A whole bunch of other witches have Jessica’s back (from afar, at least), myself among them! Her courage is admirable, and her actins are justified!

These leaders/elders are full of themselves. More abuse at a church that supports Calvinism. No surprise there.

It takes an incredible amount of courage to do what Jessica is doing. I hope others in her community also have her back.

But for those who don’t speak up out of fear:

Has anyone ever noticed that cowardice is in the vice lists in the Bible? (Rev 21:8)

The really sad thing is that the men involved would probably have no trouble looking you in the eye and saying, without flinching, that they’ve done nothing wrong. That’s certainly been my experience of spiritual abuse – the perpetrators seem convinced they are just carrying out the will of their god 🙁

Living Liminal wrote:

the perpetrators seem convinced they are just carrying out the will of their god

The problem with deception is that you don’t know you are deceived because you are deceived. The Calvinist god wants to put folks into bondage who have been set free in Christ.

So, in Lig Duncan’s PCA, a woman who takes a sign into church needs to go. Also a woman who dared to attend a Presbytery meeting and objected to the Women’s restroom being appropriated for use by the male Presbyters. And a husband who refused to make his ill wife attend church needs to go.

But Mahaney is OK with Lig, and Leithart and Meyers are OK with the PCA.

Got it.

Max wrote:

The problem with deception is that you don’t know you are deceived because you are deceived.

Indeed. If you are blinded by deception you can’t see, and so you continue in the dark. The thing I really have a problem with is what happens when a victim actually speaks up and says to a bully/abuser, “Your behaviour is damaging me.” It seems that every time the response is to deny or downplay their pain and silence them. In my opinion, you have then *chosen* to remain blind.

Let me guess all of these elders are men?

Darlene wrote:

These leaders/elders are full of themselves. More abuse at a church that supports Calvinism. No surprise there.

Well, once you get outside the Christianese Bubble, Calvinism = Thug Life.

Proud of you, Jessica. True heroism is being willing to take a stand against one’s peers. Although, I guess, the fact these elders don’t realize they’re your peers is a large part of the problem.

Gram3 wrote:

Tullian got a job from a PCA church for doing a lot more than holding up a sign or sending out emails.

If it weren’t for double standards they’d have none at all. At least there are no women in charge, because that is the worst sin of all.

Kemi wrote:

I’m no lawyer, but it sounds like a wrongful termination lawsuit to me. The pain and suffering compensation should be ample.

Jessica has said on her blog that she is not interested in being compensated for wrongful dismissal. She only want the church to recognise and repent of the way it treats abuse victims. She wants the church to learn how better to respond to abuse so that other victims of abuse don’t suffer like she has.

This is of interest to you if you live in the Washington, D.C. area. McLean Bible's New City Network which is the church planting arm, is promoting 9 Marks "Church Revitalization Conference."

I wrote and asked since McLean Bible silently joined The Gospel Coalition is McLean Bible planning on joining 9 Marks? In addition McLean Bible's church planting network is planting an Acts 29 church in conjunction with Fellowship Memphis in Fairfax, Virginia. The pastor Kenji Adachi was the Pastoral Resident at Fellowship Memphis.

If you are planting a church with New City Network you can attend that 9 Marks conference for free.

https://wonderingeagle.wordpress.com/2016/09/30/why-is-mclean-bibles-new-city-network-promoting-9-marks-church-revitalization-conference/

brian wrote:

I may have missed it but I wonder if her abusive husband going to get excommunicated or is he been restored by the wave of some magic wand.

My thoughts exaxtly. What did happen to the husband, or was he just exercising his male priviledge as the so-called head?

I attended a PCA church during junior high and high school, and when I returned to the “heathen” Methodists, I realized that the people at the PCA church were only about appearances. Being a Christian was all about trying to out-holy one another. They could talk Christianity, but they really couldn’t do Christianity. Oh, and if you were a woman….

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Darlene wrote:
These leaders/elders are full of themselves. More abuse at a church that supports Calvinism. No surprise there.
Well, once you get outside the Christianese Bubble, Calvinism = Thug Life.

HUG: There is actually a Facebook site called ‘Reformed Thug Life.’
https://www.facebook.com/ReformedThugLife/

I meant to say “wimmin” but wommin will work too. 😉

For those asking about the church’s response to my ex husband and whether he experienced discipline, the answer is no. He did some bad drug deals and was obliged to leave the state. The Session didn’t pursue charges against him because they didn’t want to deal with him– have him come back and face the court and so forth. I didn’t “press charges” (in terms of church court) for the same reason– I didn’t want to have any contact with him. I haven’t sought any kind of financial compensation or legal action against the church; I’ve just asked them to demonstrate real repentance, get their leaders trained on abuse and domestic violence, quit enabling/accomplishing the agendas of manipulators, that kind of thing. It’s not rocket science, and it sure seems like it would be easier to do the right thing than go this route. But if that’s what they want to pursue, I’ll gladly run it up the chain in the denomination to seek broader change for the other 60,000 women in the PCA who are likely affected by abuse in some way.

Looking back over that letter, I’m amazed at the sheer gaul of that church. My knee-jerk reaction would be to tell them what to do with their letter and their attitude.

Did anyone notice the slogan at the page bottom of the indictment? “Loving god, loving each other. loving our neighbors.”

If they had the least amount of self-awareness and -reflexion, not to mention common decency and common sense, they would realise the complete and utter contradiction between the content of the page and the slogan at the bottom. I’m not even talking about christian or any other kind of love here.

So, yes. It’s just a slogan, not any kind of meaningful statement about the church.

Gram3 wrote:

Obviously I lack the requisite genetic configuration to say this, but where is the wisdom among these men? And they are all men because PCA and because Lig’s study committee has is still working on the report which will justify the RulingWhichMustBeMade. But I digress.

I believe their type of wisdom is described in this verse:

Proverbs 26:12
Do you see a man wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.

This woman has more wisdom than all of these elders combined. They ought to be embarrassed of themselves.

Is it the confrontation of their sin and the accusation of their inperfection that is bothersome to the elders? Is the denial of their inerrant judgment that really bothers them, or that anyone could question their role as rulers of their flock? Too many questions? Glad I am not a Presbyterian.

@ siteseer:
Ditto. Agreed.

@ Bridget:
I think there is a lot of willful blindness when it comes to Calvin, Geneva and punishments to control the state church population. Specifically by academics, sadly.

@ Velour:
Agree Velour. “Robot” was a strong word to use. It’s just that the whole of Calvinism, with its determinist God who allows no human choice, every step sovereignly controlled, and the eternal destiny of every person charted before they were ever born, paints a picture of robotic faith for those ensnared by it. The “BITE” model describes many New Calvinist ministries. God will judge “pastors” who use and abuse those, as you note, who come “with the best of intentions, naively wanting community, to grow as a Christian, to serve.”

@ Jessica Fore:

Thank you for sharing that information. I’m sorry for what you went through with your ex and for the awful treatment at your church. I hope your efforts bring some real change, at least in the PCA.

Lydia wrote:

@ Bridget:
I think there is a lot of willful blindness when it comes to Calvin, Geneva and punishments to control the state church population. Specifically by academics, sadly.

To academics, everything is an Abstract Intellectual Exercise.

“Global Thermonuclear War? Only a three-point-seven-eight Gigadeath Situation. Insignificant.”
— actually heard this once from an Intellectual type SF litfan

Gus wrote:

Did anyone notice the slogan at the page bottom of the indictment? “Loving god, loving each other. loving our neighbors.”

Remember the official name of North Korea?

“The more adjectives about ‘Democracy’ there are in a country’s official name, the nastier a dictatorship it is.”
— TV Tropes, “People’s Republic of Tyranny”

Darlene wrote:

HUG: There is actually a Facebook site called ‘Reformed Thug Life.’
https://www.facebook.com/ReformedThugLife/

Why am I not surprised?

Actually, I was thinking of the cover pic of the “Christian Liberty?” tile over at Sotieriology 101 when I came up with that one. Would have included a link but Sot 101 does not allow entry by links or give true URLs of its entries.

Bridget wrote:

Why? Isn’t it clear that these church elders have misused church discipline? What sin has this woman committed?

She Uppity.

Jessica Fore wrote:

But if that’s what they want to pursue, I’ll gladly run it up the chain in the denomination to seek broader change for the other 60,000 women in the PCA who are likely affected by abuse in some way.

Good for you! Hopefully there will be some men with some common sense and some common decency, both of which are exceedingly rare in today’s world.

Bill M wrote:

“charges Jessica Fore with contempt toward the Church and it elders”
It is no sin to hold in contempt those who are contemptible.

Oh, how I love this! Jesus and John the Baptist had plenty of contempt for the contemptible religious vipers, so I think I would look in the mirror, if I were one of these men, and consider whether I resemble a serpent or a man indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

Godith wrote:

The restroom incident and the sick wife took place in OPC not PCA.

Thanks for that correction. Bad news, though, since it means another conservative Presbie denomination has lost the plot. 🙁

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Global Thermonuclear War? Only a three-point-seven-eight Gigadeath Situation. Insignificant.

Reminds me of the Walter Matthau (sp) character in Failsafe.

dee wrote:

But the sign hurt the feeling of the manly leaders.

Yes, I see your point. She should have listened to Matt Chandler and made her “Justice Not Abuse” sign more sensitively. And winsomely. And deferentially.

dee wrote:

They’ll find reasons to discipline dead people in a cemetery.

Years ago, my wife was a volunteer church secretary. In that capacity, she noted that the church membership list actually included members who were deceased. When she suggested removing them from the roll (thereby, reducing the total number of reported members), she was advised by church leaders to leave it alone – it would make them look bad in the denomination if membership declined. That got us to thinking … “How many of SBC’s 16 million members were actually dead, joined other church groups, or “done”?” Perhaps the ‘real’ SBC membership is 8 or 4 million! How dare a dead person to stop being an active Southern Baptist! We need to go to the cemetery and discipline him for that!

Max wrote:

dee wrote:

They’ll find reasons to discipline dead people in a cemetery.

Years ago, my wife was a volunteer church secretary. In that capacity, she noted that the church membership list actually included members who were deceased. When she suggested removing them from the roll (thereby, reducing the total number of reported members), she was advised by church leaders to leave it alone – it would make them look bad in the denomination if membership declined. That got us to thinking … “How many of SBC’s 16 million members were actually dead, joined other church groups, or “done”?” Perhaps the ‘real’ SBC membership is 8 or 4 million! How dare a dead person to stop being an active Southern Baptist! We need to go to the cemetery and discipline him for that!

Max: I believe you are right the actual number of Southern Baptist is a much lower number than the leaders want to reveal to those that continue to faithfully participate. It is shear dishonesty.

Now that we’re hearing about Jessica Fore’s case, this is another issue of Spiritual Abuse and Fraudulent Authority like (pastor) Wade Burleson has written about:
http://www.wadeburleson.org/2009/03/spiritual-abuse-masked-as-spiritual.html

Wade is the pastor here for E-Church on Sundays.

Gram3 wrote:

Godith wrote:

The restroom incident and the sick wife took place in OPC not PCA.

Thanks for that correction. Bad news, though, since it means another conservative Presbie denomination has lost the plot.

Unless the ‘plot’ was making sure they weren’t liberals or had women preachers! Which I think it mostly was…

mot wrote:

Max wrote:
dee wrote:
They’ll find reasons to discipline dead people in a cemetery.
Years ago, my wife was a volunteer church secretary. In that capacity, she noted that the church membership list actually included members who were deceased. When she suggested removing them from the roll (thereby, reducing the total number of reported members), she was advised by church leaders to leave it alone – it would make them look bad in the denomination if membership declined. That got us to thinking … “How many of SBC’s 16 million members were actually dead, joined other church groups, or “done”?” Perhaps the ‘real’ SBC membership is 8 or 4 million! How dare a dead person to stop being an active Southern Baptist! We need to go to the cemetery and discipline him for that!
Max: I believe you are right the actual number of Southern Baptist is a much lower number than the leaders want to reveal to those that continue to faithfully participate. It is shear dishonesty.

What is even further irony is that Dever was the point man on the issue of “cleaning up church roles” and calling it “church discipline” to get people aboard the church discipline train. It was a brilliant bait and switch tactic. There were many blog discussions, articles, etc. who can disagree with cleaning up church rolls? That is a no brained. From there it moved into serious church membership commitment such as “regenerate” church membership. And people did not analyze the meaning of that one. . And we now know the rest.

These guys are more strategically patient than people can imagine. Think of all the people who voted in the motion at convention who had no idea of the real agenda behind it. It’s the old salesman trick. Get them agreeing on the obvious things then move closer to the close. Who wants to admit they were suckered?

http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2008/june/next-big-southern-baptist-debate-purging-membership-rolls.html

Before the motion, the amount of articles and posts on regenerate membership in those circles was huge. It was a campaign.

Gus wrote:

Did anyone notice the slogan at the page bottom of the indictment? “Loving god, loving each other. loving our neighbors.”

No I didn’t notice it, thanks for pointing it out. On top of being contemptible, they are taking God’s name in vain.

This is just awful. Jessica, you are a brave and strong woman, and this fellow PCAer in South Carolina stands with you.

Camille K. Lewis, Greer, SC

I’d like to know more about the church member at Jessica’s church who is a licensed counselor. What type of license?

When I read this article about Jessica’s story it seems to me that this church member possibly violated the terms of their state-issued license and committed ethics violations.
I think if that person did that they should be reported to the state who should take action against them and their license.

Max wrote:

Agree Velour. “Robot” was a strong word to use.

Stepford Women. Same meaning, but a little more….. uh, Complementarian. No offense to the women who have awakened.

dee wrote:

Loren Haas wrote:
“She turned me into a newt!
……….. I got better.”
Are you sure?….

Ha! Excuses, excuses?

Velour wrote:

Here is the Code of Ethics for Georgia therapists, social workers, etc. from their state’s licensing board.
http://www.gamft.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/GA_Code_of_Ethics.pdf
Isn’t this case taking place in Georgia? That’s what the state that was in the letter to Jessica from the Presbys.

This is for licensed therapists. Do we know if the counselor who diagnosed Jessica (without speaking to her) was even a licensed therapist?

dee wrote:

It is due to the fact that these guys just love talking about discipline. They’ll find reasons to discipline dead people in a cemetery.

Dr. Steve’s article linked above makes it abundantly clear it was Calvin’s attitude, too.

Though, we know Calvin did more than talk about it… he used his authority to commit murder.

Calvin in later reflection on his return said, “I would
never have accepted the ministry unless they had sworn to these two
points: namely to uphold the Catechism and the discipline.”

Discipline, discipline, discipline… why of all the things taught in the Bible does one seize upon this one? Where is the washing of feet? The turning of the other cheek? The being kind to one another, tender hearted? The gently correcting those in opposition, if by chance God may grant them repentance?

There is a type of person who thinks that God needs him to set his house in order, that God cannot manage it himself. This, I believe, is the sin of Uzzah. And in doing so, they commit a great many other sins against God’s people.

Calvin actually said the church could not continue without human discipline. Yet Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against it.

@ Velour:

Sorry, typo. “Jessica Fore.”

Max wrote:

@ Velour:
Agree Velour. “Robot” was a strong word to use. It’s just that the whole of Calvinism, with its determinist God who allows no human choice, every step sovereignly controlled, and the eternal destiny of every person charted before they were ever born, paints a picture of robotic faith for those ensnared by it. The “BITE” model describes many New Calvinist ministries. God will judge “pastors” who use and abuse those, as you note, who come “with the best of intentions, naively wanting community, to grow as a Christian, to serve.”

Thanks, Max.

Yes, God will judge these abusive men.

Bridget wrote:

Then the licensed counselor should lose his/her license over this I imagine. This counselor is a danger to anyone they counsel if this is how they counsel.

If the counselor is actually not licensed with the state then the elders should brought before their demons hierarchy for lying. I hope they know that a certificate from some Christian group is not licensing.

Janey wrote:

This church has a lot in common with cult groups.

Certain corners of the organized, institutional church (with a little “c”) certainly appear cultish such as the institution described in this piece, but the ‘real’ Church (big “C”) is alive well on planet earth! It is comprised of born-again, bought-by-the-blood of Jesus believers who are the genuine Body of Christ. Its members often try to operate within institutions, but increasing numbers are coming out from amongst them.

Jesus came to redeem and work through individuals, not institutions. The institution we call church is OK if it is reaching the lost with the Gospel which saves ALL who hear, believe and turn in faith. Such churches equip the saints to do the work of the ministry (all believers have a part in ministry, all are priests). The real Church engages the Body of Christ in the Great Commission to reach others. Anything less than that is doing church without God and it will eventually take on cult-like characteristics, rather than Christlikeness. There is no room for Christian celebrities and authoritarian my-way-or-the-highway leaders in the real Church of the Living God.

Velour wrote:

I think if that person did that they should be reported to the state who should take action against them and their license.

I did file a formal complaint with the licensing board. They investigated, but whatever was said/done in the Session meeting was careful and vague enough that they didn’t have enough evidence to take official action. However, they have kept the case on file for consideration if there are future complaints. The counselor (CCEF trained of course) has left the church– I think he was roped into this as much as anybody.

Bridget wrote:

The Session had a counselor diagnose Jessica’s mental status without interviewing her.

I do not believe that any licensed professional would ever diagnose someone without at *least* interviewing the person and much, much more. Perhaps they mean “certified” counselor which, as we have discovered, means nada.

@ Bridget:
I really think the “counselor” brought in to advise the elders is their big legal Achilles heel.

” In 2015, the Session brought a Licensed Professional Counselor, a church member, into a Session meeting to advise on my mental state and what was best for me in absentia, without my knowledge or consent, based on the testimony of the opposing parties in the grievance. In 2015, the Session launched a formal disciplinary investigation into the grievance that consisted of having one called Session meeting with the opposing parties and then issuing written conclusions and directives at me. ”

1. They positioned the counselor as a licensed credible source
2. The counselor never met with or, more importantly,professionally evauluated the defendant yet gave an opinion
3. It sounds like they based their disciplinary process on the counselors opinion.

This is premeditated reputation assasination. And the church is free to share the counselirs conclusions as the churches conclusion (protecting the counselor) far and wide– at this point.

It would be wise to release the counselor name to the public. If they are in practice, His/her counselees have a right to know about this malpractice.

Max wrote:

“How many of SBC’s 16 million members were actually dead, joined other church groups, or “done”?”

A few years ago, I was looking at the website of the SBC in my small hometown where I was a member. Despite the fact that I graduated college, moved away, and had joined different churches over the years, my name was still listed as a member. Crazy.

It is uncharitable to say, but I must confess I’m not disappointed by this action of the PCA – because I don’t expect much from Calvinists. The real tragedy is that the revolution of Christ, who railed against the abusive religious authorities of his day and has come to set us free from corrupt authorities, has been subverted by those who falsely claim His name to perpetuate the same old godless power strucures. Congratulations to Jessica Fore for refusing to be cowed, for standing up not only for herself but for other women who have been abandoned by the “shepherds” who have abrogated their mandate to care for “the least of these”.

Somewhat OT: I was reading on the Istoria Ministries blog and noticed that commenter Robert was putting a lot of emphasis on rigid doctrinal litmus tests. Now, I’m a bit of a mixed bag of beliefs – I’d be considered pretty “liberal” on some matters (i.e. not a Chicago Statement infallibilist, pro-gay-marriage), yet I believe in the Incarnate, Crucified, and Resurrected One – even the Virgin Birth (though I honor those who disagree). I also know that Jesus told his disciples that they would be known as disciples by their LOVE for one another and that Jesus said “not all that say unto me ‘Lord, Lord’ will enter into the Kingdom of heaven, but WHOEVER DOES THE WILL OF MY FATHER”. Yet for some, still, doctrine trumps all. Reminds me of something else Jesus said: “For the sake of your own traditions you have nullified the Word of God”.

I dont know if these have been seen or if they are helpful

http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/index.html it lists PCA’s “official” view on abuse and divorce along with other marriage issues.

Velour wrote:

Lydia wrote:

Jessica Fore wrote:
Velour wrote:
I think if that person did that they should be reported to the state who should take action against them and their license.
I did file a formal complaint with the licensing board. They investigated, but whatever was said/done in the Session meeting was careful and vague enough that they didn’t have enough evidence to take official action. However, they have kept the case on file for consideration if there are future complaints. The counselor (CCEF trained of course) has left the church– I think he was roped into this as much as anybody.
It was a huge ethics violation. He surely knew better.

Yes, Lydia. He certainly knew better. No excuse for his legal of unprofessionalism and ethics violations.

I used to be very lenient on such things. No more. Why? I learned the hard way that we have a responsibility to warn others that might hire these types.

Seriously, he was not even using common sense.

The counselor needs to come clean publicly since the PCA filed charges. People are very forgiving when such sincerely come clean and take the consequences.

Nancy2 wrote:

A whole bunch of other witches have Jessica’s back (from afar, at least), myself among them! Her courage is admirable, and her actins are justified!

In another life and in an alternate universe I sojourned with a coven of forest crones. It was one of the best times I’ve ever spent in my long life. The things I learned from those women could fill a treatise…

@ Gram3:
“And it looks like their overriding concern is that their AUTHORITY has been slighted. They look peevish and petulant and, frankly, immature if they do not know how to handle this situation without going nuclear on her. Makes me curious about how old these Elders are who want to Push Her Under Their Care.”

Yes, that’s exactly how it looks. That seems to be the only thing that can explain why one PCA church hired an adulterer who had betrayed his calling and church in almost every way imaginable while another PCA church is attempting to excommunicate a woman who survived domestic abuse (no thanks to the church). The former undoubtedly played the game the way the elders dictated that it be played, while the latter refuses to do so. Therefore, she must be silenced, marginalized and removed from the field of play.

Lydia wrote:

On another note about licensed counseling. A friend of mine works at a college in a student affairs sort of position. She has her master’s and needs to take the state licensure examination to be a counselor. The college told her not to because they would then have legal liability for all her advice to students.

Professional counseling either in academic settings or in agency settings or private practice is NOT about ‘giving advice’. Counseling is a ‘process’.

Jessica Fore wrote:

Velour wrote:

I think if that person did that they should be reported to the state who should take action against them and their license.

I did file a formal complaint with the licensing board. They investigated, but whatever was said/done in the Session meeting was careful and vague enough that they didn’t have enough evidence to take official action. However, they have kept the case on file for consideration if there are future complaints. The counselor (CCEF trained of course) has left the church– I think he was roped into this as much as anybody.

Are you saying that the counselor was state licensed and CCEF trained? Not all, probably very few CCEF counselors are state licensed as you need at least a four year degree or longer for some degrees.

This is what CCEF’s website says:

“What are the qualifications of CCEF counselors?
CCEF counselors have formal training in both the Bible and counseling. Some have advanced degrees, although this is not a requirement. Most of our counselors are former students of CCEF and many have been acknowledged by their churches as gifted in counseling. Some are pastors, ordained elders, or leaders in their local churches. All counselors meet weekly for case consultation and prayer for their counselees and are involved monthly in continuing education.”

@ Christiane:
I understand that. So is social type work with students. I used ‘student affairs’ more generically which probably not wise.

@ Lydia:
Understood.

@ Lydia:

They give you a certificate, but YOU ARE NOT CERTIFIED!! They state this themselves. Insane.

“DETAILS OF THE CERTIFICATE

While CCEF is not an accredited institution, we do offer a robust certificate program. Certificates represent that a student has completed courses in our program. The School of Biblical Counseling awards three different certificates: Foundations of Biblical Counseling, Topics in Biblical Counseling, and Counseling Skills and Practice.
Students who are working toward a certificate represent diverse backgrounds and ministry goals–they are pastors, youth ministers, counselors, small group leaders, laypeople, missionaries, business men and women, retirees, and more.
Please note that CCEF is not a certifying agency. CCEF does not “certify” or “endorse” counselors who have completed one of our certificate programs. A significant part of any professional certification process is supervised counseling to observe if a student is appropriately applying what has been learned, along with periodic recertification requirements. At this time, CCEF only awards a certificate of completion from our organization, representing that students have completed coursework within that certificate.
If you wish to refer to yourself as a “certified counselor” or “certified biblical counselor,” you should pursue certification through an organization that provides this type of certification. Some organizations will accept CCEF courses as part of their training requirement. Licensure as a professional counselor is offered through state agencies and typically requires a graduate degree from an accredited institution. Some of our students do go on to be licensed.”

Bridget wrote:

Licensure as a professional counselor is offered through state agencies and typically requires a graduate degree from an accredited institution. Some of our students do go on to be licensed.”

The state can and will revoke the license of any counselor who breaks with professional practice and ethics. The state, in this way, attempts to protect clients from abusive situations by unscrupulous practitioners. No licenses are given unless the recipient has the proper academic credentials for that level of licensing.

I would say there are some extremely well-trained, well-educated clinical psychologist who are priests, rabbis, and ministers who are also properly licensed to practice,
but from the degree of abuses and harm described by victims of neo-Cal situations, I would hesitate to think any licensed ministers would participate in such abusive situations.

You would be much more likely to find licensed minister/counselors on the other end trying to assist victims of abuse rather than participating in that abuse, yes.

The ‘helping’ nature of counseling brings it into that group of professions that hold to the ethic of ‘at least, do no harm’.

The neo-Cal 9 Marks programs have yielded far too many victims of abuse to be the proper setting for ANY serious counseling with state-licensed professionals.

@ Christiane:
@ Christiane:
One additional caveat: unscrupulous people sometimes claim credentials from ‘organizations’ that are bogus…. Velour tells of a pastor who claimed a doctorate but her investigation of him showed that he paid a diploma mill less than three hundred dollars for a ‘certificate’ that was worthless according to any valid standards.

People really need to be careful in finding authoritative help ….. every professional person you encounter is happy to provide evidence of their credentials when asked, so check these out BEFORE you or your family seeks help from these people. And do your HOMEWORK: look up the accrediting agencies to see if they are REALLY respected.

Steer clear of anyone who ‘gets offended if you do not trust them’. Professional people EXPECT to be asked about their credentials and are more than happy to provide them, because they worked hard to accomplish the requirements for these credentials.
Protect yourselves, dear people. Take that responsibility seriously.

Bridget wrote:

This is absurd –

“Please note that CCEF is not a certifying agency. CCEF does not “certify” or “endorse” counselors who have completed one of our certificate programs.”

You’re getting a certificate, but not a certification! Clear as mud 🙂

IOW, please throw your money out the window in our general direction and in return we will give you…nothing official.

Lea wrote:

Bridget wrote:
This is absurd –
“Please note that CCEF is not a certifying agency. CCEF does not “certify” or “endorse” counselors who have completed one of our certificate programs.”
You’re getting a certificate, but not a certification! Clear as mud
IOW, please throw your money out the window in our general direction and in return we will give you…nothing official.

It would be laughable, right, except people are being revictimized and spiritually abused by many CCEF counselors. The heavy authoritarian church mixed with the CCEF counseling is a double dose of spiritual abuse for many. Sad.

What is it about such churches that just heap more & more pressure & pain onto those who’ve already been through so much? It is the very opposite of how Christ asked us to be.

Max wrote:

That got us to thinking … “How many of SBC’s 16 million members were actually dead, joined other church groups, or “done”?” Perhaps the ‘real’ SBC membership is 8 or 4 million!

I’ve heard that the actual number is around 5 to 7 million.

Christiane wrote:

I think the neo-Cal theology is harmful in the expression of how it treats women and how it ‘disciplines’ and ‘controls’ the faithful.

And I have seen this in the Catholic Church as well. No expression of Religion is exempt.

Christiane wrote:

I see the neo-Cal YRR’s as ‘rogue’. Why? Well, TWW is helping expose what they are actively doing to people. The abuse is seminal to the neo-Cal theology.

Spot on!

A sick theology begets sick behavior/actions. Vile, vile, vile churches/leadership.

My sister and friends don’t even go to church and they repeatedly said that there was something wrong with NeoCalvinism that isn’t accepted by mainline denominations.

Beakerj wrote:

What is it about such churches that just heap more & more pressure & pain onto those who’ve already been through so much?

RIGHTEOUSNESS and Moral/Spiritual Superiority.

siteseer wrote:

Mara wrote:

Loving our positions.
Loving being superior.
Loving being in control.
Loving our self-righteousness.
Loving a form of godliness but denying the power thereof.

Loving respectful greetings in the market places, and chief seats in the [churches] and places of honor at banquets…

With long trumpets blowing before them…

Christiane wrote:

re-activating the position of women deacons in the Church.

My church has women in all positions and they are calvinist (not neo, though). There really is something else at play here that I think you are missing.

The Catholic church has done many good and many evil things over time. All organizations have issues. The catholic church is a huge hierarchy, so it is very easy for them to shuffle around evil priests and keep quiet. Your local independent baptist is a church of one, so it is very easy to keep a bad pastor in power and kick out parishioners. Both problems, different manifestations.

Christiane wrote:

All organizations may have some rogue members.

A handful of priests who are abusers would be ‘some rogue members’. When the hierarchy of the church is well aware of that and moving them around to protect the church itself? The organization has gone rogue. No matter what the rulebook technically says.

Lea wrote:

When the hierarchy of the church is well aware of that and moving them around to protect the church itself?

The hierarchy involved in that are also ‘rogue’, but that hierarchy involves a small number in comparison to the whole hierarchy of the faith. There is NO excuse for these people, none. Any ‘cover up’ is wrong and is NOT the policy of the Church.

You have likely watched that great film on Netflix ‘Spotlight’ which Catholics also have watched. The Vatican does not see the film as anti-Catholic. So, the emphasis is on facing what happened and openly dealing with it in a straight-forward way.

“Jesuit Father Hans Zollner, a member of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors, told Vatican Radio many bishops had urged others to see the film and “take seriously its central message, which is that the Catholic Church can and must be transparent, just and committed to fighting abuse, and it must ensure it never happens again.”
Catholic leaders cannot think clerical sexual abuse will go away if they don’t talk about it, Father Zollner said. “I think this is one of the central messages of the film.””

LEA, if the Church had attacked the film, your comment would have some meaning for me, but the Church upheld the message of the film as just and helpful to the future of the Church as instruction in prevention of future abuses and cover-ups.

LEA, remember that there are ‘leaders’ in the Church who are ‘servants’. My priest, Father Bryan, works himself sick for the sake of the parish, and everyone knows it. He is on-call twenty-four/seven and will come in an emergency to hospital, jail, or wherever need be. I don’t recognize these same qualities in ‘churches’ where the ‘leader’ persecutes people, is ‘too busy’ to visit the sick, or to conduct a funeral ….. there are some MAJOR differences rooted deeply within the theologies of various faith communities that are reflected in how people are treated by their ‘leaders’. My advice is to pay attention to the theology and what flows from it as to whether the people are ‘lorded over’ or ‘served’. I do.

Christiane wrote:

You won’t find this among those cults where the pastor does not find it convenient to visit the sick or perform funerals, but leaves these sacred responsibilities to his deacons.

Well, let me interject a bit here.

First, in a denomination which does not have sacraments there is no ‘sacred’ thing that would require an ordained minister to visit the sick in order to do. Any of the staff could do it just as well (give encouragement and pray) and many times they might well do it much better.

Secondly, here in my town there was a really ancient catholic nun who visited the sick in the hospitals on behalf of St. L’s Catholic Church. I never met her but I heard that she was a favorite of the hospital personnel, and I know that this was said in a writeup in the local newspaper when she retired just prior to her death. She had a ministry to the sick and the families and the personnel and was known outside her particular church.

i do not think it would be wise to insist that the visiting of the sick would require ordained clergy except for what used to be called last rites and then of course only in denoms which do that.

And from a personal viewpoint from my prior years in health care, some pastors don’t need to get anywhere near the hospital until they learn how to conduct themselves.

okrapod wrote:

First, in a denomination which does not have sacraments there is no ‘sacred’ thing that would require an ordained minister to visit the sick in order to do.

I do realize that visiting and praying with the sick is seen differently, but STILL I always am happy to see a minister visiting in hospital, and they do go around sometimes and speak to others than just the one or two they came to see.

I remember spending the night in the emergency room of our main hospital where my father was waiting to be admitted, and seeing a minister with a Scottish accent spend time listening to a man that the police had brought in who was obviously mentally disturbed . . .

the minister was PRESENT to that poor man with such compassion and patience . . . he spent several hours with the man who was strapped to a gurney in the overcrowded hallway of the ER, standing there at a late hour of the night just being present to the man, and did not leave him until some medications that had been given for sedation took effect, and the poor man finally slept.

I don’t know WHAT denomination that minister belonged to, because in those circumstances, it didn’t matter.
What mattered was that for a time, someone came along side one of the more fragile people in our city and was kind to him. OKRAPOD, if there is not something ‘sacred’ in what happened there, then I guess I don’t understand ‘sacred’ in the same way Protestants do.

The sacred Scriptures call for the sick to be annointed and prayed over. But I think what I saw in that hospital was a kind of compassionate loving-kindness that was its own prayer and strong witness to Christ Who comes to be present with us in our suffering.

Living Liminal wrote:

dee wrote:
They can’t be wrong. They are anointed elders.
Silly me… how could I forget that “truth”

I think it’s Max who says that today’s breed of elders ‘is more annoying than anointed.’

@ Jessica Fore:

This counselor should never have done what he did, nor the session. How can they do such things with you not even there to defend yourself? You are brave for staying on to provoke change. Be careful that you aren’t further harmed.

Christiane wrote:

then I guess I don’t understand ‘sacred’ in the same way Protestants do

I do think there is a difference between catholicism and protestantism here. Certainly the use of the words sacred and holy and blessed and saint are used differently, and certain ideas about places and spaces contain some differences. And to my knowledge most protestants do not think in terms of veneration of anybody. We do not usually say ‘sacred scripture’ for example but I never heard anybody think it was wrong to say that.

I think that the whole idea of differences between clergy and laity are different, but here again I do not know how catholics ‘feel’ at some level since I have never been there and done that, so for sure I do not understand the use of sacred in the same way you do.

One example, and I do not even know if this is related to the conversation, but perhaps so. In one circumstance when a family member of mine was having surgery and their pastor came to the hospital, their pastor and I waited in the waiting room while the parents went back to the recovery room and we talked. I knew him more or less from previous contact. He was in a heap of difficulty-bivocational with loss of his secular job and approaching possible church split over gay marriage-none of it anything he had done. Anyhow, the parents came out and the pastor stood to leave but he wanted us all to form a little circle and hold hands and pray. Except that something happened-the Spirit?-and I said let me pray. So I prayed for all four of the p(s): patient, personnel, parents and in this case the preacher. Right there, slap in the pediatric surgery waiting room at the university hospital, and goodness knows what the other denizens of that place thought. But no, there was nothing particularly sacred about it, because prayer is what everybody does-not just preachers, and the man needed prayed for. And because God is present in a lot more than just in designated behaviors like prayer. I don’t think the fact that the preacher came to the hospital or the fact that old lady doc prayed for him was any more sacred than the fact that the surgeon had operated on the baby. I think this attitude is probably very protestant, but I don’t know for sure.

For a great many protestants there is no concept of the pastor (ordained clergy) as priest or of his having priestly functions. For a lot of protestants we are all priests in one sense and nobody is a priest in the catholic sense. The margins between sacred and not then get blurred for persons and places and behaviors and ideas and such.

@ Muff Potter:

“In another life and in an alternate universe I sojourned with a coven of forest crones. It was one of the best times I’ve ever spent in my long life. The things I learned from those women could fill a treatise…”
+++++++++++++

i have to hear about this one.

Christiane wrote:

The hierarchy involved in that are also ‘rogue’, but that hierarchy involves a small number in comparison to the whole hierarchy of the faith. There is NO excuse for these people, none. Any ‘cover up’ is wrong and is NOT the policy of the Church.

Smalk number? Not according to what happened. Thousands up the Priestley chain globally turned a blind eye. I think you have bought the propaganda. It was long term inherent culture of systemic abuse. It was the rotren culture. Period.

Had they not been so cleverly moved around for so long, perhaps many more would have gone to prison where they belonged.

okrapod wrote:

Christiane wrote:

then I guess I don’t understand ‘sacred’ in the same way Protestants do

I do think there is a difference between catholicism and protestantism here. Certainly the use of the words sacred and holy and blessed and saint are used differently, and certain ideas about places and spaces contain some differences. And to my knowledge most protestants do not think in terms of veneration of anybody. We do not usually say ‘sacred scripture’ for example but I never heard anybody think it was wrong to say that.

I think that the whole idea of differences between clergy and laity are different, but here again I do not know how catholics ‘feel’ at some level since I have never been there and done that, so for sure I do not understand the use of sacred in the same way you do.

One example, and I do not even know if this is related to the conversation, but perhaps so. In one circumstance when a family member of mine was having surgery and their pastor came to the hospital, their pastor and I waited in the waiting room while the parents went back to the recovery room and we talked. I knew him more or less from previous contact. He was in a heap of difficulty-bivocational with loss of his secular job and approaching possible church split over gay marriage-none of it anything he had done. Anyhow, the parents came out and the pastor stood to leave but he wanted us all to form a little circle and hold hands and pray. Except that something happened-the Spirit?-and I said let me pray. So I prayed for all four of the p(s): patient, personnel, parents and in this case the preacher. Right there, slap in the pediatric surgery waiting room at the university hospital, and goodness knows what the other denizens of that place thought. But no, there was nothing particularly sacred about it, because prayer is what everybody does-not just preachers, and the man needed prayed for. And because God is present in a lot more than just in designated behaviors like prayer. I don’t think the fact that the preacher came to the hospital or the fact that old lady doc prayed for him was any more sacred than the fact that the surgeon had operated on the baby. I think this attitude is probably very protestant, but I don’t know for sure.

For a great many protestants there is no concept of the pastor (ordained clergy) as priest or of his having priestly functions. For a lot of protestants we are all priests in one sense and nobody is a priest in the catholic sense. The margins between sacred and not then get blurred for persons and places and behaviors and ideas and such.

I think ‘YES’ Holy Spirit. And to me, what you describe was a sacred moment by the very fact of your inspiration to pray and that they all accepted this.

I see ‘sacred’ in the small things.
We take too much for granted. I stopped doing that long ago.

Your prayer in that hospital was a ‘blessing’, for the participants, for the patient, and for you who were touched to offer it.

Maybe even ‘prayer’ is seen differently among us. I’m beginning to understand that is a possibility.

Bridget wrote:

This counselor should never have done what he did, nor the session. How can they do such things with you not even there to defend yourself?

It makes sense for the session to do that if they are looking for psychological and spiritual cover for what they want to do. I do not know the particulars of this case personally, but that’s the way some organizations *solve* their people problems that are complex and sticky. The interesting thing is that the presbytery will be the ones to act on this first. They know the Teaching Elder(s) whose qualifications they have certified. Could be interesting.

Lydia wrote:

It was the rotren culture. Period.

Yes.

Lydia wrote:

Smalk number? Not according to what happened. Thousands up the Priestley chain globally turned a blind eye. I think you have bought the propaganda. It was long term inherent culture of systemic abuse. It was the rotren culture. Period.

Had they not been so cleverly moved around for so long, perhaps many more would have gone to prison where they belonged.

They’re still pouring money into defeating the removal of statute of limitations on child sexual abuse. And wow, the comments on some of those news articles. I hate to say it but a lot of them have still not accepted the fact that child sexual abuse is a real thing and not just a vendetta against priests. Demoralizing to read.

siteseer wrote:

Demoralizing to read.

Hi Siteseer,
do you have a link?

elastigirl wrote:

@ Muff Potter:
“In another life and in an alternate universe I sojourned with a coven of forest crones. It was one of the best times I’ve ever spent in my long life. The things I learned from those women could fill a treatise…”
+++++++++++++
i have to hear about this one.

I hung out with some spiritually minded, thought provoking hippies. Does that count? 😉

The indictment letter looks so familiar. Pious creeps who actually think they are doing God’s will by crafting such an abusive letter.

I laughed when I saw the PCA footer on the stationary:

“Loving God. Loving People. Loving Neighbors.”

Yeah, right.

I haven’t read all of the comments yet but thought I’d throw this in.

I am very outspoken on my blogs and elsewhere about domestic violence and about abuse in churches, having been a longtime member of Sovereign Grace Ministries.

I have been a member of a small PCA congregation for six years.

A woman in my church whose husband was abusing her and their children first separated from her husband five years ago after yet another incident. She called an elder the next morning. He and his wife came immediately and spent hours with her and the children, then followed up by communicating strongly with her husband when she felt she couldn’t speak with him in the days that followed. They and the pastor and youth pastor (who is also a professional counselor) remained supportive of her, which eventually caused her husband to leave the church. (They had already offered to make him stop sitting near her or to even stop coming at all but she had declined.) Though the elder at one point questioned whether divorce was necessary, he was quick to assure her it was always her decision. After a discussion meeting to which she brought a friend (who is a pastor’s wife and an advocate for DV victims) all three of these men agreed she had clear Biblical grounds for divorce. When she did file for divorce, they were all very positive and encouraging toward her, noting that this was a “good culmination of a long process.”

This is my little corner of the PCA. I am hoping that as those like Jessica continue to speak up, this will be how it is across the board through the whole denomination. Jessica’s session is way out of bounds. I am curious to see how this plays out up through the presbytery. I hope they act in her favor and that it sets a strong precedent for all the others.

I will continue to lift my voice with hers.

Bridget wrote:

Well, from this end, it looks like a classic example of spiritual.abuse!

I agree, and I hope some wisdom is brought to bear soon.

It seems as if her divorce was the only reason. Until people get past “Divorce is not the answer” and get to “Divorce is sometimes the *only* answer” we are going to continue to see this. They think they are upholding a high view of marriage, but they are really doing just the opposite, IMO. They are upholding the *status* of being married for life but have totally missed the actual point and meaning of marriage. An abuser has broken the covenant of marriage (using their terminology.) Therefore, the civil action is beside the point if the marriage vows have already been violated and nullified by the abuser.

Burwell wrote:

I’ve heard that the actual number is around 5 to 7 million.

And only a handful of those Southern Baptists have got enough spiritual sense to be concerned about the proliferation of New Calvinism within its ranks! Shift in belief and drift in practice in this once-great evangelisitc denomination appears OK with the pew, as long as you don’t mess with their potlucks and other social functions.

Gram3 wrote:

It seems as if her divorce was the only reason. Until people get past “Divorce is not the answer” and get to “Divorce is sometimes the *only* answer” we are going to continue to see this. They think they are upholding a high view of marriage, but they are really doing just the opposite, IMO. They are upholding the *status* of being married for life but have totally missed the actual point and meaning of marriage. An abuser has broken the covenant of marriage (using their terminology.) Therefore, the civil action is beside the point if the marriage vows have already been violated and nullified by the abuser.

Good catch! The tyranny of the better instead of the best. All too common. I am too used to hearing that from those “elder circles” that one can miss the bigger problem. Questioning whether divorce should be an option was totally inappropriate, not helpful to a victim or the children and we need to keep on pointing that out.

Elizabeth Lee wrote:

Despite the fact that I graduated college, moved away, and had joined different churches over the years, my name was still listed as a member.

Southern Baptists have this thing they call a “letter” which confirms your membership in a church. You are not officially dememberized (a new word!) unless you “move your letter” by request. Your name will remain on that church roll for decades unless you ask them to “Move it!”. That practice is a contributing factor to the greatly inflated numbers reported in SBC; there aren’t really 16 million Southern Baptists as commonly reported. The actual number is more like 5-7 million as noted by Burwell upstream in the comments … but most of those could not be considered serious churchgoers. SBC has fallen on bad times because of apathy in the pews and powerless pulpits. It’s denominational gift of evangelism has been forfeited … and New Calvinists are walking all over it!

@ Lydia:
Yes, the civil authorities were involved.

Virginia Knowles wrote:

@ Lydia:
Yes, the civil authorities were involved.

Good! All too often, women just let the church handle things, and it doesn’t always go well.

Max wrote:

It’s denominational gift of evangelism has been forfeited

This gift of evangelism represented the heart of a whole community of faith. Its passing will affect the whole Church.

Christiane wrote:

This gift of evangelism represented the heart of a whole community of faith. Its passing will affect the whole Church.

No doubt about it! And one of the greatest impacts will be on the foreign mission field. I have a cousin who was an SBC missionary in South Africa for over 20 years. He speaks fondly of the close alliance he and his family had with missionaries of other faiths, including pentecostals. They shared a common goal … to take the precious Gospel of Christ to ALL people. The Calvinist predestined elect mumbo-jumbo gospel is not good tidings that brings great joy to ALL people.

elastigirl wrote:

i have to hear about this one.

Left you a comment over on the OD thread so as not to derail this one.

Patriciamc wrote:

but if you’re being abused by your spouse or boyfriend/girlfriend, don’t call the church.

I agree totally. The reality is, sadly, that even extreme verbal and emotional abuse probably will not result in an arrest. Even when children are severely abused verbally and emotionally, CPS will not take action until there is physical or sexual abuse that cannot be ignored, something I learned from some mandated reporters in my extended family. If a man is abused, he is out of luck if the experience of some dear friends is any indication. The police, courts, and church do not get virtue points or PC points for protecting men and their children when the abuser is a female. I do not know what the solution is for civil authorities, but the church must do better than this for everyone who is abused.

Christiane wrote:

If you are speaking about that idiot Bill Donohue of the rogue ‘Catholic League’, I can tell you that he is at war with the Vatican.

Are you saying none of the money is coming from the Catholic church? Can Catholics know that none of their tithes and offerings are going to support lobbyists working to defeat sex abuse legislation?

@ siteseer:
It’s also easy to find. Here is just one example

http://www.businessinsider.com/r-as-pope-visit-nears-us-sex-victims-say-church-remains-obstacle-to-justice-2015-9

Gram3 wrote:

The reality is, sadly, that even extreme verbal and emotional abuse probably will not result in an arrest.

These types of abuse usually escalate in both frequency and intensity and eventually to physical I think. The victim should be fully aware of that possibility.

I don’t know if this has been posted, but I find it of great interest given the topic of male power and control. More about the Duke University program at the link.

Deconstructing masculinity’: Duke Men’s Project aims to facilitate discussions of male privilege and patriarchy

The Duke Men’s Project is a nine-week long, storytelling-based program starting Wednesday that aims to discuss masculinity, feminism and intersectionality. It hopes to “create a space of brotherhood fellowship dedicated to interrogating male privilege and patriarchy,” according to its Facebook page.

http://www.dukechronicle.com/article/2016/09/deconstructing-masculinity-duke-mens-project-aims-to-facilitate-discussions-of-male-privilege-and-patriarchy

Tom R wrote:

“Loving God. Loving each other. Loving our neighbor.”

If that is “love” – and no doubt the pious authors of the letter DO think they are “loving” Jessica by sending her this letter – then leave me out. You have to be demented to think this is “love”.

I am still trying to come to grips with the way love gets redefined in church- I have seen that a person’s concept of love will adapt to follow their concept of God’s love. The way it gets defined in church can sometimes be so contrary to our natural intuitions.

Victorious wrote:

I don’t know if this has been posted, but I find it of great interest given the topic of male power and control. More about the Duke University program at the link.

My last comment above was meant to be a response to this one, but I forgot to link it to your comment.

In response to earlier questions…

There are many reasons why an abused wife would not want to have her husband publicly rebuked by the church, and would rather have it handled more discretely –

1. Public humiliation can make a man more angry, volatile, and dangerous, as well as less likely to cooperate with divorce proceedings.

2. Courts in some states frown on what could be perceived as one parent publicly disparaging another. This can affect custody rulings.

3. She does not wish to upset or embarrass her children.

4. She does not want to risk her husband losing his job when her family depends on child support.

5. He presents no risk to other church members.

@ Ken F:

“And even then it will never be enough to satisfy those not like me because of all the privileges extended to me through the luck of having been born this way. This insanity has to stop. I long for the day when we can respect and value other humans without having to worry about labels.”
++++++++++++

I understand. but look at it this way — it is so very recent that people with ‘minority orientations’ (guess i can use the descriptor) are begininning to be acknowledged by society at large as human beings, and not freaks who have to hide for their own safety. it’s so new.

perhaps it’s like someone held hostage, who is now free — once out of those circumstances they are confronted with a lot to process:

the pain, the injustice, the cruelty, the fear, why it happened, why it continued for so long, the anger of having being so cruelly mistreated, the elation of being set free, joy, hope for a better future…

and the emotional complexity that even their longed-for freedom is still fraught with the consequences of the cruel mistreatment. they are not unscathed. and many ‘majorities’ are still cold and/or hostile to them.

i’d say give them a big portion of grace, and patience. and appreciation of the fact that your, my ‘majority orientation’ means that our lives have been exempt from the kind of hardship and rejection which they have had to face.

(i’m trying not to sound lectury)

@ Lydia:

“If we are ever able to judge individual character and effort apart from some group identity, it will be a step in the right direction. We are going backwards.”
+++++++++++++++

I don’t see it as backwards, I see it as processing towards equilibrium.

elastigirl wrote:

my ‘majority orientation’ means that our lives have been exempt from the kind of hardship and rejection which they have had to face

This is is a questionable assumption at best. Putting “white” people into a box is no better than putting “non-white” people in boxes. It’s all bad.

@ elastigirl:
Don’t you think most of the culture is way ahead in gender equality? An interesting indicator are female college enrollments in professions like medical, legal, etc. They have begun to outpace males.

Its the church dragging us back in time.

Velour wrote:

Additionally, child endangerment charges are added to those who commit domestic violence when children are present.

Thanks for that good information.

Gram3 wrote:

Velour wrote:
Additionally, child endangerment charges are added to those who commit domestic violence when children are present.
Thanks for that good information.

Welcome.

Gram3 wrote:

I think that is true in many ways, sadly. Certain people profit in various ways by emphasizing our differences rather than what we have in common. Also there is value attached to being The Victim or the Victim Advocate. I am *not* saying that victims should be silenced or that they should not have advocates. I am referring to those who cynically profit from grievances with no real concern for addressing the actual problems because their revenue stream depends on representing or being perpetual victims. Divide and conquer is an old strategy because it is an effective strategy.

I’ve posted this before, but it’s worth re-posting for this thread: http://www.lynneforrest.com/articles/2008/06/the-faces-of-victim/#victim. The current system seems bent on keeping everyone dancing on the victim triangle. There seems to be little to no public support to get people off the triangle.

Gram3 wrote:

Divide and conquer is an old strategy because it is an effective strategy.

Bingo. It is one reason I just can’t bring myself to do group affiliations anymore. Groups of all stripes are becoming increasingly narrow and agenda driven which scares me. Maybe there is hope. My kids seem to enjoy having friends from all walks of life and interests. Cracks me up that my artsy one has STEM Pakistani school friends who help her with math over FaceTime. They became friends in study hall last year discussing how their respective religions have Abraham in common. :o)

elastigirl wrote:

I know what this feels like, i don’t like it, i don’t feel it’s fair, but then I reason out the advantages i’ve had and let it go.

I think that’s a healthy way to deal with it on a one on one level probably.

The problem is when negative stereotypes get systemized and people are penalized for what they might be, rather than what they are.

elastigirl wrote:

i remember going to a restaurant with my friend from Kenya, along with my parents. I am caucasian, as are my parents. She was clearly treated differently than i and my parents were. We were consistently given preference and priority. Subtle things, but keenly felt. It made me very sad.
I as a parent have a less complex set of worries for my kids than do my african american friends.

Yes.

My African-American friends who are parents always warn their children: about how to dress to be out in public, do their hair, not to congregate with groups of people, not to go to malls with groups of kids, and on and on. Long list. It could end very badly for a child of color in a variety of settings, and the parents know it.

@ Darlene:

“I hung out with some spiritually minded, thought provoking hippies. Does that count? ”
++++++++++

well, sure. really, the most fascinating, most memorable & significant things in life are experiences with people. people are great!

@ Virginia Knowles:
Thanks for clarifying things, Virginia. You provide good considerations for such situations. There are so many folks who have been impacted by this man, including church leaders and other members who have responded in various ways to hurting members in the church family.

@ Muff Potter:

thank you, Muff. i’ve responded.

siteseer wrote:

Christiane wrote:

If you are speaking about that idiot Bill Donohue of the rogue ‘Catholic League’, I can tell you that he is at war with the Vatican.

Are you saying none of the money is coming from the Catholic church? Can Catholics know that none of their tithes and offerings are going to support lobbyists working to defeat sex abuse legislation?

My thought is that because of the horrific nature of victim abuse, any KNOWING supported effort to cover it up or prevent justice for victims is so egregiously and morally wrong that it would be a matter for confession as a sin. At any level where a person consciously decides to support evil, there is no other description for that than ‘sin’.

I do know that it is the goal of the Church to seek justice FOR victims. I do know that people like Donohue and his ilk are not on board with that goal.

There is no place in the Church for justification of what was done, for its cover-up, or for the prevention of justice to victims. Francis is committed to doing what is right. If people like Donohue and his followers oppose Francis, I am not surprised by that. Donohue is more at home with the alt-right than with the ethics and morality of Catholic social justice any day.

At an IBC we attended many years ago, public humiliation was used and the person subject to thus humiliation lasted committed suicide, leaving a wife and two daughters ages 7 and 10. I still have nightmares of that whole terrible situation.

Lydia wrote:

Ken, your birth, due to no choice of your own automatically places you in white privilege. It matters not how you have conducted yourself as a citizen –you are pronounced guilty. The Chinese had a similar view of the educated during the cultural revolution.

It’s the lefts version of Calvinism.

Thuggery and all.

Christiane wrote:

If you are speaking about that idiot Bill Donohue of the rogue ‘Catholic League’, I can tell you that he is at war with the Vatican. The Pope removed his right-wing buddy, Cardinal Burke (a notorious misogynist), and Bill Donohue went berserk when Francis also said the Church should apologize to LGBT folks for its failure to minister to them.

Bill Donohue has more in common with the fundamentalist/evangelical far right devotees of the Republican Right. He doesn’t represent post Vatican II Catholicism’s spirit. He has NO authority in the Church. His organization is NOT related to the Vatican.

Lunatic Fringe with Tridentine Latin Mass and Rosaries?

Tom R wrote:

I laughed when I saw the PCA footer on the stationary:

“Loving God. Loving People. Loving Neighbors.”

war is peace
freedom is slavery
ignorance is strength

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Lunatic Fringe with Tridentine Latin Mass and Rosaries?

Lunatic fringe with alt-right hard-core misogyny, homophobia, Islamophobia, etc.
Glad to see this group get kicked to the curb by Francis. They are a bad lot for sure.

Leslie wrote:

At an IBC we attended many years ago, public humiliation was used and the person subject to thus humiliation lasted committed suicide, leaving a wife and two daughters ages 7 and 10. I still have nightmares of that whole terrible situation.

What a horrible experience for you. That looks like a dreadful group, not at all Christian. So warped.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/johnshore/2013/11/the-foul-toxicity-of-the-8-million-strong-independent-fundamental-baptists-headed-by-bob-jones-university/

Ken F wrote:

Why can’t we just be who we are without having to denigrate one gender in order to build up the other.

We don’t need to denigrate one gender to build up another. Some people do it, but they dont have to. They choose to do it. I have seen it on this blog, maybe you have as well. I also know that people who have been abused and associate that with a certain gender, often go through a period of anger when they say denigrating things. Hopefully they get past that stage.

Bridget wrote:

We don’t need to denigrate one gender to build up another. Some people do it, but they dont have to. They choose to do it. I have seen it on this blog, maybe you have as well. I also know that people who have been abused and associate that with a certain gender, often go through a period of anger when they say denigrating things. Hopefully they get past that stage.

Well, I’m going to go out on a limb here. Personally, I’ve never seen either gender as a whole denigrated on this blog (most definitely not this blog). Now, a time or two, I’ve pointed out the historical fact that women as a whole have been discriminated against throughout history, and I think only those who are ignorant of history would deny this. But put-downs of men in general (or women), no I’ve never seen that. Isn’t this, though, exactly how people are silenced so they won’t speak up against injustice? For example, if you’re a woman and you speak up, then you’re angry and bitter (and therefore we should discount your experience???), you hate men, you’re a liberal, a feminist, a lesbian, and frankly, your probably don’t wear makeup and you most certainly don’t shave your legs! (I definitely do both.) Some might call this emotional black-mail. Now, as for what this college did with men, yeah, that was extremely bad, as bad as those colleges that have sessions berating whites. Two wrongs do not make a right. As for denigrating one gender, I think it’s our beloved comps and the usual suspects on that side that do that.

Christiane wrote:

My thought is that because of the horrific nature of victim abuse, any KNOWING supported effort to cover it up or prevent justice for victims is so egregiously and morally wrong that it would be a matter for confession as a sin. At any level where a person consciously decides to support evil, there is no other description for that than ‘sin’.

I do know that it is the goal of the Church to seek justice FOR victims. I do know that people like Donohue and his ilk are not on board with that goal.

There is no place in the Church for justification of what was done, for its cover-up, or for the prevention of justice to victims. Francis is committed to doing what is right. If people like Donohue and his followers oppose Francis, I am not surprised by that. Donohue is more at home with the alt-right than with the ethics and morality of Catholic social justice any day.

I am not referring to Donohue, I am referring to the money coming from the Catholic church itself, to support lobbying efforts to defeat efforts to remove the statute of limitations. These monies are included with monies to lobby for other causes so as to hide the amounts but it’s been estimated to be in the millions. Are the tithes of caring Catholics going to support that?

@ siteseer:
I have previously asked you for a link. I am requesting your sources of information so that I may examine them. What I have found recently is that when I check into where people are getting their info, I find SOMETIMES that there is a problem with the source. Not to say that is what this is in your present concern, no. But it helps to understand where you are coming from.

siteseer wrote:

Leslie wrote:
At an IBC we attended many years ago, public humiliation was used and the person subject to thus humiliation lasted committed suicide, leaving a wife and two daughters ages 7 and 10. I still have nightmares of that whole terrible situation.
That is heartbreaking, I’m so sorry.

Me too. I’m sorry.

Looks like the discussion is going down another rabbit trail, and it makes me sad for Jessica Fore, who is probably following the comments. 🙁

Bridget wrote:

Honestly, I don’t even understand what their reasoning was for firing her from her job.

I lost my job as a worship leader when I told the church I was planning/considering divorce.

Divorce is a big no-no at churches; it doesn’t really matter why.

I didn’t even have a problem with it at the time. I believed I deserved to lose my job (fortunately, it was just part-time for me) 🙁

The PCA, according to aforementioned youth pastor, was designed to be more congregational from the beginning. The PCUSA is more hierarchical.

So I think it is more on a case by case situation with less recourse up the official chain of authority.

Which means change may be most effective by educating as many individual pastors/elders as possible and imploring them to continue the discussion with the other pastors/elders they know.

@ Virginia Knowles:

I had an excellent experience with multiple PCA churches. When I left my church during the divorce, the (PCA) church I went to was supportive, allowed me space, and really helped me recover my faith. The pastor of the church I went to after that, also PCA, listened to my story and said “that’s emotional abuse, and I believe you had every Biblical right to divorce”. That meant the world to me.

I’ve also heard some horror stories about some PCA churches, and it hits home that Jessica’s church is so close. I’d be certain that the pastor who told me that knows her pastors (I no longer go to that church to ask).

Hasn’t Jessica said she is trying to get her local congregation to comply with the existing PCA policy? Their national policy is not the problem. It is the local out working. So it is not “the PCA” excommunicating her, but a non-compliant session in her congregation. The lines of authority need to be more effective to enforce policy on this kind of issue in the local churches.

I should note that Boz T’s article was about child sex abuse, not specifically domestic violence. But it’s a step in right direction.

It is sad that Jessica’s church is treating her this way. But not because it’s Presbyterian, but because that it is a church at all. We’ve seen this happen time after time in all main stream denominations. Some of the churches get away from what the national policy of their particular denomination is. They form their own rules. I don’t understand and I never will why these men of God treat people this way. All we can do is pray for Jessica and those we know like Jessica that have gone thru things like this at their churches. So Jessica, you have another friend in Texas. Praying for a solution my friend.

Lydia wrote:

Individual churches can be another thing entirely.

Yes. I think I was trying to make that point above, but it got derailed. Reformed isn’t the issue either as there are reformed denoms that are very safe. PCA seems hit or miss, from the stories I’ve seen.

@ Bridget:

Oh yes, it was wrong. I was so deep in the fog at the time it just seemed reasonable.

I wasn’t looking for the church to defend me. I was looking for it to judge me. I felt like I deserved judgement 🙁

Jeff S wrote:

I wasn’t looking for the church to defend me. I was looking for it to judge me. I felt like I deserved judgement

That is so sad. I’m sorry they didn’t do better anyway.

Jeff S wrote:

I wasn’t looking for the church to defend me. I was looking for it to judge me. I felt like I deserved judgement

Curious thing, these feelings of culpability and guilt. I’ve observed that it’s a very human thing to want to blame one’s self even when there is no legitimate blame to be assigned. It seems to cross all boundaries of religion and creed too, some sects even capitalizing on it as further leverage with which to manipulate their adherents.

Thomas Beckit wrote:

Lot’s of people are passing judgement and throwing around scripture like there’s a surplus of justification on Jessica’s side.

What does she need justification for?

Why are there even “sides”?

Do you think there’s a possibility that she wasn’t abused?

Assuming you believe that she was abused, do you think there is any information that could make it OK that her church fired her for being unwilling to cohabitate with an abuser.

For you, this may be some remote issue of deciding between sides. For Jessica, this is an issue of trying to survive being a victim through no fault of her own, and having the church take steps to increase her suffering through the experience.

The only “side” here should have been Jessica’s, and all God fearing people should desire justice for the vulnerable and oppressed.

Thomas Beckit wrote:

TWW is so one sided in most of its posted issues.

I agree with that! Just stop for a moment and consider why that is the case. There is a differential between the session of a church and a member of that church. The big one we are seeing here is the ability of one party to control much of the information flow to the congregation and to other parties beyond. We are also seeing that there is a lack of transparency in the process on the part of the elders. The elders can excommunicate a member, and in the process, destroy his/her reputation in that congregation because the reflexive response of pewpeons is to side with the strong horse lest the same fate befall them. There is precious little real accountability for the actions of the elders. Sure, she might be able to appeal their decision, but much of the damage would have been done.

When it comes to TWW posts and comments, what you are seeing is an attempt to correct those differentials and to pursue justice and mercy for the victims of various kinds of abuse perpetrated or condoned by the church or its leadership. Isn’t that a worthy work? I think it is and is in keeping with our Lord’s own actions WRT religious leaders.

Another purpose of places like TWW is to serve as a warning to future abusers that their misdeeds may not go undiscovered because they cannot unilaterally silence the victims by various means. Isn’t prevention of future abuse a worthy work?

Yet another purpose that places like TWW serves is to examine abusive systems which are hailed as Biblical by leaders. Dismantling abusive doctrinal systems will also prevent future abuse *and* will also help victims of these systems heal as their experiences are validated by the experiences of others. Isn’t promoting the healing of victims and exposing abusive systems a worthy work?

Gram3 wrote:

Yet another purpose that places like TWW serves is to examine abusive systems which are hailed as Biblical by leaders.

I think all of these little case studies are some sort of root cause analysis for churches, should they choose to pay attention. Where did this go wrong? Where did the system break down and what can we do to fix it in the future? They also serves as warnings for members of the congregation where these things may go wrong so they aren’t blindsided.

dee wrote:

Gram3 wrote:

Once again, a woman with a sign and a woman who attends a Gospel Community Group needs to be excommunicated.

But the sign hurt the feeling of the manly leaders.

The sign implies that the woman has been abused, not shepherded by those she is not supposed to trouble because they are watching over her soul.

It does not fit with the official message and agenda and thus must be stamped out.

Deb wrote:

Looks like the discussion is going down another rabbit trail, and it makes me sad for Jessica Fore, who is probably following the comments.

My question after reading the OP is while educating “leaders” about abuse is well and good, why stop there? Why not offer that training to everyone?

@ Refugee:
Not meaning to besmirch the entire denomination; as someone said earlier, there is a wide variation between the character and practice of individual PCA churches.

Thomas Beckit wrote:

I would like to hear from the other side though I doubt that will happen.

Your comment is very close to the “you don’t have all he facts” gambit. I reject the claim that we are unable to render an opinion based on what has been presented. I have been only reading here for 18 months yet in that time I have seen this claim made on many occasions, even claiming inside information they didn’t divulge. In the final judgement it was clear, there was no alternate narrative and the claims we didn’t have all the facts was just an attempt to shut down the discussion so the wrongdoers could continue.

If there are errors in Jessica’s story anyone with access to another narrative is free to post such information here. That I also doubt this will happen is that I don’t think there is a reasonable explanation. Finally, in the past the institutions could simply grind up someone like Jessica without any accountability, sites like TWW give them a voice.

Bill M wrote:

If there are errors in Jessica’s story anyone with access to another narrative is free to post such information here.

I think a good rule of thumb is when ‘insiders’ come by and post vague ‘you don’t know all the facts’ comments there is either nothing else to know or they are just trying to shut you up. If they post specifics (which I have actually never seen happen, fancy that, then maybe we will learn something new. Generally not, though.

@ Refugee:
Refugee wrote:

Virginia Knowles wrote:

The PCA, according to aforementioned youth pastor, was designed to be more congregational from the beginning. The PCUSA is more hierarchical.

So I think it is more on a case by case situation with less recourse up the official chain of authority.

Which means change may be most effective by educating as many individual pastors/elders as possible and imploring them to continue the discussion with the other pastors/elders they know.

The PCA is a spectrum that ranges from rigid patriarchal churches on one end to “liberal” churches that may (gasp) allow women some roles in the church besides cooking up the food for potlucks, running the nursery, and making sure meals get provided for families with a newborn baby or someone in the hospital.

Agreed! The PCA does not officially ordain deaconesses, but some, like ours, elect unordained deaconesses who function just like the deacons. All adult members were on the list eligible for nomination, including divorced and separated women.

Patriciamc wrote:

Looking back over that letter, I’m amazed at the sheer gaul of that church. My knee-jerk reaction would be to tell them what to do with their letter and their attitude.

Yeah, same here. It’s not like the PCA makes any claims to be the One True Church or anything. They are one option among thousands. If I were a member there, I’d just tell them to take a hike and then take one myself — to a different church. Who needs these clods with their self-appointed “authority”?

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

Who needs these clods with their self-appointed “authority”?

I don’t get how they come by that ‘authority’ as they have no belief in the apostolic succession (?)

siteseer wrote:

I am not referring to Donohue, I am referring to the money coming from the Catholic church itself, to support lobbying efforts to defeat efforts to remove the statute of limitations. These monies are included with monies to lobby for other causes so as to hide the amounts but it’s been estimated to be in the millions. Are the tithes of caring Catholics going to support that?

Is this what you are referring to?

Catholic Church spent millions fighting NY bill that would allow sex abuse victims to sue attackers
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/06/catholic-church-spends-millions-fighting-ny-bill-that-would-allow-sex-abuse-victims-to-sue-attackers/

(Which comes via a left wing site that is generally hostile towards faith or people of faith, but most of their reporting I’ve seen is accurate, regardless.)

Leslie wrote:

At an IBC we attended many years ago, public humiliation was used and the person subject to thus humiliation lasted committed suicide, leaving a wife and two daughters ages 7 and 10. I still have nightmares of that whole terrible situation.

This is truly awful. I hope the instigators of this abuse are haunted by their actions, for their sake. There are some who view suicide as murder on the same level as homicide. So a church would refuse a Christian burial for the person committing suicide and may even blackball the family of the suicide victim, and the loss is even worsened by a further cycle of abuse. I know because my brother officiated over a suicide victims funeral and ministered to his shunned family. This haunts me because my brother told me about this tragedy and how a church abused the suicide victim and family.

Does anyone care to hear the other side of this story? I applaud fighting injustice but until you hear from all parties, I find this just too judgmental for any Christian. You only know what you’ve been told my the accused. Maybe you should the rest of it. Just saying!

Bridget wrote:

This is not bashing. It is asking a simple question about where the money from the Catholic church is going to.

Look in the Discussion Section, out of respect for Deb and Jessica, and I will post how a typical parish income is divided up and for what.

Bashing is what it is. Honest questions are what they are. There IS and always has been a profound difference between ‘bashing’ and ‘honesty’ among people with good will. 🙂

@ Bridget:
I hear you.

Bridget wrote:

This is not bashing. It is asking a simple question about where the money from the Catholic church is going to.

My parish publishes its budget and gives us an update from the pulpit once or twice every year. It’s the main time the pastor (as opposed to guest speakers announcing actual fundraisers) talks about money.

Bill M wrote:

Bill M wrote:

Thomas Beckit wrote:

I would like to hear from the other side though I doubt that will happen.
Your comment is very close to the “you don’t have all he facts” gambit.

I might add that Thomas Beckit was murdered because he dared oppose those in power, specifically King Henry. Unless your real name is Beckit, I do not think you do justice to his name using it here.

It was a little more complicated than that. Thomas a Becket (NOT “Beckit”) was a longtime friend and drinking buddy of King Henry; the King made him Archbishop of Canterbury (Primate of England) figuring ol’ Tom would let Henry have his way. Well, Tom took his new job seriously enough to oppose Henry on an important issue of the time and the two butted heads.

Until a drunk King Henry yelled “WILL NOBODY RID ME OF THIS TROUBLESOME PRIEST?” and four knights took it as a hit contract and decided to get into the King’s favor. When they confronted Thomas in the cathedral (in front of the altar, bearing weapons), Thomas tried to talk them down and defuse the situation and had almost succeeded when one of the knights figured “Go for It!” and the cutting started.

The uproar over the murder nearly wrecked King Henry and assured the Church would win in the dispute. In addition, King Henry lost his closest friend Thomas, the only man in his court who he could be sure wasn’t just another yes-man flattering him for favor. With Thomas dead (by King Henry’s unintentional order), there was NOBODY left who the king could actually trust.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

It was a little more complicated than that.

I assent to the spelling correction but the details of the story do not change my statement, Becket was killed because of his opposition to the King. Agreed, it was not Henry’s intention, but it was an indication of the thuggery that goes on within the realms of the high and mighty.

https://theauthorofmyfaith.org/2016/10/16/roberta-langella-the-story-behind-the-story-2/

Roberta Langella abused by the Leadership of the Brooklyn Tabernacle