus: Thanks. That’s the kind of thing that gives a man the strength to continue.
JeffB wrote:
There is a reason for that comment. Did you know that some pastors sue people for discussing their homes, claiming that such a discussion is a vague threat to their safety? Just ask Tom Rich and others.
In this particular instance, i received a call from a very upset church member about this very issue. I know who it is. I happen to know that people from that church read here and I think the pastor’s staff does as well. I have even viewed the property on Google maps.
This item is to serve as a warning that people are watching pastors who benefit from their position. This guy often discusses money (and no, he is not one of the typical prosperity gospel preachers). You do know who he is, BTW.
There are a number of current pastors who are on a rant about giving sacrificially to the church and yet they live much better than their members. They also fly on private jets, anted up by people in their congregation who are buying their way into leadership positions.
These pastors are not distinguished by their doctrinal bent because they come from all quarters. So this is not a dig at theology either.
I believe it is in the best interests of all contributors to a church to ascertain the lifestyle of their leaders. This is my way of reminding everyone to do so.
And yes, it does get me mad that a pastor would live like that when I know that there are people in that congregation who have very little and are sacrificing greatly for this nonsense. (And no, he did not inherit money from his daddy).
Thank you for asking about it.
Carlos wrote:
Could you give me the Bible reference for this so I can read it before I respond? Thanks.
@ Bridget: Kind of like “sinfully craving answers.” If someone had said that to me, I would have started laughing. I had a pastor say something ridiculous to me once, trying to put me down-well actually trying to get me to shut up. I started to giggle. It totally threw him off balance and he was unable to continue with his rant.
Josh wrote:
Best leaving line ever! I shall remember it.
@ dee: I put it as a header on the home page.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
That is the nicest thing anyone has ever said about us. You understand our motivation.
Anon 1 wrote:
Dittou!
Mr.H wrote:
Dee would be laughing so hard that she would be the first person thrown out of a church for laughing.
Mr.H wrote:
Would you, please?
@ gus: Thank you for your kind comment on Nick’s blog. I love to hear such things about good people (for our Calvinist friends, I mean good yet totally depraved people :0 ).
I would sit still and blithely watch how you, the devil, and your sausages and your tripes vainly fret and torment yourselves, and blubber and writhe, achieving nothing except to make us laugh and make you own case worse. Indeed, I would like to see you say aloud what you write, for if you did, people would gather with chains and bars and out of sympathy would seize and bind you as demoniacs. And if people did not do this, then, perhaps at God’s prompting, oxen and swine would trample you to death with their horns and hoofs.
From Against Hanswurst, pg. 188 of Luther’s Works, Vol. 41Mr.H wrote:
@ Mr.H:
I have added this blog to our roll.
@ dee: I think there are a few out there who think this of your humble, adorable blog queens.
dee wrote:
I think that is a good approach to a lot of the B.S. that comes from the mouths of pastors who think they have been called to control the lives of all of the members — laugh at them out loud. As in “That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard a pastor say!”
@ Arce:
BTW, Julie Anne and friends need to use the “most ridiculous” line with her former pastor, who seems bent on making a joke out of his life, perhaps a tragi-comedy!
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Ah, yes. The quote is one small part of the sermon on the mount (that is recorded through three chapters) by Jesus when he was teaching his disciples. Thank you, context is so important.
Joining the discussion late. That is a good way to put using the label “gossip.” It becomes a gag order.
IMO, a lot of what just came out about Sovereing Grace Ministries and C.J. Mahaney were able to be hidden for so long due to how SGM defines what is “gossip” and “slander.”
I remember when the SGM Survivors blog came out. A lot of SGM members would try and post claiming that the blog was “gossip” and “slander.” Fortunately that didn’t stop Kris and Guy from proceeding with their blog.
Now with blog like Survivors and TWW, leaders questionable actions are no longer able to be done in secret like they were in the past. I am sure SGM Leaders and other church leaders don’t like not being able to control what is said about them. I am sure SGM Leaders are now more cautious about doing questionable actions knowing there is now a risk that these actions will be posted online on various blogs.
There is a story how CLC (Covenant LIfe Church) poorly handled a case when a father molested his step daughter (happened like 26 years ago). Sadly the CLC leaders seemed to side with molester rather than the wife and daughter even trying to force the wife to go lenient on the molesting husband. CLC Leaders reportedly even cut off support they couldn’t have given this poor mother with her many children.
I wonder how things would have gone if CLC members were made aware at the time how questionably (at best) CLC Leaders handled this molesting.
One a similar note, here is a new book out:
http://www.amazon.com/Resisting-Gossip-Winning-Wagging-Tongue/dp/1619580764/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1377287971&sr=8-1&keywords=resisting+gossip
I imagine this books is more along the the lines of a gag order vs. a balanced approach to what is really gossip and slander.
@ dee:
Thanks for your reply.
“Did you know that some pastors sue people for discussing their homes, claiming that such a discussion is a vague threat to their safety?” No, I didn’t, but I’m not surprised. Wouldn’t put it past them.
I agree with you about this type of pastor. I hope you’ll do an article on him. You say I know who he is, but I don’t know to whom you’re referring. If that makes sense.
JeffB wrote:
Won’t God protect them? That is what they tell people. (I actually witnessed a mega church pastor tell someone who had a real bad issue that God would protect them while his bodyguard was outside his office)
“They also fly on private jets, anted up by people in their congregation who are buying their way into leadership positions.”
Yes, and I am thinking the one you are referring to had a private jet take him off comfortably after speaking at a very large convention a few years back. I remember the disgust some had concerning it. Sounds like him, same region, etc.
Didn’t Brunson claim Tom was stalking him by looking at his home on google sat maps? (you cannot make this stuff up!)
Celebrity Christianity. Kind of makes you wonder what they think “the first will be last and the last, first”, means?
dee wrote:
We are Dee, but only tangentially…obviously our original spelling looks better, because it *is* better. And hearing me say it in my very precise Southern English accent (not sure what accent you have Nick – I sound mildly posh) it is just the bees knees. Americans love my accent, they go all wonky about it & make me repeat things. Any time you want me to ring you & read things in the accent of intellectual dignity & authority just let me know 🙂
But what I was actually getting at is that ‘rural juror’ & ‘urban fervor’ are jokes from the series 30 Rock where Tina Fey’s assistant is involved in a film called Rural Juror ( & it’s sequel Urban Fervor), & due to their accents it’s utterly hilarious. ‘Dark Moral Fervor’ is cut from the very same cloth.
And please, everyone, have some extra ‘u’s & ‘a’s for your poor deprived words: auauauauauaauuauuauauauauauauauauauauauuauauauaauuaauuauuuauauauauauuauauauauuauauu
Anon 1 wrote:
And the good news is, it will actually make you smarter. More neurons will fire, pathways will be made…you’re welcome.
Beaker, I wonder if there is a correlating study showing that a Southern accent automatically makes your IQ 20 points lower? I hope not! :o)
Beakerj wrote:
I, too. A fine combination (though I say it myself) of aspirated West Midlands consonants and Cambridge University vowels. Except that “bath” and “path” rhyme with “Cath”, not “Garth”. Though up here in Scotland (I emigrated north over 20 years ago but still cannae dae Weegie properly), there’s no such distinction.
Beakerj wrote:
…legends will be rewritten…
Anon 1 wrote:
Is it that, or is it that having an IQ 20 points lower causes one to drawl? I ask because “drawl” sounds too similar to “drool” to be anything but a pejorative term.
Though I should talk. My native Brummie was voted the second stupidest accent in the UK.
(“Uneducated Glasgwegian”, in case you were wondering. Like the guy in this advert.)
Hester, JeffS, I want you to join my new band, “Dark Moral Fervor” 🙂 From the comments here I think it’ll be a goer!
Thanks to the wonders of the Internet we needn’t even be in the same room to play together! (But thinks: if they’re not present with me, is that musical gossip?).
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
It’s the heat. It makes us talk slower.
Kolya wrote:
Is it musical gossip? Only if it’s bad! 😉
Well, if there’s any sad pathetic nerds like me here, they can listen to tons of Southern accents here and compare them… 😉
http://aschmann.net/AmEng/
Kolya wrote:
Only if you play negatively or pridefully.
Anon 1 wrote:
Hmm… heat, when it happens in Blightly, doesn’t make us talk slower. It makes us wander round outside with our shirts off (I refer to the men, obviously) getting really badly sunburnt. And exhibiting pasty white rolls of middle-age spread that really should be kept underneath shirts.
Obviously, “heat” here means anything over about 20 C. Up into the late 30’s and everything grinds to a halt.
@ Kolya:
I’m in!
We were kindly asked to leave our former place of worship, 3 weeks after I had BRAIN SURGERY when a neighbor who was in our bible study “accidentally butt dialed” the assc. pastor, and my husband was asking the neighbor if everything was ok with the pastor and his health as he had been acting differently lately. The pastor pulls up in our yard, attempts to come in the house, and instead starts a confrontation in our yard, which ended in some line like “keep a short list” AND we were asked to find another place if we weren’t getting what we were needing at this church. Attempt to contact the lead pastor and other assc. pastor? NOTHING.
A few weeks before my brain tumor was found, I was involved in a charitable event for a friend who has a terminal illness. I was emailed the night of the event, and was told that 27,000 was raised. The next week, the mother of my friend informed us that they received less than half of that. We started asking questions. I guess my “brain damage” from the surgery was an easy out.
None of this is gossip. All totally happened. Thinking back on it (happened a year ago) it almost sounds surreal.
I’m very curious if anyone else was “asked to leave” from this Katy area church, but I’m not naming names, AS THAT might be considered slander.
@ Jo Anna Robbins:
I am so, so sorry for what you have been through. Having a daughter who had surgery for a brain tumor, my heart goes out to you.
I will say this as kindly as possible. You had a JERK for a pastor. I am so glad you are out of there. if you want to email me the name of the church, I will ask around. And you can be sure I will keep it totally confidential.
I swear things are getting more and more ridiculous in today’s pastor driven churches.
How are you doing? Did you need radiation or chemo? Where was it located? Sorry for the questions. I really care about those who struggle with brain tumors.
Absolutely despicable behavior from any Christian, and ESPECIALLY from a pastor! That must have felt so terrible to be spoken to and treated that way by someone whose job is to care for you. I’m so sorry.
Based on the way he reacted to the situation, it seems that he already had some pre-existing issues (insecurity especially). In other words, it’s not you, it’s him. The poor man sounds like he needs a break from leadership, and probably some sort of therapy/counseling (NOT nouthetic).
On a related note:
Jo Anna Robbins wrote:
I am not encouraging or discouraging you from sharing identities, but I do think that it’s important to clarify that it would not be slander if you chose to publicly share the identity of a pastor who behaved this way. In order for it to be slander (in the way the Bible discusses slander), you’d have to (a) make up a fake story and (b) share the fake story with the intent to harm him.
@ Jo Anna Robbins:
Am sorry to read of your recent surgery, hope you are recovering well. My husband had two brain hematonas drained several years back…..scary time.
Am also saddened to read of your mistreatment (especially when ill) from your pastor / church. Where has kindness and compassion gone? Can sort of relate to your story because when I was having chemo for my original cancer I was absent from church for periods of weeks. I made a comment to the newish pastor of not being aware of some changes in the church (hadn’t been announced in church bulletin, etc) and he came back at me by saying, “well you’re not around here much these days”, as if I were absent from church and out having fun.
Do not understand these new pastors at all……more like sheep beaters then shepherds.
I have never once … never once … heard someone accuse another of gossip &/or slander without being able to immediately come up with an example of how the accuser had gossiped &/or slandered someone else. Like any sin, one has to check themselves first, then inquire to see if they really understand where the person is coming from, before finally gently rebuking one with the goal of restoration. Instead of this, I see people arrogantly assuming they know the context of the comments and self-righteously rebuking another harshly and publicly.
If someone was an actual habitual gossiper who creates real divisions, then rebuking publicly and harshly (after all other avenues have been exhausted,) would be appropriate.
I have three experiences in this area:
1. Our small church was in transition and about to vote on a new pastor out of 3 candidates. A young couple invited us to their bar-b-que and asked us to tell them what the Bible says about choosing a pastor. We showed them the list of qualifications, discussed them, and then moved on to eating.
We got a knock at the door. One of the pastoral candidates saw us from his backyard and showed up with a church elder declaring we needed to cease and desist our “secret and subversive” meeting immediately. We were accused of gossiping and trying to influence the outcome of the vote. The candidate said the leadership had told the congregation they could not discuss the vote prior to the vote. We just wrote a letter explaining what we did, what we were not doing, and made it clear that no church leadership has any right to tell us what we can and cannot talk about. It’s been about 10 years and the candidate is still mad at us. I’ve caught his wife slandering us with a group of women at a garage sale. She didn’t realize I was there and could hear her.
2. In Calvary Chapel they have in print that we are not to ever speak of anything that casts the pastor in a bad light ever. Even if his sin is causing damage, we are to simply walk away and never speak of it again. Only God is to deal with the pastor’s issues. This is precisely why my old CC pastor got away with stealing mucho money, having 4 women at the same time, committing terrible acts of spiritual abuse for a long time.
3. In a family I know, they have a very strict sense of privacy so much that anything one repeats without the permission of the one who said it is considered “gossiping” at worst and violating privacy at best. As a result, the natural accountability that is present in family life because you know each other’s business was lost. One of the daughters was able to have a secret love relationship with a man (illegal,) and thought it okay because it was her private business. She claims to be a Christian, but had become confused when the man twisted scripture to seduce her. She had no push back protection from family because everything was allowed to be kept so private. This can be applied to churches and orgs, as well.
Jeff S wrote:
In many churches where there is no membership, the only recourse one has is to leave. If you leave silently, you actually empower the one perpetrating the issue. If you talk about it with someone(s), then you may be able to bring the issue to light so others can leave, too. The goal is not to get people to leave, rather the goal is to deal with the sin issue … which in non-member churches is to either stop giving, stop serving, or leave.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Haaaaa…I was actually born in Birmingham 🙂 Born in the Sorrento Maternity Hospital in Moseley. (Within the smell of Bourneville…which explains a lot.) I totally dodged the accent by the happy circumstances of my Dad being a public school boy, my Mum being Irish, & us leaving when I was 4 for an expatriot life in Hong Kong.
The IQ & southern thing? I’ve met some very smart people from the southern states…of course, they may have been genius-level if born in England….
I’d participate more in this discussion but I have no clue as to how to get notice of replies.
I didn’t mean to just come into the discussion with a hit and run comment.
I wish everyone the best.
Carlos
@ Beakerj:
I was born in Paddington, but grew up in Sutton Coldfield – rather a long way downwind of Bournville but, of course, on the same Cross-City railway line linking Lichfield with Redditch. I still have Birmingham consonants (as I mentioned above), though, and within seconds of meeting anybody with a Birmingham accent, I pick mine up again.
P.S. All of which still entitles me, I feel, to refer to Londoners as “soft southerners”. Again, something that will make more sense this side of the Pond.
@ Carlos:
Carlos – I don’t know how to get notified automatically of replies either, but the best way I can think of is to drop in regularly and search for your name in the thread. For whatever it’s worth, I’d be really interested to see more of what you’ve got to say!
Carlos
We tried “thread” commenting. That works for blogs which have small numbers of comments. With us, the threads became so long, with several threads going on under each post, that it became confusing. We received so many complaints about the matter, that we went back to chronological posting. I am so sorry for any difficulties.
I read through a lot of your website and various articles. Many of the posts by readers and your commentary seem to be geared toward warning Christians of false gospels. What concerns me is you focus on retelling others sins, potential sins, speculative sins, and personal beliefs about others’ motives. The Church is under great attack, all Christians are being targeted by a very antichrist culture. Your public, personal, and persuasive writings are so focused on so many people who follow Jesus Christ. Since you seem to be a source of public Christian judgment of other followers of Christ, I am concerned you are a valid source of division in the Body of Christ. While I agree there are some who are very unbiblical in their love of money, loveless theologies of no forgiveness and judgment, and divergent gospels supporting division between God’s people, I don’t see Jesus Christ’s teachings in all the Scripture approving of His followers judging, dividing, not forgiving, and slandering. Didn’t Jesus say we were not to focus on pulling the weeds up with the wheat? Many of the followers of Christ your website is geared to expose, attack, isolate, and divide out of Christianity are not false prophets, wolves, or antichrist in nature. A few may be which we are told to test and approve their messages. We are not instructed to judge their messages and then divide out. We are instructed to restore. Taking it upon yourself and the commentary of others to publically judge, divide, not forgive, and slander other true followers of Jesus Christ looks to violate everything described in God’s definition of love. This website is a clear record of wrongs naming fallen people who should be restored not divided out further. I even read some articles on those who have repented who are depicted for their past sins without forgiveness by your commentary. Allowing others to keep peoples sins alive who have publicly repented is very much so against the nature of Christ. You know the Scripture and I urge you sister and all other writers to embrace all the Bible. Matthew 24, Luke 21, Mark 13 reveal a full on betrayal of those of faith against one another during the end times per Jesus. I personally am not going to fight other professing followers of Christ from other traditions. None of the followers of Jesus Christ have the time to be distracted from fulfilling the Great Commission. Only those who “stand firm in their faith till the end will be saved”. We must all stand firm in Jesus Christ together to overcome the betrayal Jesus said would come from those who give up their faith when persecution comes. You and all who are diligent in your faith for Christ are just as much Christ’s followers as the people you appear to be judging. Jesus Christ will be the judge of His people. If you read this and want to fight, I choose not to engage. I beg you to refocus on those who do not know our Lord Jesus Christ and represent love, forgiveness, and living out the life we have in Him. This is my effort to spur others on to love and good works. Theron J. Ventura, 9-21-2013