first and read it….scary

So TVC is essentially stalking her. I guess blackmailing SIM into killing Karen’s new job with SIM wasn’t enough for L. Ron Chandler and his band of thugs.

TVC is trying to spin the story as “SIM and TVC were both cooperating and doing it right” when that was far from the truth. In the full response Karen says, “But there has been a great deal of conflict between SIM and The Village Church in this matter, especially in regards to child safety. The Village Church resisted or rebuffed many of SIM’s recommendations at every turn.” TVC went from December to March, THREE MONTHS, with Jordan attending TVC and people being encouraged to fellowship with him, without telling parents that pedophilia was the issue. THREE MONTHS. And telling Karen to “hold off” on saying something that might ruin Jordan’s reputation. This is a clear demonstration of where their priorities were… it sure wasn’t protecting kids.

@ Ben Denison:

In their world, Karen’s disobedience to their strong arm methods of micromanaging her life is a much worse sin than Jordon’s pedophilia. And they don’t even know how deep the damage to children goes with Jordan.

We see it over and over in these type churches. There is a sickness in that movement where evil is good and good is evil. It is becoming the norm out there.

Millstone.

Ben Denison wrote:

TVC went from December to March, THREE MONTHS, with Jordan attending TVC and people being encouraged to fellowship with him, without telling parents that pedophilia was the issue. THREE MONTHS. And telling Karen to “hold off” on saying something that might ruin Jordan’s reputation.

Sickening.

People who live a lie, NEVER tell the whole truth. They only tell you what they think you’ve figured out. Changes are excellent that he’s harmed children. The “leaders” of this church are vile.

Dee, Amy, and Wade, thank you for being there for Karen. She’s a very strong young woman and has stood up for truth and justice at what has to have been the worst time of her life.

It has been a while since I posted here, but Karen’s godliness and courage and love and kindness and strength, and the LACK of those things by TVC, are pretty stunning to me.

As a long-time pastor in the PCA, I thought I had seen it all. But I am not sure I have ever before seen a victim of so much spiritual abuse respond so promptly and thoroughly with such composure and strength, during the very time period that her world is being turned upside down.

At the same time (and this I have seen before; seen it a thousand times before in fact) the spiritual bullying and arrogance of so-called “elders” and “pastors” in the name of Jesus — this is a far worse form of using the Lord’s name in vain than profanity. My denomination has its own problems, but I think I can safely say that none of those men would be considered fit for office in any of the Presbyteries with which I am familiar.

Karen! You are bringing praise and honor to Jesus through all of this in ways that thrill the hearts of anyone who has eyes to see, ears to hear, and hearts to feel. Do not back down one inch to those bullies. J.I. Packer tells a wonderful anecdote in Knowing God, of a friend of his who lost much because of his stand for the gospel (non-trademarked), and how the friend said, “But it doesn’t matter, for I have known God, and they haven’t.”

Matt Chandler et al! There are some wonderful testimonies of former pastors and elders at Mars Hill who have WRITTEN OUT THEIR STATEMENTS OF REPENTANCE FOR BEING BULLIES, ASKING FOR FORGIVENESS. So there is hope for you all, if you choose to go that route by faith.

dee wrote:

Special thanks go out to Wade Burleson who deeply cares for those being wounded by churches.

I’m very thankful for Wade. He has a beautiful heart.

Disgusting. SIM was put in a despicable position.

Lydia wrote:

From her response:

I had a new sending church in place and a job description approved by SIM field leadership prior to arriving at SIM USA headquarters in Charlotte for meetings beginning March 10th. There I was informed that The Village Church had threatened that if SIM kept me on active status, they would consider it a breach of the Partnership Agreement between SIM and TVC and TVC could no longer partner with SIM. This had significant implications, because there are several other SIM missionaries who are supported by The Village Church. As a result, SIM decided that I would not resume work on behalf of my team from Dallas after all.”

This. This is what I am talking about when I talk about the long term damage. I have seen it over and over where churches even reach into the secular business world and plant poisonous seeds to try and keep people— who dared disagree with them…. from making a living.

TVC leaders are CREEPS. Oh sure, they are always looking out for women.

Bridget wrote:

Jordan Root was roaming the community of TVC for three months before the members knew that he was attracted to young children? That is scary.

If the parents and other people who should be concerned about that don’t start raising a ruckus, then the cancerous Acts29 DNA has truly taken hold. I wouldn’t trust my kids around any single person in that church.

If I were in SIM leadership I’d be talking to other leaders about shaking the TVC dust from our feet. Perhaps those discussions are going on now.

Albuquerque Blue,

I don’t know how you feel about starting a “Go FUND Me a Missionary” with Go Fund Me, but if I’m not mistaken, I read somewhere Karen wanted to get back on the mission field, but SIM and Village prevented that from happening.

If you can start a “Go FUND Me a Missionary” site for Karen, to help her fulfill her dream of getting on the mission field, I’ll contribute the first $1,000. I’d like nothing more than a group of evangelicals on the NET to fund a Christ follower to take the gospel to the nations–a Christ follower who is under “church discipline” by an institutional church for annulling a marriage to a pedophile to boot! 🙂

Stay strong Karen. These men aren’t elders in the biblical sense. I still don’t understand how annulment was a sin. There was no biblical mandate for her to stay with her husband. He may be repentant. He may be seeking help but, how does that make her unrepentant? Who could stay with someone looking at child pornography? This is a deal breaker. TVC sees thing as black or white, left or right, on every dot and tittle. In their brains, if Jordan is repentant there shouldn’t be any earthly consequences to his actions. So, if his wife says I can’t continue in this contract due to gross misrepresentation, she is in sin because Jordan called repentance first. It’s like kids calling first dibs on the front seat. Who ever says it first wins. That is weird. Can’t Jordan be repentant while Karen release herself from a deceptive marriage and leave that church quietly without her being called a sinner? I think her response was good. She could have showed up and made a scene but she quietly asked to leave so that they could “care” for Jordan. She could have just left and found a church to be cared under. But no! Jordan screamed repentance and now she has return to him?? That is an abuse of what repentance is. Repentance doesn’t mean everyone in your path is held hostage.

So strange…

Those questions at the end of the email that TVC sent out was one big CYA propaganda piece.

dee wrote:

God did an end run around TVC and Karen will one day use this experience for a greater purpose.

It does look like that is what is happening. Remember the old TV series ‘The A Team?’ They used to say ‘I love it when a plan comes together.’

pcapastor wrote:

As a long-time pastor in the PCA, I thought I had seen it all. But I am not sure I have ever before seen a victim of so much spiritual abuse respond so promptly and thoroughly with such composure and strength, during the very time period that her world is being turned upside down.

I agree! Her courage, professionalism and grace under tremendous pressure and oppression from those she should have been able to trust, has been such an inspiration to me. I plan to direct the spiritually abused who reach out to me –to her story. She is mighty mature for someone so young. In fact, I would say she was the “spiritually mature” one in this entire saga.

@ Wade Burleson:
Pastor Burleson that is awfully generous of you and does you & your faith credit. I would be happy to give Ms. Hinkley a few bucks to help out with legal/other expenses, but it wouldn’t be really appropriate for me (an atheist) to set up a missionary Go Fund Me for her. Though that’s a great idea for the rest of you to do.

Bob M wrote:

@Matt Chandler, there is no doubt that either you or one of your people will be reading this. Do the right thing. If you don’t, you will not recover. This will not be swept under the rug. You will not silence the voices being raised here. There are too many Christian blogs and forums who have picked this up, and too many readers with too much influence. It will pick up steam, and your horrible, horrible mistake and your unwillingness to admit it and make it right with Karen will ruin you in the end. I am not a prophet or a son of a prophet, but God will expose the wrong. I can promise you this, without one bit of hesitation. I believe that Mark Driscoll and Sovereign Grace Ministries mistakes were that they underestimated the power of voices on the internet, and thought that controlling the local church voices would cover their mistakes.

Amen… I might be a naracissistic zero, but I am not afraid to put my name to what I post…

Albuquerque,

There’s no need for legal expenses either. Any legal work, if any is needed (and I hope none is), will be pro bono.

I’m wondering about this part of the Village Church ‘covenant’:

“If at any time an individual member feels as though the corporate church body is not remaining faithful to the requirements of the covenant, it is the responsibility of the individual member to lovingly and humbly express concerns to the leadership of the church. If the church elders are unwilling to change and pursue covenant faithfulness, then the member is freed from his or her membership obligations and encouraged to seek membership elsewhere given the church’s disobedience. ”

Clearly, Karen feels that the elders were not faithful to their duties (particularly as regards notifying their membership that a pedophile was present in their midst), she expressed her concerns, and the church elders were unwilling to change. So according to the very contract she signed, she is “freed from her membership obligations.”

The Village Church is so consumed with their need to control that they are violating their own contract.

Jordan is a pedophile. He needs to be incarcerated and registered as a sex offender. Does that escape you, Matt Chandler? Prison, not reconciliation. Long years of intensive therapy and counseling. He has committed pedophilia for at least 10 years. And he is a serial liar. That cannot be changed in 3 months.

pcapastor wrote:

“But it doesn’t matter, for I have known God, and they haven’t.”

This is so beautiful…thank you.

@ Prodinov:
I am not an accountant and have never looked into this kind of thing before (and could use any explanations that any of you may have to offer) but, since you bring up money, I looked for TVC’s financial information and the best I could get was from their own web-site, unaudited. It’s hard to know what the expense categories of Missions and Ministry mean; they are very broad categories and may likely include staff reimbursements and salaries. Nowhere have I found specific types expenses such as salaries for various kinds of employment, travel, occupancy, etc. So on balance I considered one category (Ministries) to include staff or other salaries, and the other (Missions) to be gifts. So with this rough uninformed look:

Total Assets are $43,672,744; of which 12,470,576 is cash or short-term investments.
Total income for 2014 was $22,062,680.
Total expenses in 2014 was $18,738,674. But if you discount paying staff, the actual expenses look closer to $7,575,600. That leaves the amount of money for salaries personal expenses at $14,487,080.

Of this, if 80 staff members are reimbursed, directly or indirectly, say an average of $50,000 annually for their services, that’s 4 million dollars, which leaves $10 million for the top 10 staff members to divide as they see fit. (I doubt very much if these revenues included the reported $7-8 million per year that Mr. Chandlers recent book sales have been reported to bring him, or how that money may be disposed of.)

Wade Burleson wrote:

Albuquerque Blue,

I don’t know how you feel about starting a “Go FUND Me a Missionary” with Go Fund Me, but if I’m not mistaken, I read somewhere Karen wanted to get back on the mission field, but SIM and Village prevented that from happening.

If you can start a “Go FUND Me a Missionary” site for Karen, to help her fulfill her dream of getting on the mission field, I’ll contribute the first $1,000. I’d like nothing more than a group of evangelicals on the NET to fund a Christ follower to take the gospel to the nations–a Christ follower who is under “church discipline” by an institutional church for annulling a marriage to a pedophile to boot!

I’d contribute to that.

@ Lydia:
Yes, I see what you mean. Several years ago a particular pastor said from the pulpit that he recommended all his children and grandchildren go into the pastorate because: you can make a lot of money — make a LOT of money!! He said both he and his wife each had retirement account of more than a million dollars.

And later when he was taking over the church where I worked, and he wanted that Sunday mornings take, he shouted at the staff: This is MY money, do you understand?! It’s MY money!

@ dee:

Dee,

I’m game. Whatever Karen wishes, I’ll support. I’m supporting the person and believe her mission – whatever that may be – to be profitable for the Kingdom and our world.

Lydia wrote:

I had a new sending church in place and a job description approved by SIM field leadership prior to arriving at SIM USA headquarters in Charlotte for meetings beginning March 10th. There I was informed that The Village Church had threatened that if SIM kept me on active status, they would consider it a breach of the Partnership Agreement between SIM and TVC and TVC could no longer partner with SIM. This had significant implications, because there are several other SIM missionaries who are supported by The Village Church. As a result, SIM decided that I would not resume work on behalf of my team from Dallas after all.”

I’m no lawyer, but this looks a little torty to me. And that’s the nice way of putting it. Coercive is another nice word for it. Or Chandler going to the Matt-resses. Beyond disgraceful. We are talking seriously deranged and thuggish behavior by these purported preachers of the Gospel. This has nothing to do with Jesus. At all.

dee wrote:

why is Matt Chandler being silent. Where does the buck stop at his church. Isn’t he a complementarian who believes that men should be strong?

Because anything he says at this point will make things worse. With whomever they can pass it to. Yes, but obviously can’t summon any courage or manly protection from within himself.

Bridget wrote:

Interesting how the TVC letters states that Root was viewing pornagrphic pictures of children instead of calling it child pornagraphy.

KYLE: But Dad, isn’t that Fascism?
KYLE’S DAD: No it isn’t son. Because We Don’t Call It Fascism. Do you understand?
KYLE: Do you?

dee wrote:

God did an end run around TVC and Karen will one day use this experience for a greater purpose.

Jael.

@ Tim:

That is what they should do, but Karen pretty much conveyed that SIM backed down because TVC financially supports some of their other missionaries. TVC put pressure on SIM, so SIM asked Karen to step down.

dee wrote:

We were delaying writing her story until i forced the Dallas Morning News to say they wouldn’t publish her story. DMN was striking Karen along as well. We believe that TVC people interfered with the publication.

You know, the old media guard despises bloggers as well. If they would try being journalists like the vile, wicked Bloggers, they might have some credibility. Tough stories take tough reporters, and we know where the tough reporters are not.

@ dee:
Dee I’ll email you later this evening after I finish recording a podcast. I’d be happy and honored to help set up a GoFundMe page for Ms. Hinkley.

Flicker wrote:

Total Assets are $43,672,744; of which 12,470,576 is cash or short-term investments.
Total income for 2014 was $22,062,680.
Total expenses in 2014 was $18,738,674. But if you discount paying staff, the actual expenses look closer to $7,575,600. That leaves the amount of money for salaries personal expenses at $14,487,080.
Of this, if 80 staff members are reimbursed, directly or indirectly, say an average of $50,000 annually for their services, that’s 4 million dollars, which leaves $10 million for the top 10 staff members to divide as they see fit.

If it’s an even swag-split, that’s a Million a year for each of the Top 10.

If Pastor gets the lion’s share (which wouldn’t surprise me), that’s multi-Millions for the Main ManaGAWD and at least five figures for the flunkies.

Add the book sales (minus ResultSource juicing fees) and Main ManaGAWD is hobnobbing with the Steven Furtick and Paris Hilton set. All Tax Free.

“Writing for a penny a word is stupid. If you want to make a million dollars, start your own religion.”
— L Ron Hubbard

Wade Burleson wrote:

in my opinion, it would be one of the more humorous, ironic, and remarkable things to happen in my 53 years of pastoral ministry…We have much in common Albuquerque. Maybe more than you might think.

I confess the idea made me chuckle. And I’d agree, we have much in common; people of goodwill usually do.

refugee wrote:

Flicker wrote:
@ Lydia:
Yes, I see what you mean. Several years ago a particular pastor said from the pulpit that he recommended all his children and grandchildren go into the pastorate because: you can make a lot of money — make a LOT of money!! He said both he and his wife each had retirement account of more than a million dollars.
And later when he was taking over the church where I worked, and he wanted that Sunday mornings take, he shouted at the staff: This is MY money, do you understand?! It’s MY money!

Funny, I thought it was God’s money.

…and when I think of the tens of thousands of dollars we tithed to our former church, and the fact we have no college fund (how convenient that one of the teachings of that church was that parents should not send children to college), nor a retirement fund…

…and no way to see any of that money again, and not even in tune with the “mission” of that church…

It makes me sick to think of it.

Nancy wrote:

trying to force a woman into staying with a man who has admitted years of viewing the sexual abuse of children,

I wrote of that in the previous thread, here:
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2015/05/26/part-2-the-village-church-doesnt-discipline-the-internet-child-sex-abuser-but-disciplines-his-wife/comment-page-1/#comment-195630

I just keep hearing the old country song “Stand by Your Man” in my head. I don’t think a wife can save her husband from his pedo urges, unless they just thought keeping her with him was for appearances, to make their church look good.

Gram3 wrote:

dee wrote:
why is Matt Chandler being silent. Where does the buck stop at his church. Isn’t he a complementarian who believes that men should be strong?
Because anything he says at this point will make things worse. With whomever they can pass it to. Yes, but obviously can’t summon any courage or manly protection from within himself.

Is that sound I hear Matt Younger and Steve Hardin being thrown under the bus?

dee wrote:

God did an end run around TVC and Karen will one day use this experience for a greater purpose.

That’s funny you should say that, because I had a very strong feeling in that same direction. Karen is a special person, it seems to me..

Daisy wrote:

They think once you sign a church membership thingy, the church owns your soul. Nothing else matters. I think that’s how some of them are viewing it.

Oh. my. word.

I don’t know why, but the words of the minister in the movie “Polyanna” come to mind.

“Nobody owns a church.”

(And I would say the reverse is also true…)

refugee wrote:

Is that sound I hear Matt Younger and Steve Hardin being thrown under the bus?

It could be depending on how the story plays out. It’s definitely the sound of plausible deniability for Chandler. Although, there’s that teensy little problem of the disappearing video of Chandler loosing his cool.

@ BeenThereDoneThat:
losing his cool.

refugee wrote:

Is that sound I hear Matt Younger and Steve Hardin being thrown under the bus?

If that is what happens, we already have seen the movie and read the book at Throckmorton. I’m gonna say it again. Chandler is Driscoll for Dallas. It is the same rotten corruption of precious doctrine that we saw at Mars Hill. Acts29 *is* Mars Hill, and throwing Driscoll under the bus was strictly for PR purposes. If Chandler disapproved of Driscoll’s practice or doctrine, he showed no sign of it until Driscoll started irretrievably tarnished the brand of Acts29.

sam wrote:

i am thinking that TVC released this as a public legal response wrapped up to look like a concerned church response. i notice again and again they make sure to mention that SIM was the employer,

Hm. Good point. SIM is the employer, but THEY are the spiritual authorities.

I told him that I was in the process of seeking counsel from a large number of believers who included friends, family, mentors, SIM leadership, and my Christian counselor. He told me that “they are not your spiritual authority, we are. We are the most important voice at the table, and you need to wait until we decide how you should proceed.” – See more at: http://watchkeep.blogspot.com/2015/05/karen-hinkleys-response-to-village.html#sthash.ZxJE1rOy.dpuf

@ Gram3:
until Driscoll started irretrievably tarnishing the brand of Acts29.

My apologies to anyone who has already said this here or elsewhere. The ELDERS of The Village were threatening SIM with defunding their missionaries because Karen would not bend to their anti-Biblical demand that she reconcile with a pedophile. Think about that. How many SIM missionaries were being held hostage to this epic hissy fit by chronologically adult men? Men who claim to be about sending missionaries and spreading the Gospel.

They were ready to pull the plug on how many missionaries and those missionaries’ work because one solitary woman offended their precious little brittle egos by just saying no to them? This is truly beyond absurd. Is there anyone out there among those who are acting as apologists for Chandler and the other ELDERS who would care to explain how this makes sense?

@ Albuquerque Blue:
Albuquerque Blue I sure do love your comments on TWW. It does not matter if you are an atheist- Go for It!!

Karen, we stand with you! You are so courageous and remember He is with you always! The Holy Spirit is the one who guided you to do what you did and that is WHO you are to obey, not some wannebe elder or pastor. These men do not know what a real NT elder is.

Gram3 wrote:

I’m sorry, but if they want to be Spiritual Authorities, they are going to need to produce the Scripture that shows where God gave them that grant of Authority. There is no such verse(s) which is something that they know perfectly well. Just like there is no verse for a hierarchy of males over females. They know that perfectly well, too. And they don’t care. Because they are not men under the Authority of Christ.

Ah but they are Jordan Roots spiritual authority and that means they made him what he is?

@ dee:
I’m sorry. That was my error. The $210,000 was reportedly paid my Mark Driscoll for Real Marriage. I get confused sometimes. Please all accept my apologies.

sam wrote:

Ah but they are Jordan Roots spiritual authority and that means they made him what he is?

I do not believe that they are loving Jordan any more than they are Karen. If they truly loved Jordan, they would do what is best for him which is to get him the best professional help that is available, whether that is medical or psychiatric, or psychological. Not just the nouthetic guys. There is plenty of professional help available in the Metroplex.

But to do that, they first need a divine D9 to move their colossal egos out of the way.

@ Gram3:

I believe it is called blackmail 🙁

Here’s my latest post…it’s an Open Letter to Matt Younger who put Karen Hinkley in discipline.

https://wonderingeagle.wordpress.com/2015/05/28/an-open-letter-to-matt-younger-of-the-village-church-dallas-northway-campus/

Well, I read the whole thing, and I am ill.How on earth do these leaders expect any thinking person to trust them or take them seriously going forward? It is too bad that TVC, like many in their tribe, have chosen to reject Jesus in favor of religious corporatism.

Bridget wrote:

dee wrote:
Who is running the show at TVC and why is Matt Chandler being silent. Where does the buck stop at his church. Isn’t he a complementarian who believes that men should be strong?
The buck stops at the same place it did at SGM, with Mahaney hiding behind his front men. Maybe Matt is planning his great escape like Mahaney and Driscoll??

I find it pitifully ironic that these bully boys are all swagger when they condemn others but when they are the ones who get called out they retreat to their bunker, curl up in the fetal position, and have their henchmen issue press releases. When they are called out by outsiders on their horrible behavior they don’t even have the guts to come and defend their actions – I personally think it’s because they know what they’ve done is indefensible and their only chance is to hide in the cellar and hope the storm blows over.

Dee,

“things are escalating exponentially every day and that is too darn bad and really stupid”.

The behavior of TVC is stupid beyond belief, but I am so glad we have this story being made public. Karen is now (becoming) free of an abusive church and has many strong and wise people in her corner.

The rest of us have more tangible proof that we cannot ignore. That there is some seriously screwed-upness about many churches today. A couple of decades ago it was “the no-name fellowship” and a couple of decades before that the “exclusive Brethren”, and these are just two so-called churches which I have encountered in person who tried to control their members, with devastating results.

Maybe TVC could have avoided all the bad press by an apology, but it takes bad press to uncover the truth. And an apology might not have actually changed the TVC culture. I doubt TVC will be able to continue for long to exert the same control over their “Covenant Members” as they thought they could before this story broke.

I have been through a horrible spiritually abusive church experience, after which the pastor “swapped sheep bite stories” with his online buddies, and I didn’t have the courage Karen does to tell the whole story. So Karen’s account is a reminder to me too, to keep my eyes open so I don’t step in that wolf muck again.

Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

Well, I read the whole thing, and I am ill.How on earth do these leaders expect any thinking person to trust them or take them seriously going forward? It is too bad that TVC, like many in their tribe, have chosen to reject Jesus in favor of religious corporatism.

Yes, and subservience to a system with religious accoutrements will not be sufficient to save anyone when they face the Lord.

sam wrote:

dee wrote:
Jeffrey J Chalmers wrote:
I still can not comprehend TVC not investigating and trying to protect children???
I hope to write a post about this tomorrow. I think the men in charge (and it is only men) are terribly naive when it comes to manipulative abusers. And that makes them dangerous.
one of the last posts on the last thread refered to Matt Chandler being gospelized because of childhood abuse he suffered. (the poster refered to a Matt and piper talk) It raises a serious question, i think, is Matt Chandler healed from the abuse he suffered? Is matt chandler a victim of childhood sexual abuse? he is quite proud and i think he would have definately diferentiated between physical and sexual abuse the way the question, was answered is unclear. if the head pastor is a victim of childhood sexual abuse that received no therapy or treatment (only he was ‘gospelized’?) it would make sense that he would be treating a pedo better than the pedo’s ex who brought all this to attention instead of just submitting to the husband, like Matt’s dad did. would love a link to the video the commenter was referring to of chandler/piper discussing.
i am not making accusations, i am saying that it is possible, it is hard to know what is actually being said with all the gospelly double speak

Matt Chandler fits perfectly the profile of the prototypical neocalvinist abuser that I posted on a previous thread.

Drinking game! Everyone takes a shot whenever tvc says they love Karen………on second thought let’s not do that. I don’t want people dying from alcohol poisoning…..

Chandler gets zero. It all goes to the church.Jack wrote:

Chandler makes zero. All goes to church. @ Flicker:

Flicker wrote:

And going back to find the $7-8 million book revenue, I can’t find it either; not for Chandler or for anyone else. Let me retract that now. I have no idea now what money Chandler makes on book revenue.

Flicker wrote:

And going back to find the $7-8 million book revenue, I can’t find it either; not for Chandler or for anyone else. Let me retract that now. I have no idea now what money Chandler makes on book revenue.

Eagle wrote:

Here’s my latest post…it’s an Open Letter to Matt Younger who put Karen Hinkley in discipline.

Not to make light of a really awful situation, but maybe “Gospel-Centered E-Meters” might be more appropriate.

By the way, I have left messages for Richard Brindley and Steve Hardin’s assistant Brian Dusek. I think I stuffed Dusek’s voice mail. Then I sent Dusek an e-mail with the text of what I wanted to say. *Of course* I signed my name. I’m not a narcissistic zero. I even gave them my cell phone. You know how many people have my cell phone number? Not very many. I haven’t heard a peep out of those guys.

I don’t think they want to talk to me because I have Double X Chromosome Syndrome. You know, being a woman.

mirele wrote:

Jack wrote:

Chandler makes zero. All goes to church.

Oh, I don’t think that’s true. You’re probably not talking at all about the benefit ministers get for pushing at least a portion of their salary into a clergy housing fund WHICH IS TAX EXEMPT. I would be VERY surprised if Chandler wasn’t taking advantage of that perk of ministry. (Which, by the way, I consider highly unconstitutional, but that’s another story.)

Nicely said Mirele. I’d like to see Chandler’s house, cars, etc. Who paid for those? The church? Somebody with his bad attitude toward this dear saint Karen is playing lots of other games too (and no doubt with money).

@ Lydia:

It sounds like you’re in the know about how these places work the cash flow. Straighten me out here, are 501-c3 religious outfits exempt from full financial disclosure, whereas non-religious non-profits have to adhere to much stricter rules?

Anybody? Some of you folks here at TWW are legal hands, what’s the real skivvie?
I recall that James Robeson, the one who panhandles for poor African children on TV, has stated something to the effect of: it’s none o’ yer beeswax where the money goes… when asked for financial transparency.

Could it be that in the Great State of Texas it’s much easier for religious hucksters to hit pay dirt? If it is easier, then it’s no wonder that Driscoll might have found his own Paraguay so to speak.

mirele wrote:

Oh, I don’t think that’s true. You’re probably not talking at all about the benefit ministers get for pushing at least a portion of their salary into a clergy housing fund WHICH IS TAX EXEMPT. I would be VERY surprised if Chandler wasn’t taking advantage of that perk of ministry.

Every pastor/elder takes advantage of that perk . . . I’m not convinced of its appropriateness either.

@ Gram3:
I should be clear that I am going off my recollection regarding the relationship between 9Marks and CHBC which may no longer be accurate. Any attorneys/tax accountants please correct my understanding if it is not correct.

Flicker wrote:

And going back to find the $7-8 million book revenue, I can’t find it either; not for Chandler or for anyone else. Let me retract that now. I have no idea now what money Chandler makes on book revenue.

As of now, It Never Existed, Comrade.

Flicker wrote:

Other sites say that Chandler received $245,000 salary in 2013, and 7-8 million royalties on his book — where the reported $210,000 (I think it was) came from to buy his books to fraudulently raise his sales to put him on the Best Seller list and boost outside sales, I don’t know.

$210 grand was what ResultSource charged to juice Driscoll’s book.

Looks like they had more than just ol’ Bee Jay as customers.

But they’re still pikers compared to the all-time Master of Juicing a Book, L Ron Hubbard.

All this talk of finances reminds me that I just wrote a brief post about this topic:

“Ok…it’s not scientific by any stretch of the imagination. But here’s my Almost 100% Foolproof Way to Recognize an Abusive Church.

Wait for it………….

You are attending an abusive church if you do not know the salary of the Senior Pastor.

Seriously, if your church does not publish an annual budget including the pastor’s salary, then run for the door.

Here’s the caveat, some churches may not publish the specific salary, but are more than willing to share specifics when asked by members or at an all church finance meeting.

But to my point, if you can not find out this information with relative ease, then you are most likely dealing with leaders who are not trustworthy and abusive. You’ll here all sorts of excuses as to why this information is not disclosed, but I’ve never heard an adequate reason to withhold this information from the people whose generosity has provided the church with it’s financial resources.

Without transparency, there can be no accountability. And where there is no accountability, abuse is ripe.

So there you have it….don’t make say I told you so by ignoring this

Almost 100% Foolproof Way to Recognize an Abusive Church.”

In light of recent attempts to purge Chandler’s diatribe from the internet it would be an interesting exercise to catalog some of the postings that betray an oppressive nature and see if they begin to disappear.

Reading through Karen’s narrative, in her report on meeting with the pastors:

“At one point, Matt Younger told me that 100 out of 100 times a couple is sitting on his couch, and one of them says “this is all his fault” and the other agrees, there is much more to the story.”

Amazing, Jordan is a pedophile and “pastors” are trying to blame her? People should have a better developed sense of outrage, a person with judgement should not darken the door of that place again.

Bill M wrote:

“Delightful Discipline”

Oh, no. Totally believable. I suppose for a certain personality type, it is delightful to kick a wife out of your church because she didn’t want to stay married to a pedophile who had been one since before she knew him. Totally get that.

This is Driscoll part 2. I hope you downloaded that sermon, because Driscoll’s stuff started disappearing. This incident was just a matter of time. I thought it would take longer.

@ Bridget:
And look. You know he makes something. What, does he have to ask for free sandwiches at the coffee shop to eat? There is a 2013 article reporting that he was paid $245,000 a year.

I think it’s outrageous but it’s fairly run-of-the-mill. My point isn’t that he makes a lot of money (while asking others to sacrifice) but that whatever money comes in is fundamentally based on the Covenant. And if they’re not making much money, then they’re not enforcing the Covenant on other parishioners while they are enforcing on Karen. Beyond that, the Covenant itself PROBABLY requires tithing, which is another reason to enforce the covenant, especially if the top staff members live like lords on the tithes.

As I reviewed the docs, Erin Brindley is Richard Brindley’s wife. She was the staff female who attended the meeting with Karen. Apologies for missing that part. So, they couldn’t find any other objective hopefully mature woman in a congregation of 11,000 who was not paid staff and the wife of one of the oppressors? Can we safely say this is what a Star Chamber might look like?

@ pcapastor:

Your comment gives me hope for the church. Thank you.

@ Jack:
If you know this for a fact, Jack, then by all means, tell us what you know to be true. How much does Chandler make in salary? And how much of his 90 staff members are on salary, and what are the lowest 80 member’s average pay, and the wage spread? And then tell us how much Chandler’s outside income brings to the church. And then tell us why revenues are so low with a Conenant Membership of 6,000. I think these are all reasonable questions toward answering: Does the church really enforce its Convenant? And does the church require its Covenant Members to tithe, and is tithing enforced. My cynical suspicion is that if tithing is enforced Covenantally, then it is it possible that the harsh treatment of Karen is ultimately to protect the psychological force of the Covenant?

What’s the truth here?

I have a brilliant solution to remove Karen from potential discipline at the Village Church. I should have thought of it sooner. Karen simply needs to attend Mark Dever’s Capitol Hill Baptist church for a few weeks while she undergoes a contemplative “season of reflection.” This action immediately removes her from any potential discipline about to be imposed upon her by her “Covenant Community.” It seems all 9Marx churches are duty bound to abide by this, after all the precedent has been established by C.J. Mahaney and approved by the Doctor of Discipline and Membership himself, Mark Dever!

“During my leave of absence I will be attending Capitol Hill Baptist Church where Mark Dever is the senior pastor. After seeking counsel about this decision, I’ve concluded that this is the best place for Carolyn and me to receive care and counsel, to examine my life and leadership, and to consider my future during this season of reflection.” -C.J. Mahaney

doubtful wrote:

You are attending an abusive church if you do not know the salary of the Senior Pastor.

This is my belief. It is red flag #1.

Christiane wrote:

sometimes, in the shielding of evil and the tormenting of a victim, a ‘community’ shows its true colors . . . and if its leader ‘remains silent’, that speaks louder about his true character than any words could

for those who speak for the victim, God bless you forever and ever

True. Remember when Jesus asked the Pharisees if he should heal on the Sabbath? His point was that sometimes you throw the law out the window in order to show love, compassion and mercy. Matt Chandler and TVC should do that here. Be like Jesus.

Jack wrote:

Just to set the record straight The Village Church is audited every year by a CPA firm in Denton,Texas. All of those audited reports are available on their website. Chandler receives no money from book sales or any outside speaking again engagements. The funds received from both of those activities all goes into the general church budget.

Jack, the audit means nothing if you know how this works. It is sort of like the ECFA Stamp of approval– which Driscoll had. Churches are totally protected from financial disclosure. In other words, what would an audit do? It certainly does not tell a TVC member how the money is spent. It is up to those giving their hard earned money to demand an accounting line by line.

There is even a trick to the book sales disclosure that pastors use. Once they are established the advances are pretty good. They are often double what the average American makes in a year. So there is a difference between royalties from sales and the advance. They often forget to mention the advance.

It is not always what the church leaders are telling you. It is often what they are NOT telling you.

Deb wrote:

I find it incredibly hard to believe that Matt Chandler’s speaking fees at T4G (for example), went straight into the general church budget, not to mention the proceeds from the book sales at the fabulous T4G bookstore. I’d love to see the financial records proving this claim.

Here is another one. Are they paid when they are not there but out speaking quite a bit and being paid to do that, too? Somebody is paid to preach when they are not there.

There is a lot of double dipping going on out there in ministry circles. Russ Moore was double dipping for years as a preacher at Highview and a Dean at Southern. There is so much of this going on that it has become the normal.

People who are paying for all of this have a right to know details. But most think it is a sin to even bring it up. Cult of personality.

Bill M wrote:

On TVC’s website they have Chandler’s messages, this one caught my eye, from Nov 2012:
“Delightful Discipline”
I’m not making this stuff up.

OK. Now I outright laughed!

Courageous Karen,

I’m so very sorry the past three or four years must have been impossibly tough being in a fake fraud of a marriage to Root. I admire how you stood up for the protection of children. That was very brave! Your willingness to protect children is so honorable. I am disgusted by TVC attempts at CONTROL masked and marketed wrongly as love or care towards you (Karen). The secrecy, cover-up, protection of evil, control, attempts to silence you, unwillingness to repent, unwillingness to let parents know for 3 months about this situation….this shows a complete a lack of morals. IPlease Father, remove these type leaders from Your church.

That article really isn’t that great. Several inaccuracies regarding timeline and terminology that could be misleading. Disappointing.

@ Daisy:

Daisy wrote:

Matt Chandler’s Megachurch Accused of Disciplining, Shaming Woman over Divorce
http://www.christianheadlines.com/blog/matt-chandler-s-megachurch-accused-of-disciplining-shaming-woman-over-divorce.html

I am really unhappy with this article. They distorted just about everything.

First of all, their insistence on using the word “divorce” instead of annulment. And it made it look like TVC has some sort of validity in what they are doing. Not once was it mentioned that the thing they are really upset about is her supposed contumacy. That is the real issue with them. The context is the not divorce but annulment. But the charge is contumacy.

She refuses to allow TVC to “care” for her and that is what has their skivvies in a wad. JD Hall, bless his little heart, has this one right. The “problem” is that she will not listen to her dear dear elders who’s only desire is to “care” for her…

Which looks a whole lot like this — complete with the Martian DNA, ala Driscoll:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogp_Dai691k

Ack ack.

@ Adam Borsay:

None of that really matters. The key is honesty and transparancy. If a church votes to pay their pastor 1 million they can do so. I might think they are nuts but the key is that they know how their money is being spent because their is full disclosure.

The problem is that too many members have been convinced that a handful of men know best for everyone else including how to spend their hard earned money. Why do people believe this? And they are convinced it is a sin to challenge that thinking. They are told: Don’t you trust us? These handful of men go to a lot of lengths to present a different picture than what is. I have seen it over and over.

formerly anonymous wrote:

JD Hall, bless his little heart, has this one right.

That was a perfect use of that southernism. I assume you are a native speaker.

Church, or ekklesia, is to be distinguished from synagogue. Whatever the other distinctions, ekklesia is free from the *binding* together denoted by synagogue. “Churches” that imposes membership covenants and the like are synagogues, not ekklesias (ekklesiai?). The Village Church is proving to be a very synagogue of satan.

For what is worth, @Dee @Deb @Amy, P&P has a “rational response” article out.

I read almost to the end of it. It’s written under the very unhelpful assumption that the tight church authority on display @ TVC is a good biblical thing. Nothing to see here, move along.

Nancy wrote:

formerly anonymous wrote:
JD Hall, bless his little heart, has this one right.
That was a perfect use of that southernism. I assume you are a native speaker.

That may or may not be the case! 😀

I was going to say bless his tiny little heart, but you may infer as you like. 🙂

Todd Wilhelm wrote:

“During my leave of absence I will be attending Capitol Hill Baptist Church where Mark Dever is the senior pastor. After seeking counsel about this decision, I’ve concluded that this is the best place for Carolyn and me to receive care and counsel, to examine my life and leadership, and to consider my future during this season of reflection.” -C.J. Mahaney

Shouldn’t that be:
“During my HUMBLE leave of absence I will be HUMBLY attending Capitol Hill Baptist Church where Mark Dever is the senior pastor. After HUMBLY seeking counsel about this HUMBLE decision, I’ve HUMBLY concluded that this is the best place for Carolyn and me to receive care and counsel, to HUMBLY examine my life and HUMBLE leadership, and to HUMBLY consider my HUMBLE future during this HUMBLE season of HUMBLE reflection. (chuckle chuckle)”

Lydia wrote:

In five years time when this is brought up on some blog in passing will some person say in reference to this scandal, “she divorced him”.

I think they are right now thinking of how to frame the narrative. Honestly, if this breaks really widely, that will make them look exceedingly foolish that they do not know the difference and what that difference means to the “marriage.” Would any of those brilliant guys, like say DeYoung or Justin Taylor or Joe Carter, want to be held to a simple contract that they signed because they were induced by fraud? I don’t really think they would, and so therefore I don’t really think they would be so monumentally stupid to try that route.

However, I have been wrong so many times about how monumentally stupid people would be. I was stunned at the statements supporting Mahaney that were outright lies or at the very least outright misleading statements. They were bold enough to sing their names to that, so they will probably do something just as foolish to protect their spokesmodel, just as they protected the last spokesmodel, Driscoll, by their silence for so long.

Lydia wrote:

I have seen it over and over where churches even reach into the secular business world and plant poisonous seeds to try and keep people— who dared disagree with them…. from making a living

Sure looks like revenge and bitterness and unforgiveness. From the same people who bleat on about instant/complete forgiveness for people like Jordon.

Why did those in charge of putting TVC members under their care oppose the filing of annulment proceedings? Because they were afraid of the attendant publicity? Why was Jordan Root allowed to consent to the annulment without being placed in church discipline? Because the threat of publicity associated with contested court proceedings thereby conveniently evaporated?

Where is Matt Chandler in all of this? When Mark Driscoll became an embarrassment, Chandler threw him under the bus. Is Chandler intentionally put his lieutenants on the firing line, thinking that if things become unbearably messy he, Chandler, may find absolution in the eyes of all by the simple expedient of blaming them, the said lieutenants, and throwing them under the bus?

Patrice wrote:

Lydia wrote:

I have seen it over and over where churches even reach into the secular business world and plant poisonous seeds to try and keep people— who dared disagree with them…. from making a living

Sure looks like revenge and bitterness and unforgiveness. From the same people who bleat on about instant/complete forgiveness for people like Jordon.

There is another aspect to it that is really sinister. If they can marginalize you outside the church by others then it looks like God does not approve of you overall and you must be in the wrong about the church thing,too. It is like insurance for them.

@ Gary W:

That is what I think. They were in crisis containment at that time before this broke publicly. To have a court case for annulment would have been worse to them at that point.

Now they are positioning annulment as a subset of divorce and conveniently leaving out the fact Jordon was “walking in repentance” under their “care” when he signed the annulment and had legal advice from one of their member who is a lawyer.

All of this comes from living in that bubble and expecting people to believe whatever they are told about the situation. And most of their covenant members will believe anything they are told by their gurus.

formerly anonymous wrote:

Daisy wrote:

Matt Chandler’s Megachurch Accused of Disciplining, Shaming Woman over Divorce
http://www.christianheadlines.com/blog/matt-chandler-s-megachurch-accused-of-disciplining-shaming-woman-over-divorce.html

I am really unhappy with this article. They distorted just about everything.

First of all, their insistence on using the word “divorce” instead of annulment. And it made it look like TVC has some sort of validity in what they are doing. Not once was it mentioned that the thing they are really upset about is her supposed contumacy. That is the real issue with them. The context is the not divorce but annulment. But the charge is contumacy.

She refuses to allow TVC to “care” for her and that is what has their skivvies in a wad. JD Hall, bless his little heart, has this one right. The “problem” is that she will not listen to her dear dear elders who’s only desire is to “care” for her…

Which looks a whole lot like this — complete with the Martian DNA, ala Driscoll:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogp_Dai691k

Ack ack.

Early this morning, I simply googled Matt Chandler and Jordan Root and dozens of articles came up. I read most of them. Many of them misrepresented the whole scenario. So I am not surprised.

Gram3 wrote:

As I reviewed the docs, Erin Brindley is Richard Brindley’s wife. She was the staff female who attended the meeting with Karen. Apologies for missing that part. So, they couldn’t find any other objective hopefully mature woman in a congregation of 11,000 who was not paid staff and the wife of one of the oppressors? Can we safely say this is what a Star Chamber might look like?

I think the meeting with “more elders” that was proposed, late in the game, (the one Karen declined to attend) would look exactly like a Star Chamber, actually.

refugee wrote:

I think the meeting with “more elders” that was proposed, late in the game, (the one Karen declined to attend) would look exactly like a Star Chamber, actually.

What is offensive about the Erin Brindley charade is that they are misrepresenting the nature of that meeting. They want it to appear that they are honoring Karen as a woman who has been defrauded, but that isn’t what they are doing at all. They are insulting Karen and every thinking person by trying to pass off Brindley’s wife as a concerned female member of the congregation who is only concerned with Karen’s welfare. It is totally fake and contrived. But what else would we expect? Just another instance of the pattern.

Patrice wrote:

It is blasphemy.

Yes, but let’s remember that these are the people who are saying that the Son is a junior partner in the Trinity. If you are willing to go there, you are willing to go just about anywhere, IMO.

Patrice wrote:

So these kinds of leaders believe they are God-approved for their ego-rage (redefined as warring for justice), bitterness (redefined as longing for the pure/right in the face of great wrong) and revenge (redefined as discipline).

My Dear Wormwood,
I refer you to my previous epistle on Semantics, specifically the Redefinition of words into their “diabolical meanings”.
Your Ravenously Affectionate Uncle,
Screwtape

Gary W wrote:

Where is Matt Chandler in all of this? When Mark Driscoll became an embarrassment, Chandler threw him under the bus. Is Chandler intentionally put his lieutenants on the firing line, thinking that if things become unbearably messy he, Chandler, may find absolution in the eyes of all by the simple expedient of blaming them, the said lieutenants, and throwing them under the bus?

Why not?
Stalin got away with it.
30 Million-plus bodies under his bus.

Whereas: Pastor Matt has insulated himself pretty well from this shipwreck.
Whereas: Pastor Matt has instituted a “Steps” program to council (sic) all Villagers.
Whereas: Pastor Matt has insinuated the he’s a much more agreeable chap (aside from the Zero rant) than his former comrade @pastormark,
And, Because I “care”,
Therefore, I urge him to come under my “care”, listen to my council (sic), and submit to the following church discipline “Steps”.
1: Fire Hardin, Brindley, and Younger yesterday. This can be couched in all needed Christianese. Better them than you
2: Make an official apology to Karen yesterday. Try to avoid the phrase “mistakes were made”.
3. Promise to appoint a committee to review church membership and discipline policies.
4: Reiterate the Village’s policies protecting children from predators while at official church functions in official church facilities.
As certified TWW profit (sic) I predict that failure to follow these steps will be bad for business See @pastormark.

Lydia wrote:

He who defines, wins.

Nya Ha Ha, My Dear Wormwood.

@ refugee:
I am quite familiar with the Star Chamber. it is one reason why I really encourage people not to go to “that meeting” they think they are obliged to have with the leaders. it almost always makes it worse in the long run.

now that I know what I know I would insist everything in writing

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Shouldn’t that be:
“During my HUMBLE leave of absence I will be HUMBLY attending Capitol Hill Baptist Church where Mark Dever is the senior pastor. After HUMBLY seeking counsel about this HUMBLE decision,

I do believe you are correct H.U.G. I offer my HUMBLE thanks for SERVING me in this most WINSOME manner.

Dave A A wrote:

1: Fire Hardin, Brindley, and Younger yesterday

The word is “transition.” No one is ever fired in YRRvile. Also, I think that the ELDERS of The Village who have any shred of decency will transition PastorMatt as well and transition The Village out of the toxic organization that is Acts29.

You know, I’ve been doing a lot of personal research on abuse lately. It makes perfect sense that MC was abused as a child; that kind of environment tends to form some people’s expectations in their adult years.

Unfortunately, some Christians just wrap their stinking thinking in a “gospel” overlay and say that they have repented. Jesus didn’t take kindly to that type of thing.

Lydia wrote:

@ Adam Borsay:
None of that really matters. The key is honesty and transparancy. If a church votes to pay their pastor 1 million they can do so. I might think they are nuts but the key is that they know how their money is being spent because their is full disclosure.
The problem is that too many members have been convinced that a handful of men know best for everyone else including how to spend their hard earned money. Why do people believe this? And they are convinced it is a sin to challenge that thinking. They are told: Don’t you trust us? These handful of men go to a lot of lengths to present a different picture than what is. I have seen it over and over.

Yes, they put doubting men on the same level with doubting God.

refugee wrote:

Gary W wrote:
Church, or ekklesia, is to be distinguished from synagogue. Whatever the other distinctions, ekklesia is free from the *binding* together denoted by synagogue. “Churches” that imposes membership covenants and the like are synagogues, not ekklesias (ekklesiai?). The Village Church is proving to be a very synagogue of satan.

What an interesting concept! Ekklesia is free from *binding* together? (The old chorus/hymn is floating in the back of my mind now, “Bind us together, Lord/Bind us together/With chords that cannot be broken./Bind us together, Lord/Bind us together, Lord/Bind us together in love.”)
How can I find out more about this?

oops, maybe I meant “cords” there.

We also strongly urge that you would keep all details of this situation within our church body, specifically our Covenant Membership. Please do not forward or share this with anyone who is not a Covenant Member. If you are contacted by the media, we encourage you to refer back to the official public statement of The Village.

QUICK! CATCH THE CAT AND PUT IT BACK IN THE BAG!

Meanwhile: animal control has already captured the cat and there are “lost cat” posters all over town.

Hester wrote:

QUICK! CATCH THE CAT AND PUT IT BACK IN THE BAG!
Meanwhile: animal control has already captured the cat and there are “lost cat” posters all over town.

And it’s going to be airing on The Daily Beast any day.

Wade Burleson wrote:

Sir, I do not know you, but in my opinion, it would be one of the more humorous, ironic, and remarkable things to happen in my 53 years of pastoral ministry. I would be honored were an atheist to start the “Go FUND Me a Missionary” website, and for me, a pastor, to be the first one to fund it because the missionary is being ‘disciplined’ by her institutional church.

I love it. This is great!

refugee wrote:

How can I find out more about this?

This is what you could maybe call a bit of speculative exegesis on my part. Clearly Jesus and the epistles use the Greek word ekklesia where believers are concerned (there may be exceptions), while using synagogue for gatherings of Jews. There must be some reason, but what? Ekklesia is said to mean something like called out assembly of believers. See Strongs 1577. Called out of what? Out of the world? To freedom? Out of all the binds? Whether these concepts can be teased out of the meaning of the word ekklesia itself I am not qualified to say. However, it is clear that Jesus was born, crucified, buried and rose that we might be free. Synagogue, on the other hand, relates to a coming together in a way that looks an awful lot like the way we typically do “church.” See Strongs 4864.

Gary W wrote:

refugee wrote:

How can I find out more about this?

This is what you could maybe call a bit of speculative exegesis on my part. Clearly Jesus and the epistles use the Greek word ekklesia where believers are concerned (there may be exceptions), while using synagogue for gatherings of Jews. There must be some reason, but what? Ekklesia is said to mean something like called out assembly of believers. See Strongs 1577. Called out of what? Out of the world? To freedom? Out of all the binds? Whether these concepts can be teased out of the meaning of the word ekklesia itself I am not qualified to say. However, it is clear that Jesus was born, crucified, buried and rose that we might be free. Synagogue, on the other hand, relates to a coming together in a way that looks an awful lot like the way we typically do “church.” See Strongs 4864.

Gary,
Ekklesia simply means a gathering. There is no special religious significance to the word. This is proven when in the book of Acts (19:32), that word is used to describe a gathering of non Christians.

Julie Anne wrote:

I love it. This is great!

I love it too. To me it’s a kind of proof that ‘doing the right thing’ is completely independent of any religion, non-religion, faith, or non-faith.

Former Fundy wrote:

Having been burned in the recent past by a face-to-face meeting . . . have you noticed a pattern that these type of leaders do not put much in email form? They always push for a verbal meeting. Why is that? I have my suspicions, but would like your take on it too.

Perhaps this video published on The Gospel Coalition website will help answer your question. 😉

http://youtu.be/HJcwjZYZPaw

@ Bridget:

An additional “benefit” in their insistence on face-to-face meetings is that if the church member doesn’t agree, they get to say “Sadly, BadChurchMember refused our humble attempts to humbly meet with them to express our love and care and humbly walk beside them in their time of need.”

Thus making themselves look responsible and caring and the church member appear churlish and unwilling to talk.

Deb wrote:

Former Fundy wrote:
Having been burned in the recent past by a face-to-face meeting . . . have you noticed a pattern that these type of leaders do not put much in email form? They always push for a verbal meeting. Why is that? I have my suspicions, but would like your take on it too.
Perhaps this video published on The Gospel Coalition website will help answer your question.
http://youtu.be/HJcwjZYZPaw

In light of the emails we have seen between Brent D. and CJ, I find that clip to be an example of CJ giving advice for others and not following it himself. By the way, some people can easily be influenced by tone of voice, hand motions, eye contact, and other bodily movements YET miss what is actually being communicated. So, I suggest personal and written communication both be employed, along with witnesses. It is a known fact that people are different in how they assimilate information, some do better with written, some do better with verbal.

rike wrote:

@ Bridget:
An additional “benefit” in their insistence on face-to-face meetings is that if the church member doesn’t agree, they get to say “Sadly, BadChurchMember refused our humble attempts to humbly meet with them to express our love and care and humbly walk beside them in their time of need.”
Thus making themselves look responsible and caring and the church member appear churlish and unwilling to talk.

Yes. And they usually don’t explain “why” someone refused to meet in person. The person is just made to look like they refused help and care – and this can be a total misrepresentation of what really happened.

@ Melody:

I just skimmed it. I posted it to show that Karen’s story is getting out there. More sites and news organizations are publishing articles about it, at least.

Jared Wilson did at least remove his post quoting that…but the fact any of these guys read that kind of garbage and don’t think critically about the messages it sends about approx. 50% or more of the members of the Body of Christ is still very disturbing, am sure you’d agree…

@ Gram3:

@ refugee:
I think the key is what it is that is binding us together. If it is the cord of law and authority, that is not Christianity. If it is the cord of love and care (another perfectly good word that these characters have contaminated) for one another. One is voluntary, based on Christ’s example. The other is based on the temple/imperial systems which are not anything like the Kingdom of Christ.

The question for all the member of The Village and Acts29 churches is which king do they really wish to serve?

Former Fundy wrote:

Lydia, have you noticed a pattern that these type of leaders do not put much in email form? They always push for a verbal meeting. Why is that? I have my suspicions, but would like your take on it too.

Going to butt in to say this is exactly my experience. The syrupy words go into the email, but never, ever will they put anything of meaning in the email. You have to go to the meeting with other hand-picked persons, either staff or fellow elders, to find out what they really mean. Exactly the opposite of what it should be.

formerly anonymous wrote:

To folks outside their system (at least to me) this is faint-worthy ideology. The context serves to show how absurd their ideology is. My goodness. Normal people do not think like this. It is ridiculous, like some sort of weird parody of life. It’s like something you would find on The Onion:

“Woman in marriage to pedophile actively engaged in viewing child porn shocks world by her stubborn refusal to submit to her church elders!!”

An ideological bubble produces toxic and metaphorically psychotic groupthink. Self-parody is inevitable because correction is unthinkable. They cannot look into a mirror that anyone outside the Group holds up.

The CasterofPods does not have a heart. It has been crowded out by ego, and his brain has been crowded out by his mouth. Said the kettle. 🙂

Muff Potter wrote:

New parameters need to be thought out as to where ‘religious freedom’ starts and where it ends, what constitutes meddling by the State and what does not, because let’s face it, it’s not fair and just that some get to have it both ways in the 501-c3 game.

I think that the laws need to be fair, but I’m also very concerned about freedom of conscience, which is another way of saying freedom of religion. We always have to apply a balancing test, and that’s the messy part.

I do think that any entity that benefits from tax provisions should be required to provide audited financials that are publicly available. As a political matter, rolling back those tax benefits is not likely to happen since so many politicians benefit from their non-profit entities as well. It’s not just churches and religious ministries that are not being transparent.

Melody wrote:

Jared Wilson did at least remove his post quoting that…

And he only did it for damage control. The repentant thing would be to leave it up with a recantation of his prior support and an explanation of what he thought was so wonderful is really awful. This way, Jared gets to pretend he never was fooled by Doug Wilson into painting women that way, and he gets to pretend that he never thought that readers had comprehension problems, and he gets to pretend that he is not 100% in agreement with Doug Wilson’s theology of female as object for male use. It was a PR move, and I believe that Crossway is behind it. They are totally invested in christian misogyny, but they can’t let anyone know it.

The following is speculation based on evidence available. I had a thought about Jordan. He seems very passive in all this. Repentant people tend to expose themselves and face consequences as well as accept them. He signs the annulment and cooperates with church leadership. They may even “like” him. Possibly because he is compliant.

But compliance does not indicate repentance.

It may simply indicate he knows what is most expedient to protect himself, like the addict who allows everyone else to take care of him. Did he even express a desire to stay married, or is he just “resting in the hands of God” over everything? Just because he looks peaceful doesn’t mean he isn’t dangerous. Snakes can lie very still. I hope and pray he is truly repentant.

But TVC (and incidentally JD Hall) have shown a real lack of discernment about what true repentance looks like. TVC rushed to affirm the guilty person, and it sure as heaven looks like it was because the innocent party was female.

They need to deal with that issue once they’ve apologized and repented to Karen.

Bob M wrote:

but you can’y jut break all words down into parts and determine their meaning from the parts.

Perhaps part of the issue with understanding is complicated by the fact that word fragments are in fact used to create new words in medical terminology. So if what you are saying is correct, then it has to be qualified as to what sort of vocabulary/ word meaning you are talking about. Frankly, I ‘speak’ medical with a native accent and I had no idea that such fragmenting of words was even questionable nor did I ever hear before that its validity might be limited to only special vocabularies. I will have to read about this some more.

To clarify, I’m with Wade that the church should accept people at face value and disciple them, we don’t want more Mars-Hill-V-Andrew-situations and we can’t know someone’s heart, so Jordan confessing his sin would seem to be possible repentance. It doesn’t negate addiction, though. So why the pressure to keep the marriage intact when broken by gross immorality? It sounds like Jordan didn’t question leadership, just went along with it, whereas Karen did question their reasoning as the unwisdom that it is, and HER QUESTIONING is being labeled sin and unforgiveness. When in fact, it speaks nothing to whether or not she has forgiven Jordan, but rather to the fact he is not to be trusted due to the nature of that sin. This blogpost kind of touches a bit on what I’m trying to express…:

http://leslievernick.com/why-we-must-never-forget-even-when-we-do-forgive/

Melody wrote:

The following is speculation based on evidence available. I had a thought about Jordan. He seems very passive in all this. Repentant people tend to expose themselves and face consequences as well as accept them. He signs the annulment and cooperates with church leadership. They may even “like” him. Possibly because he is compliant.

But compliance does not indicate repentance.

It may simply indicate he knows what is most expedient to protect himself, like the addict who allows everyone else to take care of him. Did he even express a desire to stay married, or is he just “resting in the hands of God” over everything? Just because he looks peaceful doesn’t mean he isn’t dangerous. Snakes can lie very still. I hope and pray he is truly repentant.

But TVC (and incidentally JD Hall) have shown a real lack of discernment about what true repentance looks like. TVC rushed to affirm the guilty person, and it sure as heaven looks like it was because the innocent party was female.

They need to deal with that issue once they’ve apologized and repented to Karen.

Yep. @ Gram3:

Applause!!!!!

Dave A A wrote:

Gram3 wrote:

Also, I think that the ELDERS of The Village who have any shred of decency will transition PastorMatt as well and transition The Village out of the toxic organization that is Acts29.

Of course, these would be beneficial transitions. As would Chandler coming under the care of Pastor Wade (a fellow Southern Baptist, no?), the immediate release of all Villagers from their “covenants” (giving them a chance to resign or to re-sign as traditional voting SBC church members), and leading all Acts-29 to do the same.
But of course all that’s impossible. So from a strict business standpoint, only 1 thing is needful. A sincere-sounding apology to Karen with no weaseling and an acceptance of her resignation. The franchise may yet be saved. Without this (and the window is closing fast) they’ll all find themselves looking for new jobs.

@ Former Fundy:
The pattern is the big cheese does not put things in writing.

Many Driscoll foot soldiers did not think they were so expendable either.

Law Prof wrote:

But of course, silly me, why would I assume that Matt Chandler cares one spit it the wind either what Jesus or Paul say in context or really meant? The authoritarian crowd have made it apparent that the greatest enemy of their worldview and systems may not be atheists, watchbloggers, godless Arminians, or Democrats, but could just be Jesus Christ Himself.

Yes indeedy. The text is a tool, and it is only a tool to be employed for other purposes which must remain cloaked. They must have an enemy, or their prominence is unnecessary. WWJD without them?

Thank you again, Karen, for your courage in bringing all of this information out into the light of day. And thank you Dee, Deb, Julie Anne, Wade and others for supporting and helping her.

I keep wondering if the email to the 6000 is going to become TVC’s “Results Source.” It may not be the worst thing they’ve done (although it’s plenty bad), but it may be the straw that broke the camel’s back, so to speak.

Steve240 wrote:

What a sad story of assumed “authority” these church leaders seem to think they have.
Interesting how this church has al these assets. I imagine the only thing that might force them to stop harassing Karen would be a threat of a lawsuit. With as deep of pockets as TVC church has then I am sure Karen could easity find a lawyer or even high powered law firm willing to sue TVC when they would only get a percentage of what award came out.
I imagine under threat of a law suit and possible large losses they would quicky settle out of court with some type of cease and desist agreement. I am not a lawyer but I imagine besides power the other thing these men worry about is loss of dollars.

What is this whole thing with authority?

Are they taking one or two verses (with the word “obey” and an admonition not to grieve your elders because they are charged with your care), and building an entire social structure around them?

Or is there more to it, and I’m missing it, because I’m a clueless, rebellious female?

Nancy wrote:

Bob M wrote:
but you can’y jut break all words down into parts and determine their meaning from the parts.
Perhaps part of the issue with understanding is complicated by the fact that word fragments are in fact used to create new words in medical terminology. So if what you are saying is correct, then it has to be qualified as to what sort of vocabulary/ word meaning you are talking about. Frankly, I ‘speak’ medical with a native accent and I had no idea that such fragmenting of words was even questionable nor did I ever hear before that its validity might be limited to only special vocabularies. I will have to read about this some more.

In medical terminology, and much of scientific terminology in general, the vocabulary is clearly made up of words cobbled together from Greek or Latin roots in a straightforward way. The intent is to come up with terms that are intelligible to the global medical/scientific community,

However, ‘medicalese’ and scientific jargon are not vernaculars, and operate by different rules than everyday lingo that evolves with no clear rules or governing bodies (except for France 😉 or the like. As Bob M said, meaning is determined by usage. Words can and do change their meanings over time, indeed, sometimes often coming all the way ’round to mean the opposite of what they once meant. Read the King James Bible and you will instantly grasp the concept 😉

So in a vernacular, even if you can parse out the components that were melded together into a word, that is no guarantee that you know how the word was actually used, what it ‘meant’. Koine Greek was nothing if not a vernacular…

refugee wrote:

What is this whole thing with authority?

I think the best of the folks who teach this believe that authority is necessary for spiritual growth. They look around and see culture being anti-authority, and they conclude that the answer is more authority. They miss that culture has merely exchanged the authority that governs. Same as always.

The worst of them see it as a way to co-opt the church and use God’s name and authority to prop up their own. You must submit to God, God has called us to be your shepherds, therefore you must submit to us or you are not submitting to God. Of course, anyone who is willing to see can see the flaw in these arguments, but that’s what they say.

The Hebrews obey clobber verse is yet another instance of editing God’s word so that it says what they want it to say. My loose translation of it is “Don’t be a knothead and stubbornly refuse to listen to your teachers.” Notice that it does not vest the teachers with authority but rather addresses the attitude of the learner. This is the same mind trick that they play with Ephesians 5. The fact is that most of these young guys are just parroting what they have been taught.

Jonathan Leeman, Mark Dever, Wayne Grudem, John Piper, and the rest of the Authoritarian leaders want everyone to believe they have some special Spiritual Authority that other members of the Body of Christ are bound to obey on pain of disobeying Christ himself. This is yet another mind trick similar to the one they play with the later verses of Ephesians 5 where they assume that the husband is analogous to Christ in ways that the husband is *not* analogous to Christ.

Odd how the twists that they put on the text give them the options and the power while taking away the ability of the other people to listen to God and act according to conscience. They have become Leo in the confrontation with Luther.

@ Lydia:

This is the kind of thing that leaves me speechless. According to the polity of my church tradition, the membership of each parish must vote on a budget every year at an annual meeting. Every nickel, including the pastor’s (my!) salary, was projected in all its Power Point glory, and if it took all day and all night to pass that budget, well, that’s what we had to do. No secrets.

gardencurate wrote:

@ Lydia:

This is the kind of thing that leaves me speechless. According to the polity of my church tradition, the membership of each parish must vote on a budget every year at an annual meeting. Every nickel, including the pastor’s (my!) salary, was projected in all its Power Point glory, and if it took all day and all night to pass that budget, well, that’s what we had to do. No secrets.

the people in leadership at TVC would probably say (And I say probably because I have heard it in other churches) that the reason they have the elders work through the details of the budget is because of the tons and tons of detail that would take forever to wade through in a congregational setting. I am not saying whether its right or wrong, but just why they do it. I think with a perfect eldership, it would be ok, but it lends itself the possibility of abuse.

@ roebuck:

Well, that makes sense.

Joe2 wrote:

I fail to see the difficulty in dividing the assets and establishing separate accounts. A joint account has two signatures and either signature can withdraw any amount or all of the funds from the account. Karen could just withdraw the amount she deems appropriate and open a new account with the funds. There is no need to consult anyone about the appropriate amount.

The account was probably opened up as a joint account with Jordan and Karen listed as husband and wife. If Karen were seeking an annulment, continuing to have a joint checking account could be used to establish that she was still cohabiting with her husband, thus denying her the annulment. The funds *had* to be split as part of establishing that as soon as she found out the fraud, she stopped the cohabitation.

@ gardencurate:
God Bless you! That sausage making process is part of being the body.

Gram3 wrote:

Bob M wrote:
the reason they have the elders work through the details of the budget is because of the tons and tons of detail that would take forever to wade through in a congregational setting.
That’s what I’ve heard, too. The problem with that is that it is quite simple to post detailed line item expenditures and proposed line-item budget on the members’ website. They do not want to do that because they do not want people talking about it.

In much of rural New England, we have Town Meetings every year, where we vote for officials and the budget. A book goes out a couple of weeks beforehand so that everyone can read the nitty gritty details of any proposed new ‘warrant articles’, or modifications to existing laws. It also contains reports from all the town officers, and the complete itemized budget, last year’s and proposed.

All day long polls are open for the usual secret ballot for voting for officials and certain straightforward changes to existing rules and regulations. But in the evening we meet to debate the fun controversial stuff, if there is any. Anyone can stand up, state their name, and say their piece – sometimes that takes some courage. Decisions are by ‘acclamation’ (“All those in favor say yea, all those opposed say nay”), and if it’s close, little paper slips are handed out upon which you can scrawl your ‘yea’ or ‘nay’. These are gathered up and counted by the end of the meeting.

Some years it’s very perfunctory, and we’re all home by 8:30. Other years it can get rather hot and confrontational. But it works, and has for centuries. Total, utter transparency.

There is no reason for a church not to adopt the same model – it’s pretty much how my church operated when I was a member back in the day.

Of course, the town I live in has a population less than that of a megachurch… the 2010 Census shows about 1400 souls – about 200 more than when I moved here 22 years ago…

“A simple We.Are.Sorry would have made this all go away.”

Doubtful. All you watch-blog-prophetess-pastrixes ever say is “You think a simple SORRY is going to cut it and make this all go away?!”

rike wrote:

@ Bridget:

An additional “benefit” in their insistence on face-to-face meetings is that if the church member doesn’t agree, they get to say “Sadly, BadChurchMember refused our humble attempts to humbly meet with them to express our love and care and humbly walk beside them in their time of need.”

Thus making themselves look responsible and caring and the church member appear churlish and unwilling to talk.

And the pastors/elders who order excommunications/shunnings of members also claim before the church membership how “long they had tried to work with so-and-so [dissenting church member].”

@ JeffT:
Oops, left out the last paragraph:

Now you can hear that these are all soft expressions: “a bent toward trusting,” “a disposition to support,” “a wanting to imitate,” “an inclination to comply.” What those phrases are meant to do is capture both sides of the Biblical truth, namely, 1) that elders are fallible and should not lord it over the flock, and 2) the flock should follow good leadership.

@ JD Nielson:
So, please, tell us. Who are you defending?

@ JD Nielson:
That is just me. Don’t blame others here. Pastrix Lydia

dee wrote:

JD Nielson wrote:
All you watch-blog-prophetess-pastrixes ever say is “You think a simple SORRY is going to cut it and make this all go away?!”
If he had said he was sorry to Karen, we would never have learned of this incident.

I believe you. You’ve been in personal contact with her.

Question: If Josh Duggar released a new statement that said “In 20xx I sexually abused multiple people. It was sin, and I’m deeply sorry to my victims for the hurt and pain I’ve caused them from my sin. I don’t believe proper recourse was taken with the law.”

Would all the internet rage just go away?

BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

JD Nielson wrote:
No one.
You’re fine with the way Karen Hinkley was treated, then?

Nope. Didn’t say that.

JD Nielson wrote:

Nope. Didn’t say that.

Then, pray tell, what is your purpose here?

Nancy wrote:

it seems to me that when everything is taken into consideration we maybe ought to just forget about the b-i-b-l-e as being in any way specific and just read it to kind of get the general idea more or less.

Now Nancy, that’s a step too far from a gospelly gospelicious attitude…

BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

JD Nielson wrote:
I’m commenting.
No. You’re trolling.

Like….every one else on the internet whose business the interworkings of an autonomous church body are not yet pretend like they are?

Haitch wrote:

JD Nielson wrote:
pastrixes
I love this word. I’m thinking of a group of female Obelixes who all fell into the theological vat of magic potion.

Thanks Janet Mefferd for that one

BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

JD Nielson wrote:
I’m commenting.
No. You’re trolling.

OK fine. Here’s what I think:

1) To the extent that Karen did actually fail to keep her word as became her obligation by signing the church covenant, she was in sin. (*gasp*)

2) I wholeheartedly agree with the necessity of church discipline. However, from what I can tell, it was not done correctly here. Whether or not her sin was disciplinable is a question for another day.

3) Best argument for a congregational church polity right there.

BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

JD Nielson wrote:
I’m commenting.
No. You’re trolling.

Also, I believe she had Biblical grounds for divorce/annulment. Just so that question is settled.

JD Nielson wrote:

roebuck wrote:
JD Nielson wrote:
BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
JD Nielson wrote:
I’m commenting.
No. You’re trolling.
Like….every one else on the internet whose business the interworkings of an autonomous church body are not yet pretend like they are?
Dude, that wasn’t an English sentence. Please try again.

It in fact was. Thanks for your valuable input.

No, it wasn’t.

I think this boils down to they don’t see pedophilia any different than adultery between two adults. That’s a problem because there is something seriously psychologically amiss in the pedophile that you don’t find in the adult adulterous relationship. Getting them to acknowledge that is very unlikely. Even if someone has repented of pedophilia wouldn’t it be wise to notify anyone whose children came into contact with him? They act like forgiveness is a magically act that takes place in an instant. With something like sex addiction or abuse this takes time. Gary W wrote:

So the position is that annulment is a sub-category of divorce? Really? Always? Even if a woman discovers that her new husband is married to another woman? Would they really expect the defrauded wife to reconcile? I would like to think not, although if it fit their agenda, they probably would insist on reconciliation. Maybe the defrauded “wife” would be expected to hang around and keep house, sort of submit to a state of involuntary servitude–though without intimate relations of course.

Well, it isn’t about logical consistency, and it certainly isn’t about right and wrong. It is about the exercise of power in the pursuit of covering up a scandal. Really, one can only hope they learn the hard way that it is the cover up, and not the scandal, that will get you. Kind of like what happened with Richard Nixon.

dee wrote:

JD Nielson wrote:
Would all the internet rage just go away?
Last time I checked my blood pressure, I was not in a state of rage.
No, I am still concerned. Duggar did not receive intensive counseling. Many molesters have a fixed sexual preference, which, in his case, is close family members who are younger than he and female.
i think it is highly possible that Duggar married Anna and is producing children that could be at risk, especially the girls. I am writing about pedophilia in today’s post. I think many in the church are quite naive about the problems inherent in this problem. It just doesn’t go away if one is a good Christian.

So, can the GOSPEL of Jesus Christ change the perverse desires of sexual predators? That’s a question I’d like answered.

dee wrote:

JD Nielson wrote:
Would all the internet rage just go away?
Last time I checked my blood pressure, I was not in a state of rage.
No, I am still concerned. Duggar did not receive intensive counseling. Many molesters have a fixed sexual preference, which, in his case, is close family members who are younger than he and female.
i think it is highly possible that Duggar married Anna and is producing children that could be at risk, especially the girls. I am writing about pedophilia in today’s post. I think many in the church are quite naive about the problems inherent in this problem. It just doesn’t go away if one is a good Christian.

Also, by “internet rage” I was referring to the entire internet….which is in fact raging against him right now.

JD Nielson wrote:

So, can the GOSPEL of Jesus Christ change the perverse desires of sexual predators? That’s a question I’d like answered.

I am certainly not going to test it by hiring a “repentant” predator to babysit.

roebuck wrote:

Like….every one else on the internet whose business the interworkings of an autonomous church body are not yet pretend like they are?

Like….(every)<–adjective (one) <–subject (else) <–adjective (on the internet) <–prepositional phrase (whose business)<–relative pronoun + possessive object (the interworkings of an autonomous church body are not)<–dependent clause (yet) <–conjunction (pretend) <–verb (like they are) <–dependent clause

BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

JD Nielson wrote:
So, can the GOSPEL of Jesus Christ change the perverse desires of sexual predators? That’s a question I’d like answered.
Can you provide links to any research studies that it does? Thanks.

1 Corinthians 6 and the rest of the New Testament.

JD Nielson wrote:

1) To the extent that Karen did actually fail to keep her word as became her obligation by signing the church covenant, she was in sin. (*gasp*)

It blows my mind that people are focusing on this. It reminds me of Jim Jones. In his early days he was considered very maintstream and even recommended by Jimmy Carter. What if you had signed a covenant at his church in those early loving days? Would it be a sin to break it when you saw things you knew where not right?

The covenant is a man made document. Even contracts that were written under fraud are breakable. Get a reality check on “Karen’s sin for breaking the covenant”. It is ridiculous and cultic thinking.

Karen RESIGNED from that church which made the contract void. They have NO power to force her to abide by their interpretation of things. (Which are weird enough)

@ JD Nielson:

Do you mean 1 Corin 5 where the pervert was kicked out and Paul said turn him over to Satan so he can be saved? Is that what you are referring to?

JD Nielson wrote:

Nope. Why is this in question?

Because there are many who keep equating her annulment to a divorce. They’re not the same thing.

JD Nielson wrote:

So, can the GOSPEL of Jesus Christ change the perverse desires of sexual predators? That’s a question I’d like answered.

Is there anything specific in scripture that says that one can reliably say that the gospel of Jesus Christ will change any perverse desires? I see promises of forgiveness, but no promise of the elimination of temptation. In fact, quite the opposite, there are instructions as to how to handle temptation. There is even that ultimate warning (hyperbole I think) about the eye and the hand that causes one to sin. This says to me that the answer to your question is-while God theoretically could do whatever and whenever, there is no reason to believe that this will happen.

As to whether people can resist temptation and/or whether compulsions and addictions can be successfully treated-those are different questions.

Nancy wrote:

Let me be more specific. Why would God do that to us? Or maybe God did not do that to us; maybe we did it to ourselves. Perhaps we need a different understanding of what scripture is and what to do with it.

Bingo! Your comment was beautiful and I totally agree. Humans have turned the scriptures into a club to beat folks with and a practical application manual for life in the 21st Century. Few churches do any historical scholarship so these views work well to keep folks in bondage. Some even treat it as the 4th person of the Trinity.

We can start with facts that it is a collection of books written by different people over a huge span of time. It is an account. Do I believe it is inspired? Yes. By the fact that people were inspired to leave an account. But even that does not do justice to what books were left out, the different translations of very important concepts (like teshuqa) that literally teach the opposite of what was meant, etc. It has been used as a political football since the early days and councils.

Nothing can replace the Holy Spirit.

Gram3 wrote:

formerly anonymous wrote:
Gram3 wrote:
The CasterofPods does not have a heart.
I am sure I laughed way too much at this.
Hm. Now I have a problem. How do I say bless his heart if he doesn’t have one? Maybe I should start saying bless his absent heart? Or bless his ego? Except I can’t say bless his little ego….

In such situations, you smile sweetly and say, “Poor darlin’. He cain’t help himself.” Now I’m hearing in my head “You gotta have heart. All you really need is heart.” Yeah, I’m that old. Dadgum Yankees.

Ah. OK. Thanks! 🙂

@ JD Nielson:

What does “they are nothing new” supposed to communicate? That means they are a good thing? Tradition is always good?

Is this where we discuss the Puritans? Geneva? Church state magistrates? :o)

JD Nielson wrote:

BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
JD Nielson wrote:
I’m commenting.
No. You’re trolling.
Like….every one else on the internet whose business the interworkings of an autonomous church body are not yet pretend like they are?

That’s an interesting comment. The mars hills, acts 29, SGM, etc. are autonomous churches. Except when they have massive conferences, blogs, websites, etc. exporting their theology and church governance etc. in addition to being critical of those in other camps. They like to say their autonomous when it serves their needs.

JD Nielson wrote:

1) To the extent that Karen did actually fail to keep her word as became her obligation by signing the church covenant, she was in sin. (*gasp*)

Hogwash. If you make a mistake, in this case signing a church covenant, it is your duty to correct the mistake as soon as you realize what you have done. Whether it is to annul a marriage which was entered into by fraud or whether it is to let us say resign from the communist party or whether it is to leave a cult or even convert from one of the major religions, or whatever. To continue in known error, in this case to let people try to convince you to return to a non-marriage and lend your very body to a pervert (let’s call it what it is) is what would have been sin, pure and simple.

Haitch wrote:

JD Nielson wrote:
pastrixes
I love this word. I’m thinking of a group of female Obelixes who all fell into the theological vat of magic potion.

Oh wait. He meant more than one girl pastor? Shouldn’t that be pastrices? This is so confusing to my little feminine mind. Oh wait. I’m masculine and make John Piper uncomfortable in his masculinity. So therefore I can think and speak. I know there is a page somewhere in RBMW about this…

andrew wrote:

JD Nielson wrote:
BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
JD Nielson wrote:
I’m commenting.
No. You’re trolling.
Like….every one else on the internet whose business the interworkings of an autonomous church body are not yet pretend like they are?
That’s an interesting comment. The mars hills, acts 29, SGM, etc. are autonomous churches. Except when they have massive conferences, blogs, websites, etc. exporting their theology and church governance etc. in addition to being critical of those in other camps. They like to say their autonomous when it serves their needs.

I’m simply saying…it’s technically none of our business. People need to get a better understanding of whom their opinion is binding upon.

Law Prof wrote:

JD Nielson wrote:
BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
JD Nielson wrote:
I’m commenting.
No. You’re trolling.
Like….every one else on the internet whose business the interworkings of an autonomous church body are not yet pretend like they are?
That’s funny, I thought it was the duty of Christians, as directed by God Himself to not only have nothing to do with evil, but to EXPOSE IT.
Guess your big issue here, JD, is with the Lord. Why don’t you take it up with Him and ask Him why He was so foolish in your view (apparently, must be your view) to inspire those words?

I’m actually confused by what you mean. Which words?

“ill-behaving”

JD Nielson wrote:

the entire internet….which is in fact raging against him right now.

Who among the Gospel Glitterati and their fanboys/girls is writing about this. I mean aside from the pre-emptive “shut up” posts. Please tell us who is calling out this sin among the ELDERS against one of God’s lambs?

BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

JD Nielson wrote:
1 Corinthians 6 and the rest of the New Testament.
Actually, I was asking for references to published scientific studies. Thanks.

Because that’s the best place to get our theology.

JD Nielson wrote:

Like….(every)<–adjective (one) <–subject (else) <–adjective (on the internet) <–prepositional phrase (whose business)<–relative pronoun + possessive object (the interworkings of an autonomous church body are not)<–dependent clause (yet) <–conjunction (pretend) <–verb (like they are) <–dependent clause

Putting the tic in pedantic. I see from this why you see things the way you do, however.

dee wrote:

JD Nielson wrote:
So, can the GOSPEL of Jesus Christ change the perverse desires of sexual predators? That’s a question I’d like answered.
Jesus Christ has the power to change a hut into cathedral if He so desires. However, as a former nurse who cared for many people with cancer and the mother of a child who had a brain tumor, I know that He can cure people but usually doesn’t do so.
Do you know that Paul does not talk about Jesus’ miracles in the Epistles? Instead, he laser focuses on the Cross and the Resurrection. Why is that? Because he got what Jesus said the lame man when he first said “You sins are forgiven.” The Pharisees went nuts. Jesus then told the man to start walking.
Jesus showed us that the real miracle in our life is our reconciliation to the Father through hHis Son. Most of us will have to live with pain and sorrow in the midst of this. So, perhaps Jesus will not cure Jordan but teach him to persevere throughout his life. In fact, Jordan may never be able to have a normal relationship with a woman.
Also, you must take into consideration that Jordan may be playing games with all of us. I write about that today as well.

I agree with most of this, except my contention is that God does in fact *often* change our sinful desires into desires to serve him. Sometimes, he doesn’t and someone may live with a certain sin that clings closely. But the central focus of the New Covenant is that cold dead hearts become living, beating ones that are tuned by the Spirit. My point is that we should also be willing to take into consideration the fact that he may actually have been changed into a higher degree of glory since his crimes were committed.

JD Nielson wrote:

1) To the extent that Karen did actually fail to keep her word as became her obligation by signing the church covenant, she was in sin. (*gasp*)

2) I wholeheartedly agree with the necessity of church discipline. However, from what I can tell, it was not done correctly here. Whether or not her sin was disciplinable is a question for another day.

3) Best argument for a congregational church polity right there.

1) She did not break the covenant, so therefore there are no grounds for discipline. They got their knickers knotted because she didn’t bow before them She spoke, and women are not permitted to speak.
2)This is not a “no true church discipline” issue. This is SIN of ELDERS against an innocent woman that they had a duty to protect. Shirkers and woman-blamers. Every last one of them. Isn’t that what your Gospel of Gender teaches?
3)9Marks advocates for congregational polity. That was the SGM excuse. Remember that? It was their ecclesiology that was toxic. Their polity flowed from that well.

JD Nielson wrote:

My point is that we should also be willing to take into consideration the fact that he may actually have been changed into a higher degree of glory since his crimes were committed.

Perhaps. But what does that have to do with Karen being defrauded by a pedophile WHILE he was a practicing, professing missionary Christian?

JD Nielson wrote:

So, can the GOSPEL of Jesus Christ change the perverse desires of sexual predators? That’s a question I’d like answered.

There is no cure for pedophilia. Prayer has not been shown to cure this sickness. I realize that may run against the ideas of some of you here. However, we have to be honest about this situation and not make statements which are not verifiable in fact.

Lydia wrote:

JD Nielson wrote:
My point is that we should also be willing to take into consideration the fact that he may actually have been changed into a higher degree of glory since his crimes were committed.
Perhaps. But what does that have to do with Karen being defrauded by a pedophile WHILE he was a practicing, professing missionary Christian?

Sorry, I was trying to pin down the general understanding of sanctification on here.

I don’t think she was defrauded. I think she was married to a sinful man who persisted in sin for many years. And I think she should have divorced him (on the basis of sexual immorality) and not had the marriage annulled; but I haven’t given that enough thought and can’t speak from a place of conviction on that.

Gram3 wrote:

3)9Marks advocates for congregational polity

I dug a bit on this one. 9 Marks actually going by the old Puritanesque idea of congregationalism which is nothing like the congregationalism you and I grew up in as SBC. Again, they use same words, different definitions.

Hilarious, as I’m composing my response and before I click “post comment”, Mirele goes and makes that claim that it’s impossible. Well, Mirele, I disagree with you here, because there is nothing that God cannot cure if He is of a mind to and if we are willing to submit ourselves to it–the second prong of that is typically the rub, though.

Michaela wrote:

The Village Church pastors/elders haven’t taken Jordan Root’s pedophilia seriously. If they had, they would have:
*required Jordan Root to tell them the names of all of his child sexual abuse victims, their names, their countries, where he sexually abused them;
*required that Jordan Root tell the electronic devices that he used to view child porn on and what he did to conceal the child porn
*required Jordan Root to go to law enforcement and confess everything, including arrest and prosecution
*require Jordan Root to plead “guilty” to the charges and not contest or reduce them
*attend to the victims and their families (wherever they are in the world)
*attend to Karen who did the RIGHT thing and stop hassling her.
These “pastors”/”elders” are FAILURES and are not fit to lead. They care nothing about these children, their parents, our laws, and Karen.

Yeah. If the Village Church took its “covenant” seriously, it would have done these things.

Instead, Jordan is being treated as a repentant golden boy and Karen is being disciplined because she failed to knuckle under and do exactly as the elders desired.

JD Nielson wrote:

I think she was married to a sinful man who persisted in sin for many years

Yes, who made working with children his “Christian” mission. ARe you really trying to dumb down or sin level this perversion?

I love how church celebrity pastors want us to buy their books and see their sermons online-but then-when someone points out an issue (or in this case, a crime) they want to cry foul and say that the big bad internet is not a place to have an opinion about an “autonomous church”.

Give me a break, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t speak at conferences, sell books internationally, and publish internet sermons and podcasts and then ask for utmost privacy when something doesn’t go your way-deal with it. It’s called being a public figure, and it’s most likely something Chandler chose and sought out.

JD Nielson wrote:

I think there are a lot of people on this blog who don’t believe in progressive sanctification, which is an underlying point of contention for both cases.

As in “I am saved but I still view child porn so just give it some time as I will progressively stop….someday”

So there is your new life in Christ.

JD Nielson wrote:

I’m simply saying…it’s technically none of our business.

Please take that philosophic principle right on over to the ELDERS at The Village. I’m sure they have never thought of the MYOB principle. Because they are control freaks whose egos have overtaken them.

JD Nielson wrote:

dee wrote:

JD Nielson wrote:
All you watch-blog-prophetess-pastrixes ever say is “You think a simple SORRY is going to cut it and make this all go away?!”
If he had said he was sorry to Karen, we would never have learned of this incident.

I believe you. You’ve been in personal contact with her.

Question: If Josh Duggar released a new statement that said “In 20xx I sexually abused multiple people. It was sin, and I’m deeply sorry to my victims for the hurt and pain I’ve caused them from my sin. I don’t believe proper recourse was taken with the law.”

Would all the internet rage just go away?

@JD Nielson
No, it would not. I will tell you why. Sexual predators are not being dealt with in a biblical or legal way. Victims are shunned and demeaned and demoralized and belittled and marginalized.

The voices who are raging, many at least, are the victims or those who are closely connected to victims. I have been talking to Dee in the background, and I am very closely affected by this, and I am in the midst of trying to bring some heinous sin to light, so this is serious business for me and mine.

The internet rage is not going away. I think it is warranted.

JD Nielson wrote:

Because that’s the best place to get our theology.

Is it the best place to find medical help? Been to a doctor lately, or do you call for the ELDERS to anoint you with oil, preferably EVOO?

@ Lydia:
Not a coincidence. Dever was Congregational before he was cool. So was Shubal Stearns, if memory serves. He and Martha and Daniel Marshall got over that.

mirele wrote:

Law Prof wrote:
Hilarious, as I’m composing my response and before I click “post comment”, Mirele goes and makes that claim that it’s impossible. Well, Mirele, I disagree with you here, because there is nothing that God cannot cure if He is of a mind to and if we are willing to submit ourselves to it–the second prong of that is typically the rub, though.
Well, I was thinking in a secular mode. And, as Been There Done That pointed out, there haven’t been any double-blind studies done, so we can’t actually say prayer cures pedophilia from an evidentiary perspective.
If a person wants to believe a pedophile has been cured, that’s their business. However, for the benefit of everyone around that pedophile, people need to know and there need to be boundaries around the pedophile to protect children. Or as Reagan said, “Trust but verify.”

OH, fine then, I understand, in my profession I get into the secular mode also. Miracles seldom show up in double blind studies, and when they do (as I’m sure they must), they’re probably written off as outliers, anomalies, white noise.

JD Nielson wrote:

we should also be willing to take into consideration the fact that he may actually have been changed into a higher degree of glory since his crimes were committed.

Translation from the Piper, please. Do you know the last time he committed a crime? I doubt if you do, unless you are Jordan himself.

Gram3 wrote:

JD Nielson wrote:
we should also be willing to take into consideration the fact that he may actually have been changed into a higher degree of glory since his crimes were committed.

Translation from the Piper, please.

Into English, not fluttering-hand sign language.

Oh, and is that “Higher Degree of Glory” anything like the Mormon Celestial State?

Gram3 wrote:

JD Nielson wrote:
Because that’s the best place to get our theology.

Is it the best place to find medical help?

Maybe if you’re into Mary Baker Eddy…

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Gram3 wrote:
JD Nielson wrote:
we should also be willing to take into consideration the fact that he may actually have been changed into a higher degree of glory since his crimes were committed.
Translation from the Piper, please.
Into English, not fluttering-hand sign language.
Oh, and is that “Higher Degree of Glory” anything like the Mormon Celestial State?

No, in the 2 Cor. 3:18 kind of way.

Michaela wrote:

JD Nielson wrote:
Sorry, this was again in reference to Duggar. I think there are a lot of people on this blog who don’t believe in progressive sanctification, which is an underlying point of contention for both cases.
Perhaps you haven’t gotten to the part in The Bible where Christians are to obey the government’s laws.
The Duggar parents, Josh Duggar, The Village Church pastors/elders and Jordan Root all want special exemptions to the criminal laws. They want to be held above the laws.
To that end, an emboldened Josh Duggar sued The Arkansas Human Services Department when he was 19 years old for investigating his crimes against his sisters and Victim No. 5. Where did he get the money to do that? An attorney? How come Daddy and Mommy didn’t tell him ‘no’?
One of the Duggars allies in Arkansas in the state senate has demanded the firing of the Springdale Police Chief who was required by law under the Freedom of Information Act to produce a copy of the redacted police report to the news agency that asked for it. The Duggars have yet to apologize to that police chief, who would have committed a crime if she hadn’t produced that report.
The special perks that this family wants, including to deceive others that they are dealing with, knows no bounds.
A judge ordered that the police report be destroyed, when nobody else’s police report is destroyed. Another special perk this family wanted.
They have no one to blame for their tremendous fall but themselves. They have yet to apologize to everyone they deceived.

No, I agree that the Duggar clan should be made responsible to any legal recourse appertaning to their situation.

DEB, DEE, GUY BEHIND THE CURTAIN:

I MOVE WE CHANGE THE TITLE OF THIS THREAD TO “CELEBRITY DEATHMATCH: JD NIELSON VS ALL COMERS”.

JD Nielson wrote:

No, in the 2 Cor. 3:18 kind of way.

And we get the SCRIPTURE(TM) Zip Codes.

Even the Calormenes quoted the actual lines of The Poets.

Can I just say this? JD Nielsen, your insistence on splitting hairs over theology in this means nothing to those of us who do not ascribe to the Christian faith. All we see is a church protecting a pedophile and punishing a woman who had the courage and good sense to stand up for what is right, to stand up for victims. And this defending and minimizing is deplorable. For all the amazing things I’ve seen from people on here and elsewhere on the web, people who follow Christ, who have actually exhibited the love that Christ preached, it is the behavior of those who claim to follow him yet will not take a solid stand against those who would hurt children, that makes me so glad I left ‘the fold’. I have been very measured in my responses in every avenue on this, so forgive me if my anger is getting the best of me here.
I was abused & tortured by a pastor, his wife, and other church leaders. My parents followed much of the same sort of theology that I’m reading TVC and the Duggars follow (not saying they’re the exact same theology, but there are some common strands). I cannot begin to tell you the kind of hell I have been through in my 30 years on earth, all in the name of “God”. All with the same bullsh*t you’re spewing, the legalistic mindset, the emphasis on everything except what really matters. This is why people leave churches like TVC. Why people leave “the Church” in general. The environment created by this horrid theology you espouse (which, as some wonderful commenters on here and elsewhere in the blogosphere have pointed out is not biblically sound, thank you so very much), enables and perpetuates abuse. It absolutely crushed my inner child, and I am still trying to revive her. Congratulations if this is entertaining- you brought your popcorn, after all.
I just feel you’re missing the point entirely. I’ve shared a bit of my personal story here because I think it’s important to see that this sort of culture victimizes the vulnerable, and it is not okay, and that is ultimately what anyone who loves other people should be concerned about. Not legalistic crap about man-made covenants.

Lydia wrote:

But what does that have to do with Karen being defrauded by a pedophile WHILE he was a practicing, professing missionary Christian?

Most exquisite point. He was already a professed Christian. Why did he persist in that sin. For crying out loud, he was at Cedarville and DTS. If you don’t hear the Bible there and the gospel there, I don’t know where you will. Those are a couple of conservative places. Cedarville used to be GARB, hardly liberal and gospel-denying.

JD Nielson wrote:

I don’t think she was defrauded.

What in the world does fraud mean to you? He was a pedophile and did not let her know. She acted in good faith while he was not acting in good faith toward her. He was using her to cover himself. Goodness. What world do you live in? OK with you if a pedophile marries your daughter without telling her? Are you going to tell her to go to her ELDERS and get their permission to divorce?

There was not a marriage. There was not a covenant. Both the ELDERS and Jordan deceived her about the “covenant” and the nature of those covenants.

JD Nielson wrote:

@ Gram3:
This was actually in reference to Duggar. Thanks for playing!

How many birthdays have you had? If someone misunderstands what your reference is and if you really want to have a conversation, you merely need to clarify.

FYI, I came into the conversation after being occupied working on an important public health and safety matter, and I’ve been multi-tasking since I rejoined the conversation. Sorry I confused Duggar with Jordan. We had been talking the past few days primarily about Jordan with a slight jog to talk about the PodcasterWhoShallNotBeNamed whose name is very similar.

Did I miss something somewhere? Is “the GOSPEL” a fourth member of the godhead? It strike me as odd the formulation to speak of the gospel as if it is like the Holy Spirit that can be called on.

Theology is not my strong point but I’ve been around long enough. This type of reference to the “good news” just strikes me as odd.

JD Nielson wrote:

I think there are a lot of people on this blog who don’t believe in progressive sanctification

Name names, but first define your terms. Progressive does not mean the same as continuous, or final or immediate.

Gram3 wrote:

JD Nielson wrote:
@ Gram3:

How many birthdays have you had? If someone misunderstands what your reference is and if you really want to have a conversation, you merely need to clarify.

Sorry for being rude. Also, you may be right about the fraud part, but I haven’t given that bit enough thought yet. I’m not sure I have enough evidence to say one way or another. But I think she at least had grounds to divorce him.

Flicker wrote:

@ Haitch:
I think pastrix is the plural of ‘pastry’ but I’m not sure.

pastrix is a term of derision used by those who do not believe in female pastors.

@ BeenThereDoneThat:
What were Jacob’s godly options when he woke up and found Leah next to him?

JD Nielson wrote:

But I think she at least had grounds to divorce him.

But, she didn’t divorce him. In fact, the marriage never happened.

BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

JD Nielson wrote:
But I think she at least had grounds to divorce him.
But, she didn’t divorce him. In fact, the marriage never happened.

I think I disagree with that. Need to chew on it more before I have good reasons though.

mirele wrote:

However, for the benefit of everyone around that pedophile, people need to know and there need to be boundaries around the pedophile to protect children.

ISTM that a truly repentant pedophile would put boundaries around himself and would be going to extraordinary lengths to avoid the very possibility of harming another child. That is just wisdom to recognize a weakness and try to mitigate the potential damage to others by whatever means.

JD Nielson wrote:

Sorry for breaking my word about not interacting with you again.

I forgive you. 🙂

BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

Flicker wrote:

What were Jacob’s godly options when he woke up and found Leah next to him?

I don’t know what his options were then. Had he lived in the Lone Star State, he probably could have requested an annulment too.

But TVC would have called it a divorce.

Patrice wrote:

Lydia wrote:
I have seen it over and over where churches even reach into the secular business world and plant poisonous seeds to try and keep people— who dared disagree with them…. from making a living
Sure looks like revenge and bitterness and unforgiveness. From the same people who bleat on about instant/complete forgiveness for people like Jordon.

It is extremely rare in the business community to try to prevent someone who has left from making a living. It is much more common in churches.

@ BeenThereDoneThat:
You mean as in “science so-called”?

Gram3 wrote:

As I reviewed the docs, Erin Brindley is Richard Brindley’s wife. She was the staff female who attended the meeting with Karen. Apologies for missing that part. So, they couldn’t find any other objective hopefully mature woman in a congregation of 11,000 who was not paid staff and the wife of one of the oppressors? Can we safely say this is what a Star Chamber might look like?

I think we can safely say that this is what “complementarian” church discipline looks like.

Bob M wrote:

But TVC would have called it a divorce.

Of course they would. Then they could spank her with all of the scriptures on divorce.

@ JD Nielson:
Ps 15:1-4
Lord, who shall abide in thy tabernacle? who shall dwell in thy holy hill?… He that sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not.
KJV

to argue a point, cults are generally based on charismatic leadership

JD Nielson wrote:

No, in the 2 Cor. 3:18 kind of way.

Paul is saying that we see the glory of God in Christ and that we have the hope of being transformed in such a way that we reflect the image of Christ more closely. It is not a matter of “states of glory” but rather a matter of comparing what I look like at any given moment with what Christ looks like. That is exactly why I keep saying that the ELDERS are not resembling Christ at all in this entire sorry episode. Neither are the Duggars, just so I don’t talk about the wrong thing. There are many overlaps, not the least of which is an annoying overabundance of “J” names coming out of a certain decade.

proudjezebel wrote:

It absolutely crushed my inner child, and I am still trying to revive her. Congratulations if this is entertaining- you brought your popcorn, after all.

For some, theology is a game or an intellectual exercise. It is no substitute for a faith that is living and powered by the Holy Spirit instead of laws made by gnat-straining and camel-swallowing mint tithers.

I hope that you can feel and see that there are many of us who claim the name of Jesus who do not claim what others are saying the faith is. I am so sorry that evil people used Jesus to cover their sin against you. It must grieve the Lord terribly to see his name misused.

BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

JD Nielson wrote:

I think I disagree with that. Need to chew on it more before I have good reasons though.

You are certainly free to disagree. But, as far as Texas is concerned, the marriage never happened.

The one person who would know for sure is Jordan and he signed the annulment papers. I’m not a lawyer yet I take it as a signed admission of fraud in the marriage. So can we set this one aside as settled?

@ Bob M:
No, no. It’s actually correct English. It is the feminine for pastor, as aviatrix (as Amelia Earhart was always called) is the feminine for aviator.

Lydia wrote:

@ Arce:

Totally agree except for some very silly non compete contracts I have seen where they have tried. I was thinking of the business people who attend the megas and employ other members. There were a lot of them. I was not clear.

In California, employee non-compete agreements are void under law and can’t be enforced.

Gram3, I very much appreciate the perspective of the majority of believers commenting here. In fact, it is refreshing and healing, to hear such love come from the mouths of those who claim to follow Christ. The Jesus you and so many others on here claim is a Jesus I could trust. Thanks for representing like that.

@ Nancy:

To me, this is not good news. Or even news. This is not much better than how a bunch of chimps live and interact with each other-behaviors and power structure. I defer to Roebuck on chimp behavior, but you get the picture.

Flicker wrote:

An annulment is a legal process, I meant godly options.

Marriage, divorce, and annulments are all legal processes. Since polygamy was perfectly acceptable in Jacob’s day, it seems it wasn’t a problem for him.

@ Bridget:
Re verbal only meetings. If you go to one, take two other people with you, and take a recording device, show it openly. If they say that you do not trust them, tell them that a meeting like this is evidence that they are not trustworthy.

Gary W wrote:

@ Bob M:
I was not aware of Acts 19:32. Thanks. Yet from Strongs, at least, it is clear that ekklesia includes the concept of being called out, not just called together. No so with synagogue. I’d be interested if you have any thoughts regarding the difference between ekklesia and synagogue.

This is one of several instances where Strong’s is just wrong. Ekklesia just means a gathering.

@ Flicker:

Are you familiar with David Instone Brewer? He is a Hebrew scholar who does serious work on this issue of marriage vows, divorce, remarriage, etc from the OT to what Jesus is referring to in the NT. He has some videos that are free.

Gram3 wrote:

JD Nielson wrote:
I think I disagree with that. Need to chew on it more before I have good reasons though.
Chew on the fact set with your daughter or granddaughter in the place of Karen. Then get back to us with your reasoning about whether fraud was perpetrated on her or not.

Ahhh the feels.

I see no Biblical reason to grant that a marriage never happened, and I think it’s dangerous to start saying that “because this person was doing this or that sin, they defrauded the other person.”

Nancy wrote:

but you get the picture.

Thanks for the response. As I’ve mentioned I’m new at this but I’ve noticed similar usage of “the GOSPEL” and it feels similar to hearing an accent. I’m just not seasoned enough to pick out the theological region it comes from. But then some of y’all are from down south and this may be part of it, in Orygun we don’t speak that way.

@ Nancy:
I agree almost entirely, with two exceptions. As I’ve said before, I’m a conservative, so I think that the Bible demonstrably does not say what they say it says. So there’s that. I think we still get to LAX from LGA, but I go through Denver and you go through DFW. Or something like that. We still get to LAX. Route 66 or I-40, IIRC.

I think, as a practical matter, that the Gospel Glitterati have inserted themselves between God the Father and God the Son. They have deemed the Son to be a subordinate person, and therefore I say that the Glitterites are seizing/usurping the authority of the Eternal Son. Naturally, they would not say that. Otherwise, I think your analysis is right on.

JD Nielson wrote:

Well, I was simply quoting Paul there.

More precisely you were taking the meaning from the words taken out of their context. Paul was a master of rhetoric *and* logic and the OT scriptures. You proof-text him at your own risk. In any case he does not speak of “states of glory” as far as I can see. The important thing is that the power is the Holy Spirit’s power, not the power of a book at a conference book table. Or under your chair.

Bill M wrote:

So can we set this one aside as settled?

It doesn’t appear to be settled with everybody. However, the law doesn’t really give a hoot what anyone else wants to call it. 🙂 Legally, Karen was never married.

@ JD Nielson:
If Law Prof is lurking about, hopefully he can weigh in. Karen files for an annulment based on fraud, Jordan signs the annulment, is it not an admission of fraud?

@ BeenThereDoneThat:
Psychological counseling is not a science. It’s very precepts are conjecture, and not even agreed upon by practitioners; they are unprovable, and there is no evidence that anyone who had been helped by psychotherapy has not stood a better chance at healing by the aid of a placebo, and there is proof that those who underwent psychology have been subject to harm from the interaction.

@ Bill M:
Agreed.

@ BeenThereDoneThat:
So the first time (or perhaps the 470th time) that I don’t cherish my wife, then I have broken the marriage covenant? And then divorce is applicable? Is marriage even a “covenant” in God’s eyes? Or is it something more?

Can the gospel change a pervert’s desires? Question from JD Nielson

That is their defense, isn’t it? Quite effective in backing Christians into a “gospel” corner. Cedarville, TVC, JD, Jordan, & most reformed say yes, Jesus changes perverts. And when Jesus doesn’t, people will walk away from a cruel Jesus with their morals intact, or they will believe perverts are Jesus vessels & victims are part of the Divine holy plan.

If Karen went to Cedarville, she’s heard this “I’m a broken vessel shell that Jesus is shining thru” teaching. I’m thinking she must have changed her mind. I certainly have. Or maybe she never bought it, I don’t know. I do know this teaching is a match made in heaven for perverts, or so it would seem. Wisdom says stay far away from any institution (church, school, fellowship) that teaches this.

I believe Jesus taught us to follow him. It is 100% OUR choice. Jesus doesn’t force, coerce or change us. We have choice & responsibility for our own action as pre & post Jesus followers. If we know & love Jesus we know doing good is good for us & others. That is the blessed abundant life teaching of Jesus.

Btw, if we believe each have God-given choice & responsibility, then we are free to find cures, solve problems, protect innocent, to do right, to love. That is a mission on track with the teachings of Jesus. And that is what will change the world, not a message that exalts brokenness as a lifestyle.

Bill M wrote:

@ JD Nielson:
If Law Prof is lurking about, hopefully he can weigh in. Karen files for an annulment based on fraud, Jordan signs the annulment, is it not an admission of fraud?

Two people decide they just don’t love each other anymore. They both sign the papers. Is it not an acceptable divorce?

@ Gary W:
Thank you. I’ll look it up.

Michaela wrote:

J.D., also chew on the fact that these are felony crimes (child exploitation) under federal and state laws that carry long prison sentences.

J.D. has already indicated he has no regard for the opinion of the governing authorities in this case. The state of Texas has no authority over Jordan and The Village ELDERS. That whole authority thing is just when it’s convenient.

Gram3 wrote:

Michaela wrote:
J.D., also chew on the fact that these are felony crimes (child exploitation) under federal and state laws that carry long prison sentences.
J.D. has already indicated he has no regard for the opinion of the governing authorities in this case. The state of Texas has no authority over Jordan and The Village ELDERS. That whole authority thing is just when it’s convenient.

I’m wrestling with the question of whether or not annulment is biblically permissible. If not, the law of Texas is irrelevant.

Gram3 wrote:

Then what are you defending here

That was one of the first questions I asked.

Gram3 wrote:

The fact is that marriage in the ANE was not a romantic thing but an economic or political institution and females were the currency

Yes. Trying to map ANE marriage to today is a fools errand and a horrible way to do practical Christianity. Polygamy was tolerated because women whose husbands had died or were unwanted might have starved to death and been vulnerable to rape and kidnap. God was saying: Take care of the vulnerable!

JD Nielson wrote:

I’m wrestling with the question of whether or not annulment is biblically permissible.

Seriously? I mean, really? The Bible does not address annulment. You are staking a claim in the territory where the pagans understand true truth more than the religious.

JD Nielson wrote:

Nowhere have I insisted that she continue being married to him. My contention is that she should have divorced him instead of annulled

TVC leaders seem to think that is also more important than pedophilia, strangely enough.

@ JD Nielson:
I fully believe that God can cure a pedophile of his pedophilia. There are no documented cases of that, and many documented cases of failure of religious leaders to successfully help a pedophile to change. At most, a pedophile can be trained to not act on the impulse, which coupled with 24/7/365 supervision can enable the pedophile to avoid acting on his urges.

Flicker wrote:

From what I understand, when Jesus was presented with the two views on marriage — one that marriage was unbreakable and the other that divorce was appropriate for burning dinner — Jesus said that what God has joined – I repeat what GOD has joined — let no man tear asunder.

Check out Instone Brewer. The bigger problem is we have been taught very wrong about OT divorce. Jesus was referring to the man made “any cause” divorce the religious leaders were hawking for themselves. It was “specific” not a general law. There are provisions in the OT for divorce because of neglect, violence, etc.

Flicker wrote:

I’ll answer your question, but (first?)

I think I already know your answer. And I’m afraid we are going to disagree. Karen received a legal annulment which the Bible neither condones nor prohibits.

@ Gram3:
Yes, this is very good, but it’s a legal distinction that violates what Karen thought she had and said she had that day after her marriage. I’m not saying Karen should have stayed married, or that she shouldn’t have left Jordan, or that an annulment wasn’t appropriate. Or that she sinned. Or that she did wrong. What I’m saying is that legal marriage laws and contract law, is a new superimposition upon a millennia-old thing that is both social, and something that Christians (of which I am one) lay directly within God’s intentions and ways for humanity to order their lives, and we say of it that “God created marriage” and so forth. If God created marriage, then I don’t think it’s fair — in fact, I would call it a cop-out — to now define it according to the prevailing laws within the United States’ legal system.

Let me give an example that I heard, that makes me shudder at the law trumping God’s word. In short a South American(?) tribal chief became a Christian; he was the legal and spiritual head of his tribe; now he represented Christ to his tribe; but he was married to two wives; and so — as the missionary tearfully related — he was now forced to divorce one of his wives in order to follow the Biblical injunction that leaders have only one wife. Here the legal trumped the marriage; what God had joined, man now rent asunder for legal reasons, veiled in spiritual obedience.

If I had been in that position, I would have thought perhaps of a one-time permission for the church leadership top have two wives (not a good idea) or for the chief to step down from spiritual headship of the tribe (supposedly impossible), or I would have insisted that as a Christian he must abdicate his spiritual authority according to Scriptural direction, (which I’ll briefly characterize here as) that leaders be upright men, living in humble righteousness before God.

Mark H wrote:

This:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2015/may-web-only/matt-chandler-apologizes-for-village-churchs-decision-to-di.html?start=4

I hit the paywall. It sounds from the preview that we are getting a PR release. I have heard almost the exact same words: “Our desire is always to be loving and caring. It is clear that we have not communicated—in multiple cases now—the gentleness, compassion, and patience that our elders are called to walk in.”

What was you epiphany, Matt? I’m guessing it was the same kind of revelation you had with Driscoll. Notice the subtle blame-shifting. What did you have to be patient about, Matt? ISTM that Karen was plenty patient with your ELDERS and BYLAWS and Covenant idiocy. That’s what it is, Matt. Name it and claim it.

We see the PR language of failing to communicate and not being gentle (this is the fragile woman with baggage ploy) about your communications. It isn’t about how you communicated, Matt. It is *what* you communicated. It is that your doctrine is corrupt, and you are making corrupt decisions based on that corrupt doctrine, and you are hurting people in Jesus’ name. Until you face that, you and your people will continue to hurt yet more people. Real people for whom you are responsible.

This is not a PR project. ELDERS, be humans.

Flicker wrote:

@ BeenThereDoneThat:
Yes, yes, yes. I get it. Law trumps even considering God’s word.

So what do you do with this even if you are married to one of these and attend church together:

” I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister[c] but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.

12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”[d]
“

@ Lydia:
Yes, Lydia, that is exactly what I’m asking. In what way do Jesus’ words on this get mitigated by what is clearly right and proper to our minds?

@ Flicker:
I reject you characterization that we are allowing the law to “trump” God’s word. I am doing no such thing. I think I am in the 9th decile, at least, of conservatism among the commenters here. So, no, I don’t let anything “trump” Scripture. But the Bible does not speak to every conceivable situation, and so we must apply wisdom and Biblical principles.

What I am saying is that the pagan, secular laws show more of the residue of Christian influence than much of the commentary I’ve seen regarding marriage. The state regulates marriage. The church recognizes marriage, and in the U.S. the clery solemnize the state license. I’m trying to keep these categories straight.

What I am saying is that the marriage was a fiction from the beginning in that it was based on a lie. What does the Bible say about that? Jordan was not letting his “yes” be “yes” when he entered that marriage. He was acting in bad faith. Karen was acting in good faith, but she had no way of knowing the truth. On what Biblical basis do you find her bound to her vows? What did those vows even mean if she had no knowledge of the truth?

People want to hold the innocent party, the one with less knowledge, to a higher standard than the one who induced her to marry him. People want to hold her to a membership covenant that does not even address “what happens if I married a pedophile?” Why the parsing of the letter while ignoring the spirit of the law, and I mean the law of Christ?

JD Nielson wrote:

JD Nielson wrote:

I don’t think she was defrauded. I think she was married to a sinful man who persisted in sin for many years. And I think she should have divorced him (on the basis of sexual immorality) and not had the marriage annulled; but I haven’t given that enough thought and can’t speak from a place of conviction on that.

When a man pretends he desires the woman he has asked to be his wife when he really desires female children aged four up to puberty, he most certainly has defrauded her. I cannot even think of a better example of marital fraud.

Lydia wrote:

greedy

In all seriousness, and with respect, and without a “gotcha” to it, does this verse really mean that (1) as soon as a wife finds out her husband is greedy she must — or is at least allowed to — divorce him? I’m seriously asking. What does this mean in any woman’s (or man’s) case? It sound in effect like the no-fault divorce we have today — incompatibility.

@ Flicker:
I should have said that I agree that allowing the polygamous marriage to stand was better than casting aside a wife who entered a marriage in good faith. I actually have discussed this very situation on many occasions and offered my opinion. ISTM that at least one of the governing principle is which alternative causes less harm or greater good.

And I also want to state that no one is *required* to dissolve or annul a marriage agreement (covenant or contract) according to the Bible. But certainly a person is *permitted* to seek freedom from a marriage that is not a marriage. These idea often get confused.

Lydia wrote:

This is why I cannot stand “apologies” after perpetuating great harm. For them, it is about stopping the bleeding. The tide was turning on them and they had to stop it.

It is another form of non-apology apology which subtly shifts the blame while appearing pious. It is nauseating, and especially when done in Jesus’ name.

It is a game and a business and a power thing. That is the only reason for PR in the first place. Mark DeMoss. Has anyone seen Mark DeMoss?

@ Gram3:
Yes, I see your point. I’ve been married for a long time, and I still don’t quite understand the whole nature (God’s intended nature) of marriage. Paul (I think says that sleeping with a harlot is becoming one with a harlot. Jesus says that God allowed divorce because of the hardness of the hearts of those who benefitted from it (and I suppose — though it’s not stated) to given a level of protection to those women who were divorced. I’m not aware that God “presided over” any exchange of vows with Adam and Eve, but my understanding is that they were married, man and wife. And that their marriage was insoluble in God’s eye despite each of their sins. And Jacob never had any intention of marrying Leah, and I’m sure he never said, “I take this woman, Leah…”. But nonetheless he was still married.

Is there any rightness in suffering to keep one’s vows to God, once they are unfortunately made? Is fraud truly the nullification of any vow? My vows never included the phrase”…if you are being totally honest with me here, then I do solemnly vow…”

What about a man who marries a manic-depressive who had never told him she is one? I’ve known people in situations like these. And there lives have been horrible. But they kept their vows apart from any later difficulty and I hold them in high regard.

And finally, should Abraham’s sin negate God’s covenant with him? I’m just asking.

Marsha wrote:

JD Nielson wrote:
JD Nielson wrote:

I don’t think she was defrauded. I think she was married to a sinful man who persisted in sin for many years. And I think she should have divorced him (on the basis of sexual immorality) and not had the marriage annulled; but I haven’t given that enough thought and can’t speak from a place of conviction on that.

When a man pretends he desires the woman he has asked to be his wife when he really desires female children aged four up to puberty, he most certainly has defrauded her. I cannot even think of a better example of marital fraud.

When a man is engaged in FELONY crimes involving child exploitation, that are FELONY crimes under federal and state laws – that is a deal breaker. He had an obligation to tell her that at Date No. 1. “I, Jordan Root, am engaged in FELONY crimes involving child exploitation that can land me in federal or state prison.”
http://www.ice.gov/predator

From: the U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement (a department of Homeland Security) website:

Predators Face Severe Penalties

Several laws increase the probability that sexual predators who harm children will suffer severe consequences, including the Mann Act, the 1994 Child Sexual Abuse Prevention Act, the 2003 Protect Act and the 2006 Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. Federal law bars U.S. residents from engaging in sexual or pornographic activities anywhere in the world with a child under 18. ICE works with law enforcement agencies and advocacy groups around the globe to investigate crimes of this nature. Those convicted in the United States face significant penalties:
•Up to 30 years in prison for possession, manufacture, distribution of child pornography
•Up to 30 years in prison for traveling child sex offender, facilitator of sex with children, or a participant in these crimes
•Up to a life sentence for sex trafficking children for prostitution

@ BeenThereDoneThat:
I understand the legalese.

Flicker wrote:

what GOD has joined — let no man tear asunder.

The proscribed tearing asunder is to be understood as the adultery, abuse, neglect, abandonment, etc. by which the guilty spouse severs the marital union. When the innocent spouse applies for what we call divorce, the divorce decree, like the OT get (certificate of divorce), merely certifies the fact that the marriage has been torn asunder. When religious leaders force the innocent spouse to remain with the one who has torn the marriage asunder, the innocent one is reduce to involuntary servitude. In other words, the innocent spouse is held in and to the very bondage the OT get was intended to obviate.

Of course, in Karen’s case, there was never a marriage to tear asunder. She was essentially reduced to servitude under the mere guise of a marriage that was a sham.

God looks to the substance, not to the form. In looking to the form, the representatives of TVC essentially reduced Karen to a piece of property that could be used and disposed of at their whim and will.

@ BeenThereDoneThat:
To use the legal phrase: “the marriage between Jordan and Karen was void ab initio” meaning from the very beginning. The only thing necessary was to provide paperwork to correct that false paperwork of the marriage license, which is what an annulment does.

@ Gary W:
I’m not sure that God includes abuse, neglect, abandonment, etc., as grounds for divorce, though I’m not saying He doesn’t. But are you saying that if a man hits his wife in the face in anger with the back of his hand, that this in itself tears asunder the marriage? And any divorce is just an acknowledgement of that fact?

And if a woman neglects her husband, ever so severely, that this tears apart the marriage? And any divorce is just an acknowledgement of that fact?

As I said, I’m not sure really what constitutes marriage. I once asked a pastor, in a large conference, if when a man has had sex with a variety of women before he is married, is he still one with all of them? And the pastor, said, “Yes”.

Flicker wrote:

Is there any rightness in suffering to keep one’s vows to God, once they are unfortunately made?

I think we are talking about vows made to God as if they are the same thing as vows made to one another in God’s presence. God acts as the witness/enforcer of the vow made between the man and the woman; he is not a party to the vows. The vows are not vows made to God. In the instance of Adam and Eve, he was the marriage broker, so to speak. I agree that he did not preside over vows. He put them together, and they were one flesh. Again, this carries the idea of exclusive devotion which Christ later affirms.

Gram3 wrote:

In this case, one party was pledging devotion to a person who did not actually exist in reality.

No, he did exist. None of us know who we are marrying until afterwards. We marry blinded by love and affection, and desire for relations and children and place in society and selfishness (or whatever), and when we realize that the other person was not exactly who we thought he or she was. He wasn’t even who HE thought he was. Often we cover this up by saying, “we have grown apart”.

As a rhetorical question, Did you really know who your husband or wife was (I don’t know your sex) when you made your vows? The guy in one of my recent posts married a woman who either pretended to be a Christian or who thought she was a genuine Christian, but found out later that she never was. His wife wasn’t defrauding him per se, but he didn’t know who she was. “Not knowing” your bride or groom does not mean the person doesn’t exist.

Gary W wrote:

God looks to the substance, not to the form. In looking to the form, the representatives of TVC essentially reduced Karen to a piece of property that could be used and disposed of at their whim and will.

Well, yes, that is the essence of the utilitarian view of women which these men hold but to which they will not admit. I think they have put their hearts on full display. Their hearts are not, as they profess, to protect women and love them as Christ loves them. Their hearts are not, as they profess, to be servants. Their actions reveal that their heart is to rule over this woman and to blame her, which is exactly what Adam did and what God said men would be tempted to do and actually do for most of history. The irony is that, as much as they love to beat women over the head with Genesis 3, they have certainly proved God’s point and they have followed Adam’s example to a T.

Flicker wrote:

No, he did exist. None of us know who we are marrying until afterwards. We marry blinded by love and affection, and desire for relations and children and place in society and selfishness (or whatever), and when we realize that the other person was not exactly who we thought he or she was. He wasn’t even who HE thought he was. Often we cover this up by saying, “we have grown apart”.

I’m sorry, but this is just false. You are drawing an equivalence between people who have “grown apart” for whatever reason and a man who held himself forth as one thing to a woman who did *not* know that he was a pedophile. This man certainly *did* know what he was, and he acted with treachery toward her. That is what God hates about divorce. Not the ending of a marriage per se, as if the marriage were an idol to be protected, but the ending of the faithfulness on the part of the treacherous spouses referred to by Malachi.

Flicker wrote:

No, he did exist. None of us know who we are marrying until afterwards. We marry blinded by love and affection, and desire for relations and children and place in society and selfishness (or whatever), and when we realize that the other person was not exactly who we thought he or she was. He wasn’t even who HE thought he was. Often we cover this up by saying, “we have grown apart”.

As a rhetorical question, Did you really know who your husband or wife was (I don’t know your sex) when you made your vows? The guy in one of my recent posts married a woman who either pretended to be a Christian or who thought she was a genuine Christian, but found out later that she never was. His wife wasn’t defrauding him per se, but he didn’t know who she was. “Not knowing” your bride or groom does not mean the person doesn’t exist.

i have been away and found that there are over 500 comments here now so i am letting you know up front that i havent read this particular discussion in context i am sure. I will just jump to the chase and ask, Are you implying that a person that marries a pedophile should stay married to him? That God wants women to do that?

@Flicker
many have compared complimentiarins in patriarchal churches to Islam, in the context of annulments, if a young woman in some far away country is taken captive by a man and forced to marry her against her will, dont you think God would actually say ‘ANNULMENT’ if she ever broke free?

Flicker wrote:

I understand the legalese.

It has been awhile, but I did some online research on marriage in Biblical times. The very first step was a legal contract between the bride’s father and the groom (or the groom’s father). This is what seems to have taken place between Jacob and Laban. Now, I really can’t say what options Jacob had when Laban defrauded him. The Bible doesn’t really say. I think a better solution would be to look into the Jewish legal customs of that day. But there wasn’t a dichotomy between “legal” and “religious” customs in regards to marriage. Once the “ketubbah” was signed, the couple were legally married. Consummation and celebration would follow at a later date.
what I don’t know and can’t say is whether they had an equivalent to our annulment. I do know that if the woman was found to not be a virgin she was to be stoned. So much for “vows.”

@ Flicker:

Personally I don’t care in the slightest if my husband notices an attractive woman. He is faithful to me.

@ Flicker:

The issue in annulment in this instance is not that she did not know him, but that he hid an important fact, that he was a habitual consumer of child pornography and a pedophile, who was sexually attracted to (aroused by) children, not adult women, and in particular, not to Karen. A part of the marriage vow is sexual fidelity, that is, that one’s spouse will be the focus of one’s sexual life, not some images of children being abused. That is the lie, the fraud that was committed by Jordan. Hence the annulment.

Ah, so Chandler is making a big PR to-do that he intends to apologize at the next service. Well, O.K., he’s already going to his media buddies, but has he apologized to Karen? He blames his elders for whatever sins, and appears to be quite ready to throw them under the bus, but has Karen’s resignation of membership been acknowledged and accepted? Is she being released from all further attempts at church discipline? Will they continue to essentially stalk her? Will they withdraw their threats of economic sanctions against Karen’s former missionary agency? Unless and until I see actual and meaningful fruits of repentance, I won’t believe any “apology” is anything more than a PR ploy.

@ Victorious:
Maybe the info I read was incorrect then.

@ Gram3:
@ Gram3:
No, you are saying that the man standing beside Karen didn’t exist. You have twisted your language to deny physical reality and to become meaningless.

JD Nielson wrote:

Would all the internet rage just go away?

Do you believe people are wrong to feel or express rage it?

JD Nielson wrote:

Like….every one else on the internet whose business the interworkings of an autonomous church body are not yet pretend like they are?

To whom or what are you referring here, Duggar or TVC?

In each case, both went public.

The Duggars have come out and released statements, so too have the people at TVC, and some of their members released internal memos. Karen also went public with her story.

You said, “the interworkings of an autonomous church body”

All believers in Jesus are part of the “church body” even if they don’t attend the same brick building every Sunday.

We have people here who don’t even live in the U.S.A., but if they believe in Jesus, they are part of the church body too.

JD Nielson wrote:

Thanks Janet Mefferd for that one

I believe she picked that up from “Fighting for the Faith” host Chris Rosebrough, he was using that word before she was.

I don’t know if anyone was using it before him.

While I generally like Rosebrough, I feel his views and treatment or attitudes of women, especially women preachers, is rude, condescending, and disrespectful.

@ Gram3:
The qualification was only if you’re married. I think my point was that if not knowing someone during the time leading up to marriage, or during the ceremony itself means that the person “didn’t exist” once you found out things about him that you didn’t like, then this means just about any marriage is null form the start, as some claim Karen’s was. I’m trying to not make this about Karen, but about marriage in general, from a godly, as op[posed to a US legal, perspective.