I notice that the words *troublemaker* and *whistleblower* both have the same number of syllables. Just cuz that’s the same doesn’t mean they mean the same. Just sayin’ and sayin’ it just.

The willful ignorance of these two churches in Memphis is staggering. In addition to doing a Google search for voyeurism and paraphilia, they need to do a Google search for “slander” apparently. The fact that the (alleged) crimes of Trotter and the crimes (for which he was convicted) of Newman were fully known by the churches and they were *still* hired boggles my mind.

The whole “gossip (ed.) and slander” rhetoric snaked its way into my church’s “Bible study” this week, but of course the pastor moved on to the next topic before I could question him on the subject. This is the same pastor who took a jab at traditional churches a few weeks ago during a “Church isn’t about you!” rant.

Red flags have come up recently in this church, not on the level of the two Memphis churches or the SGM debacle (nothing of an illegal nature), but things that are concerning nonetheless.

Things like an Exodus 18:21-22 inspired “family tree” accountability program which strangely resembles both a pyramid scheme and the structure of the old Shepherding Movement. When formally implemented in October (I volunteer at the church office so I’m privy to some of these ideas), the deacon/overseer is supposed to contact members under their “care” weekly to probe into their lives, and also to interrogate people if they miss church. I asked the pastor to exclude me from this, and he begrudgingly agreed, though time will tell if he actually did so.

Then there’s the “Man Day”/”Lady Day” “fellowship” socials, which probably relate somewhat to the dish towel thing. The “Man Day” activities are so stereotypically “macho-manly” you’d think Mark Driscoll himself came up with them. Next “Man Day?” Paintball fight.

They’ve also been handing out my contact information freely. I’ve received texts and phone calls from random members that I haven’t specifically given my number to, I’ve been placed on a church subscription email without my consent, and this past week, while I was at the church office, someone was looking at my Facebook profile to get my birthday and who knows what other information from it (I promptly locked down my profile to church members as soon as I got home.)

I’ve been going to this church for three years, but if things continue to go off the rails, I’ll be out within the next couple months.

(Sorry if this has been off topic, but to kinda bring it back on topic, I have a feeling the “slander” card is going to be pulled on me if I bring any of this up with leadership. Quite frankly, I’m surprised it wasn’t when I requested not to be a part of the shepherding…I mean, “family tree” accountability scheme.)

When one raises legitimate question of science to young earthers, many respond in a very similar manner that Dee is bringing up w/r other failures of church leadership. I am coming to the conclusion that any “Christain leader” that immediately attacks the person raising the question (or ignores or try’s to squelch the question) has real “issues”. A real seeker/follower of truth is not threatened by the truth, nor do they need to cover anything up….

@ AnonInNC:

Sounds like my ex-NeoCalvinist church. And yes, it is the heavy-Shepherding, which is un-Biblical.

@ Nancy2:

Adding on Accessory After the Fact (concealing info, destroying it). Aiding & Abetting is helping with the crime. Post-crime helping out is A.t.F. Obstruction of Justice. Intimidating a Witness.

Another thought: Downtown Church had Trotter make a “statement of full disclosure” to the congregation before he was hired full time. I wonder how many people…

1) …protested his hiring and were either ignored or threatened with discipline (like Anonymous in the post)

2) …quietly left the church without telling anyone, and how many in this group were pursued by leaders to account for their absence

3) …kept quiet and in membership out of fear of the hammer of “gossip and slander” discipline

4) …willingly accepted Trotter either because of indoctrination/brainwashing or because they were just as ignorant of the recidivism rate of voyeurism as the leadership

Velour wrote:

Nancy2 wrote:

Are these church leaders committing libel and slander when they condemn the victims?

Exactly, Nancy2.

Like they haven’t been through enough already.

which goes to PROVE that the ‘leaders’ did not themselves condemn the victimization of these people they now are turning on . . .

I’m thinking that in some cases, these ‘leaders’ are also trying to hide their own guilt of ‘knowingly’ admitting a predator into their fold,
which is beyond all that should tolerated by a faith community in its ‘pastor’

Is now time for ‘shepherdesses’ in the Church who will protect its children with the fierceness of a mother’s heart, ya think?

You know, Christians can personally bear much persecution in this world,
but when they SEE it happening to an innocent, they are called to action to intervene, to stop abuse, to bind up the wounds, to return to check on the wounded

That is not ‘works’, no. That is called ‘love’. And anytime you get a ‘pastor’ who tells you not to express your concern for victims, you know you have a ‘pastor’ who is no longer in the service of Christ, if he ever was in the first place.

If such a ‘pastor’ puts you out of his creepy pervert-enabling personal fiefdom, you aren’t being put out of the Church of Our Lord, no. Far from it. Take your removal from said hell-hole as blessing and move on to a faith community where the smallest and the most vulnerable members are protected actively from harm.

So Frank Viola would have people fiddling around with Matthew 18 while the predator is helping himself to new victims? The naivety and utter lack of interest in what this does to children is mind blowing.

There are none so blind as those who WILL NOT see.

And this is why I advise my kids not to take their kids to church. I don’t trust these people. Our childrens & grandchildren’s welfare is not important to them as it is to us.

Christiane wrote:

You know, Christians can personally bear much persecution in this world,
but when they SEE it happening to an innocent, they are called to action to intervene, to stop abuse, to bind up the wounds, to return to check on the wounded
That is not ‘works’, no. That is called ‘love’. And anytime you get a ‘pastor’ who tells you not to express your concern for victims, you know you have a ‘pastor’ who is no longer in the service of Christ, if he ever was in the first place.
If such a ‘pastor’ puts you out of his creepy pervert-enabling personal fiefdom, you aren’t being put out of the Church of Our Lord, no. Far from it. Take your removal from said hell-hole as blessing and move on to a faith community where the smallest and the most vulnerable members are protected actively from harm.

Amazing comment. That will preach, Christiane!

Christiane wrote:

Velour wrote:
Nancy2 wrote:
Are these church leaders committing libel and slander when they condemn the victims?
Exactly, Nancy2.
Like they haven’t been through enough already.
which goes to PROVE that the ‘leaders’ did not themselves condemn the victimization of these people they now are turning on . . .
I’m thinking that in some cases, these ‘leaders’ are also trying to hide their own guilt of ‘knowingly’ admitting a predator into their fold,
which is beyond all that should tolerated by a faith community in its ‘pastor’
Is now time for ‘shepherdesses’ in the Church who will protect its children with the fierceness of a mother’s heart, ya think?

Amen, Christiane.

Yesterday I received compliments via social media from people across the nation who’d read by new blog about the spiritual abuse going on at Grace Bible Fellowship of Silicon Valley, my ex-church. https://gbfsvchurchabuse.org/

Apparently many people, including them, have been the subjects of spiritual abuse and have seen it – the same way it was done in my ex-church [Grace Bible Fellowship of Silicon Valley], also at their churches run by John MacArthur (“JMac”) graduates. My ex-pastor was a graduate of JMac’s The Master’s Seminary. I was told that people across the nation who’ve been through similar are intimidated. Why should any of us be? they said people will be encouraged by my blog.

I am so angry at what I witnessed go on to dear sweet saints at my ex-church. No. Just no.
And no, I won’t be quiet. Perish the thought.

Christiane wrote:

If such a ‘pastor’ puts you out of his creepy pervert-enabling personal fiefdom, you aren’t being put out of the Church of Our Lord, no. Far from it. Take your removal from said hell-hole as blessing and move on to a faith community where the smallest and the most vulnerable members are protected actively from harm.

You are on FIRE with the comments! Good stuff.

Sopwith wrote:

  Does your local church offer teaching, kindness, safeguards, thoughtful answers to tough questions, and protection for you and your family members?

And do they teach by example, not just with words?

The “don’t gossip” line makes me incredibly angry. It is always applied to situations when you SHOULD be saying something. It was often used by my former pastor when making changes people were very unhappy with that caused many members to leave. Instead of taking a less heavy handed, more grace based approach he immediately started labeling all who left and disagreed with him as bitter trouble makers.

In my former church (IFB) we had a terrible molestation situation. The leadership did immediately contact authorities when it was brought to light, though there were hints (obvious to us) something was wrong long before and they knowingly kept this man in a position of leadership over young teens, but the teen victims were also publicly church disciplined and were formally shunned by the church for 3 months. And it was threatened from the pulpit that if any of us told anyone outside the church this gossip we’d be church disciplined too. There’s more to the story but I’m afraid to say online in case word ever gets back to the church, since my family still goes there and I don’t want them to get in trouble.

AnonInNC wrote:

Downtown Church had Trotter make a “statement of full disclosure” to the congregation before he was hired full time.

I’ve seen a statement of full disclosure. It wasn’t exactly “full.” My guess is that they told the congregation that Trotter had experienced a “moral failure” due to viewing inappropriate material and that he’d repented and gone through a “season” of counseling. Everybody thought he had a little porn problem and was dealing with it. Lots of people view porn. And if they don’t look at it they know people who do. No big deal, right?

If the “shepherd” had told his flock that the new guy on staff was into voyeurism and had allegedly been secretly filming people in the bathroom at work and at home(!) they wouldn’t have been so quick to accept him. I’m having a moment where I hope God does NOT have mercy on these guys.

@ Christiane:

My parents are older and really are at the stage were they just show up, do their “church duty” and stay out of things. The guy is serving a prison sentence, and though they didn’t agree how with how everything was handled, them handing him over the authorities immediately was good enough for them. I can respect their position but for me it wasn’t good enough. But then I’m a loudmouth with a streak of justice a mile wide who was already tired of being a woman in Christian culture anyway. So it was the final straw for me. Thankfully getting married and moving across the state enabled me to leave quietly without anyon getting wind of my rebel side.

siteseer wrote:

Christiane wrote:
Is now time for ‘shepherdesses’ in the Church who will protect its children with the fierceness of a mother’s heart, ya think?
Maybe that’s why these guys are big on removing power from mothers.

There is something to this. They have to groom the parents too. So often the victims are children of lower income single moms who need help and are thankful for attention and such. Pervert cons are some of the most evil people out there using clever deception.

@ Velour:

I always visited with the girls even during the shunning. Leadership saw it and it ticked them off but they kept quiet about it. These were only 13 year olds. I remember the Sunday their ban was announced over. Half the women in the church started crying and rushed to hug and love on them, saying they’d been wanting to do that the entire time but they couldn’t because they’d been told not to. 🙁

Lydia wrote:

@ I fear a cage:

I like your name. Me too!

“What do you fear, lady?” Aragorn asked.
“A cage,” Éowyn said.
“To stay behind bars, until use and old age accept them, and all chance of doing great deeds is gone beyond recall or desire.”

J.R.R. Tolkien
The Return of the King

dee wrote:

Jeffrey Chalmers wrote:

. I am coming to the conclusion that any “Christain leader” that immediately attacks the person raising the question (or ignores or try’s to squelch the question) has real “issues”

And lots of them have real issues.

Church has become so difficult for those that just want to follow and be like Jesus.

siteseer wrote:

So Frank Viola would have people fiddling around with Matthew 18 while the predator is helping himself to new victims? The naivety and utter lack of interest in what this does to children is mind blowing.

This is the attitude which forces state legislators to bring forward legislation making church staff into mandatory reporters, because people like Viola want to handle crimes via Matthew 18.

I could barely type this between wanting to pound my head into the desk and covering my face with my hands. I mean, to me, it’s a no-brainer, you think a child is being harmed, you report it, right?

mirele wrote:

This is the attitude which forces state legislators to bring forward legislation making church staff into mandatory reporters, because people like Viola want to handle crimes via Matthew 18.
I could barely type this between wanting to pound my head into the desk and covering my face with my hands. I mean, to me, it’s a no-brainer, you think a child is being harmed, you report it, right?

I guess the boyz are stilling camping out on a few key words and verses. There’s a whole forest of Scripture to be explored, including the one that most of them have never explored: Jesus mentioning mill stones for those who harm little ones, and not Matthew 18. Jesus mentioned drowning bad people.

I fear a cage wrote:

@ Velour:
I always visited with the girls even during the shunning. Leadership saw it and it ticked them off but they kept quiet about it. These were only 13 year olds. I remember the Sunday their ban was announced over. Half the women in the church started crying and rushed to hug and love on them, saying they’d been wanting to do that the entire time but they couldn’t because they’d been told not to.

Thank you for visiting them and defying orders! I can imagine what that meant to them.

But this This boggles my mind. I can’t even fathom it. Why do people check their brains at The church door? Why do they obey such cruel orders from a guy on a platform? Where is the compassion for victims over the obedience to tyrants ?

@ Velour:
A church cannot intimidate a witness because it is a voluntary association of protected beliefs……..or so I have found. Again, churches are great places for abusers and perverts where they often find instant forgiveness and cheap grace. A horrible place for victims who are often subject to piled on spiritual abuse after they have been abused and used by the forgiven predator.

I often wonder why we expect this to change?

JH wrote:

If Memphis will do this for a regular pastor it shouldn’t be difficult to understand how far they might go to help out both a popular pastor and the “Voice of the Grizzlies”. There are no other major sports teams to support here. Memphis has one AAA baseball team but no other top level sports. Take a look at those rally towels swinging inside those sell-out crowds. His status as a sports announcer shouldn’t matter but it does.

I lived in Memphis several years ago, and it always amazed me how corrupt the city is.

Lydia wrote:

I fear a cage wrote:

@ Velour:
I always visited with the girls even during the shunning. Leadership saw it and it ticked them off but they kept quiet about it. These were only 13 year olds. I remember the Sunday their ban was announced over. Half the women in the church started crying and rushed to hug and love on them, saying they’d been wanting to do that the entire time but they couldn’t because they’d been told not to.

Thank you for visiting them and defying orders! I can imagine what that meant to them.

But this This boggles my mind. I can’t even fathom it. Why do people check their brains at The church door? Why do they obey such cruel orders from a guy on a platform? Where is the compassion for victims over the obedience to tyrants ?

Because it’s cloaked in Christianese wording. many of the members in my former church (and I’m sure other churches too) are really just sincerely trying to do what’s right, but they’re being mislead by “biblical wording” and “gospel truth.”

I still get confused by Christianese even when I should know better. Two days ago I commented on a rabid Piper/DG Facebook friend’s page that it was really hard to take much of what DG says about their Calvinist kindness, love, maturity in suffering, etc, (honestly I think they’re just prideful Christianese a$$es when I read most of their articles) when I’ve seen what Piper has said about woman, abused women, his support of Mahaney, etc. and I received blistering PM cloaked in Good Christian Girl language, reminding me not to slander, gossip, to give people grace, even ASKING about my experience with God’s grace. Words laced in so much disgusting Christianese I actually doubted myself for about 5 seconds.

I fear a cage wrote:

I still get confused by Christianese even when I should know better. Two days ago I commented on a rabid Piper/DG Facebook friend’s page that it was really hard to take much of what DG says about their Calvinist kindness, love, maturity in suffering, etc, (honestly I think they’re just prideful Christianese a$$es when I read most of their articles) when I’ve seen what Piper has said about woman, abused women, his support of Mahaney, etc. and I received blistering PM cloaked in Good Christian Girl language, reminding me not to slander, gossip, to give people grace, even ASKING about my experience with God’s grace. Words laced in so much disgusting Christianese I actually doubted myself for about 5 seconds.

I think we’ve all been there. Call these people on their manipulation. I think you’ll see them get really flustered because you aren’t playing the game and allowing yourself to be manipulated.

mirele wrote:

it’s a no-brainer, you think a child is being harmed, you report it, right

That’s why I’m proud that here in TN, everyone is a mandatory reporter. I mean, everyone should be anyway.

Could a twisted view of God be fueling this? I have yet to find a new-Calvinist who has a healthy view of God. +Calvinists love Jonathan Edwards, and new-Calvinists particularly admire him. Jonathan Edwards is one of the most famous Calvinist theologians and teachers. Here are a few small segments from his most famous sermon, Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God:
– “By ‘the mere pleasure of God,’ I mean his sovereign pleasure, his arbitrary will, restrained by no obligation, hindered by no manner of difficulty, any more than if nothing else but God’s mere will had in the least degree, or in any respect whatsoever, any hand in the preservation of wicked men one moment.”
– “The bow of God’s wrath is bent, and the arrow made ready on the string, and Justice bends the arrow at your heart, and strains the bow, and it is nothing but the mere pleasure of God, and that of an angry God, without any promise or obligation at all, that keeps the arrow one moment from being made drunk with your blood.”
– “you are thus in the hands of an angry God; ’tis nothing but his mere pleasure that keeps you from being this moment swallowed up in everlasting destruction.”

Fellowship Memphis is an Acts29 church according to the Acts29 website, which means it is new-Calvinist. The educational materials listed for FM’s various ministries are from new-Calvinist sources. Here is what they believe about God: “The first person of the Trinity orders and directs all things according to his purpose and pleasure. He has created humanity to bring him glory and honor, through his grace.” This view of God makes him sound like a deity who uses people for his own pleasure and glory, which is also a pretty good description of an abuser.

If God is really that angry and capricious, and if people are really that depraved and unloved, then it’s no wonder that church leaders in churches like this would be so willing to tolerate abuse.

Patriciamc wrote:

I fear a cage wrote:

@ Velour:
I always visited with the girls even during the shunning. Leadership saw it and it ticked them off but they kept quiet about it. These were only 13 year olds. I remember the Sunday their ban was announced over. Half the women in the church started crying and rushed to hug and love on them, saying they’d been wanting to do that the entire time but they couldn’t because they’d been told not to.

Shunning 13 year olds and discussing them in front of the whole congregation? Those are future “dones.” Can’t say I blame them. I won’t detail what I think about the people obeying the church. My language is too bad.

I am worried about them. Next year they’ll graduate high school and then who knows what will happen. They never got counseling other than some biblical stuff with the pastor where they (I can guarantee it) just were told how they shouldn’t have kept it quite for over a year, how they should’ve told the adult man no (hello? He was a good looking smooth talking authority figure giving them attention) and they needed to deal with their own sin too. Oh, the churche “loved them” and “supported them” but only after hammering them with the should’ves and you sinner you.

@ I fear a cage:

I am furious at the treatment of these girls and disgusted at the women in the church who sat in silence and allowed that further abuse to happen. I am sick and tired of the passive tolerance of evil in the church. We look nothing like our Savior and the apostles we so love to quote. True heroism is standing alone against your friends and family and calling out the evil tolerated by group. I want to see more heroes. The world wants to see more heroes. A victim of child sexual abuse is more likely to find compassion and support outside the church than inside. We have grieved the Holy Spirit and need to repent.

@ Patriciamc:
I am worried they will believe what they were told about themselves. So often young girls start acting out that belief later. Those lies are powerful.

I fear a cage wrote:

@ Velour:

I always visited with the girls even during the shunning. Leadership saw it and it ticked them off but they kept quiet about it. These were only 13 year olds. I remember the Sunday their ban was announced over. Half the women in the church started crying and rushed to hug and love on them, saying they’d been wanting to do that the entire time but they couldn’t because they’d been told not to.

AND, if the women of the church could see what was happening was wrong and stood up, en masse, and said, “No!” things would change. What would they do, shun all of them? If individual church members stopped supporting these wolves, the whole thing would collapse.

@ Lydia:

A positive thing is after that incident, more people started to question. And several left the church. It did get more people to thinking. But overall it’s a pretty passive bunch. Mostly older people or very young Christians who are young couples and families.

I fear a cage wrote:

Oh, the churche “loved them” and “supported them” but only after hammering them with the should’ves and you sinner you.

This is so bad for abuse victims. They are constantly told about the goodness of God yet, in their eyes, God did nothing to help them in their situation, and they were in the situation because of abuse in the Church. Then, the “adults” in the Church handle the situation poorly and further abuse the victims. It is sick!!

@ Ken F:

The non Calvinists are just as bad in tolerating child sexual abuse. Its a churchwide problem.

Lydia wrote:

“Frankly, this is why churches get into trouble. He (Viola and pastors) get to determine what constitutes “legitimate evidence.”. He gets to do the investigation. He gets to determine if it is “clear” that the abuse is occurring. This is dangerous. I am sure he thinks he is being “biblical”, but he is mistaken.”
Viola and Zens turned out to be great disappointments to me a few years back. I just don’t see how he can go to Matthew 18 and walk away with that interpretation when it comes to possible sexual perversion. We are talking about crimes that involve intricate grooming and secrecy which invites speculation and what some perceive as gossip just trying to get to truth.
It is so hard for victims to speak up at all. They often have to go through a period of processing what happened with an undeveloped young mind and they usually blame themselves for trusting the criminal con pervert. Churches and Christians leaders just pile on with the whole gossip shtick. The very people the victim should be able to trust, turn on them.

I am utterly convinced that the men and “most” pastors have no understanding about abuse. I a former pastor (when I was still in the church) about handling suspected abuse. They wanted abuse to be reported to them so they could make inquiries before someone’s life might be ruined because of a false allegation!!! They are more concerned about a false allegation than the possible victim. It blew my mind. They also have no understanding how they could mess up an investigation by approaching an alleged perpetrator. They just don’t get it(.)

Lydia wrote:

A church cannot intimidate a witness because it is a voluntary association of protected beliefs……..or so I have found.

Correct. But it’s the pastors/elders who are giving orders, threats, etc. Those are criminal acts that Obstruct(ion) (of) Justice.

Criminal acts are NOT protected under the First Amendment. Orders to comply as part of a Membership Covenant also are not enforceable and are illegal in the United States: You can’t “contract” for criminal/illegal acts.

Our country needs to change and these guys need to get arrested and prosecuted for these crimes.

brad/futuristguy wrote:

I notice that the words *troublemaker* and *whistleblower* both have the same number of syllables. Just cuz that’s the same doesn’t mean they mean the same. Just sayin’ and sayin’ it just.

A whistleblower IS troublemaker for those in charge. Making trouble for bad people is a righteous act.

Good on this blog and everyone in these churches for not letting up. It’ going to take a lot more of that for any of this negligence to change.

I think we need a ‘gossip is good’ campaign speech, ala wall street (?).

I fear a cage wrote:

But women can’t. Even in the year 2016. In many churches in my former denomination they can’t question or cause a fuss. It’s a sick reality but they can’t because they’ll be treated like rebellious feminist Rebels, or they’ll just be ignored as emotional women. Probably both.

Actually, women can, they do not, because they believe the lie that they are powerless. We need to understand who we are IN CHRIST and tell these false shepherds to stop ravaging the Lord’s sheep. What the church needs now is first a healthy dose of repentance, then add some discernment and wisdom. Or let God clean house. His way can be very messy, just look at the Catholics.

Lydia wrote:

I fear a cage wrote:

@ Lydia:
A positive thing is after that incident, more people started to question. And several left the church. It did get more people to thinking. But overall it’s a pretty passive bunch. Mostly older people or very young Christians who are young couples and families.

I am always sorry it takes ruined lives for some of us to wake up.

Agreed. 🙁

We did have one couple who challenged it. The wife was a LEO and was horrified at how it was handled. Sadly it didn’t go anywhere and they ended up taking their kids and moving to a better church.

Velour wrote:

Lydia wrote:
A church cannot intimidate a witness because it is a voluntary association of protected beliefs……..or so I have found.
Correct. But it’s the pastors/elders who are giving orders, threats, etc. Those are criminal acts that Obstruct(ion) (of) Justice.
Criminal acts are NOT protected under the First Amendment. Orders to comply as part of a Membership Covenant also are not enforceable and are illegal in the United States: You can’t “contract” for criminal/illegal acts.
Our country needs to change and these guys need to get arrested and prosecuted for these crimes.

I want to understand this, I really do. Unless the one being intimidated views it as intimidation and not just correct teaching, what can be done? The one being intimidated goes along as part of their belief system. ( 13 year old girls need better parents!)

@ Bridget:

Every single pastor oriented blog I have read over 10 years on this issue zeros in on “false accusations” and/or the “instant repentance” of the pervert con. Every. Single. One.

One of the little people wrote:

I fear a cage wrote:

But women can’t. Even in the year 2016. In many churches in my former denomination they can’t question or cause a fuss. It’s a sick reality but they can’t because they’ll be treated like rebellious feminist Rebels, or they’ll just be ignored as emotional women. Probably both.

Actually, women can, they do not, because they believe the lie that they are powerless. We need to understand who we are IN CHRIST and tell these false shepherds to stop ravaging the Lord’s sheep. What the church needs now is first a healthy dose of repentance, then add some discernment and wisdom. Or let God clean house. His way can be very messy, just look at the Catholics.

Yes!

One of the little people wrote:

If individual church members stopped supporting these wolves, the whole thing would collapse.

That’s the truth. The whole thing really is a house of cards. But the people don’t realize it.

I fear a cage wrote:

siteseer wrote:

I fear a cage wrote:

These were only 13 year olds. I remember the Sunday their ban was announced over. Half the women in the church started crying and rushed to hug and love on them, saying they’d been wanting to do that the entire time but they couldn’t because they’d been told not to.

What was the reasoning behind it? What was it supposed to accomplish?

From what I understood the night it all came out, it was because played a part in the sin and bore responsibility in it. They were not allowed to speak to anyone in the church, or us to them. They were not allowed to sit with the youth or take part in any youth activities, go to Sunday school or to sing in the choir. They were to come to church, go straight to the pew and stay there until service was over.

“Tainted” is how some in the church and all the leadership afterwards view them. Oh it isn’t overt, but it’s there under the service. Watching then more closer than the other teens, saying they have issues and to watch who befriends them, etc. all done in humble love of course. *eye roll* funny thing is another church member, about a year later, shacked up with a man and became pregnant, and the church turned a blind eye to her deliberate sin. But 13 year old molestation/sexual abuse victims get hauled up in front of the church for disciplining. I still get angry when I think about it.

I fear a cage wrote:

From what I understood the night it all came out, it was because played a part in the sin and bore responsibility in it. They were not allowed to speak to anyone in the church, or us to them. They were not allowed to sit with the youth or take part in any youth activities, go to Sunday school or to sing in the choir. They were to come to church, go straight to the pew and stay there until service was over.

“Tainted” is how some in the church and all the leadership afterwards view them. Oh it isn’t overt, but it’s there under the service. Watching then more closer than the other teens, saying they have issues and to watch who befriends them, etc. all done in humble love of course. *eye roll* funny thing is another church member, about a year later, shacked up with a man and became pregnant, and the church turned a blind eye to her deliberate sin. But 13 year old molestation/sexual abuse victims get hauled up in front of the church for disciplining. I still get angry when I think about it.

This is so sad. It plays out time after time in churches across this country.

I was talking to members of a church I formerly attended. The church hired a youth pastor who groomed and took liberties with one of the young women. When she turned to adults in the church she was resented and accused of either lying or seducing the man. Eventually it became clear that the man really was a pedophile. At that point, the church quietly fired him, sent him on his way free to do the whole thing again somewhere else, and everyone was angry at the young woman and shunned her- not because they were told to, but because they basically wished she didn’t exist- I think because they didn’t want their bubble of being in a perfect church burst. Pride.

This was not an IFB or Calvinist church, it was a community Bible church.

elastigirl wrote:

but, dang, if there isn’t a story here for investigative journalism, titled “Redeemed From the Law, Above The Law”. or something like that.

Investigative journalists are my heroes. They are often the only thing standing in the way of corruption.

I fear a cage wrote:

I fear a cage wrote:

siteseer wrote:

I fear a cage wrote:

These were only 13 year olds. I remember the Sunday their ban was announced over. Half the women in the church started crying and rushed to hug and love on them, saying they’d been wanting to do that the entire time but they couldn’t because they’d been told not to.

What was the reasoning behind it? What was it supposed to accomplish?

From what I understood the night it all came out, it was because played a part in the sin and bore responsibility in it. They were not allowed to speak to anyone in the church, or us to them. They were not allowed to sit with the youth or take part in any youth activities, go to Sunday school or to sing in the choir. They were to come to church, go straight to the pew and stay there until service was over.

“Tainted” is how some in the church and all the leadership afterwards view them. Oh it isn’t overt, but it’s there under the service. Watching then more closer than the other teens, saying they have issues and to watch who befriends them, etc. all done in humble love of course. *eye roll* funny thing is another church member, about a year later, shacked up with a man and became pregnant, and the church turned a blind eye to her deliberate sin. But 13 year old molestation/sexual abuse victims get hauled up in front of the church for disciplining. I still get angry when I think about it.

These ignorant people covered up a CRIME!!! A 25 year old MAN sexually abusing 13 year old CHILDREN is a perverted criminal and should be dealt with severely by the authorities. Their parents were fools to tolerate this.

One of the little people wrote:

I fear a cage wrote:

I fear a cage wrote:

siteseer wrote:

I fear a cage wrote:

These were only 13 year olds. I remember the Sunday their ban was announced over. Half the women in the church started crying and rushed to hug and love on them, saying they’d been wanting to do that the entire time but they couldn’t because they’d been told not to.

What was the reasoning behind it? What was it supposed to accomplish?

From what I understood the night it all came out, it was because played a part in the sin and bore responsibility in it. They were not allowed to speak to anyone in the church, or us to them. They were not allowed to sit with the youth or take part in any youth activities, go to Sunday school or to sing in the choir. They were to come to church, go straight to the pew and stay there until service was over.

“Tainted” is how some in the church and all the leadership afterwards view them. Oh it isn’t overt, but it’s there under the service. Watching then more closer than the other teens, saying they have issues and to watch who befriends them, etc. all done in humble love of course. *eye roll* funny thing is another church member, about a year later, shacked up with a man and became pregnant, and the church turned a blind eye to her deliberate sin. But 13 year old molestation/sexual abuse victims get hauled up in front of the church for disciplining. I still get angry when I think about it.

These ignorant people covered up a CRIME!!! A 25 year old MAN sexually abusing 13 year old CHILDREN is a perverted criminal and should be dealt with severely by the authorities. Their parents were fools to tolerate this.

No, this incident was not covered up nas soon as it was discovered, someone told the pastor and the pastor immediately called the police and handed the guy over to the authorities. I do have to hand it to him that he handled that part better than i was expecting. The abuser WAS dealt with immediately and is now serving a prison sentence. They still screwed up on caring for the victims, but they got the not covering it up part right.

@ I fear a cage:

“…who was already tired of being a woman in Christian culture anyway.”
+++++++++++++++++

yes, isn’t it tiresome.

The original good news is commodified into a product that is truly bad news for women. Makes even a male-centric work environment a place of respite in comparison.

@ I fear a cage:

“These were only 13 year olds. I remember the Sunday their ban was announced over. Half the women in the church started crying and rushed to hug and love on them, saying they’d been wanting to do that the entire time but they couldn’t because they’d been told not to”
+++++++++++++++++++++

how… why do people obey tyrants in clerical collars like this?

I fear a cage wrote:

But 13 year old molestation/sexual abuse victims get hauled up in front of the church for disciplining.

THAT is what I would call ‘spiritual abuse’ big time.
The ‘church’ shamed itself, or at least those ‘in leadership’ who ordered such abuse; and those who followed the leadership in turning their faces away from those victims by shunning them …. nothing of grace there in that place, no. Rather a high degree of intimidation of witnesses in an effort to shut everyone up …. always backfires in that, when the word gets out, it’s like ringing the dinner bell for predators to check out the newly-confirmed haven for evil.

‘Shaming’ victims is a little like the Samaritan coming upon the wounded man somewhere between Jerusalem and Jericho, and pouring salt on his wounds ….. to cause an increase in the suffering of a victim is to display a much greater penchant for evil than the mere indifference of doing nothing.

@ I fear a cage:
Black as white and white as black. Upside down and downside up. Back in the day, a perfect man was sentenced to be crucified for his “crimes”.

@ mirele:

“This is the attitude which forces state legislators to bring forward legislation making church staff into mandatory reporters, because people like Viola want to handle crimes via Matthew 18.

I could barely type this between wanting to pound my head into the desk and covering my face with my hands. I mean, to me, it’s a no-brainer, you think a child is being harmed, you report it, right?”
++++++++++++++++

but that would spoil the harmony and ruin the ‘happiest place on earth’ selling point. what would people think?? what would the pastor peers think??

the flow of revenue & gained power would be jeopardized. the quest for personal significance would be thwarted.

(but this is old news)

JYJames wrote:

Black as white and white as black. Upside down and downside up. Back in the day, a perfect man was sentenced to be crucified for his “crimes”.

“and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity…..

…And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born? (W.B. Yeats)

@ I fear a cage:

“…blistering PM cloaked in Good Christian Girl language, reminding me not to slander, gossip, to give people grace, even ASKING about my experience with God’s grace. Words laced in so much disgusting Christianese I actually doubted myself for about 5 seconds.”
+++++++++++++++

seems to me there’s a need for Church-o-holic’s Anonymous.

@ Ken F:

“Fellowship Memphis is an Acts29 church according to the Acts29 website, which means it is new-Calvinist. … Here is what they believe about God: “The first person of the Trinity orders and directs all things according to his purpose and pleasure. He has created humanity to bring him glory and honor, through his grace.””
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

not for joy? not for the pleasure of relationship?

& that perfunctory ‘grace’ footnote …

Lydia wrote:

My vote is on spiritual authoritarianism. I saw horrible corruption and spiritual abuse outside the Neo Cal bubble. It wasn’t fundamentalism either. It was just hidden in the mega world by the show and stage persona. People never questioned anything. They never saw a budget, either, yet gave freely. I once joked that pew sitters could see the celebrity pastor put a dead body in his trunk and rationalize it away as really a good thing. It really has gotten that shallow.

I think you have put your finger on it. The mentality of God-ordained leader and unquestioning followers. Add to this the pride on the part of both leaders and followers to keep the organization looking good in the eyes of the world.

Stan wrote:

Note the one that mentions “slander”; people slander against this great church. That’s why people like Todd Pruitt need to be more careful about using that word.

I wonder if they get extra points for writing a rave review.

I have been a member of this church for 8 years despite the slander against it, I know this is one true church!

There’s gotta be a story here…

elastigirl wrote:

but that would spoil the harmony and ruin the ‘happiest place on earth’ selling point. what would people think?? what would the pastor peers think??

the flow of revenue & gained power would be jeopardized. the quest for personal significance would be thwarted.

(but this is old news)

Old news maybe but as true as ever.

I fear a cage wrote:

They still screwed up on caring for the victims, but they got the not covering it up part right.

It is not that hard to get it right, these “leaders” are not second graders. An incomplete grade handling the abuse of children is a failing grade, especially when you miss on the important part.

siteseer wrote:

the show and stage persona

Voila: http://bit.ly/2c1dAAG
Show and stage and nothing else, as reported BY JEFF SHARLET this past week in Esquire. AFter reporting on all types of churches great and small, Sharlet says about Rich Wilkerson’s Vous Church: “But never before Vous had I encountered a church that seemed so completely empty.”

Show on a stage to attract an audience that watches and empties their pocket books. Empty. While children are being violated by church leaders and mentors à la Bill Cosby.

@ JYJames:
She needs to prove the other ones saw no harm. I don’t necessarily believer her, either.

I fear a cage wrote:

but the teen victims were also publicly church disciplined and were formally shunned by the church for 3 months.

I fear a cage wrote:

@ Velour:
I always visited with the girls even during the shunning. Leadership saw it and it ticked them off but they kept quiet about it. These were only 13 year olds. I remember the Sunday their ban was announced over. Half the women in the church started crying and rushed to hug and love on them, saying they’d been wanting to do that the entire time but they couldn’t because they’d been told not to.

Holding 13 year old girls accountable or at least partly at fault for their be molested? Goodness I can’t believe someone would do this. Thirteen is quite young especially for girls in this type of church environment to even think about suggesting they had a part.

This is why we have laws protecting children and age of consent laws etc. At 13 a child hasn’t matured to the point of being able to fully think and give consent. That is why they call this statutory rape etc. Even when someone is above the age of consent when the child is in a position of being under a person such as a school teacher as this church leader apparently was it is still illegal.

Just shocking that a leader can have the ignorance to try and blame 13 year old girls for this.
A shame that the regular church members stood for this and didn’t vote with their feet (leave the church) and their wallets.

Steve240 wrote:

Just shocking that a leader can have the ignorance to try and blame 13 year old girls for this.
A shame that the regular church members stood for this and didn’t vote with their feet (leave the church) and their wallets.

Yes, it is a terrible shame.

Those members? They DID vote …. sadly, they voted WHEN they stayed and paid

it is said that when one person in the Body of Christ hurts, the whole Body hurts with them

so when a group doesn’t behave like the Body of Christ and takes the side of the persecutors of the innocent, I’m not sure you can call this group ‘Church’ in the same sense of the Body of Christ, no. I’ll put more graphically: if St. Michael the Archangel had the opportunity, he would likely take a flame-thrower to this miserable crowd

JYJames wrote:

The point being, women and men in leadership together can have a more empathetic perspective. My guess is that empathy is lost on the male leadership only crowd.

Are you saying that men in general are less empathetic, or men of this type in particular are less empathetic?

@ Ken F:
I’m saying with regard to dealing with the human race,(men, women, and children of both genders), IMHO, it is good for both men and women to work together for solutions and to address issues.

Therefore, those who believe in male leadership only, are flying on one wing, so to speak.

And I wonder, upon reflection, if the male leadership only folks are less empathetic because they want only the male point of view in leadership. Not because they are male, but because they fundamentally refuse to work side-by-side with female leadership. I would pose the same question regarding female only leadership – but does that point of view even exist?

Does that make sense? What do you think?

JYJames wrote:

The point being, women and men in leadership together can have a more empathetic perspective. My guess is that empathy is lost on the male leadership only crowd.

I don’t think it has to be, I think men are capable of understanding these things. But these particular men are just not. How much is the emphasis on men above women, how much is protection of friends, how much is a circle the wagons around ‘pastors’…I don’t know. Most decent men should be horrified by this sort of thing. Something has gone really wrong in church that they are not.

Christiane wrote:

Steve240 wrote:

Just shocking that a leader can have the ignorance to try and blame 13 year old girls for this.
A shame that the regular church members stood for this and didn’t vote with their feet (leave the church) and their wallets.

Yes, it is a terrible shame.

Those members? They DID vote …. sadly, they voted WHEN they stayed and paid

it is said that when one person in the Body of Christ hurts, the whole Body hurts with them

so when a group doesn’t behave like the Body of Christ and takes the side of the persecutors of the innocent, I’m not sure you can call this group ‘Church’ in the same sense of the Body of Christ, no. I’ll put more graphically: if St. Michael the Archangel had the opportunity, he would likely take a flame-thrower to this miserable crowd

That’s exactly what my husband said when I told him about this. “That isn’t church.”

siteseer wrote:

It’s rife with every single cliche silencing tactic there is.

I just read it. I find it interesting how often pastors extrapolate the story of Joseph and David’s treatment of Saul to admonish their hearers not to gossip. The reason we know the stories of the brothers’ and Saul’s wicked behavior is because it’s in the Bible and read by countless millions, if not billions. Who do these pastors think reported these very private events to the scribes who wrote them down for them to be read by said countless millions? We’re Joseph and David guilty of gossip?

@Lydia,

I have one answer to your question but it’s waiting to clear “customs”.

JYJames wrote:

: “But never before Vous had I encountered a church that seemed so completely empty.”

It’s what you’d expect from a church who’s name makes it all about “Vous”.

Glenn wrote:

The gradual normalization of sexual immorality being imposed on society by various people in our U.S. federal government seems to me to be a corrupting influence on numbers of contemporary church leaders.

Trying to pin everything on gays? The federal government? That dog won’t hunt. Abusive clergy are responsible for their own sins. Nobody else is responsible for them.
Abusive church leaders fundamentally don’t like God, aren’t humble toward Him, otherwise they wouldn’t do what they do. My gay boss wasn’t responsible for my ex-pastors/elders many abuses of the flock. My gay boss, in point of fact, was a far nicer human being than ANY of my ex-pastors/elders who wouldn’t think twice about lying about the saints, threatening them, including senior citizens at church.

People are voters and tax payers. They simply want to practice the free exercise of their rights as voters and tax payers. I can’t blame them.

I always say to people, “Can you make someone get a certain haircut.” They say, “No. No of course not.” And they act shocked. But the same people want to order a voter/tax payer’s/adult’s sex life/choices/dating life/personal life.

*Note: Off-topic link to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling regarding gay marriage and the constitutional issues they addressed. This is to inform people about the legal issues that the The Court addressed.
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2014/14-556

The arrogance and insults I experienced here in northern Virginia with Arlington Baptist Church I think had absolutely no less than a bit to do with my refusal to engage in homosexual innuendo with a former government contract employer.

Please elaborate as to what happened, what was said.

Having been a man viciously marginalized by a church leadership with that testimony of mine,

Please elaborate.

it enrages me when considering how they might treat women and children with like experiences who are identifiably vulnerable.

It has NOTHING to do with gays. It has everything to do with these church leaders/men’s relationship with God. They are proud. They don’t care. They aren’t true Shepherds despite their many claims.

A vomit-inducing fixation on power. It should exit the churches in immediate fashion.

Or humble themselves. Agreed they have a fixation on power.

One of the little people wrote:

We’re Joseph and David guilty of gossip?

And what about Paul writing about the way he rebuked Peter? What he did would be like standing up and confronting your pastor in the middle of a sermon and then going home and posting the details on FB. Examples of such “gossip” are littered throughout the Bible. Exposing hypocrisy and abuse is not gossip in the way these churches and teachers describe it. A better description is “doing the right thing.”

JYJames wrote:

I’m saying with regard to dealing with the human race,(men, women, and children of both genders), IMHO, it is good for both men and women to work together for solutions and to address issues.

Therefore, those who believe in male leadership only, are flying on one wing, so to speak.

And I wonder, upon reflection, if the male leadership only folks are less empathetic because they want only the male point of view in leadership. Not because they are male, but because they fundamentally refuse to work side-by-side with female leadership. I would pose the same question regarding female only leadership – but does that point of view even exist?

Does that make sense? What do you think?

I agree with you. I’ve gotten in trouble on this site every time I suggest that men and women tend to approach problems a bit differently. But I think they do, and I consider this to be a blessing because we can cover each others’ blind spots. This is why it is such a tragedy when half the church is told to shut up and color. We need each other.

I suspect this sick toleration of abuse is less about gender and more about something else. But I have not yet figured out what it is. I’m thinking bad theology is a big part of it. But maybe there is a cultural element as well. In most of the world, it’s the leadership of the organization that seems to be doing all the denials and cover ups. But in the church it seems that many in the congregations are willing participants. Does church culture attract weak people who don’t want to rock the boat?

siteseer wrote:

Interesting what Greg Laurie wrote about in his column today… http://www.wnd.com/2016/09/what-god-hates/?cat_orig=faith “What God Hates”

Apparently Greg Laurie is God’s spokesperson…

Laurie uses the example of Joseph forgiving his brothers to force feed us his agenda. Using that story as an example, these authoritarian men can then expect forgiveness when circumstance forces them to bow helplessly before their victims. I welcome that day.

Ken F wrote:

JYJames wrote:
I’m saying with regard to dealing with the human race,(men, women, and children of both genders), IMHO, it is good for both men and women to work together for solutions and to address issues.
Therefore, those who believe in male leadership only, are flying on one wing, so to speak.
And I wonder, upon reflection, if the male leadership only folks are less empathetic because they want only the male point of view in leadership. Not because they are male, but because they fundamentally refuse to work side-by-side with female leadership. I would pose the same question regarding female only leadership – but does that point of view even exist?
Does that make sense? What do you think?
I agree with you. I’ve gotten in trouble on this site every time I suggest that men and women tend to approach problems a bit differently. But I think they do, and I consider this to be a blessing because we can cover each others’ blind spots. This is why it is such a tragedy when half the church is told to shut up and color. We need each other.
I suspect this sick toleration of abuse is less about gender and more about something else. But I have not yet figured out what it is. I’m thinking bad theology is a big part of it. But maybe there is a cultural element as well. In most of the world, it’s the leadership of the organization that seems to be doing all the denials and cover ups. But in the church it seems that many in the congregations are willing participants. Does church culture attract weak people who don’t want to rock the boat?

I think that we’re a priesthood of believers and the Holy Spirit has equipped us to run our churches. I agree that imbalance, missing “a wing”, won’t get the plane off the ground and flying the correct course.

I agree that men and women do, but not always, have different ways of seeing problems, of solving things. And yes, we do balance each other out and have 20/20 vision.

@ Ken F:

We just don’t know if it is nature, nurture or both. As women recieved more independence and power we know they can be just as evil and cunning as men. Only a few had that historically. I have also had the displeasure to know a couple who are both narcissists.

@ JYJames:
My brain is cottony today but it seems many churches and clubs are the last vestiges of male “only” leadership. I think there are agenda driven women, too, so not sure women will solve these problems. After all, those girls have a mother. She could have refused to allow them in that church. I vote for decent human beings. Male and Female.

Ken F wrote:

I consider this to be a blessing because we can cover each others’ blind spots. This is why it is such a tragedy when half the church is told to shut up and color. We need each other.

This is so well-said. Thanks, Ken. “… shut up and color …” – or shut up and cook. LOL.

This totally worked in my marriage of 30 years (he had heart failure a couple of years ago). No suppression. All expression. Everything on the table for equal consideration. Spiritual gifts acknowledged and put to good use for the glory of God. All thinking heads and loving hearts and hands on deck needed – life is complex.

In the complexities and battles, however, God has given us tremendous resources in the two genders, 3-4 generations, a world full of diverse cultures and experiences, and 18 spiritual gifts.

Our sons turned out well, thankfully, and both have highly-educated future lady partners.

Estelle wrote:

Regarding Joseph forgiving his brothers. First, he tested them. He kept Simeon as hostage until the food they took back to Canaan was running out and they had to return to Egypt to buy more. Then, he had his cup hidden in Benjamin’s sack of grain so that he had an excuse to keep Ben in Egypt. Judah then offered to take Benjamin’s place so old Jacob wouldn’t be deprived of a second of Rachel’s son’s. Seeing as Judah was the one to insist on selling Joseph all those years ago, Joseph could see his brothers were changed men and were ready to reconcile. Joseph didn’t just forgive willy nilly.

Thanks for that comment, Estelle.

Estelle wrote:

Regarding Joseph forgiving his brothers. First, he tested them. He kept Simeon as hostage until the food they took back to Canaan was running out and they had to return to Egypt to buy more. Then, he had his cup hidden in Benjamin’s sack of grain so that he had an excuse to keep Ben in Egypt. Judah then offered to take Benjamin’s place so old Jacob wouldn’t be deprived of a second of Rachel’s son’s. Seeing as Judah was the one to insist on selling Joseph all those years ago, Joseph could see his brothers were changed men and were ready to reconcile. Joseph didn’t just forgive willy nilly.

And this is why women should be allowed to teach/preach in church, folks!

Max wrote:

Estelle wrote:
Regarding Joseph forgiving his brothers. First, he tested them. He kept Simeon as hostage until the food they took back to Canaan was running out and they had to return to Egypt to buy more. Then, he had his cup hidden in Benjamin’s sack of grain so that he had an excuse to keep Ben in Egypt. Judah then offered to take Benjamin’s place so old Jacob wouldn’t be deprived of a second of Rachel’s son’s. Seeing as Judah was the one to insist on selling Joseph all those years ago, Joseph could see his brothers were changed men and were ready to reconcile. Joseph didn’t just forgive willy nilly.
And this is why women should be allowed to teach/preach in church, folks!

+100 !!

Velour wrote:

My ex-pastor would say about the abusive, NeoCalvinist, authoritarian church he ran, “Jesus is in charge. Jesus is the pastor.”

Baloney! If Jesus was in charge, there would be no abusive authoritarian control of church members. Where in Scripture does it portray Christ like that? Nor would Jesus be a NeoCalvinist!

Lydia wrote:

I often wonder why we expect this to change?

When the courts finally lose their squeamishness in going after high profile protestant offenders.

Max wrote:

The whole religious mess is upside down and tumbling deeper into chaos, while Jesus waits for a few folks here and there to get it together and put Him back on the throne.

Despite what we might see, Jesus is on his throne! I don’t believe for a moment that any actions can change that 🙂

Ken F wrote:

Lea wrote:

Awful. 12?

Utterly sick. The prophet of Islam married his youngest wife (his best friend’s daughter) when she was six, and consummated the marriage when she was nine. He was 54. So this is not just a Christian problem. But on the bright side, we have laws here that make it illegal.

The Seven Mountains Mandate to Take Back America will fix that SECULAR problem.

Velour wrote:

Glenn wrote:

The gradual normalization of sexual immorality being imposed on society by various people in our U.S. federal government seems to me to be a corrupting influence on numbers of contemporary church leaders.

Note: In Christianese, “sexual immorality” is a code word for HOMOSEXUALITY(TM).
Like (((name))) is a code word for JEW(TM) on the alt-right nets.

Just ask such Righteous enemies of Sexual Immorality(TM) as Ted Haggard and Doug Phillips ESQUIRE.

Trying to pin everything on gays? The federal government? That dog won’t hunt. Abusive clergy are responsible for their own sins. Nobody else is responsible for them.

But just the word “Homosexuality” (code word “sexual immorality”) disconnects EVERY neuron above the Christianese brainstem and waves the Bright Red Murder Flag over what’s left. Complete shutdown of higher brain functions like Hate Week in Oceania.

And “federal government” is code word for The Antichrist World System which Perscuteth the Righteous. Again disconnect everything above the reptile brain and wave the Bright Red Murder Flag.

Lydiia wrote:

I vote for decent human beings. Male and Female.

Exactly.

JYJames wrote:

Voila: http://bit.ly/2c1dAAG

Show and stage and nothing else, as reported BY JEFF SHARLET this past week in Esquire. AFter reporting on all types of churches great and small, Sharlet says about Rich Wilkerson’s Vous Church: “But never before Vous had I encountered a church that seemed so completely empty.”

Excerpt that caught my eye:
Even critics acknowledge that he is an exceptionally good-looking man. ” causing women to lust,” writes @johannabrnl in response to one of his bare-chested Instagrams: Pastor Rich on horseback, wearing a white cowboy hat and skinny jeans, ripped just so across a taut upper thigh.
At least he pulls off the bare-chested studmuffin pecs on horseback better than, say, Vlad Putin…

AND THE CONSTANT NAME-DROPPING OF LEONARDO DECAPRIO AND JUSTIN BIEBER?

The article’s last paragraph says it all:
I tried to talk to Rich. Chris seemed to be angling himself between us. But in this setting—networking, suits, men and women with amazing hair—Pastor Rich didn’t need Chris’s help to ignore me. He set his Leo grin on high beam, looked over my head at the beautiful people who sell penthouses like the one he lives in, and smiled upon the city he loves.

Show on a stage to attract an audience that watches and empties their pocket books. Empty. While children are being violated by church leaders and mentors à la Bill Cosby.

“There’s a sucker born every minute.”
— P.T.Barnum

Or if you’re a bit more snarky:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwSTe9uit48

Lydia wrote:

My vote is on spiritual authoritarianism. I saw horrible corruption and spiritual abuse outside the Neo Cal bubble. It wasn’t fundamentalism either. It was just hidden in the mega world by the show and stage persona. People never questioned anything. They never saw a budget, either, yet gave freely. I once joked that pew sitters could see the celebrity pastor put a dead body in his trunk and rationalize it away as really a good thing.

“I kill my own mother and still they cheer me!”
— Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus (AKA Nero Caesar) in Paul Maier’s historical novel The Flames of Rome

Lydia wrote:

@ Bridget:

Every single pastor oriented blog I have read over 10 years on this issue zeros in on “false accusations” and/or the “instant repentance” of the pervert con. Every. Single. One.

Just like Boz T relating in all his years as a prosecutor specializing in Child Sexual Abuse cases, every a church was involved they rallied round the Pedo against the victim. Every. Single. Time.

One of the little people wrote:

@ I fear a cage:

A sick system as you describe can only function if the women are silent. The emperor is naked.

“Silent” or just “Very Well Trained by Hubby and Pastor”?

Or She Who Must Be Obeyed (in secret) types climbing to the Iron Throne using their hubbies as fronts? A hive can have only one Queen Bee.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Velour wrote:
I’m glad you did the right thing.
These are evil, blinded men to give these kinds of hateful orders. They will stand before God. God is not mocked.
Not even if they
(a) Said the Magic Words at the Altar Call and Really Really Meant It?
Or
(b) Were Predestined as The Elect before the Foundation of the World?

(a) No.
(b) Ditto.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

siteseer wrote:
Stan wrote:
Note the one that mentions “slander”; people slander against this great church. That’s why people like Todd Pruitt need to be more careful about using that word.
I wonder if they get extra points for writing a rave review.
Or a dog biscuit and pat-pat-pat on the head from Pastor Himself!
I have been a member of this church for 8 years despite the slander against it, I know this is one true church!
There’s gotta be a story here…
Make that Two Dog Biscuits and a Hero medal.

I was sold at the words “I know this is the one true [TM] church.”

Oh wait. Now I’m confused. My ex-church’s pastors/elders in Silicon Valley, CA claimed to have “the one true church”.

mirele wrote:

This is the attitude which forces state legislators to bring forward legislation making church staff into mandatory reporters, because people like Viola want to handle crimes via Matthew 18.
I could barely type this between wanting to pound my head into the desk and covering my face with my hands. I mean, to me, it’s a no-brainer, you think a child is being harmed, you report it, right?

What do they do when they discover that someone has been skimming money out of the church coffer? Ha! They call law enforcement, report the crime and press charges! The name of the embezzler is released to news media! But, money matters. Women and children aren’t all that important.

Estelle wrote:

Regarding Joseph forgiving his brothers. First, he tested them.

You make a good point.

JYJames wrote:

Lydiia wrote:

I vote for decent human beings. Male and Female.

Exactly.

All of the emphasis on teaching manhood womanhood authority etc means that that whole ‘actually be decent’ thing gets neglected.

Velour wrote:

I agree that men and women do, but not always, have different ways of seeing problems, of solving things. And yes, we do balance each other out and have 20/20 vision.

You have just described how the diversity in the Body of Christ is used to strengthen and build up the Church 🙂

Velour wrote:

I agree that men and women do, but not always, have different ways of seeing problems, of solving things. And yes, we do balance each other out and have 20/20 vision.

Actually, all individuals see things differently depending on their backgrounds, life’s experiences, learned behavior, ethnicity, etc. rather than gender.

I would also ask what the biblical basis is for “shunning” these 13 year old girls. If a person is unrepentant then the bible allows for this but I am not aware of any passage that allows this. II Cor 2:6-7 even indicates that when a person repents that they are to forgive and comfort him.

I am not saying that these girls weren’t repentive or even had something to repent of but am wondering what the biblical basis is for shunning.

Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

Lea wrote:
All of the emphasis on teaching manhood womanhood authority etc means that that whole ‘actually be decent’ thing gets neglected.
This is actually a hallmark of fundamentalism – Jesus hd a lot to say about it!

That was my experience of it at a NeoCalvinist church. Law and not love. Rules and not people. Hateful. Hateful things done to people.

Christiane wrote:

Velour wrote:
I agree that men and women do, but not always, have different ways of seeing problems, of solving things. And yes, we do balance each other out and have 20/20 vision.
You have just described how the diversity in the Body of Christ is used to strengthen and build up the Church

Well I was in the wrong place.

Here’s my new blog about my abusive former church. I made an edit. I added in the lovely work that one dear saint subjected to church discipline for not “obeying” and “submitting” to her husband by the senior pastor and elders “before all”. You know the story. This dear woman has a special ministry carrying God’s love to mentally ill adults in group homes and to the elderly in convalescent hospitals.
https://gbfsvchurchabuse.org/

Steve240 wrote:

wondering what the biblical basis is for shunning

Beyond the verse you cite, you will find no Scriptural support for shunning and excommunication, and certainly not the way the New Calvinists and other patriarchal groups are using these practices. They take their lead from Calvin, not Christ. Calvin threw anyone out of Geneva who questioned his belief and practice. In Calvin’s Geneva, shunning and excommunication were light sentences compared to torture and execution also employed by the magisterial reformers to religious dissenters. It’s all about authoritarian control over the lives of others, rather than trying to maintain a holy standard. Scarier than the church leaders who “minister” this way, are the followers who choose to support their “ministries”! If my weakness can overcome your strength, I own you.

Victorious wrote:

Actually, all individuals see things differently depending on their backgrounds, life’s experiences, learned behavior, ethnicity, etc. rather than gender.

Very true.

@ Unepetiteanana:
I was wondering about him the other day and thinking his con probably continues. He turned himself in, right? There wasn’t anything on his computer. (They usually use storage)

It seems there wasnt enough evidence to indict. Does anyone remember? I was told by someone who should know (but I have not checked) that each image is considered a federal crime scene and comes with 5 years each.

Personally, I would bet his long con continues.

Max wrote:

Scarier than the church leaders who “minister” this way, are the followers who choose to support their “ministries”!

These folks would have no stage, if they didn’t have an audience. Gone are the days when you can walk into just any old church and trust the leaders. Christians need to test and try the spirits about them. Demons go to church, too.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Don’t you know the ultimate theoretical end state of Protestantism?
MILLIONS of One True Churches, each with only ONE member, each denouncing all the others as Heretics and Apostates.

You have said that several times, and I do think it is true and bears repeating as a warning. Good comment, HUG.

On the other extreme we have seen what too much power in a single religious system with political connections can lead to, and therein also lies a problem.

@ Victorious:

And one idea which our family picked up from the Chinese is that vibrant colors are better for babies because they stimulate the brain. They also ‘tease the baby’ which means a moderate amount of in the face stimulation with motion and sound. They think it makes the baby smart.

Steve240 wrote:

I am not saying that these girls weren’t repentive or even had something to repent of but am wondering what the biblical basis is for shunning.

The girls had nothing to repent of. The church leaders should be sued for how these victims were treated!

@ Victorious:
Btw: interesting article.

@ Lydia:
My mother had the nerve to take a photo of me when I was one year old holding a doll! My brothers drag that out every once in a while and I still feel like fighting! I am much prouder of the photos with cowboy hat and toy guns.

Max wrote:

My mother had the nerve to take a photo of me when I was one year old holding a doll! My brothers drag that out every once in a while and I still feel like fighting! I am much prouder of the photos with cowboy hat and toy guns.

LOL! Funny how those things tend to stay with us for a lifetime. My son who is 48 yrs. old blushes when he remembers a photo of his stuffed animal collection I took. His favorite was a dog he named “Dugan.”

Victorious wrote:

Funny how those things tend to stay with us for a lifetime. My son who is 48 yrs. old blushes when he remembers a photo of his stuffed animal collection I took.

Yes, after nearly 70 years, I still “shun” my brothers when they bring up the doll photo!

elastigirl wrote:

a large group of women could stand up together one Sunday, a spokesperson make a few statements, then walk out of the building, and refuse to return until x, y, and/or z happens.

Wow!…I’d like to see that! Better still, I’d like to be a part of it!

Steve240 wrote:

If nothing else had they withheld tithe dollars from their church that would have made a statement.

Been there, didn’t work. In the final stages of dealing with an increasingly authoritarian church, I mentioned to them that I knew at least a half dozen people who no longer gave to the church budget because they believed money was used poorly. These were people that had been very committed. I was expecting a response of “oh my, what have we done that would cause people to lose confidence”, silly me, instead it was “you need to go to those people and tell them they should not be withholding the tithe”. Don’t get me wrong, I agree about not giving to an abusive church, but they won’t get the message.

@ Max: on my brothers adult birthdays we always pulled out the film of him dressed in full court King Louie regalia (yes, white wig) dancing the minuet at age 10…Hee Hee.

okrapod wrote:

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Don’t you know the ultimate theoretical end state of Protestantism?
MILLIONS of One True Churches, each with only ONE member, each denouncing all the others as Heretics and Apostates.

You have said that several times, and I do think it is true and bears repeating as a warning. Good comment, HUG.

On the other extreme we have seen what too much power in a single religious system with political connections can lead to, and therein also lies a problem.

Problem is, just like in American politics, there’s no center or balance point any more.

A.W.Pink or Borgia Popes — CHOOSE ONE!

@ Muff Potter:
Not mine. Worst year of depression: 1936! 16 years? He took advantage. He is why we instituted term limits.

elastigirl wrote:

a large group of women could stand up together one Sunday, a spokesperson make a few statements, then walk out of the building, and refuse to return until x, y, and/or z happens. a large group of women who are no longer there to do the tasks consigned to them (including making the men look good & viable, let alone the church itself) can’t be ignored. they do have power.

Nope. I vote for women just not showing up for services and the fellowship meal, maybe on a big day with a guest speaker, or revival week when a different class prepares a meal for the guest speakers each day, or “homecoming” day. Baptist churches spend weeks announcing these things and inviting people, and the women of the church do all of the kitchen duties — all the way from purchasing and preparing the foods to laying out and serving to cleaning up afterward. That would pack a big punch.
I also vote for women boycotting VBS. Let the men see how unimportant women are when the men have to do all of the nitty-gritty details for a 5-day VBS!

@ Lydia:

Ah but Lyds, we two could have some barn-burner arguments just like two Jews in Tel Aviv. And through it all? Still be friends just Ginsberg and Scalia were.
L’Chaim !

elastigirl wrote:

@ I fear a cage:
“But women can’t. Even in the year 2016. In many churches in my former denomination they can’t question or cause a fuss. It’s a sick reality but they can’t because they’ll be treated like rebellious feminist Rebels, or they’ll just be ignored as emotional women. Probably both.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
a large group of women could stand up together one Sunday, a spokesperson make a few statements, then walk out of the building, and refuse to return until x, y, and/or z happens. a large group of women who are no longer there to do the tasks consigned to them (including making the men look good & viable, let alone the church itself) can’t be ignored. they do have power.

Ahh, but this would get said large group of women subjected to – gasp – *Church Discipline*. Because they obviously *aren’t one of us* and among “God’s Elect”.

A woman I know is married to a recovering alcoholic. She got help for herself when she realized that she wasn’t going to be changing him. She wasn’t going to enable him.
She said to me about her codependent days, “I wasn’t just a doormat with the word ‘WELCOME’ written on me, I was wall-to-wall carpeting!”

I think that’s what these guys want.

Slam your wallet shut ladies, and walk out the door. If they won’t respect you, than obviously they have NO need for your money, honey.

Nancy2 wrote:

VBS. Let the men see how unimportant women are when the men have to do all of the nitty-gritty details for a 5-day VBS!

Problem is they would just cancel it. And probably the women end up watching kids just not at vbs.

I do like the way you think on this – pick the day for maximum disruption! And if I ever have need of using it will try to remember.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Velour wrote:
Glenn wrote:
The gradual normalization of sexual immorality being imposed on society by various people in our U.S. federal government seems to me to be a corrupting influence on numbers of contemporary church leaders.
Note: In Christianese, “sexual immorality” is a code word for HOMOSEXUALITY(TM).
Like (((name))) is a code word for JEW(TM) on the alt-right nets.
Just ask such Righteous enemies of Sexual Immorality(TM) as Ted Haggard and Doug Phillips ESQUIRE.
Trying to pin everything on gays? The federal government? That dog won’t hunt. Abusive clergy are responsible for their own sins. Nobody else is responsible for them.
But just the word “Homosexuality” (code word “sexual immorality”) disconnects EVERY neuron above the Christianese brainstem and waves the Bright Red Murder Flag over what’s left. Complete shutdown of higher brain functions like Hate Week in Oceania.
And “federal government” is code word for The Antichrist World System which Perscuteth the Righteous. Again disconnect everything above the reptile brain and wave the Bright Red Murder Flag.

Thank you, H.U.G., for translating that. I forgot that “federal government” [sound of “Jaws” shark music played here]…means “Anti-Christ’ in some dark minds and small circles. Sigh.

Here’s my story about the gay man in his 20’s that I went to see one December night, when God ordered me to get out of bed and “Go!”
https://gbfsvchurchabuse.org/2016/09/01/the-royal-law-of-love-includes-loving-a-gay-neighbor-and-not-shunning-him-when-hes-dying/

I have a really hard time imagining what life must be like for a couple who have to live out ‘roles’ of ‘male-headship’ for the husband and ‘submissive’ for the wife ……

wouldn’t they sometimes just want to hang out together like normal people and be themselves????

The problem with Viola and other pastors apparently more interested in protecting their power and reputations and wealth than in protecting little children is that what they are ruling over are likely not meaningful churches within the context of Matthew 18 anyway, so the point is moot. They seem to be less concerned about millstones round necks–which would be fitting for all of them who abuse children or who enable or cover said abuse up–than about their hyper-literal interpretations of church procedures that in any event were spoken by Jesus to a world in which the church was a very different place, there was no priesthood of all believers yet, no Holy Spirit indwelling all believers, and no mutual submission model of church as yet.

Frank Viola is in my opinion a snake.

Ken F wrote:

It seems that every time I bring up the idea that God might have actually made men and women a bit different someone wants to come in and accuse me of being some kind of a complementarian. I don’t know why that is, but I suspect it’s something like an allergic reaction caused by experience with actual abuse. I can understand that response even if I don’t agree with it.

I don’t think it has to always mean abuse. For some it is simply a warning alert because of the sort of teaching they experienced. It’s like the salesman who gets one agreeing…well you agreed men and women are different so that means.. thus or that.

For some it could trigger the manipulation. For years the comps played the unisex card. You just want men and women to be alike. Then they played the homosexual card in order to plant fear in disagreeing. If you disagree then…

Combine that with their indirect of women as lesser dependent beings and it is a recipe for triggers. Just don’t be surprised when people ask you to explain more fully.

I loved the Smithsonian article because it articulated my earlier career years. Why not a female surgeon who likes feminine clothes? I loved fashion back then. And I loved business.

Lydia wrote:

I think they both had too much time on their hands.

I think you are too kind. I would choose either pathology or chicanery or both for descriptive words for that behavior.

Ken F wrote:

It seems that every time I bring up the idea that God might have actually made men and women a bit different someone wants to come in and accuse me of being some kind of a complementarian. I don’t know why that is, but I suspect it’s something like an allergic reaction caused by experience with actual abuse. I can understand that response even if I don’t agree with it.

You tend to be unspecific, so people auto-fill in all the ‘girls are bad at math/illogical/what have you’ nonsense that we have had thrown at us ad nauseum. Differences are vast in individuals. You will miss important things if you focus too much on massive groups like female and male.

Yes, God created male and female but that doesn’t mean that we are not all human. That doesn’t mean we are not all individuals with individual strengths and weaknesses. That is what is important to me. See me as myself, not part of a big group of people with wildly varying levels of knowledge and skill in different areas.

Lea wrote:

Yes, God created male and female but that doesn’t mean that we are not all human. That doesn’t mean we are not all individuals with individual strengths and weaknesses. That is what is important to me.

Me too. Thanks! Important reminder when one has been immersed in gender “roles”.

okrapod wrote:

Lydia wrote:

I think they both had too much time on their hands.

I think you are too kind. I would choose either pathology or chicanery or both for descriptive words for that behavior.

That world is too bizarre for words although’ pathology’ seems the most appropriate. I could not believe Carolyn Mahaney’s blog was so popular, either. Just think ‘soap bubble’ type submission on every post.

Lydia wrote:

@ Velour:
We purposely took it from reel to reel to video. Now for digital? (Evil laugh)

Repent, Lydia, repent!

Nancy2 wrote:

I also vote for women boycotting VBS. Let the men see how unimportant women are when the men have to do all of the nitty-gritty details for a 5-day VBS!

The men would do away with VBS should that happen! They would just offer the kids more pizza to keep them coming in the absence of VBS. Children/youth “discipleship” in an average Baptist church in my area consists of keeping them occupied with skating and bowling parties, current movies, and lots of pizza. Only occasionally does a youth worker open the Bible. A kid could attend church K-12 and never learn the books of the Bible, memorize verses, or how to witness to their friends. If they don’t go to VBS with women ministering Jesus to them, they may never get saved.

@ Lydia:

Yeah. I love that one.

Some people refuse to admit how much of this is just cultural expectations, or alternately Christian cultural expectations. It doesn’t apply to everyone and it really never has.

Lea wrote:

@ Lydia:

Yeah. I love that one.

Some people refuse to admit how much of this is just cultural expectations, or alternately Christian cultural expectations. It doesn’t apply to everyone and it really never has.

Or American. Or upper middle-class. Or white.

@ siteseer:

My apologies for any confusion. I think that the increasing focus on things of a sexual nature in law, government, and culture has had a impact. Anyone and everyone is right to assert that this ought not effect various church leaders, in which I agree. But I’m afraid that it has.

People tend to be more uneasy, standoffish, and angry, with such topics. And it’s daunting. Reactions can be toxic and inane. I came to faith in Christ while working with people who advocated what is now basically gay/queer liberation theology, which I tolerated but refused to accept. People who know me more personally know this. When discussing such matters, regardless of how civil one might think the environment might be, people can get hostile. Regardless of positions held on matters. I suspect that that had something to do with the southward trend in relationships in the church I was excommunicated from.

Dave (Eagle) wrote:

Now having gone through that do you think I would want to do the same thing to another person?

No?

I’m not sure what you’re getting at. I was referring to the point that pastors seem more concerned that something might be a false accusation rather than concerned for people who may have been abused.

Lea wrote:

I was referring to the point that pastors seem more concerned that something might be a false accusation rather than concerned for people who may have been abused.

I’ve been falsely accused. It’s not fun. The pastors need to get out of the business of worrying about whether abusers are being accused falsely by turning the investigations over to the professionals. They should bring in law enforcement as soon as there is suspicion of abuse. The legal professionals are in the best position to determine whether or not the allegations are factual.

Ken F wrote:

The pastors need to get out of the business of worrying about whether abusers are being accused falsely by turning the investigations over to the professionals. They should bring in law enforcement as soon as there is suspicion of abuse. The legal professionals are in the best position to determine whether or not the allegations are factual.

Yes! Good words, Ken!

Lea wrote:

men may be quick to response emotionally about false accusations when these things come up.

Can you clarify what you mean by this? Do you mean mankind in general with no regard to gender, or do you mean males specifically?

Ken F wrote:

I’m guessing that studies will eventually show compelling evidence that men and women have some statistically significant differences. So what? Is that a threat to either men or women? It depends on what conclusions one draws. Complementarians will likely use such studies to prove that women should be submissive to men. But complementarianism, the way it is taught by the YRR crowd, is wrong regardless of what the statistics show. As an ideology, it will not be defeated by appealing to statistics – it will be defeated by showing how stupid it is. There are other ways of looking at people “complementing” one another that have nothing to do with gender. It does not appear that the YRR-type of complementarians can see that, so they wrongly default to gender roles that don’t make sense. If I have any point to make it is this: women and men are stronger when they work together as allies to cover each others’ blind spots and weaknesses. How this will look in each man/woman pairing will be different because of the general differences in people that you describe, just as it would be in any pairing of two people.

I love this. People -whether male or female- should be free to be individuals. If the sexes prove to have innate differences, it in no way supports one being subservient to the other or one of those perspectives being more important than the other. If we bring different perspectives to the table, it’s because God felt that both were needed. The word complementary used to be a good word but it has been ruined by becoming a buzzword for patriarchy.

Speaking of Comp teaching, here’s an appropriate David Hayward cartoon about it.
“the persistence of primative theology”

http://www.nakedpastor.com/2013/03/the-persistence-of-primitive-theology/

Lea wrote:

I mean males specifically. It is something I have been observing.

I’m confused – it seems like you are sending mixed signals. Earlier in this thread you wrote, “You will miss important things if you focus too much on massive groups like female and male.” I thought you were making the point that male/female distinctions are largely irrelevant. But here you seem to be saying that males are much more likely to be worried about false accusations than women. I don’t know what I am supposed to understand from this. I think I personally agree more with your latter statement than your earlier statement. But I’m not sure if I understand what you meant.

Ken F wrote:

I thought you were making the point that male/female distinctions are largely irrelevant. B

I am speaking of innate differences verses cultural ones and ones based on experiences. That is the difference.

I have been observing that men may be more concerned about personally being falsely accused of things, whereas maybe women identify more with not being believed, and this is based more on difference experiences and observation of the experience of others like us.

Velour wrote:

I think it must be Nancy2 in the mini-dress with the “attitude” in the David Hayward cartoon. I can see her Kentucky green eyes all of the way to California by the Pacific Ocean.

And carrying concealed!

Nancy2 wrote:

Velour wrote:
I think it must be Nancy2 in the mini-dress with the “attitude” in the David Hayward cartoon. I can see her Kentucky green eyes all of the way to California by the Pacific Ocean.
And carrying concealed!

Would that be Moonshine or a weapon?

@elastigirl,

I saw this David Hayward/Naked Pastor cartoon and it reminded me of you!

http://i1.wp.com/nakedpastor.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/love-is-greater.jpg

Lea wrote:

I have been observing that men may be more concerned about personally being falsely accused of things, whereas maybe women identify more with not being believed, and this is based more on difference experiences and observation of the experience of others like us.

Do you think this is nature or nurture?

@ Velour:

Thank you, Velour. it’s nice to be thought of!

Law Prof wrote:

They seem to be less concerned about millstones round necks–which would be fitting for all of them who abuse children or who enable or cover said abuse up–than about their hyper-literal interpretations of church procedures that in any event were spoken by Jesus to a world in which the church was a very different place, there was no priesthood of all believers yet, no Holy Spirit indwelling all believers, and no mutual submission model of church as yet.

Frederick Buechner:
Principles are what people have instead of God.

To be a Christian means among other things to be willing, if necessary, to sacrifice even your highest principles for God’s or your neighbor’s sake the way a Christian pacifist must be willing to pick up a baseball bat if there’s no other way to stop a man from savagely beating a child.

Jesus didn’t forgive his executioners on principle, but because in some unimaginable way he was able to love them.

Principle is an even duller word than religion.

@ Lea:

And:
Why Men Don’t Listen to Women
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-leahy-phd/why-men-dont-listen-to-wo_b_808187.html

Ken F wrote:

You will miss important things if you focus too much on massive groups like female and male.” I thought you were making the point that male/female distinctions are largely irrelevant

I was thinking about this last night. The problem is not that they are irrelevant, but that they are academic. If we were discussing differences in large groups academically I’m all in.

The problem is when people want to take a step too far and apply this to individuals they don’t know. because it’s as likely to be wrong as it is to be right when you do it that way (assuming you are correct in your theories of how women are in the first place which many times are not) because there are so many variances within the groups.

Lea wrote:

The problem is when people want to take a step too far and apply this to individuals they don’t know. because it’s as likely to be wrong as it is to be right when you do it that way (assuming you are correct in your theories of how women are in the first place which many times are not) because there are so many variances within the groups.

Sure, on average, men are taller and more muscular than women. I’m 5’6″, my husband is 6’2″. Big deal! My husband can lift things I can’t lift. But, the size difference between us gives me the advantage sometimes – I can squeeze into places my husband can’t fit! Because of that, he needs my help sometimes, and I need his help sometimes.
My sil and daughter are IT people. They install, repair and operate computer systems. My sil is a big guy, so when they run cables, my daughter does a lot of the dirty work – crawling underneath floors and into attics where my sil can’t fit. If my daughter didn’t do that stuff, they would have to hire a short, skinny man to do it (or another woman who would do it!). We all use what God gave us to make things work. Snort. Do comps think it is “biblical” for a woman to crawl into tight, dark places underneath buildings, through cobwebs, support posts, and plumbing pipes to drill holes in floors to run cable?

Women are bad drivers ……. blondes are dumb ……… redheads are quick tempered ….. boys are better at math ……
I think that in many cases, people take social conditioning and assume that those behaviors are in the DNA constructs. What parents expect of their children and the social environment children grow up in can have a strong influence on what the children expect of themselves as adults, as well as how they raise their own children.

Nancy2 wrote:

Sure, on average, men are taller and more muscular than women.

Height is actually a great example of why averages cannot judge individuals. On average men are taller than but my last boyfriend was not taller than me because I am taller than average and he is shorter than average.

People know this with external characteristics, they just need to remember that it also applies to internal ones.

Lydia wrote:

@ Anonymous:
It is also not a “Christian” gag order or demand for privacy on discussing possible criminal behavior or evil behavior. Just recently, Brian Lorritts pulled this one on Eagle.

You are exactly right.

Nancy2 wrote:

Sure, on average, men are taller and more muscular than women. I’m 5’6″, my husband is 6’2″. Big deal! My husband can lift things I can’t lift. But, the size difference between us gives me the advantage sometimes – I can squeeze into places my husband can’t fit! Because of that, he needs my help sometimes, and I need his help sometimes.

I find the physical strength argument the last line of defense for desperate comps. On Jesus Creed the other day, the comp man attacking Ruth Tucker mentioned a man’s greater physical strength. I noted that physical strength is great for situations requiring physical strength, but other than that, so what? What if we substituted another trait and said that those with accounting skills are superior. I noted that if any comp man says that he’s stronger than I am, my response will be, “So what?” That got an angry insult out of Mr. Comp Guy.

Christiane wrote:

Unless, of course, a ‘male headship’ church leadership muzzles its women ….. then you see a perverted, skewed mocking of the ‘freedom’ we are supposed to have in Christ

This idea has been in my head for a while, and it’s getting louder and louder (voices in my head? hmmmm). I noted over at Jesus Creed that comp-ism is a false issue in true Christianity. It’s a perversion of Christian ideals. The complementarians are Pharisees in that they’ve heaped rule after rule onto people and onto the Christian religion and have made Christianity a burden, masculinity an idol, and femininity a liability. Also, if you think about it, they’ve perverted masculinity too and the idea of what a man should be (someone here said that recently). A real issue in true Christianity is loving your neighbor, loving God, treating others as you’d like to be treated, and caring for the less fortunate. That’s it.

Great advice in this post when dealing not only with authoritarian churches but also in any toxic relationship.

I think that this severely affects the mental health of those involved in these situations. I’ve never experienced this but the peer pressure must be enormous to conform if you would be willing to abrogate your rights of redress as a victim (or worse the rights of any minors in your care).

When a crime involving church occurs, especially some of the heinous personal crimes discussed recently, I don’t believe it is up to the pastor, elders, or any church body or member to dispense forgiveness.

That is up to the victim.

I don’t believe that “forgiveness” means “everything is A-OK now”. Forgiveness is part of the healing process, as a way of moving forward, finding peace. With such a deep violation this is a process that can take years. And I think it’s a personal peace, letting go of the perpetrator. It does not mean you are “friends” and nor should you ever be.

The emphasis is on the “sin” and forgiving the “sinner”. The only way the “sin” can be truly acknowledged is to place the emphasis on the victims and above all correct and prevent such crimes from ever occurring again. Perpetrators should be investigated & prosecuted.

Sexual predators are adept at camouflage and criminal background checks will only help so much. In our area recently a children’s entertainer was caught uploading pictures from his shows. The police are tracking down victims now. This guy was a well respected teaching assistant. We were even thinking of hiring him for our kids party after seeing how awesome he was! No previous criminal activity.

When it comes to protecting your children, no one (pastor, elder, teacher, friend, relative) should use “can’t” when it comes to your decisions.

One of my co-workers had a good friend whose husband was taking an undue focus on her pre-teen daughter. Nothing criminal but she really had an awkward feeling. She ceased allowing her kids to be in that house. Nothing should be more important than protecting kids.

Patriciamc wrote:

Also, if you think about it, they’ve perverted masculinity too and the idea of what a man should be (someone here said that recently).

It’s called “Hypermasculinity”, a term I first came across in the 1943 OSS psych profile of one A.Hitler. Define masculinity entirely as POWER and Aggression, burn out everything else with a white-hot iron, and firewall what’s left to the max.

“There is no Right, there is no Wrong, there is only POWER.”
— Lord Voldemort

Velour wrote:

@ Patriciamc:

I noticed on that thread how angry the Comp man was toward Ruth, anyone that disagreed, and just his attitude. And he expects people to “respect” him because he knows more than the rest of us, especially women?

Fear Breeds Respect, and I Can Beat You Up!

Lea wrote:

The problem is not that they are irrelevant, but that they are academic. If we were discussing differences in large groups academically I’m all in

I think it is extremely practical, especially as it pertains to this particular thread about identifying and appropriately dealing with abuse. Here is an article about a study suggesting that men and women process information differently: http://www.livescience.com/41619-male-female-brains-wired-differently.html (the article does a good job in pointing out that not all individuals fit the statistical norm). This could be the reason why there are stereotypes such as men are all head and no heart while women are all heart and no head. Even on this site, which I consider to be very egalitarian, I’ve seen comments describing men in general as less empathetic than women. But it turns out there could be some truth to it. This is where is gets practical rather than merely academic. If it’s true that men are generally less intuitive and more fact-based, and if all the decisions are made by the men in a particular group (women’s views are not considered), there will be a very good probability that gut-feelings and intuition will not have much influence in final decisions (the intuitive men will be dismissed as girly-men). This could explain why complementarian churches are more likely to be worried about false charges. Their “prove it” mentality blinds them from needed hunches and intuition that could show them where to look. On the other hand, if all of the decisions are made by women, there will be a greater probability that gut feelings will predominate, which can result in both false allegations and a lack of concrete evidence that would lead to prosecution. Neither approach will be effective in dealing with abusers. One approach will miss the big-picture indicators, and the other approach will fail to produce the facts needed to legally prosecute the abusers. But both together can be powerful in keeping churches safe.

I realize that what I just wrote sounds like I am making sweeping generalizations. That’s not my intent. I understand that not all men fit the statistical norm, neither do all women. It’s difficult to include all the right caveats without turning it into a dissertation, but my main point is I believe it’s wrong to conclude that statistical differences make one gender more or less valuable than the other. I think the right conclusion is we need take into account each other’s strengths and weakness so that we can work together in a way that is powerful and synergistic. And because there are some traits that are more generally expressed in one gender than the other, we need to be very careful with respect to decisions made by groups that favor one gender over the other.

@ Ken F’s wife:
Sorry, I did it again, I hit “post comment” before I checked to see that my name rather than my wife’s was in the name block. The above comment was from me, not my wife.

Max wrote:

They would just offer the kids more pizza to keep them coming in the absence of VBS. Children/youth “discipleship” in an average Baptist church in my area consists of keeping them occupied with skating and bowling parties, current movies, and lots of pizza.

And when something outside the church throws better parties and has more free pizza?

(Wait! That’s why the Baptists keep trying to shut everyone else down!)

From the post: “2. They asked us not to discuss anything or gossip about the victims because they had all requested their privacy.”

Indeed, law enforcement (for example, in the Wetterling case which comes to national Media this week as his remains have been revealed by the murderer), says: “Someone knows something, and they need to come forward so we can stop the perpetrator.”

What’s up with the church protecting the perpetrator and silencing the evidence, the narrative? Silencing what could be key to stopping the evil?

Jack wrote:

Forgiveness is part of the healing process, as a way of moving forward, finding peace.

Indeed! Forgiving others is a personal thing and should never be forced by church leaders. Forgiveness must be real, not manipulated. “Forgive and forget” is not applicable for the crimes detailed on TWW. Forgiveness may come, but one can never forget.

Ken F wrote:

Sorry, I did it again, I hit “post comment” before I checked to see that my name rather than my wife’s was in the name block. The above comment was from me, not my wife.

How about “Team Ken”?

Max wrote:

“Forgive and forget” is not applicable for the crimes detailed on TWW.

It’s not applicable in any Christian context. Forgiveness has nothing to do with forgetting. It’s just a bunch of bad teachers who have convinced as that the two ideas are connected. The Apostle Paul listed quite a lot of sins committed against him – he obviously did not forget.

@ Ken F’s wife:
And I have read articles discussing that over time and depending on environment or focus, our brain wiring changes. In a bad situation of severe or prolonged trauma we know know certain brain functions change.

I do think a big mistake of our society is the focus on “group” identity. Black/white, male/female and such instead of individual differences. The potential of the individual is lost to the group. As is the accountability of individuals when the “group” is considered the perpetrator of wrong doing.

Lydia wrote:

And I have read articles discussing that over time and depending on environment or focus, our brain wiring changes.

That’s another interesting point I noticed in that article. It said the greatest difference between men and women are in young adults. The difference get less with age. One of the marks of the new-Calvinst churches is to kick the older generation to the curb. This probably makes the problem worse.

Lydia wrote:

They often subtly map “protection” to “easily deceived”.

Which boils down to: men must be in control in order to protect women from their own stupidity/inferiority.

@ Ken F’s wife:
I want to throw something else into the mix. The typical teen, male and female, will score high on the F (Feeler) on the MBTI. That tends to change to the statistical norm by age 35-40 of 75%male as T and 25% Female as F’s. To this day, we don’t know if that is mainly nature or nurture. I am a high T but was not raised the same way as most of females I knew growing up.

Ken F wrote:

Lea wrote:

Awful. 12?

Utterly sick. The prophet of Islam married his youngest wife (his best friend’s daughter) when she was six, and consummated the marriage when she was nine. He was 54.

Which got locked into their SCRIPTURE.
And their Plain Reading of SCRIPTURE.
Which is why even today in X-Treme Islamic Republics (like Talibanistan or Daesh, and I suspect Saudi as well) the female Age of Consent is still 9. IT IS WRITTEN!

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Which is why even today in X-Treme Islamic Republics (like Talibanistan or Daesh, and I suspect Saudi as well) the female Age of Consent is still 9.

And they call us the infidels…

Ken F wrote:

One of the marks of the new-Calvinst churches is to kick the older generation to the curb.

Sounds so Scriptural doesn’t it? Not!

The true church is populated by multi-generations, in which the older saints teach young folks. Church is to be a family of God, all ages working together. Things are so upside down in New Calvinist ranks.

Jack wrote:

BTW with regards to “male headship” or what “pathological patriarchy” I wrote a computer algorithm to deal with that problem in BASIC

10 Print “Men and women are equal in every single way”
20 Goto 10
Run

Ha!

Lydia wrote:

our brain wiring changes

Our brains are actually amazingly able to rewrite themselves in response to trauma.

As for Ken F, I don’t have time to respond to your comment fully as I’m painting a chair, but I think you are still too apt to make broad generalizations and apply them to individuals. Look at the height point I made. That is how every difference between men and women is, you just can’t see it.

Ken F wrote:

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Which is why even today in X-Treme Islamic Republics (like Talibanistan or Daesh, and I suspect Saudi as well) the female Age of Consent is still 9.

And they call us the infidels…

I understand there are some Islamic scholars and theologians who differ with this, but they have an uphill fight against SCRIPTURE! SCRIPTURE! SCRIPTURE! and its Plain Meaning(TM).

@ Nancy2:
Oh wow! That is incredible!

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Velour wrote:
Steve240 wrote:
I would also ask what the biblical basis is for “shunning” these 13 year old girls. If a person is unrepentant then the bible allows for this but I am not aware of any passage that allows this. II Cor 2:6-7 even indicates that when a person repents that they are to forgive and comfort him.
I am not saying that these girls weren’t repentive or even had something to repent of but am wondering what the biblical basis is for shunning.
It sounds like my ex-NeoCalvinist church. I liken it to Salem Witch Trials II.
Ideologically-Pure Dictators need Witches among the people to be smelled out.
Make an example of one and not only do you silence a hundred but the survivors will start informing on each other left & right so someone else Will be Next.

Oh well the boyz at Grace Bible Fellowship of Silicon Valley met their match when they crossed me.

I started a blog about them. https://gbfsvchurchabuse.org/

@ Ken F’s wife:

One thing I was thinking about, I do not think ‘gut feelings’ are generally responsible for false accusations. I think it is active lying.

It’s possible the gift of fear really impacted my thinking on this, but gut feelings are generally your brain processing things that you may not consciously be able to explain. They are often dismissed but are what kept us alive in the jungle from wild animals. They are useful tools and should not be dismissed.

siteseer wrote:

Or Davey Blackburn.

Everything about that case is so creepy.

Velour wrote:

I think that we’re a priesthood of believers and the Holy Spirit has equipped us to run our churches.

Spot on.

siteseer wrote:

JYJames wrote:

The only conclusion I can draw is that stopping the evil is not important, appearances are all that matter. The church’s/pastor’s image in the community and so on.

That was the conclusion I came to in my experiences. Social media just kept confirming it from both sides.

@ Lea:
Very good points. I totally agree. One of the things that bothers me a lot about churches these days is so many don’t want people to trust themselves or their gut. They want them to ignore the red flags they discern but can’t explain….yet. They keep a proof texted clobber verse handy like, “The heart is deceitful” to convince them not to trust their gut. People end up rationalizing a lot of things away and even turning on others as trouble makers, gossips or bitter. They don’t discuss and learn which is part of growing in wisdom.

siteseer wrote:

And once a person has those filters in mind, they channel everything they see through them. Something that fits, confirms it, something that doesn’t fit is just an anomaly and is ignored.

Indeed.

Did you ever study the experiment the teacher did many years ago where she broke the kids into blue and brown eyes and started praising one group for every good thing (good job Johnny, that’s why blue kids are smarter! Bad job Jenny, brown eyed kids are the worst).

She had those kids mixed up and feeling their worth was based on their eye color and iirc it only took her a week.

@ mirele:

Thanks Mirele for bringing light to the abusive tactics of Mark Driscoll. I thought this last week about a sign. Refunding people including in Seattle their money. They shouldn’t have had to sue. And he owes the Petrys, for the firing of Paul, excommunication, and shunning.

Law Prof wrote:

Created the entire universe not to express his passionate love and enjpoy an intimate relationship with those whom he created, but did it purely for his own glory.

Cosmic-level Narcissism.

Like the gods of Sumer and Ur who (according to Gilgamesh) sent the Great Flood because humans weren’t giving them enough Narcissitic supply.

mirele wrote:

I’ve been thinking of a couple of signs for next week:

“Driscoll abandoned Seattle. Jesus will never abandon you.”

That’s a good one.

And isn’t there some question about missing funds at Mars Hill?

“[amount] — Where’d the Mars Hill money go?”

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Lydia wrote:

One of the things that bothers me a lot about churches these days is so many don’t want people to trust themselves or their gut. They want them to ignore the red flags they discern but can’t explain….yet. They keep a proof texted clobber verse handy like, “The heart is deceitful” to convince them not to trust their gut.

A recent poem on one of these blogs (Internet Monk?) ended each stanza with
“I know I’m Right; I have a Verse.”

FOUND IT!
Velour reprinted it on her blog:
https://gbfsvchurchabuse.org/2016/09/03/poem-i-have-a-verse-by-wayne-harmon/

Law Prof wrote:

A not uncommon neocalvinist perspective on God:
Created the entire universe not to express his passionate love and enjpoy an intimate relationship with those whom he created, but did it purely for his own glory.
Predetermines every single movement of every single atom, including every single action of every single person, then damns the ones whom he unilaterally chooses–nay, forces–to do evil to be cast out and shunned forever.
So, when neocalvinist pastors create their own church kingdoms in no way to express passionate love, set themselves above parishioners and so have intimate relationships with no one, and do everything for their own glory, why does it surprise us?
When neocalvinist pastors attempt to control the behavior, actions and even thoughts of every single person under their control, and seem to take great pleasure in casting out and shunning their followers forever, why does it surprise us?
The are only reflecting the image of their god.

Preach it, Law Prof!

Exactly like my ex-pastors/elders at Grace Bible Fellowship of Silicon Valley.
Senior pastor is a graduate of John MacArthur’s The Master’s Seminary.
I liken it to a 7-11 franchisee training school, to open up your own JMac-brand
church franchise.

(My ex-pastor rounded out his sub-par education with a fake Ph.D. for $299 from
the unaccredited Faith Bible College in Independence, Missouri. Real Ph.D.’s take
8 years of hard work to earn from an accredited university.)

@ Victorious:

btw, I believe the overview is available on PBS:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/class-divided/

mirele wrote:

(As it is, my brother thinks I’m weird. *shrug*)

Ahhh. Don’t worry about it. After all, we are called to be a “peculiar people” (1 Peter 2:9).

Max wrote:

After all, we are called to be a “peculiar people” (1 Peter 2:9).

This is where King James English fails us. Peculiar used to mean “belonging to” or “characteristic of.” Now it means “weird,” which is pretty much the opposite of what it used to mean. I once listened to a ministry leader teach that we are supposed to be weird based on this passage. He totally missed the point. It’s ok to be weird, but this is not the passage to use to support it.

Ken F wrote:

Peculiar used to mean “belonging to” or “characteristic of.”

I was just using that passage to comfort Mirele a bit. When Christians act like Christians – when they demonstrate they belong to and are characteristic of Christ – they can appear “peculiar” to a watching world. Christlikeness is so contrary to the behavior of the multitudes around us, that we can appear to be a strange lot indeed if we live as we ought in the midst of moral chaos … a peculiar light in the surrounding darkness.

Max wrote:

I was just using that passage to comfort Mirele a bit. When Christians act like Christians – when they demonstrate they belong to and are characteristic of Christ – they can appear “peculiar” to a watching world. Christlikeness is so contrary to the behavior of the multitudes around us, that we can appear to be a strange lot indeed if we live as we ought in the midst of moral chaos … a peculiar light in the surrounding darkness.

I might be overly sensitive because I was badly taught early in my Christian life. I’m still recovering from it.

@ Ken F:

Also, I think you are trying to make a point that the ONlY reason a church would be stronger with male and female leadership is because they bring different innate qualities.

There is a lot more to it than that. They have different experiences.

And as for churches with male only leadership being worse (if they are) solely because of some internal qualities, I think you are missing that people who are drawn to an organization that actively puts women down are going to be worse on many to the topics relating to women. You could easily have a male only leadership made up of boz’s that is sensitive to abuse. You are not likely to find it in a church that teaches women are inferior, because all the guys who think that will be at that church, and they will reinforce each other’s dumb decisions, and they will actively kick out the people with sense.

That is not, of course, even getting into the creepy authoritarian side of things.

There are a lot of holes in your logic, even if you are trying to be cute talking about your gut.

Lea wrote:

even if you are trying to be cute talking about your gut.

I was not trying to be cute. It really is my gut feeling. I don’t understand your accusation.

@ Ken F:
You have to take an organization’s core values into consideration. such as strict gender roles rather than a meritocracy where skills, experience and education are the most valued. A church might strive for those with known spiritual wisdom instead of a gender caste.

Ken F wrote:

Lea wrote:

even if you are trying to be cute talking about your gut.

I was not trying to be cute. It really is my gut feeling. I don’t understand your accusation.

You dismiss other gut feelings though. You are trying to get me to agree to a point based on that. (Which I am not opposed to by the way, I think women and men can bring different perspectives to the table).

I am speaking more of gut feelings in regards to danger or out of line behavior/boundaries crossing.

I am confused on your false accusation comment. I generally think of false accusations as more j’accuse! Which would generally involve lies if a thing is not true. I think maybe you are talking about something different.

Lea wrote:

You dismiss other gut feelings though.

How do you know this to be true about me? Your comment is inaccurate and unfair.

Ken F wrote:

Lea wrote:

You dismiss other gut feelings though.

How do you know this to be true about me? Your comment is inaccurate and unfair.

You said they have to be backed up by evidence above. You also claim that people made false accusations (which see above because I’m confused on your definitions) based on feelings. I am only going by your statements.

Sometimes evidence is not available and you have to act with feeing alone.

Lea wrote:

If you think I misread you, maybe explain what you meant. I think maybe you see me as out to get you or something and I assure that is not the case.

I think I’ve taken the conversation as far as I know how to take it. I guess we both deeply misunderstand each other. We can drop it.

JYJames wrote:

But the child may sense something is wrong

I remember reading an article that said you shouldn’t make a child hug or kiss an adult they don’t want to, and it’s basically for reasons like this. Sometimes children are just not keen on someone, but then again they may be picking up on something or having a bad experience.

Muff Potter wrote:

Velour wrote:
Off-topic prayer request.
I am extremely worried about a homeless woman who is blind and has a service dog.
Count me in for prayer on her behalf.

Thank you so much, Muff!

Velour wrote:

Off-topic prayer request.

I am extremely worried about a homeless woman who is blind and has a service dog.
I realized that when I went to a mega church, at the invitation from a friend, that
this woman was in the choir and in a job support group that I attended briefly between jobs.

I emailed the mega church and asked for their help in finding her a place to live through social services, care for herself, caregivers, veterinary care for her dog (and a bath).

The woman once lived in an apartment near me. But she was laid off from her computer job.

Thanks friends. The mega church does have social workers and therapists on staff, people connected to the community who know services available.

I am praying thanks that God has brought this poor woman into your caring hands. She is VERY vulnerable, yes. Her situation is heart-breaking. I do think she will be cared for now, as you are on the case, Mountain Shepherdess. 🙂