It would make for a great resource for survivor communities if there were a set of links to the documentation for various denominations, church planting networks, and ministry associations to their rules – regulations – recommendations about clergy sexual misconduct. This reference list of denominations and associations from from Gordon-Conwell seminary would be a good starting place. I’d do this myself, immediately, but I have other writing obligations for quite a while still. Maybe if some reader(s) sense an urgency to do this and have the time or can facilitate crowd-sourcing it, go for it!

http://www.gordonconwell.edu/mentored-ministry/documents/DENOMINATIONALCHART2015.pdf

P.S. This denominational chart from Gordon-Conwell features a column that details views on gender: complementarity vs. egalitarian.

@ Burwell:

*Authority* by definition means someone has more rank, influence, power, leadership responsibility than those who follow. It doesn’t work to flip the script and say that the person in power is suddenly a PEER with someone the exercise authority, rank, influence, power, leadership responsibility over.

The pastor commits adultery like King David did in getting involved with a third party (and abusing his/her power). But like Bathsheba, the victim is just that: a VICTIM of an abuse of power. More thoughts here: http://www.divorceminister.com/affair-or-predation-on-ministerial-sexual-misconduct/

I don’t know – I think it depends on the case. While some cases clearly are an abuse of power I’m not sure all are.

I’ve seen a case where the pastor/congregant were both of an age where they should have known better but cheated on their spouses anyways with each other (and later divorced those spouses and married). To call it abuse on the pastor’s part seems to diminish the agency and equal culpability of the congregant.

You quote the standards of the ACA, but so many clergy consider themselves accountable to a different standard and then just claim restoration. Since they subscribe to “Biblical” counseling, professional counseling guidelines do not apply. We saw this with Agape Bible Church where the pastor who was accused of sexual misconduct merely moved on down the road and opened up shop under a non-denominational (no accountability) banner and then set up policies where no one was accountable for past misdeeds. I am merely attempting to point out a context in which subscribing to Nouthetic counseling can contribute to abuse.

Sexual abuse is a crime, a felony.

I’m just wondering as to why people are stating that pastors are in a position of authority to begin with, then equating that with counselors, medical professionals in order to proclaim a power differential.

The whole world knows about the so-called “affairs” between TT and other women in the congregation.

Lawyers know, doctors know, judges know, police know, the grocery clerk knows, etc. This is not a private matter that the public does not know. And yet, no one has indicted former pastor TT of this “sexual abuse”.

Why? Probably because pastors do not hold a position of authority to begin with.

In accordance with the statutes that I have read, pastors are not in a position of authority, until…Until is a key word. So, just by the mere fact that they are a pastor, it means nothing at all. Nothing.

I’m also wondering why people are using secular words to describe this situation, i.e. affair.

Can we use a more biblical term since this is about spiritual matters? I think the word “adultery” is more appropriate than the word “affair”.

The word, “affair” is a term often used in soap operas, making the word glamorous, instead of a sin against God and people. Affair is intriguing, enticing, interesting, etc.

If sexual abuse is against the law, and if sexual abuse took place, then why is TT not in custody?

There seems to be a lot of accusing of a crime without evidence that a pastor in general is in a position of authority. It seems that there is a general consensus that pastors are, by default, in a position of authority.

That needs to be clarified before we go accusing someone of a felony crime, don’tcha think?

Ed

Wow, just got to the end of that video! Liars lie. Adulterers are liars. How sad for Kim.

Ed Chapman wrote:

Can we use a more biblical term since this is about spiritual matters? I think the word “adultery” is more appropriate than the word “affair”.

This is just semantics. Affair in English fits better in some sentences than ‘adultery’. I think in context we all know what it means.

Ed Chapman wrote:

Probably because pastors do not hold a position of authority to begin with.

What you are missing, Ed, is there is an entire movement of pastors trying to convince laity that they hold all kinds of authority (or in Leeman’s terms ‘keys’) over the congregation. The authority vested in pastors, priests and elders varies rather wildly by congregation as well.

And of course, counseling is another matter entirely. In a counseling situation, the emotions and fiduciary issues are going to be similar whether the legal protections are there or not. Which makes them equally unethical.

@ Lea:

Sidenote, on this use of ‘biblical’ terms…I hate when people use the term ‘fornication’. I don’t believe it’s generally necessary to use four syllables where one will do.

Gram3 wrote:

Ed Chapman wrote:
There seems to be a lot of accusing of a crime without evidence that a pastor in general is in a position of authority. It seems that there is a general consensus that pastors are, by default, in a position of authority.
I may well be missing your point, but I think you are assuming that all abuse of a sexual nature is a crime. As I understand the OP, sexual activity between clergy and non-clergy is abusive because of the perceived power or influence differential between them. The fact that states may or may not consider that activity a felony does not erase the spiritual, moral, and ethical problems with such activity.
As I understand it, your argument is that Sexual Abuse is a crime; sexual activity between clergy and laity is not a crime; Therefore there was no Sexual Abuse. Is that your argument?

Gram3,

Ed lacks empathy for victims. Julie Anne at Spiritual Sounding Board had to shut him down on this topic/pastor and another one involving the victim of Doug Philips (Vision Forum) who sued him.

@ Lea:
People often leave out trust. The trust placed in a person who leads an institution and what that institution declares it stands for.

@ Ed Chapman:

Ed argued this topic to death over at Julie Anne’s blog to the point it sounded as though he was victim-blaming the women conned by these skeevy pastors, holding the women equally accountable.

Like it or not, Ed, a lot of people do view pastors as being authoritative, rightly or wrongly.

While others put trust in pastors because pastors are supposed to be loving, tender, trustworthy confidants and shepherds a person can turn to in times of trouble.

Preachers do have influence over some people.

Some preachers exploit this trust or perceived authority to do things like take sexual advantage of vulnerable, hurting, and/or confused women. In such a case, it’s far more than “adultery” and a case of abuse and/or exploitation.

@ FW Rez:
A court of law is all about semantics.

Ed

Ed Chapman wrote:

A court of law is all about semantics.

OK, I’ll bite. Where do you draw that conclusion from?

Being a survivor of clergy sexual abuse, I am well aware of the grooming process, the deceit, and the manipulation spiritual leaders use to prey. Working with other survivors, the stories are all the same. These predators come from the same mold. They are not followers of Jesus because if they were, they would have the Holy Spirit convicting them of their sin. I hear the pain, the guilt, and the shame of those abused by their church leaders, and I also know of the lack of pain, guilt, and shame from the offenders.

Just because it is not yet a crime in every state when clergy engage in relationships with members of their care, it is illegal in several states with other victims working to pass legislation in their states. Yes, there is always a power differential between clergy and congregants. Yes, they hold authority over their flock. The very nature of the relationship between a shepherd and sheep shows that there is an imbalance. One is the leader whose sole duty is to guide, teach, and protect those they serve. There is never consent when clergy enter a relationship with someone under their protection.

TT abused his power. He used his position to seek relationships with people he was called to lead, guide, and protect. He used his title to lead his sheep into sin. That is a clear abuse of power. Just because it isn’t yet a law in every state does not negate that truth.

Kim was abused by her pastor and although it is not considered a crime by man’s law, it certainly is considered a crime by God’s law. Every shepherd who uses the sheep for their own satisfaction and who feed themselves, are enemies of God’s. They should also be enemies of the church.

Thank you, Kim, for sharing your story and pain. May the hope you found encourage the countless souls devastated by clergy sexual abuse. And may God open the eyes of the blind to the truths of this form of abuse.

@ Ed Chapman:
And I would add that I don’t think anyone is saying that the non-clergy person is absolved of responsibility or is excused from the sin. Either clergy have greater status and responsibility or they don’t.

Ed Chapman wrote:

@ FW Rez:
A court of law is all about semantics.
Ed

Ed is incorrect. I work in law, he doesn’t.

Ed Chapman wrote:

@ FW Rez:
A court of law is all about semantics.
Ed

No, it’s not. I work in law and you don’t. There are lots of laws and lots of rules.

Ed Chapman wrote:

I think we should call it what it is…adultery, not glamorize it with diminished words, minimizing it.

I think you’re splitting hairs over terminology.

Me, personally, I’m not as hung up on whether folks want to label TT’s actions as adultery, affair, or abuse – to me, it’s all the same (though I do understand the views of folks like Julie Anne who seem to feel strongly it should be called “abuse” and not “adultery/affair”).

What TT did was take advantage of people who were under his care, who placed trust in him, which is wrong and sleazy.

@ Daisy:
I agree with you, Daisy. Clergy actually seek out the wounded and vulnerable in their congregations because they are easy prey. Having a social work degree, it was highly stressed in college, that every helping profession is 100% responsible to keep healthy boundaries between themselves and those they serve. Why? Because every helping profession works with a vulnerable population. And although it may not be a crime for me to abuse my authority over those I serve, it certainly is an abuse of power. Just because something isn’t illegal doesn’t make it OK. Some people are not open to hearing the truth. But thank you for speaking it.

Ed Chapman wrote:

A court of law is all about semantics.
Ed

But we’re on a blog, not in a court of law.

Depending on what state TT was in when this stuff went down (Florida?), it might be a crime where he was living and working at the time – I’m not sure.

Someone here or on JA’s blog cited web pages showing that some states consider TT’s actions to be a crime.

Even if a state has no law saying it’s a crime for a man to, say, fondle children, you would have to argue that adults fondling children is not a crime, that there are no victims, etc.
As if to say, it’s not morally repugnant and morally wrong for an adult to molest kids. -That is what you sound like on this topic.

Just because there is not a specific law against an action does not make that action moral, right, godly, or fair.

Daisy wrote:

Those women are his victims.

Also their families. His family. The church itself who has to deal with the fallout. Etc.

Ed Chapman wrote:

Let’s get to the truth, before we declare who a victim is, and what qualifies as a victim.

Pontius Pilot: “What is truth?”

Bill Clinton: “It depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘is’… is.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yp3TQf2xDc8

Reasonable Person. A phrase frequently used in tort and Criminal Law to denote a hypothetical person in society who exercises average care, skill, and judgment in conduct and who serves as a comparative standard for determining liability.

And that standard changes. That is an example of Semantic.

I would say that if a pastor counsels a person and then has a sexual relationship with that person, that would be abuse because they were acting as the role of counselor. If a pastor starts flirting with a member of the congregation and they end up having an affair, that doesn’t seem the same to me. However, that might come from the fact that I don’t view pastors as an authority over me. If TT did have an affair with a woman who came to him for counsel or were in a vulnerable position, I say throw the creep in jail. Does anyone have info on who the woman are and what the circumstances were?

Mary Jo Noworyta wrote:

TT abused his power. He used his position to seek relationships with people he was called to lead, guide, and protect.
He used his title to lead his sheep into sin.
That is a clear abuse of power. Just because it isn’t yet a law in every state does not negate that truth.

Kim was abused by her pastor and although it is not considered a crime by man’s law, it certainly is considered a crime by God’s law.

Every shepherd who uses the sheep for their own satisfaction and who feed themselves, are enemies of God’s. They should also be enemies of the church.

Your post got me to thinking, if we substituted any other problem or sin in place of adultery / affair / sexual activity, would Ed still hold the same views?

If TT had been sweet-talking vulnerable women in his church out of their money, to buy himself cigars and fancy hub cabs, would Ed still sit here and say the women were not victims?

Or, would he argue what is all the fuss about, because sweet talking women out of their money to buy cigars is “not a crime.”

The Bible itself tells Christians to be on the lookout for false teachers and wolves in sheeps’ clothing precisely because Jesus (and the Apostles) already saw problems of fake Christians masquerading as trustworthy figures who would dupe others – whether it was duping them sexually, in financial matters, or theologically.

If there is no such thing as a church leader making victims due to his actions,why does the Bible warn us of this very thing???

Jesus speaking:
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits” (Mt. 7:15,16).

Paul wrote:
“For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock.
Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves.
Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears” (Ac. 20:29-31).

There are many other examples in the New Testament. If it were not true that Christian men can and do exploit people, rip them off, and mislead them, then why all these warnings by Paul and Jesus that such will and can happen?

When you reduce complex issues down to “their side” and “our side” you are guaranteed the ego reward you seek, either affirmation through agreement or demonizing through disagreement. Why is this being treated as an issue with a binary construct in choosing how to approach the issue. Childish thinking.

Can there be abuse of position? Yes. But to treat it is default in every case is the kind of over-simplistic thinking that troubles much of this world.

Daisy wrote:

The Bible itself tells Christians to be on the lookout for false teachers and wolves in sheeps’ clothing precisely because Jesus (and the Apostles) already saw problems of fake Christians masquerading as trustworthy figures who would dupe others – whether it was duping them sexually, in financial matters, or theologically.
If there is no such thing as a church leader making victims due to his actions,why does the Bible warn us of this very thing???

Some of these churches have made it a legal issue, because their membership “contracts” require absolute submission to a pastor. So while it might not hold up in a court of law, who’s to say they wouldn’t try? Or that they wouldn’t use it as a legal threat (which is a legal issue, btw).

Velour wrote:

In my state (California) there was a woman crossing the street and a stranger came up and fondled her through her clothes. The police told her that they couldn’t arrest the man because there was no law against it, only skin-to-skin contact.

I wonder why the cops could not have just considered that a case of assault and arrested him for that?

The Feds got that Mafia guy, Capone, for tax evasion, when they couldn’t nab him on being Mr. Mafia.

Lydia wrote:

In the early days of sexual harassment policies and laws, the power differential was a huge factor in settlements. That ship sailed later when the country was convinced from the highest level such power differentials did really not matter.

“From the highest level” = Supreme Court or Monicagate?

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Poll for the massmind:
Ed Chapman: TT Truth Squad troll or no?

Ed is a long time poster at Julie Anne’s SSB blog.

I don’t think he’s so much a TT fan, as a guy who tends to get myopic about terminology and Old Testament Mosaic law, and should it apply to Christians today, sort of stuff… which ends up making him sound very victim-blamey and nit-picky in these discussions.

He was all over TT threads at Julie Anne’s blog the last couple of weeks with this same stuff, making it sound as though TT’s targets are equally culpable.

Velour wrote:

The statute didn’t cover sexual battery with clothes on, only with clothes off.

Does’t, legally speaking, unwanted touch fall under assault?

Ed Chapman wrote:

Let me put it the way, and then I will depart.
If someone knows of a sexual abuse of any kind, and does not report it to the proper authorities, can that person be prosecuted?
What I am really getting at here, call the cops and report this alleged abuse, and let the professionals investigate.
That is…if you want “justice” that the Bible discusses.
Ed

Ed, You’re incorrect.

I work in law.

Under law there are many types of abuses and many types of victims, and not all victims are victims of crimes. That doesn’t mean that they weren’t victimized.

I’m all for refusing pastorship permanently to anyone who disqualifies themselves for issues of abuse.

The Bible never says disqualified pastors could be a pastor again. It only says they can be a Christian again.

The only reason many of these guys want back in is because that’s where the money is. It’s all about them. They don’t care about the people at all.

Missy M. wrote:

But to treat it is default in every case is the kind of over-simplistic thinking that troubles much of this world.

The issue between consenting adults is vulnerable to question, IMO, so I agree that simplistic answers are not real answers. I have no idea what the circumstances are behind this particular video. There was plenty of bad decision-making, at the very least, in this woman’s story. Is she responsible as an adult for what happened between them? I think she is, if adult means anything. Is he responsible as an adult? I think he is. And I think he has even more responsibility because of his position.

Assigning greater responsibility to someone in a relatively more powerful/influential/authoritative position is not the same as absolving the other adult, IMO. There are predatory females as well as predatory males, so a person in a relatively more powerful position needs to be very, very careful. There has been much discussion here about the so-called Billy Graham rule. I think there is a lot of wisdom in that rule, though I do not believe it should be a “law.” Plenty of things are wise that are not laws and plenty of things are unwise that are not illegal.

Gram3 wrote:

There are predatory females as well as predatory males, so a person in a relatively more powerful position needs to be very, very careful.

Excellent point, and that’s why churches need to have clear policies against sexual relationships between clergy and members. When rules and consequences are clear, most people avoid breaking rules. The clergy member, whether male or female, predatory or not, will be trained in the rules–which ideally protect everyone, whether or not the church is egalitarian.

Friend wrote:

For awhile, one mainline denomination was headed by a woman. Should there have been a Betty Graham rule during her term?

Did she need it?

Nick Bulbeck wrote:

Here’s the thing. There are two paths on Ben Lomond; my fellow-walker took the other path down, evidently, and I never met him/her *. But I followed them nonetheless.

* Based purely on the size of their boots, it was probably a man; but I can’t be certain.

Well, if it was Ben MacDhui instead of Ben Lomond…

Friend wrote:

that’s why churches need to have clear policies against sexual relationships between clergy and members. When rules and consequences are clear, most people avoid breaking rules.

Yes, I think that is true for organizations, and especially the church. I think that secular standards are a floor for church standards and not a ceiling.

srs wrote:

I don’t know – I think it depends on the case. While some cases clearly are an abuse of power I’m not sure all are.
I’ve seen a case where the pastor/congregant were both of an age where they should have known better but cheated on their spouses anyways with each other (and later divorced those spouses and married). To call it abuse on the pastor’s part seems to diminish the agency and equal culpability of the congregant.

agree 100% with this statement. It is a lie to believe that the congregant is not equally responsible especially if the congregant is 1. of age 2. currently married or in the middle of marriage processes 3. financially independent and capable of full responsibility in regards to behavior

Note that women pastors could also be sex abusers or have ability to consider “infidelity” as a “good thing”. Our world is now accepting a term called “open marriage.’

Also note that healthcare workers have the HIGHEST infidelity in this nation! So to point at spiritual leaders or spiritual people as always being the bully in these types of situations isn’t quite looking at the overall big picture of what and where infidelity arises. Men have a high rate of infidelity but women are only a few percentage points behind men these days.

Ed Chapman wrote:

Sexual abuse is a crime, a felony.
I’m just wondering as to why people are stating that pastors are in a position of authority to begin with, then equating that with counselors, medical professionals in order to proclaim a power differential.
The whole world knows about the so-called “affairs” between TT and other women in the congregation.
Lawyers know, doctors know, judges know, police know, the grocery clerk knows, etc. This is not a private matter that the public does not know. And yet, no one has indicted former pastor TT of this “sexual abuse”.
Why? Probably because pastors do not hold a position of authority to begin with.
In accordance with the statutes that I have read, pastors are not in a position of authority, until…Until is a key word. So, just by the mere fact that they are a pastor, it means nothing at all. Nothing.
I’m also wondering why people are using secular words to describe this situation, i.e. affair.
Can we use a more biblical term since this is about spiritual matters? I think the word “adultery” is more appropriate than the word “affair”.
The word, “affair” is a term often used in soap operas, making the word glamorous, instead of a sin against God and people. Affair is intriguing, enticing, interesting, etc.
If sexual abuse is against the law, and if sexual abuse took place, then why is TT not in custody?
There seems to be a lot of accusing of a crime without evidence that a pastor in general is in a position of authority. It seems that there is a general consensus that pastors are, by default, in a position of authority.
That needs to be clarified before we go accusing someone of a felony crime, don’tcha think?
Ed

Ed. I am not aware of a state which uses the term “sexual abuse” as a legal term, though perhaps those states exist. Instead, the actual crimes are more typically called “sexual assault,” “sexual battery,” “indecent liberties with a child,” etc.

I’m not sure why the phrasing means to much to you, but there you have it. “Sexual abuse” is, however, the blanket term in common usage to denote sexual conduct with someone over whom someone else has power, usually a child, but not always. For instance, in our state, consensual sex between an 18 year old and a public school teacher is a crime. It would not be a crime if they met in a different capacity. In this case, a state has made it a criminal offense.

In most cases where the victim is an adult, however, the criminal offense will be based on the same law as anyone else would be held to in a situation; however, for people with a power differential, that is relevant for their licensing and for civil law. So for instance, a doctor touches a woman on a private area of the body for no medical reason. It’s criminally sexual battery. He will also be subject to losing his license to practice medicine because his or her field recognizes the power differential. A woman bringing civil suit would likely prevail as well. In fields in which the patient or client is there for mental health reasons, a therapist of whatever sort cannot engage in a sexual relationship even if the client was the one who pursued it. There is an assumption of diminished capacity for consent. A professional would be subject to losing their license and would likely lose in a court of civil law. Some states may additionally criminalize the behavior and some may not.

The Bible itself holds higher standards for those with power than for those without. Teachers and elders, for instance, are held to a different standard than congregants. The shepherds of Israel were likewise judged by a higher standard. Read the admonitions to employers, etc. We are all supposed to love one another, but there is an additional bar for those with power.

So to sum up: calling an act “sexual abuse” is not the use of a legal term that I am aware of. (It could possibly be the language in the statutes of some state, so I don’t want to make a blanket statement, but I doubt it.) It is rather the use of common contemporary English to describe sexual misconduct in which one person has power over another and misuses that power for their sexual gratification.

And, if you study the Bible, you will find there are several circumstances in which there are higher standards for those with power than for those over whom they have power.

pickle wrote:

It is a lie to believe that the congregant is not equally responsible

Calling it a ‘lie’ is overly dramatic. Difference of opinion. I noticed you mentioned nothing about the counseling aspect, which I think is quite relevant. (and indeed is where the legal aspect is generally invoked when these things are illegal)

pickle wrote:

Also note that healthcare workers have the HIGHEST infidelity in this nation!

Why is this relevant?? This has nothing to do with the topic or your next sentence.

I’m in the middle of writing about indicators of toxic systems, and there are some relevant things from that which apply to situations of clergy sexual misconduct/sexual abuse. I agree with the suggestion that each situation may have complex layers that need to be looked and analyzed, and I’ve been thinking about five different elements to consider: theological, moral, ethical, legal, regulatory (like IRS and state Attorney General, when there is a registered non-profit or business corporation involved), and professional associations.

There are the MORAL issues of sin [as determined through THEOLOGICAL studies] when there is a illicit sexual relationship involving a church pastor, employee, or board member. There are also ETHICAL issues of power and misuse of relationships to consider. These together help discern differences in “culpability and complicity.”

(I’ve been working on descriptions of for how these two forms of responsibility fit together on a scale. I define “culpability” as involving higher levels of initiation and power, and therefore great responsibility for misdeeds, while “complicity” involves being drawn in to become an “accomplice” more than an initiator. This came out of my perceived need for some way to think about what to do with leaders who plan mischief — sexual or otherwise — and show a pattern of deceiving others in order to get what they want for themselves. You may not agree with the terms or the idea of a scale, but if you’ve developed something better, go for it! )

But there are also other dimensions beyond the theological-moral-ethical to consider, such as the LEGAL issues where clergy and others specified as people with a role of public trust cannot use “consent” of the other party — whether adult or minor — as a defense for their actions.

And then, if the church is a registered non-profit, there can be additional actions taken based on whether a pastor or other staff or board member who is involved in sexual misconduct also engages in any other issues that involve legal or REGULATORY AGENCIES. Such as creating a hostile work environment through sexual harassment, or using the relationship with the illicit sexual partner to gain financial benefit, or to obscure required transparency in the corporation, or to block appropriate governance of the non-profit.

And then, even if a pastor is not a professional licensed counselor, and so subject to the rules and regulations that PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION, there may still otherwise be the requirements and procedures agreed to as part of being ordained and/or licensed for ministry, and/or involvement in denominational roles. For instance, church discipline and deposition (removal of ministry credentials).

So, that’s what I think I’ve learned so far about layers of issues to consider in situations of alleged clergy sexual misconduct/abuse/assault.

Oh, Ed, I wish we could go back to the days when you and I had pizza and beer and watched my daughter play volleyball. That was fun. This victim blaming and back and forth bantering exhausts me. I don’t lose friends over disagreements, but man, this one bugs me.

FTR, Ed and I were at it even via private e-mail. We agreed to disagree.

BTW, I was reading at that ‘hope for survivors’ site and they state “There should be no private female-to-male (or vice versa) counseling in a church setting. Have the pastor’s wife, church secretary, your spouse or a trusted friend sit in with you during your sessions.”

I know this is a site about abuse, but it seems very strange to me that you cannot have counseling alone. If you are so concerned that boundaries will not be observed that you cannot even sit alone in a room with someone, I feel this is a really, really good reason to eschew ‘christian’ or ‘pastoral’ counseling altogether. Which is a sad statement on the state of said counseling but there you go.

srs wrote:

To call it abuse on the pastor’s part seems to diminish the agency and equal culpability of the congregant.

Not if the congregant was being counseled by the pastor. The counselee is vulnerable when being counseled. I believe there are times when women go after pastors for a relationship. However, the pastor is a pastor for a reason and should refuse all advances.

I thank God for all these discussions. I put my mistakes out there to be judged however they are judged because I never want another woman to be taken off guard at the lowest points in their lives and trust anyone without state licensing.

I would share the depth of the abuse I had asked my pastor for help me with but I won’t hurt my family that way. He knew I struggled with severe anxiety but I had attended the church for 3 years and he seemed trustworthy. He would give me spiritual books to read and scripture admonition. I felt like I was growing spiritually. My husband was happy too.

I didn’t realize until hindsight the subtle grooming that had occurred. It would take hours to describe it in detail.After some time I subtly that he was no longer helping me the same way with his words. By then he had me convinced no one would understand me or the things he had now shared with me. Big mistake on my part.I had been married 15 years at that time with never a hint of unfaithfulness.

I do take all the responsibility that I can. I wish everyday I hadn’t been so dependent on him or scared of what would happen. I finally got him caught.The church welcomed him immediately back in. He wrote a long letter stating he hoped to return to ministry in the future.

All my fears were realized. I regretted having not taken his plan and just leaving him in the pulpit. My husband doesn’t feel the same. He wanted him stopped even taking on the pain the church unleashed on us.

It took 6 months of trauma therapy for me to forgive myself. It took another 6 months of therapy to even start to deal with the original problems I asked my pastor to help me with.The last 6 months I found my voice. My pastor didn’t require one professional therapy session and was going out with all the church people socially immediately. He had done this to me over a period of 4 years but was over it in 2 days with the churches support.

I will probably no longer attend church once my kids are gone. I will never speak to a pastor in person. I still have panic attacks trying to sit in a church building. I felt horrible about it all. My husband and I sent my documentation and emails to the seminaries my pastor graduated from. Upon reviewing…..The Masters Seminary, Bob Jones and another local Christian University removed his name from their graduate pastors list and put a no hire on the local one.

If you choose to blame or hate me that’s OK. I used to feel that way when I heard of these things. I don’t blame any of you for feeling that way. Please know my heart. I am someone who made terrible mistakes in my weakest emotional, physical and spiritual time in my life.I trusted the wrong person. I trusted someone I thought loved God even more than me and wanted to strengthen me in my weakness.

I carried my abuse issue around my whole life and when it came crashing down on me I trusted…….never again. All I can do now is tell my story. All I can do is plead for churches to make themselves safe not just for the altogether members but the vulnerable ones to.

I will never trust any church leader or even speak to one for the rest of my life. So continue to talk about this. Please learn from my brokenness.Blame whoever, but please make churches accountable. If all the pain that has occurred from my experience could be used just for that alone I will believe God has used it for his purpose.

I am just a broken survivor. No more and no less.

okrapod wrote:

Did she need it?

Some people will always be attracted to anything that looks like power, but I can’t imagine her courting that kind of attention, deliberately or otherwise.

I would LOVE to see her stop to help a man change a tire!

dee wrote:

in Gibson v. Brewer (1997), the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that a church could not be held liable for negligence in supervising a minister who allegedly committed sexual misconduct. The court based its ruling on the principle that civil courts may not assess the adequacy of a church’s oversight of its clergy.

While the Missouri Supreme Court’s ruling in Gibson would be binding on the lower courts in their state and require them to rule the same way with similar facts as Gibson, until the law changed, Gibson would not be a binding decision on states not in that jurisdiction. It would be persuasive authority only.

Here is a law firm in my state (California) that represents victims in lawsuits for clergy sexual abuse. http://www.thesenatorsfirm.com/Clergy-Sexual-Abuse.aspx

Here in the UK, my job as a Youth Worker (along with teachers & others) means that it would be illegal for us to get into a relationship with a young person until they are 18 or over, despite the age of consent being 16 here. This a recognition of the extra influence our professional positions give us over others, & helps protect them from it. We have nothing like the influence often that Church Youth Workers or Pastors would be held to have in their congregations. These power imbalances do need careful consideration.

And Ed’s nitpicking is just another example of principle over person, although he may be working behind the scenes carefully loving & helping both sides in the equation. I suspect not though. Generally the love for the Pastor figure continues & that of the woman or parishioner is contingent.

@ Friend:
Me too! Never slept with any colleagues either in church or out, or hit on them. There was one I found attractive, but he was married, & his wife was my friend so the thought never crossed my mind. We must be remarkable people here at TWW.

Velour wrote:

Lydia wrote:
Reasonable Person. A phrase frequently used in tort and Criminal Law to denote a hypothetical person in society who exercises average care, skill, and judgment in conduct and who serves as a comparative standard for determining liability.
And that standard changes. That is an example of Semantic.
A judge explains to a jury what these terms mean under law (and the type of case, crimianl or civil that is being heard). They go over it in great detail and the jurors’ responsibilities, can they fulfill them, etc.

What is “average care, skill and judgement”. Do the standards change? I think they did based on how sexual harassment settlements changed from the early days. (Not talking Federal) Power differentials in consensual situations took a hit in certain venues after Clinton.

@ Beakerj:

Of course, the biggest issue is that these so called ‘ministers’ seem to have poorer morals than a good chunk of the world outside. Which says nothing good about them.

Lea wrote:

@ Beakerj:
Of course, the biggest issue is that these so called ‘ministers’ seem to have poorer morals than a good chunk of the world outside. Which says nothing good about them.

I wonder if many of these guys went to Christian school/college. So many guys at the Christian college I went to were just utterly desperate for attention. Many of them had either been overly spoiled by their mothers, or they had been told constantly that they didn’t measure up and were horrible sinners just for being a normal teenager. Most that hit on me or my friends seemed completely puzzled that we didn’t want to fall at their feet and serve their every whim.

A lot of Christian parents aren’t raising healthy men and women. They’re either super overprotective and indulgent, or they are extremely critical and monitor their children’s every move. Then those kids go to a Christian college because their parents want to keep them sheltered, and told that they have to marry young and fast and produce grandkids.

These adult men and women don’t know how to have healthy relationships. They only know how to manipulate and control people to get what they want, either because that worked on their parents, or they were imitating their parents.

It’s something that’s concerned me since I went to Liberty.

The Billy Graham Rule is simple risk management.

Unfortunately, there are unstable people out there and good people, male and female, who could be protected by some organizational boundaries.

Often no one has hit on or slept with anyone, but the accusation is made as revenge for some perceived slight, or to get the accused person’s job, or because the accuser is just nutso.

If there are glass doors, or walls, or other people present, or some of the other simple protections in place, the accusation falls flat. Hard to claim Pastor Jane seduced Carl if both were clearly in view while she counselled him. Glass walls maintain privacy but allow others to see no one is grabbing anyone or seducing anyone.

I totally agree it would be absurd to leave a woman vulnerable along a roadside, but in today’s world that isn’t usually the situation. Guys may not be able to fix that car or tire anyway, but can surely stop (protects her from opportunistic crime) but may find being on the cell phone while waiting for her AAA truck protects them from accusation. Of course, men are also victims of opportunistic crimes and no one judges letting them wait for AAA on their own. Sometimes we want it both ways: women are equals unless we want to be seen as more vulnerable and in need of help.

Many corporations now send 3 in vehicles, regardless of gender of any involved. Male/male predation accusations or female/female happen as well as male/female. So simple to avoid it for all.

Some react to the BGR viscerally, feeling it accuses them personally of being predatory or unable to control their hormones. In reality it simply seeks to eliminate the chance of false accusations.

We (dh and I) have both never been willing to risk our reputations for the sake of someone else’s social construct.

@ ishy:

They are raised with the “don’t think pink” mantra mentality. So, they can only think about pink. pink=sex.

ishy wrote:

These adult men and women don’t know how to have healthy relationships. They only know how to manipulate and control people to get what they want, either because that worked on their parents, or they were imitating their parents.
It’s something that’s concerned me since I went to Liberty.

I will add that Liberty heavily pushed the idea that once you got married, it would solve all your problems, but especially the problem of lust. The people pushing it were married, and KNEW it was a lie, but they still pushed it heavily.

Christiane wrote:

to whom are these members vowing what???

Eh, It could be bad or harmless, depending on the nature of said vow. I think they asked me when I joined my church if planned to love jesus or something? It wasn’t anything nefarious. I don’t know about this church though.

Daisy wrote:

I would not feel comfortable spilling my guts and personal business in front of a third party

This is how I would feel as well. Which is why you should probably skip church counseling entirely and go straight to a professional.

Daisy wrote:

I would not feel comfortable spilling my guts and personal business in front of a third party, if I showed up expecting to see the one person (counselor, clergy person, psychiatrist, or whomever).

If I were walking in ahead of time knowing it was group therapy or something, that might be okay.

I tend to avoid all this nonsense by staying away from churches; that is something a lot of unmarried women do.

More and more singles are dropping out of church, over stuff like this and other matters.

I have sought advice in the privacy of the confessional where the priest does not see me or know who I am. The ‘separation’ of the grille shields the identity of both people, and yet permits each to hear and be heard by the other. This privacy is a precious thing in that it frees a troubled person to speak more openly BECAUSE it is not known who they are

I would always opt for privacy if possible, but that is my own need. I imagine others value their privacy highly too.

Christiane wrote:

That sounds like a cult …. that membership ‘vow’
to whom are these members vowing what????

I have been required by both the methodist church about 10 years ago and more recently by the episcopal church at the time of confirmation to make public affirmation of certain things. i don’t know if that is a vow or not, but I do not think that either UMC or TEC is a cult.

And, we were told in RCIA that if we wanted to convert to catholicism we would have to make an affirmation which include that we believed everything the catholic church teaches (I do not remember the exact terminology). That was a huge issue for me at the time. And I do not consider the catholic church to be a cult.

ishy wrote:

Hard to say, but Coral Ridge sounds pretty intense. They do have a “vow”:
——————-
The membership process at Coral Ridge includes full participation in the six-week New Members classes, submitting an application and written testimony describing your relationship with God, being interviewed by an elder (church leader), and then being received into the church family as you take membership vows during the service.

Oh brother. Especially to the part about having to provide a “written testimony.”

I would like to bring something up about the King David defense. First here is the passage.

2 Samuel 12 First Nathan tells the story to expose David 1-4. Then David got angry

(5 David became very angry at the rich man. He said to Nathan, “As surely as the Lord lives, the man who did this should die! 6 He must pay for the lamb four times for doing such a thing. He had no mercy!”)

Then Nathan said; “Though art the man”. And David repented. God said I gave you lots of wives and would give you more if you wanted. God also said how he was going to let other people have sex with David’s wives so that all of Isreal would learn that what David did in secret with Bathsheba God would allow others to do with David’s wives in public.

Then
(Nathan answered, “The Lord has taken away your sin. You will not die. 14 But what you did caused the Lord’s enemies to lose all respect for him. For this reason’ the son who was born to you will die.”)

Um!! I will refrain from commenting.

Then God killed David and Bathsheba’s kid. Before the baby died David cried and wept and fasted figuring what could it hurt, it is worth a shot. Then this

When David found out the baby was dead he got up cleaned himself up and went and had a meal. That was quoted to me several times about getting over dead family really quick, like right after they die. No weeping here, no pouting and blathering about someone God took out move on. How can anyone read this passage and tell me a literal take it at face value meaning is not just well, tribal and cruel. I still have not gotten over the death of some of my family. I don’t show it nor will I ever especially at church but. That story always bothered me when people use it as how God keeps a leader in charge that did something really awful.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Samuel+12&version=NCV

Ed Chapman wrote:

The bible does not state that pastors are not to have sex with the congregation. It states for EVERYONE to not commit fornication.

Again, “Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment,” James 3:1

siteseer wrote:

Ed Chapman wrote:
We have a lot of “alleging” going on, without evidence. If “sexual abuse” is being publicly declared in blogs, it becomes a legal matter, does it not? It’s no longer an matter of ethics. This is where the law can step in and investigate. Am I wrong?
—–
[siteseer wrote]:
Yes, you are wrong. Why are you arguing such, Ed? You would like to hold those who are powerless to the same standard as those with power, why?

Just nit-picking semantics? or is there more to it?

The process on how pastors groom adult women to gain sexual access seems similar to how adult predators groom child targets, and set them up for sexual abuse and exploitation.

One wonders would Ed argue that a 5 or 15 year old person who is molested by ‘Chester the Molester’ from down the street, or by ‘Sally their School Teacher,’ is just as at fault as the adult?

Or, what of a mentally handicapped adult who may be 34 years of age physically, but has the mental capacity and understanding of a 10 year old kid?

It would be easy for a predator to prey on such a person, to play off their particular brand of vulnerability.

It’s all very similar to how preachers target a woman who is suffering from depression, job stress, a bad marriage, a recent death in the family, etc.

I am amazed that Ed doesn’t seem to recognize the other factors at play here which mitigate things.

These pastor-church member dalliances are not always straight-forward consensual affairs, where both parties just want a romp in the hay for the fun of it, or because both are lusty and want to “get it on”.

I don’t think Ed understands or cares about the other aspects that go into any of this.

“It’s Clergy Sex Abuse; Not an Affair!”

And it’s an old-fashioned word that preachers don’t talk much about these days: SIN. The reason we don’t hear much preaching about holiness and purity coming from American pulpits these days is that we don’t have a holy and pure pulpit.

Ed wrote: “I’m just wondering as to why people are stating that pastors are in a position of authority to begin with… Probably because pastors do not hold a position of authority to begin with. In accordance with the statutes that I have read, pastors are not in a position of authority… So, just by the mere fact that they are a pastor, it means nothing at all. Nothing.”

It blows my mind that Ed thinks pastors in our culture don’t have any position of authority. They had enough “authority” to ex-communicate my daughter just because she wouldn’t return to her abusive spouse when they commanded her to do so. They admitted that biblically she had grounds to leave him BUT they refused to give her that permission and she was required to obey their “authority” or else. This resulted in a Sunday morning announcement of church discipline and shunning. And you call this authority “nothing”??? It ruined my daughter’s faith and life when the pastor used his (non-existent… according to Ed) authority against her. (BTW This took place in a “Bible Church”).

It is dangerous for church leaders to use and abuse those purchased by the costly blood of Jesus. Paul warned the Ephesian church elders, “Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood” (Acts 20:28).

siteseer wrote:

dee wrote:
Oh no! Are you the Ed who went after Doug Phillip’s victim? Oh phooey! There will be no convincing you then, even if you Google.
Some people always root for the underdog. Ed is one of those guys who always roots for the overdog.

No, that is not true. And Ed did not blame Lourdes. Even though he and I strongly disagree on this clergy sex abuse issue, he has been a strong defender of survivors.

@ Kim rung:
I really valued your transparency both in the video and in your comment. I pray that others who read will feel led to affirm you in your desire to warn against and prevent the type of abuse you suffered. May you experience peace and joy in your life ahead!!

Kim rung wrote:

I am someone who made terrible mistakes in my weakest emotional, physical and spiritual time in my life.I trusted the wrong person.

Thank you for sharing your story. I think it is helpful to see the progression, and the instaforgiveness is maddening of course.

I have trusted the wrong person too. (not in church, because I learned to be cynical about church leadership quite early) I think the only way to not make that mistake is to trust no one.

​I think this particular case study is relevant here because it is a constructive and inspiring example of how one church dealt with past child sexual abuse and clergy sexual misconduct — both issues which had happened inside the church building. Friends of mine were the new pastors on the team there, and they gave me permission to share this account on my blog.

It took a full decade for substantial change to take place in the congregation and for my friends to retire and turn over the church to a younger generation of local leaders they’d discipled. But they began pretty much right away on the process of establishing genuine transparency and addressing the evil that had happened in the past. Here’s their story, which I’ve edited only slightly, and added some material that’s in square brackets that ties in with some of the questions/comments that have come up in this thread.

https://futuristguy.wordpress.com/2014/09/20/responsibility-for-spiritual-abuse-part-3h/

#6. CONCRETE TRANSPARENCY. Money, sex, and power – the triplet temptations, especially for those in positions of authority who have the means to hide them. There was a church that once had a great legacy of sharing the good news of Jesus, and serving in the community. But somewhere along the line, some leaders left the path of righteousness, and all kinds of darkness flooded in. By the time several years of horrible revelations ended, the list included adultery, theft, infidelity with staff and counselees, sexual assaults of teens and children at the church building, and child abuse. The battered and traumatized body of believers who survived all that brought on board a pastor willing to work with them long term to help right the wrongs, heal the wounded, reach the community, and train up new generations of leaders. That way, a redemptive legacy could be redeveloped and passed on.

The pastor and his wife were part of what became a team that included both women and men, and people of different generations and cultures. One of the first things to happen to “clean house” was highly symbolic but also very practical. The nursery, children’s ministry rooms, and all the main offices had the wood walls removed and replaced with floor-to-ceiling glass walls. Rooms that shouldn’t have locks, had them removed. This meant full transparency now for rooms where multiple instances of sexual assaults and abuse had occurred back then.

Solid doors for all offices and conference rooms in the staff wing of the church were replaced with ones that had large windows in the upper half. These lined a hallway where other staff and the occasional invited visitor might walk past at any random moment, and so the possibility of hiding misconduct was lessened. [They put in the windows because these rooms had been used for sexual encounters, including — if I remember correctly — clergy sexual misconduct with counselees and with employees. Changing the doors to ones with windows was done intentionally to help re-establish trust and accountability to locations that had been used to hide evil. While this could be seen as a minor invasion of privacy, it made that wing a far more spiritually safe place.]

Those kinds of concrete actions made a spiritual difference. The content of ministry changed too, to match this new direction and openness. Practical sermons, healing seminars, mentoring meetings, listening sessions, neighborhood study-and-mission groups, community access, leadership development. [I also recall that, when possible, the pastor personally contacted those who had been victimized by previous staff. Sometimes this was the victim, other times spouse or ex-spouse, family members, others directly affected by their connection with someone victimized. When someone agreed to let him visit them, he apologized on behalf of the church for what had happened, and offered to provide counseling for them to help in their healing process. As best I can remember from my conversations with him, this took a few years because there were a lot of people affected and not all were ready to process it yet.]

In a slow investment process that took over 10 years, the sins and evil of this church’s past had been addressed as best as possible. Also put in place were a new course reset toward a vibrant and missional future – with enough strategy and structures to provide for organizational needs – along with enough local connections and relationships to keep things organic, indigenous, and flexible. A church on the edge of destruction had been reclaimed before it was too late.

@ Velour:
Certainly looks like it!

Velour wrote:

Perhaps you missed, Julie Anne, Ed’s whole comment string. Yes, he did blame Lourdes.
I interacted with him as did others over there.

I was basing it on our email conversation. I’ll have to take a closer look at the thread on my site. Thanks.

Can I ask one thing to the group, I can harp on a single issue a bit too much so if I am doing that let me know. Its not intentional but it can get annoying. Thanks. I want to be a supportive part of this community.

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Daisy,

You are now falsely accusing me. @ Velour:

Velour wrote:

Ed Chapman wrote:

Let me put it the way, and then I will depart.
If someone knows of a sexual abuse of any kind, and does not report it to the proper authorities, can that person be prosecuted?
What I am really getting at here, call the cops and report this alleged abuse, and let the professionals investigate.
That is…if you want “justice” that the Bible discusses.
Ed

Ed, You’re incorrect.

I work in law.

Under law there are many types of abuses and many types of victims, and not all victims are victims of crimes. That doesn’t mean that they weren’t victimized.

When in doubt, call the cops, and let them sort it out. Let the lawyers argue before a judge.

Friend wrote:

Gram3 wrote:

There are predatory females as well as predatory males, so a person in a relatively more powerful position needs to be very, very careful.

Excellent point, and that’s why churches need to have clear policies against sexual relationships between clergy and members. When rules and consequences are clear, most people avoid breaking rules. The clergy member, whether male or female, predatory or not, will be trained in the rules–which ideally protect everyone, whether or not the church is egalitarian.

Why is that necessary in Christianity that forbids sexual relationships except to your own spouse to begin with? Hello? What happened to the rules of the bible? Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery is not clear enough? Apparently for some that are bashing me that don’t seem to like me quoting Old Outdated Mosiac Law, I suppose, huh? Wow!

Ed

Ed Chapman wrote:

Why is that necessary in Christianity that forbids sexual relationships except to your own spouse to begin with? Hello? What happened to the rules of the bible? Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery is not clear enough? Apparently for some that are bashing me that don’t seem to like me quoting Old Outdated Mosiac Law, I suppose, huh? Wow!

Ed, no one disagrees that it isn’t supposed to happen. The question is, when it happens, how is it dealt with? If it isn’t seen as abuse of authority but rather as a moral failing shared equally by two partners, the solution is not going to fit or make a change in a toxic situation; a victim is going to be victimized again and an abuser is going to be allowed to continue abusing.

Mary27 wrote:

Ed wrote: “I’m just wondering as to why people are stating that pastors are in a position of authority to begin with… Probably because pastors do not hold a position of authority to begin with. In accordance with the statutes that I have read, pastors are not in a position of authority… So, just by the mere fact that they are a pastor, it means nothing at all. Nothing.”

It blows my mind that Ed thinks pastors in our culture don’t have any position of authority. They had enough “authority” to ex-communicate my daughter just because she wouldn’t return to her abusive spouse when they commanded her to do so. They admitted that biblically she had grounds to leave him BUT they refused to give her that permission and she was required to obey their “authority” or else. This resulted in a Sunday morning announcement of church discipline and shunning. And you call this authority “nothing”??? It ruined my daughter’s faith and life when the pastor used his (non-existent… according to Ed) authority against her. (BTW This took place in a “Bible Church”).

But that is my whole point. If a pastor declares that he has power, he is wrong. Matthew 18 states that the church has the final say, and that is a last resort. The word “Church” is “assembly”, which is discussing the whole congregation, not the pastor, not the elders.

There is a false narrative that pastors have power.

To me, excommunication from a church means nothing except to find another church. How many church’s are there within a 20 mile parameter from your house? Probably many. Excommunication is a declaration that you are an unbeliever and do not belong in the church at all. If that is what a pastor declares, dust your feet and move to a different church.

I come from a non-Calvinist background. I am a Christian. I attend two church’s on Sunday. One church I attend is to support my brother in law who is an ex-drug addict. There are many drug/alcohol addicts in this church who are recovering, and many come in with numerous tattoos, nose rings, purple hair, and the list goes on and on and on. The pastor has no control over their lives. The law does, as they are mostly on probation, but they are curious about Jesus, and the way that the pastor preaches, he teaches Jesus as if teaching it to a child for the first time, and the people respond, WITHOUT FEAR.

We need to rid ourselves of this false pretense narrative that pastors are in a position of authority. Take away their power, and what
Christiane wrote:

@ Ed Chapman:
There is such a thing as the greater responsibility in a situation where someone is known to give help and support to others,
and a person is counting on them for that support.

In the case of the situation of that ‘minister’ and the lady ‘Lourdes’, I don’t know the whole story;
but if the minister was involved in an affair with a person in his congregation or ‘under his authority’ or whatever relationship existed,
the minister does have the greater MORAL and ETHICAL responsibility in the matter.

I would not give a ‘pass’ to such ministers who enter into that sin while in their positions of responsibility.
Nor would I completely hold a congregate in the same position of responsibility.
There are too many dynamics in play here for ‘equalizing’ blame, ED. Way too many.

I don’t think you have a good case here, on this blog, where too many have been hurt by those who did not have the moral strength OR the ethical backbone to control themselves. As for those who sought ‘authority’ over others instead of serving people, may God have mercy on their souls if they do not repent and if they harass and blame and persecute those they have injured. There will be a justice for victims.

Just to be clear to people here, Lourdes was a victim. I’ve never stated that she wasn’t.

1. She was a child when the grooming began.
2. Their was sexual ASSAULT blatantly unsolicited non-consensual, etc.
3. He used threats and intimidation

If you leave the “pastor” element out of it, it’s still a crime.

She is a victim. No doubt.

All I want is for people to call the cops, and that does not have to be the victim.

Get the proper authorities involved. When in doubt, call the cops. Yes, I argue about semantics.

I was always taught, better to be safe than sorry. Call the cops, regardless of all the discussion about whether this is a matter of ethics, or a matter of crime. When in doubt, call the cops either way.

Let people like Velour argue before a judge with the prosecutor. I want Justice, but justice will never happen if all we are doing is debating this on a blog. Call the cops.

Ed

siteseer wrote:

Ed Chapman wrote:

Why is that necessary in Christianity that forbids sexual relationships except to your own spouse to begin with? Hello? What happened to the rules of the bible? Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery is not clear enough? Apparently for some that are bashing me that don’t seem to like me quoting Old Outdated Mosiac Law, I suppose, huh? Wow!

A lot of what goes on in sexual abuse situations has more to do with control and power than with sex itself. It is a ‘perversion’ of ‘authority’ in the worst way, attacking the victim’s vulnerability horribly.

A ‘pastor’ who has an affair with a congregate is guilty of sexual abuse, a terrible act of broken trust. If that congregate is a minor, he needs to go to jail for breaking the law. He needs to leave the pastorate if he is capable of using it to hurt someone in that way.

According to a fairly large research study (http://www.intothyword.org/apps/articles/?articleid=36562), some 30% of Protestant clergy have had affairs with one or more members of their church.

@ Lea:
There doesn’t seem to be much outrage over the abuse of a trusted position and using that position for self gratification in ways that harm people. That aspect of the wrong doing is becoming more and more ignored and the new normal.

brian wrote:

The reason I keep driving at these points is I think this is where the toxic thinking comes from, it comes from Toxic theology, to even have conversations like the one described above is toxic not to mention psychotic in my opinion.

Yes, it is. Using the David story to tell grieving people to get over it, already is horrendous on so many levels. That misses the point (at least my opinion of the point) of the story for the nation of Israel. David was king, so he *had* to get back to work, and to do that, he had to eat. That does *not* mean that he was over his grief. I think he carried that grief along with the other destruction that resulted from his sin. IMO one way he repented was to do his duty as king which he had shirked by not going out to battle for his people. The privilege of being king also came with great responsibility, and one of those was fighting for your people.

I am so sorry for how you were treated when you were grieving, but I thank you for sharing your story.

Ed Chapman wrote:

Why is that necessary in Christianity that forbids sexual relationships except to your own spouse to begin with?

Because part of being wise and acting with wisdom is a frank acknowledgement that sin will find a way. Unless sinless perfection is the state of every person, then boundaries and precautions need to be put into place to guard the weaker ones in every sense of the word “weak.” If Law were enough and had the power to overcome sin, then the death and resurrection of Jesus would not have been necessary.

Steve240 wrote:

With eyes full of adultery, they never stop sinning

This is absolutely TT to a…T!

Daisy wrote:

pickle wrote:
agree 100% with this statement. It is a lie to believe that the congregant is not equally responsible especially if the congregant is 1. of age 2. currently married or in the middle of marriage processes 3. financially independent and capable of full responsibility in regards to behavior
I would say it would depend on the specifics.
If a woman goes to see the clergy man at the church building because she’s in some kind of stressful situation and looking for spiritual guidance or encouragment, some pervy men are known to “hit on” women in such times.
Emotionally needy or hurting people are easier to sucker into sex than ones who are not.
In those cases, the preacher is exploiting the woman and he is at fault – the woman is his prey.

“emotionally hurt” woman …… my baloney and my chicken. A woman who slept with a meth-addict has been sooo soooo sooo emotionally hurt by her boyfriend formerly decided to go to a “spiritual man” for support. She LOVED having sex with the spiritual man because it was so “wrong.” Women and men COULD POSSIBLY be at fault for affairs. Whether they are in the church membership roster or not. Did you not read the old-testament and how it said to “stone” WOMEN who were ALSO caught in adultery.

Like I said, the HEALTHCARE profession has the HIGHEST infidelity in the country. Those most likely to check out ashleymadison.com are healthcare workers, particularly physicians, in the USA. Many people look to doctors for “spiritual support” in hard times in their life. The healthcare industry itself is a “religion” of sorts.

The “counseling” by a pastors in “hard times” is a cover-up for supporting the MEDICAL INDUSTRY by pastors in this country. A + B = C. So in effect it is the MEDICAL INDUSTRY that needs repair……not the bible itself.

Lea wrote:

pickle wrote:
The “counseling” by a pastors in “hard times” is a cover-up for supporting the MEDICAL INDUSTRY by pastors in this country. A + B = C. So in effect it is the MEDICAL INDUSTRY that needs repair……not the bible itself.
I’m sorry, but this is nonsensical drivel.

SO you have not read any comments and so forth by betrayed spouses on http://www.afairhealing.com The Betrayed SPOUSE KNOWS it is the WOMAN and the MAN who are at fault. They are both the ones who LIE to cover up their actions. Yes, WOMAN have betrayed their spouse too. If you play the game of “its always the pastor” at fault for affairs…….YOU ARE A FOOOOOOOOOL.

These dayz……”open marriage” is a big trend and getting bigger and bigger. Cause some people do not know how to keep the pants on their WAndering SPousE.

There are cases where a beautiful godly man “slips” into the hands of a wandering woman in need of spiritual counsel. And the woman is a victim of his counsel. BUT if a person refuses to looooooook to see if a woman has some “dirt” in her bag, you are playing the devil’s fiddle. The devil loves counterfeit money and counterfeit Christians who refuse to investigate the reality of situations.

Missy M wrote:

One dare not speak of women who have preyed on vulnerable men in the ministry. I had such a friend, not close but within a circle of women.
We knew she was too flattering to our pastor but figured she was sugary to be nice but still, it was mentioned among the rest of us once or twice.
Over time we could see her being more and more involved in doing things,for the pastor and it became obvious she was grooming him! Yes, he should have seen it and set boundaries but from our point of view she was the predator.

Good points Missy. That is why one really needs to look at the circumstances. I would tend to think that this WASN’T the case with TT since he used the excuse of falling into adultery since his wife had committed adultery but we may never know this side of eternity.

I also would add that it sure was quick that TT remarried. One would have thought TT would have waiter a while to remarry.

elastigirl wrote:

@ Mary Jo Noworyta:
“Just because something isn’t illegal doesn’t make it OK.”

It also doesn’t mean that the person doing this won’t have to one day give an account to God for their actions. God will be the final judge.

I am sometimes think that this is a fact that a number of leaders seem to forget.

dee wrote:

Ed Chapman wrote:

There is a false narrative that pastors have power.

Just because you claim Matthew 18 does not mean that it is so. There is an inherent power and cachet in the position of a celebrity pastor.I am surprised that you don’t think this is so.

Dee,

With all due respect, it is so. I’ve dissected Matthew 18 for years, and the word “CHURCH” has been misused and abused by so many in both the Catholic circles (Which is why they think that only priests can forgive sins), and Calvinists (Which believes that Church is discussing leaders). Dissect that word “church”.

Assembly is the English equivalent of the definition. We The People (Christians as a whole) are the church that Jesus is building.

Ed

dee wrote:

Ed Chapman wrote:

There is a false narrative that pastors have power.

Just because you claim Matthew 18 does not mean that it is so. There is an inherent power and cachet in the position of a celebrity pastor.I am surprised that you don’t think this is so.

Dee,

To follow up with my last response, look at 1 Cor 6, when discussing settling civil matters in the church rather than to take it to the courts. Who is chosen to judge these “minor” matters?

Answer: The least esteemed in the church.

That is not the pastor or elder or bishop or deacon.

But if it is of a nature that is not a minor issue, then you are to take it to the proper authorities (Police).

But the point is, the pastor has no power here either. The least esteemed has the power, for that person is the judge.

Ed

Ed Chapman wrote:

I guess that I am not explaining myself very well, but this is what I have been talking about all along.

You are saying how you think it should be.

Others are stating how it is.

Those are different.

Gram3 wrote:

Yes, it is. Using the David story to tell grieving people to get over it, already is horrendous on so many levels.

I got a lot of that attitude from Christians (church people I met, as well as family members) after my mother died, and I went to them for help or encouragement.

Absolutely no Christian wants to invest time in “weeping with one who weeps” because their loved one died.

There is very much an attitude from a lot of Christians of “get over it already, and do it all alone, on your own time, don’t bother me with it.”

I’d say a lot of Christians have that same outlook about abuse victims, too. They view domestic violence victims and child abuse victims as being inconveniences they don’t want to deal with.

@ Gram3:

Self-control and discipline is a component of this. The Bible teaches that believers have self-control.

I don’t think it’s always necessary to put in place legalistic parameters to prevent possible fornication / adultery between adults.

The Pharisees in Jesus’ day had rules like this, where they would so deflect their gaze if they saw a woman walking down the street, they would walk into trees.

They would teach that because women were tempting to men, that men should avoid women altogether.

All of this is a very insulting view of the female sex and leads to women being treated as though they are shameful, dirty.

Further, it cuts women off from opportunity to get ahead career-wise (in the present day as maybe back then), to receive pastoral counseling, and to be in community with others.

I see all of this at play with this Billy Graham Rule type mentality, which is so fearful of possibly adultery, that women are shunted aside.

@ Missy M:

Your comment kind of reminds me of men who jump into conversations online, where women are complaining about the sexism they’ve endured from men, to man-splain to those women, “Not all men!!”

This seems to be a “Not all pastors!!” comeback.

Some women may target pastors, but, it’s still the pastor’s responsibility to keep the boundaries in place.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the number of pastors abusing their position to exploit women far out number flirty women who want to hit on pastors, like the tarty lady character, (Rose?), on the “Keeping Up Appearances” show who was always flirting with the married pastor.

Daisy wrote:

wanting so desperating to be loved and receive validation.

Correction.
Should read “wanting so desperately”

@ Bridget:
Bingo.

@ pickle:

I don’t think you want to be educated on some topics, like the fact that men in certain occupations who are dirt bags, may use their influence and power to exploit women into sex (or children, if their sexual preference is for children).

@ Muff Potter:
I am always embarrassed by the “women are better or more virtuous” shtick.

My view is that historically, women just had less power and opportunity. :o) In many instances, historically, they just learned to be better manipulators and use what resources available. I am not even convinced we ‘always’ bring balance to male dominated groups –from my experiences.

In the State of Texas if a teacher has an ” affair” with a student, even if they are 18+ ( and I taught that age) it is abuse and you wind up in jail for quite a while.
Ministers having an affair with the ” pew sitters” is the same. You’re using you influence for your own “needs. “

Daisy wrote:

Some women may target pastors, but, it’s still the pastor’s responsibility to keep the boundaries in place.

I think there are women who target pastors for interest, but the power differential does not exist there so it’s different. You aren’t going to likely have women counseling the pastor, for instance. I think the women who fall for pastors is more like a rock star groupie, they are attracted to the stage and power?

One more thing I will say about the women who are targeting pastors…I would be hesitant to believe the pastors side of it without independent knowledge when there actually was a resulting relationship – because predators lie. Sometimes it’s hard to tell who is truly at fault and it seems like sometimes you have pastors who are targeting someone (like the example above from Kim) and then when they are found out they are all ‘this jezebel seduced me’. Just as abusers sometimes call out their spouse as the abuser. So sometimes it’s hard to tell from the outside who is really at fault.

Daisy wrote:

You may not think pastors have any power

They generally have the power to, either by themselves or working with staff, kick someone out church. For some people, this is their job. For others, it is their life, the home of all their friends….This IS real power. In the same way that you can voluntarily leave your job, but that doesn’t mean that your boss doesn’t still have power over you if they make that job impossible.

@ Ed Chapman:

So you are using people’s stories of having been abused by pastors or other church people as a proxy to criticize the contemporary church in general terms?

If that is so, maybe that argument would be better served on another thread, instead of ones about situations about abuse specifically.

The fact remains there are people who do still go to churches these days, what about them? They should not be preyed on by gross preachers.

Some states may not have laws against what these preachers are doing. So maybe the next step is how do church people handle it?

Paul wrote in the NT not to even eat with such people – so a pastor who uses his position to take advantage of women should be kicked out of his job and not allowed to return to the church. Maybe that is one possible solution.

Ed Chapman wrote:

But, in this case, change is needed due to Christianity skewing. Christianity changed over time and became corrupt. It was not like that from the beginning.

I’m still not understanding this response.

How does you wanting to change things about church help women who have already been preyed upon by preachers?

I personally don’t know why anyone would want to still continue going to any church these days, considering how abusive they are, and how many stealthy pervs sit in the pews, but the fact remains, people still do attend, and some still do view the preacher as being trustworthy.

I don’t think you’re going to convince everyone to stop going to church.

Daisy wrote:

I personally don’t know why anyone would want to still continue going to any church these days, considering how abusive they are

They’re not all abusive. And the ones that are, generally people don’t realize until something happens. And then they can’t convince the rest because they are too invested…

Lea wrote:

They’re not all abusive

In some cases it’s hard to tell at the out-set which ones are and are not, though some of the abusive ones do give off red flags, which this blog educates people about.

I went to one church that I would not say was abusive in general terms, but one or two the members I trusted in ended up hurting me, letting me down. So you have to be careful for that.

The overall church might be okay and healthy, but individual members you run into might end up being judgmental or critical types once you share your personal business with them.

Ed Chapman wrote:

But that is my whole point. If a pastor declares that he has power, he is wrong. Matthew 18 states that the church has the final say, and that is a last resort. The word “Church” is “assembly”, which is discussing the whole congregation, not the pastor, not the elders.

There is a false narrative that pastors have power.

To me, excommunication from a church means nothing except to find another church. How many church’s are there within a 20 mile parameter from your house? Probably many. Excommunication is a declaration that you are an unbeliever and do not belong in the church at all. If that is what a pastor declares, dust your feet and move to a different church.

It is not so easy… the churches in our area all seem to be infected by the neo-Calvinist bug and we actually were unable to find a “safe” church for our daughter at the time when she might still have been interested. Ed also seems to be using the word “authority” with only one of its definitions: “persons having the legal power to make and enforce the law”. Authority is also “a power or right delegated or given; the right to control, command, or determine”. Churches today give this authority to their pastors. It is not biblical but this “delegated authority” still exists and is often abused. One way to avoid giving pastors this “power” over us is to refuse to become church members, and you can be sure we won’t do that again.

Lydia wrote:

The pastoral position in the institutions are supposed to be trustworthy.

Right, and so people tend to believe them. They tend to disbelieve women and this is true in general situations like abuse as well. [I think I mentioned my liar ex told me his wife was abusive, and then I read how common that is from abusers and I wonder…]

Yes, the other side exists. Some women are abusive. Some women are seducing the pastor. But I think at this point I would want a lot of evidence before I jumped into believing it.

Lydia wrote:

My view is that historically, women just had less power and opportunity. :o) In many instances, historically, they just learned to be better manipulators and use what resources available. I am not even convinced we ‘always’ bring balance to male dominated groups –from my experiences.

My view too Lyds. And with that I’m gonna stand down now before my mouf’ gets me in a s#it-load o’ trouble…

Missy M wrote:

No two sets of rules for who gets to be vulnerable and who doesn’t.

Are you drawing a differentiation between people generally in the congregation or people who specifically approach a pastor for counseling? Because I see those as different things.

Muff Potter wrote:

My view too Lyds.

I do not support the infantilization of females in whatever form it takes, and I agree that gender-based bad behavior is a crime of opportunity. As we get more females in the role of pastor, I think it is reasonable to expect that there will be abuses. Because humans sin against one another.

Missy M wrote:

Then a wounded Pastor cannot set boundaries either, with a predatory woman. Like I said, I’ve it with a lady from our church circle of women (no longer, of course) No two sets of rules for who gets to be vulnerable and who doesn’t

If a pastor has been emotionally compromised, and is unable (or unwilling) to set boundaries, he needs to leave that profession, would be my take on it.

By the way, I’m very tired of people attributing views to me I do not hold, and you’re one of the ones who keeps doing this to me in this thread.

I have never once said or felt that women are lilly-white angels, and no women ever “hit on” a married man.

Some women are sexual predators. I’ve never said otherwise.

It remains my view though, that we are living in a male-dominated culture that encourages men to feel very entitled to women and to sexual acts, so more often than not, men are the sexual predators, not vice versa.

Your last comment does not make any sense to me.

Either a person is vulnerable, or he or she is not.

Many times, when a woman goes to see a preacher, it is precisely because she is going through a traumatic life experience, such as death in the family, her husband is abusing her or what have you.

In such circumstances, the woman is indeed vulnerable at that time.

Daisy wrote:

As I was just explaining to Lea on the other blog

It is weird to bounce back and forth! I left you a response there. Suffice it to say, I disagree.

@ Lea:
Yes, I know, and I just left you a follow up post.

Missy M wrote:

For a person concerned with representing what other have said it seems a bit odd that you choose me of saying you said women are lily-white and never hit on me I never said you said that

Did you not say somewhere up thread that I am naive and a fool to think that women never, ever hit on men?

Or did someone else write that to me, and I’m mixed up and am thinking it was you?

You do seem to be under the impression I think all women are above reproach and never instigate affairs, when I never said any such thing.

@ Daisy:

Yep, here’s the quote, by Missy M, and it was in reply to one of my posts, because it has the “@ Daisy” in the heading:

It is every adult’s responsibility to keep boundaries which includes vulnerable women AND vulnerable pastors.
You seem to want vulnerability for female parishioners only. Hogwash.
People are complex, issues with adults are too. You seem to have one angle and one only, excusing vulnerable adult women but no one else who is vulnerable.
If you cannot and will not recognize there are some women who prey on seducing spiritual figures, you’re living in a world of childish thinking.

I never said that women do not prey on men, or spiritual figures.

Source for Missy M quote:
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2016/10/03/its-clergy-sex-abuse-not-an-affair/comment-page-1/#comment-286668

i am grateful that God has seen to restore my faith in Him, just not church.

@ Daisy:
Nothing there about lily white, white you claimed I said you said. And I used the word, “if”. You’re giving our gender a black eye here. Pun intended

Kim rung wrote:

i am grateful that God has seen to restore my faith in Him, just not church.

Amen, Kim.

I had to stop the video several times of your story. It was so painful for me to watch.
I could hear your love of God, of people, His church, and your sincere desire to do well in ministry. And as you ran toward that goal this person/predatory pastor kept putting himself in the way, knowing that was your desire and using it against you.

Sad and bad.

I’m glad you’re here and didn’t succeed in that suicide attempt.

And I marveled at how God cut the ties to that church for you, your husband, and your children.

So glad you’re on the road to healing.

Kim rung wrote:

I really am not sure what value church really has in modern times.

I wonder too. It seems like it’s a money-making, power-giving franchise for so many.

I feel safer outside of the buildings.

Me too.

My mistake was to not go to a licensed counselor instead of my pastor when my family was dying off and the other issues came up. I implore all people to not seek help from pastors or any unlicensed “helping” professional. They speak with ” biblical authority”, their assumed role because of “title” is that they love God and want those they lead to know God too. My pastor was a masters level nouthetic counselor.

I’m with you. That’s the problem with Nouthetic Counseling and today’s authoritarian Membership Covenants ordering it for members. Incompetent, untrained men spout nonsense to church members who are forced to listen to it.

I have never seen so much damage done to so many peoples’ lives. I was required, along with other church members [Grace Bible Fellowship of Silicon Valley] to undergo years worth of counseling to have ‘unity’ with church members who should have been in treatment for things like alcoholism, a memory disorder/Dyslexia, and an abusive childhood and lashing out at other members and attenders all of the time.

I had to turn in my ex-pastors/elders to the California Medical Board for the Unauthorized Practice of Medicine, a crime in my state. They repeatedly blamed me, and rendered a diagnosis, for a church member’s genetically inherited brain disorder and memory problems, that she’s already been diagnosed with all of her life, failed school, can’t work, and gets a monthly disability check from the Social Security Administration and has gotten it for 30-years (and was medically diagnosed to qualify for it).

The church’s I was raised in were very afraid of “secular counseling”.

That is a shame. It’s like being afraid of the auto mechanic or the doctor or the plumber or [fill in the blank of needed professional service].

I had no experience with the counseling at all. But with my upbringing I felt if I ever needed help a pastor or spiritual leader would be the safest spiritually.

I think pastors/elders are some of the least safe, least qualified, and least trained people to go to for help.

Those without a great deal of training can do a great deal of damage.

For my pain and weakness that allowed the wrong person to help me will forever be heavy on my heart.

That’s why everyone from police officers to doctors to other professionals are to follow ethical (and in many times it is written in law) standards and not take advantage of people. Because look at the fall out.

If pastors who we pay to preach the word, lead the administration of the ministry, provide counseling and provide spiritual admonition are really not to be trusted, not to be accountable leaders, and not expected to do no harm when counseling…..I believe church is a farce. A place to visit but not believe or trust anyone to be what they claim to be.

Spot on.

I honestly believe the church leaders the bible describes are a fairy tale.

I’ve heard of good pastors. But they seem to be few and far in between.

The higher responsibility of pastors and the tougher discipline and the warnings of wolves in leadership is also a biblical fairy tale. Again, until churches are safe and leaders are actually trustworthy leaders I am not convinced church is a relevant part of my spiritual growth and health. It is a sad state of the church.

I’m with you.

I even bought the elements (red wine and matzoh crackers) and take communion at home. I figure Jesus understands. I take communion especially after a time of good communion here with other believers.

Hugs to you. (I’m MtnShepherdess on Twitter and we’ve communicated there.)

Kim rung wrote:

Thank you

Welcome, sweetie.

And I’m sorry that so many people have gotten off track on this article and posted (hurtful) comments blaming the victim (in this case you and others like you). The thread got derailed from a serious subject, in my opinion.

Ed Chapman wrote:

Pastors have no power until that counselor hat is on. Without that hat, they have no power. That is the way that the statutes put it, using different verbage.

I definitely disagree that a pastors power is that black and white. Even when a pastor doesn’t have his “counselor hat” on the pastor definitely has some power.

we are on the same page…..sadly. Hugs to you and the many others out there who have been shamed to silence. Nouthetic counseling is dangerous and only recognized tumors or neuronal tangled capable of being seen on a scan or obvious genetic disorders (downs, kleinfelders, etc) as actual biological disorders. All chemical possiblilties are not applicable to the brain but to only to the rest of the human body. So medications or behavioral treatment is not allowed and even ridiculed. Only biblical admonishing. They are considered sins not biological or environmental causes. That included autism because the cause can’t be genetically proven or visualized on scans.. These men are typically very educated. Vey impressive diplomas and famous theologian recommendations. John MacArthurs seminary as well as many other like minded seminaries have rigorous educational requirements generally at a masters level. Lack of education isn’t really always the problem. It is an off base, unstudied/ not good design research based counseling that is very dangerous and leaves people who need help feeling defeated by sin and willing to do anything to conquer it but unfortunately without the help and treatment they need. It can be devastating. I think the devil loves it. I warn anyone who seeks this counseling style.

Ed, I totally agree with all you said. Pastors are just men. Should not be looked at in anyway as responsible spiritual leaders. Honestly, if churches were hospitals it would be safer to just close them. Wish I had your insights before ever serving, getting help or even attending a church. Thank you for confirming all the dangers of church. I assume you don’t attend one either?

Ed Chapman wrote:

Why is that necessary in Christianity that forbids sexual relationships except to your own spouse to begin with? Hello? What happened to the rules of the bible? Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery is not clear enough? Apparently for some that are bashing me that don’t seem to like me quoting Old Outdated Mosiac Law, I suppose, huh? Wow!

Some clergy members and church members are single. Wow.

But human-crafted rules do in fact clarify things. Clergy sex abuse (a phrase not in Mosaic law or in my KJV) is not exactly the same thing as adultery, as you well know.

@ Kim rung:

That’s terrible, Kim. So glad you made it out….and alive. So glad that you are healing.

Thank you❤️ I have seen and looked into the eyes of pure evil. God has rescued me and my family. I want to just be available if others need a voice. God has Angel Armies I sense all around me. I don’t believe evil will overcome. I know it won’t in the end. I am no longer afraid. The first time in my whole life. My favorite song is “No Longer Slaves to Fear” by Bethel Music. So many people are fearful all their lives. I wish my freedom would have come years earlier but I don’t doubt God’s goodness anymore.

Friend wrote:

Ed Chapman wrote:

Why is that necessary in Christianity that forbids sexual relationships except to your own spouse to begin with? Hello? What happened to the rules of the bible? Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery is not clear enough? Apparently for some that are bashing me that don’t seem to like me quoting Old Outdated Mosiac Law, I suppose, huh? Wow!

Some clergy members and church members are single. Wow.

But human-crafted rules do in fact clarify things. Clergy sex abuse (a phrase not in Mosaic law or in my KJV) is not exactly the same thing as adultery, as you well know.

No, I don’t know. I use a KJV pretty exclusively. It states to flee fornication.

Ed
Friend wrote:

Ed Chapman wrote:

Why is that necessary in Christianity that forbids sexual relationships except to your own spouse to begin with? Hello? What happened to the rules of the bible? Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery is not clear enough? Apparently for some that are bashing me that don’t seem to like me quoting Old Outdated Mosiac Law, I suppose, huh? Wow!

Some clergy members and church members are single. Wow.

But human-crafted rules do in fact clarify things. Clergy sex abuse (a phrase not in Mosaic law or in my KJV) is not exactly the same thing as adultery, as you well know.

No, I don’t know. I use the KJV myself. Having sex with someone not your spouse is not allowed in Christianity. Therefore, we do not need to add a condition for clergy. It’s not allowed for anyone. Wow. I can’t believe that I need to explain that. Why does this need to be clarified?

1 Corinthians 6:9
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

1 Corinthians 6:18
Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.

1 Corinthians 7:2
Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

1 Corinthians 10:8
Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.

Ephesians 5:3
But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints;

2 Corinthians 12:21
And lest, when I come again, my God will humble me among you, and that I shall bewail many which have sinned already, and have not repented of the uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness which they have committed.

Ya know, I’ve seen commenters state things like, “Ya, fornication is wrong and such, but…”

What but? Isn’t it clear that Christians are not to have sex outside of marriage period? What does the word “clergy” have to do with it? It’s exclusive to everyone, not just clergy.

Clergy has no power, and if it is perceived that they do have power, get out of there quickly. Do not return.

Sexual assault is a crime and a sin, and sex outside of marriage is sin.

Galatians 5:19
Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness

Ed

Lea wrote:

ishy wrote:
and the counselor for the mission agency that had to “sign off” on me claimed that I needed counseling to “fix” my autoimmune disorde
What????
I can’t even…this is not the gospel I was raised with. I don’t know what happened, but this is awful. I’m glad I’ve worked in mental health long enough that I know better I guess, because before I did I didn’t pay much attention. But I didn’t know they were applying this medical issues as well! Insanity.

Yes, they are applying it to medical issues.

I turned in my ex-pastors/elders to the state for engaging in the Unauthorized Practice of Medicine, a crime that can be prosecuted as a misdemeanor or a felony.

To give you some idea of how dumb and dangerous the GBFSV pastors/elders have been in their application of Nouthetic Counseling (call it what it is…laziness and incompetence).

*Spent months with members discussing “gossip”, drawing pictures on a chalkboard, quoting Scripture verses and demanding that everyone have “unity” with an out-of-control widow instead of dealing with the real problem: She’s an untreated alcoholic, needs to be seen by a physician, and needs a doctor to supervise her treatment for alcoholism.

*Spent years discussing “unity” about another older woman church member, a retireee, who was constantly verbally abusing church members and attenders, vicious put downs, and fights, instead of having her seen by a physician, referred, and diagnosed. She could have benefited from professional, outside, licensed therapy to resolve her childhood issues, which she just took out on everyone else all of the time.

*Blamed me for the memory problems of a woman Dyslexic who has short-term memory problems, working memory problems, and auditory memory problems from her genetically inherited brain disorder. She coulnd’t remember entire events and accused other people like me of lying.
The pastors/elders agreed with her and said that her memory problems were somebody else’s sin problem, including mine.

No more. I turned them in to the medical board. They are practicing, including diagnosing, without a license which is exactly why such conduct is criminalized in my state – to protect the public.

Kim rung wrote:

Ed, I totally agree with all you said. Pastors are just men. Should not be looked at in anyway as responsible spiritual leaders. Honestly, if churches were hospitals it would be safer to just close them. Wish I had your insights before ever serving, getting help or even attending a church. Thank you for confirming all the dangers of church. I assume you don’t attend one either?

I’m very sorry for the things that happened to you. Yes, I do attend church. In fact, 2 of them. In my Christian world, these abuses do not happen at all.

I have a philosophy that states,
“In a denomination, someone else already decided FOR YOU what you are to believe. If you question, you are disciplined.

In a non-denomination, the preacher reports, WE DECIDE.”

I blame the Calvinist belief system. I know that I will get into trouble with die hard Calvinists, but I don’t care. I’m not in their camp.

Ed

siteseer wrote:

Ed Chapman wrote:

But that is my whole point. If a pastor declares that he has power, he is wrong.

I do agree with you, Ed, but are the victims just out of luck until they figure that out the hard way?

We need to do everything that WE can do to convince them, call it “Awareness” or whatever. We need to teach them somehow, some way, and not continue with the status quo that keeps victims afraid.

I really don’t know how to go about it, but I find it difficult that others here have a hard time with me by me stating to call the cops.

I get bashed for telling people to call the cops, and it frustrates me to no end.

Ed

Ed, my husband was going to Southern Seminary. Calvinistic all the way. My pastor had an oil painting from John MacArthurs office, signed by him. I became good friends with Alistair Beggs female worship leader who mentored me as well. She described a very spiritually uplifting working relationship with AB as she called him. I thought I had the same thing…… Alistair came to our church my first year as worship leader. I made sure everything was perfect and my pastor prayed with me over my nerves. I asked God to be glorified and to not let my sin of anxiety to stop His will. It went well. In hindsight I see the message my pastor sent me in a whole different light now. It is even creepy, but even my husband didn’t catch it. Trust me…..hindsight is 20/20! We looked at good recommendations, mentoring, degrees from the right seminaries. We ignored the church messes because the elders convinced us it was because of really rotten members. My husband and I took on the horrible battle for the pastor and he elders. It nearly destroyed us. We are done with church. Not sure why you go to church with such low expectations for pastors?? It just seems sort of crazy to me? Not sure how conforming it is to watch the worship team, the pastor, etc on the stage but figure they can do whatever to those they stand up there and preach too? Hollow? I just don’t get you Ed. But, God does and that is all that matters in the end. I will pray for you Ed. I really mean that. ❤️

110% agree with you.

i guess I was trying to follow Ed to his logical end. I just wanted to understand him a little more. I guess I am not familiar with his dialogue.

i feel Ed’s lack of belief that pastors have any leadership responsibilities above those he leads is non-sense?? And then attend not one but 2 churches?? It invalidates all he says. I guess I hoped their was some logic. Crazy times. I can still pray for spiritual clarity. God is gracious and every day is a new day to change.

@ Kim rung
I just read your last post and how carefully you took your gifting as a praise and worship leader serious. I am so sorry that you as a human being and you as a sister in Christ with the gift of worship were not treated correctly by “the shepherd” of “the flock” you were a part of. To speak plain English (not “Christianese”), I am so sorry that your pastor was not upfront with you, put you under unnecessary pressure as an artist and a worshiper and thought nothing of “using” you to make himself “look good” in the eyes of AB. Never mind whatever AB thought. Alistair Beggs may never ever have even been aware of the fact that “pastor man” decided to “misuse” you as a “woman worship leader”. As a fellow worshiper, may the Lord “repay you double for your trouble/grief/sorrow”. Please don’t give up worshiping and singing to Him, even if it is only in your kitchen while you are cooking (my own personal experience, and no one but the neighbors hear me.) When we “worship and sing in the secret/dark places”, it changes things and God’s healing power changes us and keeps us going. I am so sorry for how you were quietly abused by that man/pastor. May the Lord help you to forgive him (which you probably already did, but may you reap more good than the pain this pastor inflicted upon you).

Missy M wrote:

@ Daisy:
I don’t jump to conclusions which means not ruling out the fact that a woman can have been the predator, a truth you cannot bear, it seems.

While mathematically that is true, that there are females who are predators, the majority of predators are still men. One of the things we have to be careful of is that number of manipulative men predators who will say that the victim wanted it, came on to him, etc.

@ Velour:
Agreed

@ Kim rung:

That was you in the video on this page?

I am very sorry for what you went through.

Ed Chapman wrote:

No, I don’t know. I use a KJV pretty exclusively. It states to flee fornication.

Are we still talking about preachers who prey on vulnerable or naive women? Because those are pretty much two separate categories.

It’s kind of like saying women who are raped are guilty, just as guilty as the rapist for the act, and are fornicators.

Missy M wrote:

One dare not speak of women who have preyed on vulnerable men in the ministry. I had such a friend, not close but within a circle of women.

We knew she was too flattering to our pastor but figured she was sugary to be nice but still, it was mentioned among the rest of us once or twice.

Over time we could see her being more and more involved in doing things,for the pastor and it became obvious she was grooming him! Yes, he should have seen it and set boundaries but from our point of view she was the predator.

Apparently he did eventually put the brakes on before it got physical, resigned and moved away. But the idea that the pastor always had the power isn’t always true. Again, it is the dynamics of the situation.

The thing to be aware of is that this woman did not come from a position where she held any kind of power over the pastor. The pastor, on the other hand, with a few words has the power to destroy a parishioners friendships, their reputation, cause them to be shunned, destroy their children’s and families lives, etc. He has the position of trust already with the whole congregation and he can mobilize them to take his side.

The woman in your example was most likely seeking a piece of the pastor’s power. The only power she had over him was the power of seduction, if he was vulnerable to that. She had no force of guilting him, pressuring him, coercing him, blackmailing him.

Many of the women who are victimized sexually by pastors and other spiritual authorities had no interest in a sexual relationship, they are put into a position where they feel like they can’t say no. Sometimes the predator takes years to do this. If you don’t understand how that happens, maybe you didn’t watch the video. “A Twisted Faith,” is a book that gives a good inside look at how this can happen, too.

Ed Chapman wrote:

I get bashed for telling people to call the cops, and it frustrates me to no end.

I think I already told you earlier today (perhaps on Julie Anne’s blog) that it’s my understanding that not all states have laws against pastors taking advantage of emotionally troubled women.

There is no legal recourse for some women to whom this happens.

I said maybe the best that can likely be done in states where cops can do nothing, is for Christians to follow Paul’s advice, and kick out a pastor who does this, have no fellowship with him.

One of my reasons for disagreeing with your comments here and at SSB blog is you seem to continually equate –

1. a troubled or wounded woman being duped, suckered, or pressured into a sexual situation by a dishonest preacher

to be the same situation as…

2. A married man and woman who both decide for a fully- agreed- upon, consensual tryst, because they are bored, want an ego boost, or are horn dogs.

I maintain that situations ‘1’ and ‘2’ are not the same and not all parties are equally responsible in situation ‘1’.

But per situation 1, you want to keep quoting comments about the Bible says “Thus saith the Lord, doth do flee fornication and adultery.” I don’t think such biblical verses are entirely applicable here.

Daisy wrote:

Ed Chapman wrote:

No, I don’t know. I use a KJV pretty exclusively. It states to flee fornication.

Are we still talking about preachers who prey on vulnerable or naive women? Because those are pretty much two separate categories.

It’s kind of like saying women who are raped are guilty, just as guilty as the rapist for the act, and are fornicators.

I never said what you are implying, Daisy. Please don’t put words in my mouth.

Ed

Ken F wrote:

I get your point, but that is a very derogatory term to use and it does not help to move a conversation forward. It’s a way to shut someone up based on their gender rather than their ideas. It fits some men, but not all, just as it fits some women, but not all.

Oh, I totally disagree. It’s a very applicable word, because many men are very guilty of doing it to women.

Velour wrote:

Ed Chapman wrote:

In THIS case, I question the validity of the existence of a victim, because the pastor has no power or authority that you claim that they have.
Ed

Ed,

You consistently put down Lourdes over on SSB. You didn’t shown a shred of sympathy for her and people questioned you right back for that.

You claim knowledge of law, a profession that I work in, and yet you don’t have knowledge of how it works at all.

You said you looked up a statute. Which one? Which state? And case law?

I don’t know what field you work in but you have black and white thinking, and seem to have very little understanding of gray.

No, I did not put down Lourdes at all. I gave my synopsis that I questioned the means by which she used in reporting this, by suing instead of filing a criminal report.

I’ve read the statutes, Velour. If this is not on the books in the other states, then that is common sense the the other states do not consider a pastor as having a power differential over a congregant.

It then reverts back to the Bible which states to not commit adultery.

If sexual abuse occurs, call the cops and prosecute. Point blank. Let you lawyers argue in front of a judge instead of arguing with me.

Ed

Ed Chapman wrote:

I’ve read the statutes, Velour. If this is not on the books in the other states, then that is common sense the the other states do not consider a pastor as having a power differential over a congregant.

Legally wrong, Ed.

Ed Chapman wrote:

In THIS case, to me, it’s just a simple case of adultery on all parties involved.
The statutes are clear, that the pastor has no power until they have that counseling hat on. You keep telling me that I am wrong, re-iterating that you are in law.

I totally disagree that it’s a clear cut case of adultery, in the woman’s video above on this page, or in the Tullian case.

This is where I am disagreeing with you, not over the idea that if there is a law against it, police should be called.

Also… there is a difference between formal and informal power and influence.

Just because a pastor does not have legal power or an official, state-recognized counseling certificate does not mean that he is not viewed as an authority or trustworthy leader figure among women in his church.

Honestly, do you pull this same warped thinking regarding kids (and some adults) who are groomed and then victimized by adult predators in schools, Boy Scouts, secular psychiatry, and so on?

I maintain it’s the same dynamics at play in those situation as it is in churches.

During my years of grief after my mother died and i was a mental mess then and emotionally vulnberable, I could’ve fallen prey to a Tullian type of pastor, had I seen one for informal pastoral care / advice/ grief.
-And you would sit there and characterize that as being “adultery” or “fornication.” That shows a marked lack of compassion for people who are exploited.

Ed Chapman wrote:

In THIS case, to me, it’s just a simple case of adultery on all parties involved.

The statutes are clear, that the pastor has no power until they have that counseling hat on. You keep telling me that I am wrong, re-iterating that you are in law.

Ed, you just don’t get it. I don’t know if you are purposely ignoring the dynamics or what. Did you even watch the video?

Ed Chapman wrote:

I never said what you are implying, Daisy. Please don’t put words in my mouth.
Ed

I’m not, Ed.

In one post you say you
1. believe the victims and support them,
but then, in another, you’re telling other posters 2. you think cases of pastors preying on naive or hurting women are clear cut cases of adultery.

I can’t reconcile point 1 with 2, because 2 is victim blaming.

Ken F wrote:

You are badly informed. Don’t throw all of us into your bad attitude about men in general. I do not assume that all women are as bigoted as you come across by your generalization.

Many men do engage in “man splaining,” and when a woman first coined that term, it became very popular with women, because at last they had a word that so concisely defined what they experience with a lot of men. I’ve experienced it on blogs and in real life on jobs.

Please don’t refer to me as “bigoted against men,” I very much resent that remark.

I’ve already had to correct another poster on this thread at least three times to stop attributing views to me I don’t hold.

Velour wrote:

100% correct, Daisy.
There is a world of difference between a person being preyed upon, suckered, manipulated and deceived, and those who willingly and knowingly take part in an act(ions).

If I’m understanding his recent posts correctly, he seems to think that if a state does not have a specific law saying a pastor should go to jail for enticing a woman congregant, it is therefore not an immoral act, and further, he therefore can chalk it up to adultery (???)

Ken F wrote:

Don’t throw all of us into your bad attitude about men in general.

I don’t think anyone is throwing all men into it. Some are guilty of this and some aren’t. I don’t think I’ve ever seen you do it, Ken.

@ Kim rung:

Kim, thank you so much for making this video. Your willingness to be vulnerable and share how this happened will help so many. God bless you.

pickle wrote:

“emotionally hurt” woman …… my baloney and my chicken. A woman who slept with a meth-addict has been sooo soooo sooo emotionally hurt by her boyfriend formerly decided to go to a “spiritual man” for support. She LOVED having sex with the spiritual man because it was so “wrong.” Women and men COULD POSSIBLY be at fault for affairs. Whether they are in the church membership roster or not. Did you not read the old-testament and how it said to “stone” WOMEN who were ALSO caught in adultery.

Weren’t they both supposed to be stoned? And didn’t we leave off with that when Jesus said, “he who is without sin, let him cast the first stone” ?

This is a slightly different topic, but some abusers actually target drug addicted women because they are very easy to manipulate- when a person needs a drug, they are in the place of having to do whatever it takes to get it.

The story of a wealthy Christian businessman who was something of a local celebrity in his small town may be of interest here, http://newwest.net/main/article/sex_money_and_meth_addiction_the_story_of_dick_dasen_and_his_girls/

my thank you is in tears. May the next heart ant worshippers of the True God be free of evil influences by the ones who claim biblical authority.,,,, that is my prayer.

I have the same tears from reading your post as I had watching the tears of people battling drug and alcohol I addiction that day. God knows and taught me real worship in that dark place. Thank you! ❤️

❤️

Ed, the police that had to take me to the hospital said to my husband…”yeah, pastoral abuse. We have seen this a lot.” So crime or not…..it crushed a community of people …… I will pray for your heart to change and to see people as they are. God always protected the week. Oh how thankful His is who he is and not people like you. God can change your heart. I believe he can and I will pray for that. ❤️

@ Kim rung:
@ siteseer:
@ refugee:
@ Daisy:
May we all find stillness and peace when others are unkind.

refugee wrote:

Ed Chapman wrote:

It then reverts back to the Bible which states to not commit adultery.

So… I guess if neither the pastor nor the vulnerable woman he’s counseling are married, and he preys on her, and there’s no state statute that calls it abuse, then everything is hunky-dory, eh?

Ed, I’m afraid such literal-mindedness smacks of Phariseeism, at the very least.

Does the bible tell us to obey the magistrates or not? Does the bible not tell us to not commit fornication and adultery or not? Does the bible state that adulterers and fornicators do not inherit the kingdom of God or not?

And that is in the New Test! But, seems that people want to dismiss the bible and create their own ethics.

Ed

Ed Chapman wrote:

And, what is YOUR legal basis that pastors, by default, have a power differential? What are you basing that on?

Sports stars and rock stars have a certain power over their fans – kids look up to them. Their power and influence is not legal-based. It’s somewhat similar to the sort of power pastors have over church members.

Bridget wrote:

Ed Chapman wrote:

And, what is YOUR legal basis that pastors, by default, have a power differential? What are you basing that on?
Ed

It is not a legal issue, Ed. It is simply how the current church institutions function. It is the reality that members and congregants deal with. The fact that they are misguided, misled, and taught by pastors that elders and pastors hold authority is not all their fault. These are the very people that Jesus came to set free and defend from the Pharisees abuses. He had compassion and love toward those who were taken in by the abuse of authority. Yes, Christians need to have a better understanding of their position in Christ and how Jesus said leaders were to lead. But, in the meantime, it does not help to heep more guilt on those who have kown nothing but what their pastor says – like Pharisees.

I do agree with you that the police should be notified, but this is often difficult for people to do who have been groomed and taken advantage of by someone they loved and respected. They also feel stupid, gullible, and are plagued with guilt for what they did. It is a very difficult situation. And adult victims pretty much need to report the abuse or bring a lawsuit on their own. It is like domestic violence, the victim must agree to bring charges. Someone else cannot do it for them.

We all have a bible. Maybe we should read it sometime without the pastor, just like the Berean’s did. They did not trust the word of anyone until they checked it out for themselves.

Your example of domestic charges is a good one, however, that does not preclude someone calling the cops that get the ball rolling. And you should know, even an accusation gets CPS involved, whether the victim wants it or not. The Law is intended to protect the citizens of its jurisdiction, and they do take the allegations seriously.

Ed

Daisy wrote:

Ed Chapman wrote:

Does the bible not tell us to not commit fornication and adultery or not? Does the bible state that adulterers and fornicators do not inherit the kingdom of God or not?

A woman who has been seduced by a pastor, especially if she’s gone to him for guidance or advice, is a sex abuse victim – she was not engaging in fornication or adultery, as you are defining it or depicting it. You continue to blur the lines.

Daisy, you are wrong until you get to the word, “especially”. And, if she is a sex abuse victim based on that, call the cops. I am not blurring lines. It’s not sex abuse if the pastor is not in a counseling role. It’s no different than if a congregant committed adultery with another congregant, because pastors do not have a power differential as what is being implied by so many here, until that counselor hat is on.

I stand by that.

Ed

GEORGIA

Does the relationship between the victim and actor impact the victim’s ability to consent?

Yes. […]

* A person who is an actual or purported practitioner of psychotherapy commits sexual assault when he or she engages in sexual contact with another individual who the actor knew or should have known is the subject of the actor’s actual or purported treatment or counseling or the actor uses the treatment or counseling relationship to facilitate sexual contact between the actor and such individual. Georgia Code § 16-6-5.1(c).

[…]

Consent is not a defense to offenses under section 16-6-5.1.

https://apps.rainn.org/policy/compare/consent-laws.cfm

Ed Chapman wrote:

And, what is YOUR legal basis that pastors, by default, have a power differential? What are you basing that on?

Reality.

Ed Chapman wrote:

Your comment requires a caveat that is indeed included in your comment, which states, “engaged in pastoral counseling”. That is the caveat that must be met before it becomes abuse.

ED, by the fact that a minister would be ‘involved’ with a congregant , there exists an abuse of trust. I think you must know that at some level.

siteseer wrote:

Ed Chapman wrote:

And, what is YOUR legal basis that pastors, by default, have a power differential? What are you basing that on?

Reality.

No, its fallacy, not reality.

Christiane wrote:

Ed Chapman wrote:

Your comment requires a caveat that is indeed included in your comment, which states, “engaged in pastoral counseling”. That is the caveat that must be met before it becomes abuse.

ED, by the fact that a minister would be ‘involved’ with a congregant , there exists an abuse of trust. I think you must know that at some level.

Not true. What are you basing that on? I do not know that on any level, and I attend two different church’s on Sunday. I do not come from a Calvinist background. All this power and control crap originated with the Catholics and the Calvinists ran with it. There is no power and control issues in regards to either of the two pastors that preach in those two church’s that I attend.

Ed

brad/futuristguy wrote:

IOWA

Does the relationship between the victim and actor impact the victim’s ability to consent?

Yes. […]

* In addition, sexual exploitation by a counselor or therapist occurs when there is sexual conduct with:

(1) an emotionally dependent patient or client or emotionally dependent former patient or client; or

(2) a patient or client or former patient or client within one year of the termination of the provision of mental health services by the counselor or therapist. I.C.A. § 709.15.

https://apps.rainn.org/policy/compare/consent-laws.cfm

Counselor or therapist

Ed Chapman wrote:

Daisy, you are wrong until you get to the word, “especially”. And, if she is a sex abuse victim based on that, call the cops. I am not blurring lines. It’s not sex abuse if the pastor is not in a counseling role. It’s no different than if a congregant committed adultery with another congregant, because pastors do not have a power differential as what is being implied by so many here, until that counselor hat is on. I stand by that.

There is a power and influence imbalance going on, most certainly.

As I have read elsewhere, some states do not have laws on this matter, so a woman who is sexually abused by her pastor does not have legal recourse. (I’ve mentioned this a million times over.)

Because the pastor is in a leadership position, and people consider him an authority or trustworthy figure, the onus is on him to keep those boundaries in place.

He is in no place to be flirting with women, or encouraging them for a romp in the hay – so yes, when pastors use their roles of influence and trust over women in their churches, they are sexually abusing those women, even if they are not in a “counseling” position at the time.

You are confusing sexual abuse with fornication/adultery, I stand by that.

Ed Chapman wrote:

Sports stars and rock stars have a certain power over their fans – kids look up to them. Their power and influence is not legal-based. It’s somewhat similar to the sort of power pastors have over church members.
———————
Speculation, not fact.

That’s a true, observable fact of life not speculation.

Surely you’ve seen TV shows and such on rock band groupies? Or these basketball players who brag on the thousands of girls they have bedded? Men in certain roles and positions in society do indeed have influence and sway over others.

Ed Chapman wrote:

No, its fallacy, not reality.

Do you regularly read this blog? A lot of church members are conditioned by their church or theological beliefs to think their pastors and elders have authority over them. This is discussed about weekly on this blog, with examples taken from real life.

In the case of girls and women, they are taught in churches (under complementarianism) that they are “second class citizens,” easily deceived, need “male headship,” and so must look up to and obey the men above them, (in particular, fathers, husbands, and preachers, elders).

This means girls and women in particular are quite easily duped and roped in by pastors with dirty motives, even if it’s not in the context of a counseling session.

brad/futuristguy wrote:

(i) during the psychotherapy session; or
(ii) outside the psychotherapy session if an ongoing psychotherapist-patient relationship exists. Consent by the complainant is not a defense;

(I) the actor is a psychotherapist and the complainant is a former patient of the psychotherapist and the former patient is emotionally dependent upon the psychotherapist;

(J) the actor is a psychotherapist and the complainant is a patient or former patient and the sexual contact occurred by means of therapeutic deception. Consent by the complainant is not a defense;
[…]
(L) the actor is or purports to be a member of the clergy, the complainant is not married to the actor, and:
(i) the sexual contact occurred during the course of a meeting in which the complainant sought or received religious or spiritual advice, aid, or comfort from the actor in private; or

(ii) the sexual contact occurred during a period of time in which the complainant was meeting on an ongoing basis with the actor to seek or receive religious or spiritual advice, aid, or comfort in private. Consent by the complainant is not a defense;

Yep.

Daisy wrote:

ongoing psychotherapist-patient relationship exists

Daisy, did you miss this:
ongoing psychotherapist-patient relationship exists

NEW HAMPSHIRE

Does the relationship between the victim and actor impact the victim’s ability to consent?

Yes.

A person commits aggravated felonious sexual assault if he or she (1) engages in sexual penetration with a victim to whom that person provides therapy or medical treatment, and (2) acts unethically or uses that position to coerce the victim. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 632-A:2(g).

[…]

https://apps.rainn.org/policy/compare/consent-laws.cfm

TEXAS

Does the relationship between the victim and actor impact the victim’s ability to consent?

Yes, a sexual assault is considered to occur without the consent of the other person where:

(1) the actor is a public servant who coerces the other person to submit or participate;

(2) the actor is a mental health services provider or a health care services provider who causes the other person, who is a patient or former patient of the actor, to submit or participate by exploiting the other person’s emotional dependency on the actor;

(3) the actor is a clergyman who causes the other person to submit or participate by exploiting the other person’s emotional dependency on the clergyman in the clergyman’s professional character as spiritual adviser; or

[…] Texas Code Ann. §§22.011(b)(8) – (11).

https://apps.rainn.org/policy/compare/consent-laws.cfm

WASHINGTON

Does the relationship between the victim and actor impact the victim’s ability to consent?

Yes, there are several special relationships between the victim and actor that would impact the victim’s ability to consent and therefore make it a crime to engage in sexual intercourse with a person. Examples of special relationships include:

(a) a person in a significant relationship with the victim and abuses a supervisory position within that relationship,

[…]

(i) physical and mental health care providers.

Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §§ 9A.44.093, 9A.44.050, 9A.44.096, 9A.44.010.

https://apps.rainn.org/policy/compare/consent-laws.cfm

@ siteseer:

Also, The Myth of Consent https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxoWXcKSmJ0&index=16&list=UU24nHFVoqX8nhtAIGTYjHHg

This woman was kidnapped and assaulted as a child, yet she says that being a victim of sexual abuse by a pastor as an adult was a worse experience to go through. Amazing. And heart breaking.

All the videos in this series are very good.

Okay, so, I went through the RAINN database to survey all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. territories. I was looking specifically to find where there are sexual misconduct* [SEE NOTES BELOW] situations involving clergy, religious figures, counselors, therapists, people “in positions of authority,” and such like where the other adult’s “consent” could not be used as a defense in a criminal trial because the answer is “Yes” to the question, “Does the relationship between the victim and actor impact the victim’s ability to consent?”

NOTES:

* I used the term “sexual misconduct” above NOT because it is a technical legal term, but simply as a catch-all category — because the range of charges could go from misdemeanor to assault to aggravated assault or other terms. Read the particular state laws to see what scope of charges they have.

* I think I captured most of the situations, but cannot guarantee it. If I did, there are 10 states/territories with relevant information: Delaware, Georgia, Iowa, Minnesota, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Texas, Virgin Islands, Washington, and Wisconsin.

After all of that, two observations:

1. “Clergy” or some other title for a member of a religious organization appears three times: Delaware, Minnesota, and Texas.

2. There are numerous terms used to describe people who supply counsel, guidance, mental health services, pastoral counseling, therapy, psychotherapy, etc. I ran a search on the RAINN “no consent as a defense” entries for those 10 states that I compiled above — I was looking for one particular word: “licensed.” As in licensed counselor. NOTE: It does NOT appear even once.

I did not check the full state codes on these 10 states/territories to see if the word “licensed” appears in the actual statutes. But, let’s just assume that if it was in the actual codes, RAINN would have made sure to put it in their database. In my opinion, this could prove to be an important observation. Pastoral care, spiritual direction, pastoral counseling/guidance, etc., might well be considered as a form of “counseling” without it having to be licensed.

* There are some statements I found particularly intriguing that deal with holding a role or position of authority or influence over the victim:

NEW HAMPSHIRE — A person commits aggravated felonious sexual assault if he or she (1) engages in sexual penetration with a victim to whom that person provides therapy or medical treatment, and (2) acts unethically or uses that position to coerce the victim. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 632-A:2(g). (Emphasis added.)

VIRGIN ISLANDS — A person is guilty of aggravated rape in the second degree if they perpetrate an act of sexual intercourse or sodomy with a person and the perpetrator’s position of authority over the victim is used to accomplish the sexual act. 14 V.I.C. § 1700a.

The term “position of authority” includes, but is not exclusive to the following: an employer, youth leader, scout leader, coach, teacher, counselor, school administrator, religious leader, doctor, nurse, psychologist, guardian ad litem, baby sitter, or substantially similar position, and a police officer or probation officer other than when the officer is exercising custodial control over a minor. 14 V.I.C. § 1700. (Emphasis added.)

WASHINGTON — (a) a person in a significant relationship with the victim and abuses a supervisory position within that relationship, […] Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §§ 9A.44.093, 9A.44.050, 9A.44.096, 9A.44.010. (Emphasis added. I include this because it struck me as I read it that this could potentially apply to someone in ministry who is overseeing others — elder, deacon, ministry leader, etc., who is in charge of others, whether paid staff or volunteers.)

* Final Thoughts: So, 10 out of 54 states, district, territories where “consent” of the other adult party CANNOT be used as a defense for sexual misconduct actions as some type of counselor or clergy — or when the actor is a person in a position of authority over the victim. Doesn’t seem like it’s all that many, but that’s about 20%. But it is what it is.

It would be helpful to do a historical study to track when these statutes were adopted, and if there is a recent trend for more states to specify clergy in sexual misconduct, or counselors.

I’m sure there is more to be gleaned from all this, but it is 12:30 a.m. my time. So there that is, for what it’s worth.

Ed Chapman wrote:

Velour wrote:
Ed Chapman wrote:
I’ve read the statutes, Velour. If this is not on the books in the other states, then that is common sense the the other states do not consider a pastor as having a power differential over a congregant.
Legally wrong, Ed.
Well, if you can’t interpret what I have said, then how can anyone trust you to interpret the law. I state that you are wrong, counselor!
Besides, what is your problem in the advice to call the cops? You seem to have an issue with that for some odd reason.
And, what is YOUR legal basis that pastors, by default, have a power differential? What are you basing that on?
Ed

I asked you to cite the specific state statute you said you read and any relevant case law. You have not done so.

There are plenty of organizations that deal with sexual assaults that many victims can call first for help in the process.

What do you do for a living, Ed? What is your relationship with women? Do you have a wife? Girlfriend? Daughter?

You don’t seem to have any influence from women in your immediate life.

siteseer wrote:

Ed Chapman wrote:

No, its fallacy, not reality.

Do people tell you you are bullheaded a lot?

Catching up with the thread but think he had decided this is how things should be, so this is how they are. Not so.

On the legal aspect, the problem becomes even when you call the polIce, properly how Ed claims to want, proving is tough. How do you prove the pastor had their counselor hat on when they are unlicensed, taking no medical notes or keeping records? Practically this becomes difficult. I was reading some of the cases that were brought and we had this issue in my state even though there are laws on the books it’s hard to prove. It’s hard to get the courts to convict.

Rape cases can be hard to prove too, and sometimes even with eyewitnesses and a conviction the perpetrator gets off with three months. Why does Ed think the courts are infallible???

You get it:). I am thankful for ethical doctors!

pickle wrote:

YOU REALLY NEED TO DO YOUR RESEARCH AND CHECK OUT YOUR HUSBAND’S FACEBOOK AND TEXT MESSAGES SINCE HE IS A PHYSICIAN……. mockers get their due.

Like the list says……nurses among women are up high on the list too…..so maybe you commit a few infidelity crimes when you flirt with men on thewartburgwatch.com

Don’t worry, even “Larry King” has been known to cheat, and openly so.

Ad hominem, violating the community standards of TWW.

@ Daisy:
And then you do the same and that would be sweller.

ishy wrote:

It’s not just pastors that cultivate this belief, though, but pewishioners. I believe this comes from modern celebrity culture. People treat some pastors like celebrities, and give them undue power, whether intentionally or unintentionally.

That certainly sounds like a good observation, especially seeing how some churches (i. e. both individual churches and church groups) seem to be actively pursuing the culture in order perhaps to pack the pews and fill the plate. So I bet you are correct and some of it is spill over from the culture.

pickle wrote:

YOU REALLY NEED TO DO YOUR RESEARCH

Speaking of doing research, the lists you quoted are based on a select population of people on line and not on a slice of the population as a whole. That said, as to the women, I am thinking that the majority of women in the nation probably fit into that cluster of designated occupational groups, and if so that would mean that the majority of women who are not on line messing around would also fit into the same occupational distribution.

If you are going to sling accusations you might want to do some more research yourself. But before you waste a lot of time on that do let me point out that there is no way to get accurate stats on who is doing what with whom since those who sneak around and are never ‘caught’ do not show up on stats. And yes, I am okrapod, RN, MD (along with a few other letters) and no, I must have not gotten the message before as to how evil I surely must be (snark).

I do want to say that I am sorry for whatever may have happened that has given you this apparent animosity toward the medical professions. If indeed something happened, and surely things do happen, then I agree with you that bad things ought not happen like that. But if not, then maybe you are slinging what looks like hatred toward a whole group of people when maybe you need to treat other people as you want to be treated.

I’ve read the comments both here and on Spiritual Sounding Board. It all comes down to this, no matter what you call it, it is still sin. Yes, it’s adultery and it’s clergy abuse, but it goes beyond that. As was said on SSB, no matter how long ago the minister was engaged in this type of behavior, you still remember it. Whether it be 50 years ago, or longer, people still know about it. I watch Jimmy Swaggert sometimes on Sunday morning. Mostly just for the music. You watch Jimmy sing and play the piano, he is a very broken old man. But that doesn’t mean I like him. I remember the scandal surrounding him many many years ago. I would much rather see TT and men like him go into another type of work. Maybe TT could go to MD Anderson hospital, which is near him and sit and pray with the people and families in the ICU. That would make a big difference in the lives of so many. Not talking about him, (like many of us have done at one time or another) but just listening and praying. But I’m not sure he even knows how to. Let him go work in a food kitchen. There he will see the people who need kindness and help the most. But that would be beneath his and most of these men like him dignity. Let him go out and selflessly help the orphanages in Haiti that have been hit by the storm, not making a name out of himself, but doing it in the name of the Lord, and that only. To me, this shows repentance. Not getting back into the swing of things 6 months later and writing another book no one needs to read.

Lea wrote:

proving is tough

I never said that courts were infallible. But what are the sure consequences if the law does not get involved? Abuse continues for sure.

If you live by the unwritten rule that it is better to be safe than sorry, preventing things in the future, then you may have prevented an abuse from continuing.

Nothing is a sure deal, as we see that Jesus was crucified based on the false testimony of 2 or more witnesses. So, while there is a law on the books against blasphemy, Jesus was accused of it, by two or more witnesses, albeit false witnesses, convicted, and crucified.

So, we do see that people can be falsely accused of a crime, indicating that there still are injustices no matter what.

But, be safe than sorry. Prevent further abuses.

Ed

Can I make a request of my fellow-Wartburgers here. It’s no more than a request, and I make it circumspectly (as one boldly approaching the throne of grace – meaning, I’ve no intrinsic right to approach it) because I may be out of order here. Deebs make a point of allowing all sorts onto this blog; they have full authority to do so and I understand their positive and considered reasons for doing so.

“Pickle” is a troll. Classic behaviour: first comment kicks off with feigned agreement. Rapidly descends, via (in Lea’s word) drivel, to out-and-out baiting; the claims that both Dee and her husband are having affairs is, in the formal legal sense, libellous (it would formally constitute “slander” if it were spoken rather than written; I mention this for completeness as “slander” is a term much-misused by the defenders of authoritarian clergy).

There are several high-quality strands of discussion intertwined on this thread. That initiated by “pickle” is not one of them. However, the troll is just looking for food and will go away if you don’t feed it. By the same token, there’s a small range of predictable troll-responses to this comment that “pickle” might make. If so, they don’t need a response either…

Friend wrote:

Ed Chapman wrote:

Daisy,

I do not buy into the premise that there is sex abuse if a pastor has sex with a congregant, unless that counselor hat is on. Point blank.

Ed

Sometimes it’s useful to look at a question as it might apply in a different setting.

Would it be OK for a general to have sex with a private? Would it be OK for a general to have a single chaste lunch with a private and propose marriage to him or her?

I know church is not the same as the military, but maybe the folks on this feisty thread can agree that there are settings where work roles preclude sexual involvement, or even chaste behavior with romantic intentions.

I was in the military for many years. I was a Disbursing Clerk (DK) in the US Navy. That is a payroll clerk for those who don’t know. I got out as an E5 paygrade. Since I got out, that job was combined with the the Peronnelman rating, and it is now known as PK.

I state all of that in order to say that, as a payroll clerk, I saw a lot of disciplinary paperwork, because when people get in trouble in the military, it affects their paycheck, i.e. reduced in rank, forfeiture of pay, and/or fines.

The scenario that you set up here is known as fraternization, and both parties are guilty. Each person is responsible for his/her own behavior/conduct. Fraternization is against the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice).

We also have laws against sexual assault and sexual harassment.

And, finally, we do have laws against adultery, although not enforced.

The military personnel are not ignorant of any of this, because it is required training once per year.

Ed

Ed Chapman wrote:

But what are the sure consequences if the law does not get involved? Abuse continues for sure.

There are never sure consequences, but I think we are more likely to get at the root by exposing it, calling it what it is, telling people it is not ok, kicking out the pastors who take advantage of their congregants like this, than the legal angle. Because the legal angle sucks.

Ed Chapman wrote:

The military personnel are not ignorant of any of this, because it is required training once per year.

Ed

Thank you for your detailed and very civil reply. I would suggest that annual training of clergy might likewise help to avoid improper relationships in the setting of the church. It would also be good to train church members about the issues, since they don’t seem to be adequately protecting themselves from clergy, or (in some cases) holding back from predatory behavior toward clergy.

Friend wrote:

Ed Chapman wrote:

The military personnel are not ignorant of any of this, because it is required training once per year.

Ed

Thank you for your detailed and very civil reply. I would suggest that annual training of clergy might likewise help to avoid improper relationships in the setting of the church. It would also be good to train church members about the issues, since they don’t seem to be adequately protecting themselves from clergy, or (in some cases) holding back from predatory behavior toward clergy.

I think that the bible already discusses that, however. Christians are not to have sex with anyone other than their spouse. Pastors do not know that already? Isn’t that bible 101 stuff?

Ed

ishy wrote:

Ed Chapman wrote:

I had to quote every word of this, because this is exactly what I am discussing. Thank you.
Ed

I don’t think okrapod and you are saying the same thing. Just because you want something to be true or that legally it is law, doesn’t mean that’s how it works in practice.

Yes, we are saying the same thing. It never used to be like this, that pastors had power. That is true. Who gave them power? Someone did. Where did it originate? She is showing that it never used to be like this.

And, in my Christian world, it is also not like this. I am not associated with Calvinism, or, as some call it, reformation. Pastors do not have power in our Christian world.

Ed

dee wrote:

I am sorry I did not catch Pickle earlier.

Pickle had a sour attitude.

@ Nick Bulbeck:

I am sure that is so, but. But the idea that nurses are sexually immoral and available is not new, it is pervasive in our culture, and I first heard it during WWII when the idea was that army nurses were more sinful than navy nurses but somehow they were both doling out wink-wink along with the band aids with the government turning a blind eye to it. It was told us at the time that the army had made nurses officers to discourage sexual predation from the guys since that could be prosecuted as something to do with enlisted vs officer.

However, I did not see that extent of sexual malfunction during my years as an RN. Were some messing around? Of course. You find that in any group. Should that be used to continue the disrespect for nurses which continues to this day in the population? Heck no. Therefore, I reserve my right to choose to say that feeding a troll is a lesser problem than passing up the opportunity to say to all who read here that it is time to rethink everything that people think they know about nurses. In other words, it is not only the troll who reads here, and no way could it be only the troll who has heard this about nurses.

I think that the truth that medical personnel are professionally comfortable with touching people’s bodies is just some sort of issue for people who have been accustomed to seeing the human body as nothing but a sexual object. So, I am thinking that they think that surely everybody feels like they do, which would be a mistake. In my experience it is just the opposite. It is totally easy to get used to thinking about the human body as a disease magnet rather than a sex magnet when what you see of the body on a day to day basis is exactly that. In fact, I heard ad nauseum both in nursing school and in med school that one must never forget that it is not a gallbladder in room 123 but rather always and ever a person in room 123.

As to male physicians, I suspect they are no better or worse than anybody else, but I have never been a male so my ability to speak to that is limited.

But thanks for the reminder about trolls. I am sure you are quite correct.

Ed Chapman wrote:

I think that the bible already discusses that, however. Christians are not to have sex with anyone other than their spouse. Pastors do not know that already? Isn’t that bible 101 stuff?

Ed

I don’t go along with the principle that we should just enforce the laws we have and not 1) pass new laws or 2) try to specify what existing laws mean. Although in a deep sense there is nothing new under the sun, our churches today are very different from the congregations described in the Bible. Wifi access was completely unavailable when Moses was away receiving the Ten Commandments. Perhaps it would have prevented the problem of the golden calf, but maybe instead it would have given people time to hide the calf by tracking Moses on Find My iPhone. 😉

I need to go now, but do appreciate the civil exchange here.

Bridget wrote:

I have never checked up on my husband in 30 years and never will.

I had never checked up on my husband, and I thought who would want to be married to somebody you would have to check up on until I got an anonymous tip that I had made the wrong decision in that matter and that I was basically an idealistic basket case and how could I have got in this mess anyhow. It ended in divorce with all the real awfulness that entails. Perhaps if I had known sooner something could have been done to prevent that disaster, or perhaps not. But for sure early diagnosis and early action would have made the economic impact less. Needless to say I have pretty much given up on idealism regarding marriage or child rearing.

So pretty much for me the idea of my spouse would never do that, or my kid would never think of such a thing-that is not for me. If it works for others more power to them.

@ Friend (and, for that matter, Ed and Gram3, among others, who’ve been part of the same discussion:

I must say I agree with the basic principle that the general case of an affair between clergyman and congregation member is not necessarily a case of abuse. And that, regardless of what the balance of power in the relationship was – even if it was between two emotionally equal consenting adults – in this case, it was adultery and has no place among those who aspire to lead in the Church. That is, we don’t have to be able to call it abuse to call it wrong. At the same time, there are specific settings (e.g., an emotionally vulnerable adult) and/or church cultures (e.g., a semi-divine unaccountable leader) in which there is definitely an imbalance of power and in which such a relationship may well be exploitative and abusive.

I genuinely don’t know which one this case is. Although, if Tullian wants to build a church organisation around it, he does owe it to the wider Church to prove that the theory and practice of the organisation is healthy.

Blaming Women for the Sexually Abusive Male Pastor
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=959

The term “adultery” does not adequately define male ministers’ sexual involvement with female parishioners.

Marie Fortune, executive director of the Center for the Prevention of Sexual and Domestic Violence in Seattle, suggests that a male pastor’s sexual advances toward a woman that occur while he performs his professional duties are better understood as “sexual abuse.”

Whereas the term “adultery” implies that both participants are consenting equals, the term “sexual abuse” assumes that a person has used personal, social or physical power to coerce sexual intimacy.

okrapod wrote:

So pretty much for me the idea of my spouse would never do that, or my kid would never think of such a thing-that is not for me. If it works for others more power to them.

Did you miss the part where I said I am not naive? I am also not idealistic, but I will trust until trust is broken, but I won’t look for it. Children are a different matter as minors. I have had some very difficult situations with children and unknown abuse. So not idealistic scenario there either. I’ve been thrust into circumstances that I had no knowledge in. Things have been quite different than I expected.

Silent sufferers: Female clergy sexual abuse
http://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php/145861.pdf

This page discusses female clergy in training who are preyed upon by male clergy, but this can apply to non-clergy women who attend a church:

Snippets:
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Every clergy or minister is a symbol of religious authority. By virtue of the pastoral office, the minister interprets religious truth, the meaning of life, the way of faith, and even the reality of God (Chibnall, Wolf, & Duckro, 1998; Poling, 2005; Robinson, 2004).

Add to that status the power of the pastor’s presence through ministry, and the special influence a minister holds among his or her congregation.

In addition, female clergy supervised by senior male clergy may develop a special trust that can lead to openness and vulnerability.
Feeling bonds of trust and affirmation, female clergy may bring the vulnerable, wounded, and intimate sides of themselves into the relationship, seeking acceptance, emotional support, and a role model.

When the male clergy exploits his privileged position for personal sexual satisfaction, he violates a sacred trust that is contrary to Christian morals, doctrine, and canon laws.

Because of the respect and even reverence the position carries, there is an imbalance of power and hence a vulnerability inherent in the ministerial
relationship (Chibnall, Wolf, & Duckro, 1998; Poling, 2005; Robinson, 2004).

In these circumstances, this imbalance of power makes it the responsibility of the church leader to maintain appropriate emotional and sexual boundaries with colleagues.

Once violated, the female clergy may feel deep shame or self condemnation.

She may be afraid others will not believe her or fear being blamed…

@ Nick Bulbeck:
I agree, Nick.

okrapod wrote:

Bridget wrote:
Did you miss the part where I said I am not naive?
Not at all. I did not say that your were naive and I did not say that I was naive. You have made a deliberate decision as to what works for you. Nor did I say you were being idealistic; I said that idealism had been my downfall. Sorry if that was not clear in my comment.

Got it. Sorry you went through all of that. It’s not good for anyone. Hoping I never have to deal it myself.

Velour wrote:

Ed Chapman wrote:

Velour wrote:
Ed Chapman wrote:
Velour wrote:
Ed Chapman wrote:
I’ve read the statutes, Velour. If this is not on the books in the other states, then that is common sense the the other states do not consider a pastor as having a power differential over a congregant.
Legally wrong, Ed.
Well, if you can’t interpret what I have said, then how can anyone trust you to interpret the law. I state that you are wrong, counselor!
Besides, what is your problem in the advice to call the cops? You seem to have an issue with that for some odd reason.
And, what is YOUR legal basis that pastors, by default, have a power differential? What are you basing that on?
Ed
I asked you to cite the specific state statute you said you read and any relevant case law. You have not done so.
There are plenty of organizations that deal with sexual assaults that many victims can call first for help in the process.
What do you do for a living, Ed? What is your relationship with women? Do you have a wife? Girlfriend? Daughter?
You don’t seem to have any influence from women in your immediate life.
You might be surprised to hear this, Velour, but in my job as a payroll clerk in the US Navy, the majority of my supervisors were female. Especially on shore duty.
I am no longer in the US Navy. I do labor work these days, and my boss is still a female. I have no problems with being subordinate to women.
Ed

I asked about your relationships with women right now in your life.

Thanks for explaining your job history. I figured that you worked a job that was detailed and focused in nature, rules bound, as you have a hard time seeing the forest through the trees.

My personal life is really of no concern of yours, except to my friends. But, I will reveal that my ex-wife and I are good friends, as she is in drug rehab, and I support her 100000 percent. My daughter has issues, as she committed adultery on her husband…with a woman, and committed domestic violence against him, had her kids taken away while the court was deciding what to do. She in now back with her husband mending things. We are not on speaking terms because I got extremely angry at her for doing drugs, i.e. pot, shrooms, and many others, and underage drinking. She got angry at me for confronting her, and to her, I am dead.

But, again, it’s nonya biz.

Ed

@ Ed Chapman:

That all has got to be hard to deal with. I am not too sure exactly how people deal with all that and still maintain a firm foundation in reasonable thinking, but again and again I hear you trying to stick with reason. You need to know also that those here who don’t exactly agree with everything you think are also trying to stick with reason. That is pretty much what we all try to do, but of course we are all influenced by our own experiences. I hope things straighten out for your ex-wife and for your daughter.

Ed Chapman wrote:

What happened with the interaction between Jesus and the Pharisees when they added laws to God’s laws?

I was afraid you might go there. If we’re to be guided by specifics, we should pay certain fines with an ephah of flour or two turtledoves. Life is full of ambiguities, and rules and laws help societies make sense of things that may or may not be unjust. The accounting principles used in the Navy are probably somewhat comparable to those used by an honest church accountant. To me that is honorable and orderly, not pharasaical.

siteseer wrote:

The legal statutes and calling the police are not the issue here. The issue is to recognize that some people are sexual predators.

Exactly. And to inform potential victims of this, so they can be on their guard if possible. I think if 30-40% of pastors are engaging in this sort of behavior-at greater levels than the general population even!- people in church should know not to trust them all. That sucks but it’s the reality apparently.

I’ve been tweeting recently about fiduciary responsibility, clergy misconduct, sources to research on when consent is not a defense in sexual misconduct cases, etc.

One particular thread yielded some very important insights, resources, and challenges posted by @UT_Grad_Amy.

If you want to read the entire context yourself (a lengthy thread which involved several other commenters) you can go to this Twitter page and see her series from October 3, 2016.

https://twitter.com/UT_Grad_Amy/with_replies

Here’s an edited compilation of some of the information most relevant to this thread on TWW.

The State of TX Sec 22.011 (10) makes having sex with member of the clergy a Class 2 felony Sexual Assault. This is defined as: “the actor is a clergyman who causes the other person to submit or participate by exploiting the other person’s emotional dependency on the clergyman in the clergyman’s professional character as “spiritual adviser.” This is not limited to one-on-one counseling sessions.

[…] The law leaves a lot of room for prosecutorial discretion. If a pastor uses that role to manipulate victims into having sex, the district attorney has latitude to pursue charges. Very useful for going after serial predators. The law meant as deterrent.

Very important! States can change laws if victims speak up. Educate yourselves then contact your legislators. The best grassroots movements have been in response to victims’ voices.

I noted that we’ve seen this recently with California’s removal of the statute of limitations for child sexual abuse. (The way I see it, social activism is a form of survivor advocacy. Not all are called to participate directly, but can help in other ways. My role is research/resource.)

@UT_Grad_Amy also shared links to some important resources on adults sexually abused by clergy, many available through Baylor University.

She linked to the work of Professor Diana Garland, and what looks to be an immensely helpful 34-page paper on the legal basis for statutes that include clergy in sexual misconduct laws (with some analysis of case law, not just listing various state statutes). It’s from 2011: “Sexual Misconduct of Clergypersons with Congregants or Parishioners – Civil and Criminal Liabilities and Responsibilities.” She has sections on liability, constitutional issues, criminal liability of clergy for sexual misconduct, and a proposed model statute that addresses the legal clarity and constitutionality concerns.

http://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php/132158.doc

There is also a website that summarizes some of Professor Garland’s research and has other pages on legal statutes, ethical codes, news articles, etc. (It includes a few links to denominational standards/processes for dealing with clergy sexual abuse, but some may be dated and it is nowhere near comprehensive.)

http://www.adultsabusedbyclergy.org/news.html

There is also a resource section on the Baylor University site about Clergy Sexual Misconduct:

http://www.baylor.edu/clergysexualmisconduct/index.php?id=67484

Looking at some of the article titles and excerpts that other TWW commenters have posted on this thread, it seems clear enough that this is a significant issue. Hope these resources are helpful in looking at the broader legal-ethical-professional perspective on what is more than a theological-ministerial issue.

@ Ed Chapman:

Ed,

Oh, that explains your hostility toward women.

Got it.

Velour wrote:

@ Ed Chapman:

Ed,

Oh, that explains your hostility toward women.

Got it.

Oh you are just full of it, Velour. I question professionalism in you. This has nothing to do with how I treat women. My ex and I hang out all the time. Just last night, we hung out at my place for dinner and two movies. And, in a few, I am going to her place for biscuits and gravy.

Oh, speaking of movies, “ROOM” is highly recommended by me.

Velour wrote:

@ Ed Chapman:

Ed,

I’ve spent boatloads of time on your hostility toward victims over at Spiritual Sounding Board, as have others here who are over at SBB. Deeply unimpressed by your enabling of bad behavior on the part of perps/predators.

Again, you cannot correctly interpret what I said over at SSB properly, therefore, I cannot trust your legal judgment or advice.

Ed

“It’s Clergy Sex Abuse; Not an Affair!”

Pastors who commit such sins break 4 of the 10 Commandments:

(1) They take the Lord’s name in vain (to represent Christ as a pastor and violate the trust of those entrusted to you, is to bear His name in vain).

(2) They lie (deception is a lie)

(3) They covet their neighbor’s wife.

(4) They commit adultery.

Ed Chapman wrote:

Velour wrote:
@ Ed Chapman:
Ed,
I’ve spent boatloads of time on your hostility toward victims over at Spiritual Sounding Board, as have others here who are over at SBB. Deeply unimpressed by your enabling of bad behavior on the part of perps/predators.
Again, you cannot correctly interpret what I said over at SSB properly, therefore, I cannot trust your legal judgment or advice.
Ed

There was no misunderstanding, Ed. You didn’t know what you were talking about and
went on and on and on. Even when corrected. You purport to know more about law than I do.
Go figure.

Hello again.
I’ve not yet read through all posts that were on here since I last visited earlier this morning before running my errands, and I probably missed a few from last night (?)

For now, I do want to make it clear (like I should have to), I am opposed to adultery.

Ed was actually asking me something or other on SSB blog about my views on adultery and fornication.

I’m over 40 and still a virgin in part to my former-ish Christian faith, as I was waiting for marriage to ‘do the deed,’ *wink wink*.

Honestly, who asks a 40+ year old virgin,
“Do you think adultery or fornication are sins according to the Bible?”

Really? Seriously? You have to ask me that?

I have never in my life condoned adultery or fornication, and I’ve never said the Bible supports either one.

However, that same Bible speaks of men who scam gullible women, it warns about, and condemns, those in positions of trust / leadership / authority (perceived, legal, or otherwise) who take advantage of the weak, hurting, or naive under their care, or in their vicinity.

2 Timothy 3:5-6

…having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people.
6 They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over gullible women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires…

siteseer wrote:

@ siteseer:
Also, The Myth of Consent https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxoWXcKSmJ0&index=16&list=UU24nHFVoqX8nhtAIGTYjHHg

This woman was kidnapped and assaulted as a child, yet she says that being a victim of sexual abuse by a pastor as an adult was a worse experience to go through. Amazing. And heart breaking.

All the videos in this series are very good.

Julie Anne had a guest post at her blog by a lady who studies how super strict religious up-bringing can have long-reaching ramifications on girls who were raised under that stuff.

Lourdes, Lifeboats, and Bounded Choice: Part III (Raised in a Totalist Institution)
“Using Katie Botkin’s lifeboat analogy, Cindy Kunsman explores the “Second Generation Adult” and Lourdes Torres-Mantefeuel’s alleged sex abuse by Vision Forum’s Doug Phillips”
https://spiritualsoundingboard.com/2014/05/12/lourdes-lifeboats-and-bounded-choice-part-iii-raised-in-a-totalist-institution/

Girls raised in such churches and families are normally not properly equipped to deal with adulthood, and they have little to no boundaries, which makes them more susceptible to being snookered sexually by smarmy preachers.

I was raised in a somewhat similar way, though maybe not near as severe as some of the girls who came out of “Quiverfull” “Duggar” type families, so I can relate to them in a way.

@ Bridget:

I get pretty uncomfortable when people get this personal on someone. I don’t agree with Ed on a number of things, but I’d rather just say that.

@ Missy M:
I’m not attributing views to you that you do not hold.. I’m also not “catty” in my demeanor, as you have been to me.

Lea wrote:

I am so tempted to jump into a passionate defense of fornication…

Do not get me started.

Ed Chapman wrote:

Daisy,
I do not buy into the premise that there is sex abuse if a pastor has sex with a congregant, unless that counselor hat is on. Point blank.
Ed

The “counselor hat” does not always have to be on for the pastor to entice a vulnerable women into diddling with him, Ed.

Take me for instance.

My mother dropped dead years ago.

I was beside myself with grief at the time. Started a new church about a year later. Word got around the church my Mom was dead because I confided in several church women there.

Had the pastor of that church been skeevy with ulterior motives, he could’ve heard about my grief and tried to exploit what he knew about my vulnerability to get to know me better, cozy up to me, and “win me over,” present himself as a caring friend.

All of which could’ve created a situation in which I would’ve been open and receptive to a tumble in the sheets, to receive care, attention, affection.

That is not the same thing as me now, years later, largely over much of the grief, walking into a church, seeing a pastor who I think is a cutie and going out of my way to flirt up a storm, and slipping him a hotel room key.

Two very different sets of circumstances.

@ Daisy:

You’re welcome, Daisy.

Friend wrote:

Would it be OK for a general to have sex with a private? Would it be OK for a general to have a single chaste lunch with a private and propose marriage to him or her?

He would probably say no, it’s not okay, but he would likely classify it as “adultery” or “fornication” and deny it is sexual abuse at all. I’m just guessing here – but that has been his standard response to CSA (clergy sexual abuse).

Ed Chapman wrote:

Yes, we are saying the same thing. It never used to be like this, that pastors had power. That is true. Who gave them power? Someone did. Where did it originate? She is showing that it never used to be like this.

So you admit that pastors have power or authority over their flocks. Yes, Ed, they do, in some churches – whether it’s biblical or not, or legal or not, is kind of beside the point.

Some of these pastors are using their authority (whether it’s legal, social, or granted to them by the laity) to sexually exploit hurting or confused church members, in and out of counseling sessions.

siteseer wrote:

So, if I understand Ed correctly, he is trying to say that: (correct me if I’m wrong, Ed)
The Bible does not grant pastors any sort of authority over the laity, so any perception of power is a false perception. Since it’s a false perception, it doesn’t happen.

One of the things that maybe Ed cannot grasp is that from the vantage point of a lot of women sitting in church pews, they think the pastor has authority over them.

And in some churches, women are taught by the preacher himself and elders that this is so.

This blog is constantly doing stories about authoritarian churches who convince their members that the members are to submit to the pastors and elders.

Further, if it’s a gender complementarian church, these girls and women will be taught things like-
Men should be “head” over them (men should be their boss- like figure who gets to command them around); men should make decisions for girls and women; women should always un-questioningly trust men and follow men, etc.

All of that is a recipe for making Christian girls and women easy marks for unscrupulous pastors.

Even if Ed does not think pastors have power and authority over laity or should not, that does not change the fact that a lot of Pew Potatoes believe that pastors do have power and authority over them.

There’s a difference between reality and ideals.

brad/futuristguy wrote:

Here’s an edited compilation of some of the information most relevant to this thread on TWW.
The State of TX Sec 22.011 (10) makes having sex with member of the clergy a Class 2 felony Sexual Assault.

This is defined as: “the actor is a clergyman who causes the other person to submit or participate by exploiting the other person’s emotional dependency on the clergyman in the clergyman’s professional character as “spiritual adviser.” This is not limited to one-on-one counseling sessions.

Very interesting.

siteseer wrote:

This is a slightly different topic, but some abusers actually target drug addicted women because they are very easy to manipulate- when a person needs a drug, they are in the place of having to do whatever it takes to get it.
The story of a wealthy Christian businessman who was something of a local celebrity in his small town may be of interest here, http://newwest.net/main/article/sex_money_and_meth_addiction_the_story_of_dick_dasen_and_his_girls/

What is shocking about this case is that this businessman only received 2 years in jail from what I have read with the remainder of his sentence being suspended. IMO what this businessman did merited a whole lot more than just 2 years.

Bridget wrote:

Velour wrote:
@ Ed Chapman:
Ed,
Oh, that explains your hostility toward women.
Got it.
Really? Talk about black and white. That seems like a slam dunk assumption about someone you have know.

Bridget, Stay out of it. We’ve – Daisy, I and others – have gone many rounds with Ed and his bizarre beliefs and his blame-the-victim-attitude over at Spiritual Sounding Board.
Ed, arrogantly, proclaims to know more about my profession than I do.

You know not of what you speak.

Thanks.

Daisy wrote:

in the clergyman’s professional character as “spiritual adviser.”

in the clergyman’s professional character as “spiritual adviser.

Clergy alone does not cut the mustard. Clergy must be in the professional character as a spiritual advisor. That’s a caveat.

brad/futuristguy wrote:

There is a sense in which any public figure in a church who teaches, preaches, leads, “pastors” from the pulpit, tweets, posts, etc., in the public eye gives spiritual formation advice and directives. That is, broadly speaking, “giving counsel,” even if it is not formal “counseling.” This is why, when I was skimming through the state-by-state database on issues where consent is no defense for sexual misconduct, I was looking specifically at various kinds of “counseling” and positions of “authority.” Public figures in the church typically combine both.
From what I think I know about spiritual abuse, public statements-teaching-sharing etc. are just as much a part of the overall “grooming/conditioning” process as any one-to-one conversations-counseling-visits are. Public projection of a charming, desirable, sympathetic persona is just as much a part of a process of theological and sexual seduction as private conversations and social media flirtation. And that is why questions about misuse of positions of authority are equally important to questions about “counseling.”
In such cases involving church leaders, it seems to me that serial adultery is not merely private sin. It is public seduction by that leader. And anyone who fails in supposedly overseeing that person and holding him/her accountable to biblical requirements of leaders — is in on the game. So, the level of *biblically identified* culpability increases when it involves a leader.

I completely agree.

Side note: Julie Anne said in one of her blog posts about TT that she has been in contact, privately, with various women who were snookered by TT.

She says they say TT used Twitter to groom them. I asked Julie Anne for more clarification on that, but I didn’t see a reply from her.

I take it to mean, TT, was checking out women Tweeters who Tweeted at him, and then getting friendly with them on that platform, then escalating things.

Daisy and Brad,

I wonder how many of these sexually predatory clergy had to undergo psychological testing and background checks prior to being admitted to seminary.

A woman I know who became a pastor said that the psychologist testing and background checks that her seminary performed were so rigorous (many police, highway patrol, and FBI undergo similar tests) that people with major problems were discovered early on or dropped out of the process.

The final pool of candidates for seminary were stable, honest men and women with good character.

It’s certainly not full-proof, but it’s better than nothing.

brad/futuristguy wrote:

@ Velour:
I have wondered whether church planter assessments (and by extension, seminaries) ought to use a rigorous MMPI instead of MBTI — a serious psychological inventory with interviews, not an informative but more informal temperament profile discussion. As time has shown, too many people get approved who eventually flip the script of character and demonstrate narcissistic and even sociopathic behaviors. And are often paid, at least for a time, by a denomination, network, etc., to do it.

Thanks, Brad. I’m with you. Can you post some more information on the two tests.
I can look them up later. I’m busy right now.

@ Velour:

Maybe churches should start doing that.

I just read an article about a month ago that talked about how police departments / academies have testing in place to weed out power hungry nuts or guys who have several personal disorders that would make them unsuitable for police work.

Ed Chapman wrote:

refugee wrote:
Ed Chapman wrote:
It then reverts back to the Bible which states to not commit adultery.
So… I guess if neither the pastor nor the vulnerable woman he’s counseling are married, and he preys on her, and there’s no state statute that calls it abuse, then everything is hunky-dory, eh?
Ed, I’m afraid such literal-mindedness smacks of Phariseeism, at the very least.
Does the bible tell us to obey the magistrates or not? Does the bible not tell us to not commit fornication and adultery or not? Does the bible state that adulterers and fornicators do not inherit the kingdom of God or not?
And that is in the New Test! But, seems that people want to dismiss the bible and create their own ethics.
Ed

You appear to me to be talking out of both sides of your mouth. In one breath, you say “there’s no law against it” and so, therefore… it’s okay? (except not in the biblical sense) And people shouldn’t be calling for action, or changes in the law?

In another breath, you accuse people of dismissing the bible and not listening to the magistrates! But it seems to me that you don’t want to listen to the magistrates. Or you seem to see no point in working to pass new laws that will protect people in every state, not just the states that already have laws in place.

Ed, you compartmentalize so much that I have trouble with your arguments, as above. Earlier, it seemed that you were advocating that as long as adultery was involved, you didn’t consider it abuse but rather to be dealt with as the sin of adultery. Then, later, you said that if a pastor had his counseling hat on, it was another matter. At least, I think that’s what you said, though by “another matter” were you allowing that to be called abuse (because it’s illegal for a counselor to prey on counselees?) or, again, were you insisting that it could not be abuse because it ought to be dealt with as sin?

And when I challenged you about “only” adultery being the problem, because that’s what you seemed to be saying, you appeared to change the argument so you could bring fornication in.

In any event, we live in a secular society with secular laws. Some of those laws may be based on the bible. But many are not. We do not live in a theocracy. It appears to me that your arguments only would work in theory in a theocratic setting. They are frustrating because they dance around the problem with fancy footwork, without truly addressing it.

If I were to be uncharitable I would accuse you of thinking you were being cute. I will extend to you the benefit of the doubt and tell myself that you are sincere in your arguments. Bless your heart.

Fornication is no longer against the law in places. Does that mean that someone in a perceived higher-power position cannot be termed abusive just because there’s no law against it? That seems to be what you are saying.

And if there is no law against it, except for (perhaps) biblical law, and we do not live in a theocracy, then it seems as if you’re saying that it’s all hunky dory!

Except (as you state) it’s against the bible… so there! So what? I don’t understand your point. Lots of people in our society do not recognize the bible as having any kind of power over them. Your “solution” is no solution at all, in a practical sense.

Does the fact that God does not choose to act directly (sending lightning bolts down on fornicators) mean that no action should be taken, that we should just let abusers keep on abusing?

I see no argument on your part that, other than condemning certain actions according to biblical precepts, something is wrong and some kind of action should be taken.

(and I’m not talking about preaching to a predatory “pastor” about how what he’s doing is wrong. He already knows what the bible says about it, and still chooses to do it. He even probably preaches about it from the pulpit.)

Sorry for the long comment. I find Ed’s arguments nonsensical, circular, and confusing. Maybe it’s just me.

brad/futuristguy wrote:

I have wondered whether church planter assessments (and by extension, seminaries) ought to use a rigorous MMPI instead of MBTI — a serious psychological inventory with interviews, not an informative but more informal temperament profile discussion. As time has shown, too many people get approved who eventually flip the script of character and demonstrate narcissistic and even sociopathic behaviors. And are often paid, at least for a time, by a denomination, network, etc., to do it.

Agree! I think police departments should use them as well.

Predators, by nature, seek positions where they believe they will have authority.

Lea wrote:

Could we drop all the attacks maybe?

Sorry, Lea. I got frustrated with Ed. He felt slippery to me; I simply could not grasp what point he was trying to make. I’m going to bow out of the conversation now.

@ refugee:

No, I think you’ve always been polite. I just meant some of the more personal stuff.

Daisy wrote:

Please don’t refer to me as “bigoted against men,” I very much resent that remark.

Just to clarify, I did not call you bigoted. I said you come across as bigoted by using that phrase and also by attempting to use statistics to pin this bad behavior on men in general. If you truly are bigoted against men in general, then it would be very consistent for you to continue to use the term “man-splain” to shame men into shutting up. If you are not bigoted, and I assume that you are not, you would do well for yourself to quit using that phrase because it is below your dignity. It’s really nothing more than an ad hominem statement that does nothing positive toward moving a conversation forward. I’ve seen so many very articulate comments by you that convince me you don’t have to resort to insults like this to make your point.

@ refugee:

Every thing you said in your post there nicely captures the same issues I’ve been having with reading Ed’s posts and replying to him (here and at the SSB blog on this topic).

You were able to articulate things I noticed but couldn’t put into words.

I’ve tried to honestly understand his position but am at a loss, because it veers all over the place and at other times, appears to flip flop.

Ken F wrote:

Just to clarify, I did not call you bigoted. I said you come across as bigoted by using that phrase and also by attempting to use statistics to pin this bad behavior on men in general. If you truly are bigoted against men in general, then it would be very consistent for you to continue to use the term “man-splain” to shame men into shutting up. If you are not bigoted, and I assume that you are not, you would do well for yourself to quit using that phrase because it is below your dignity.

It’s really nothing more than an ad hominem statement that does nothing positive toward moving a conversation forward. I’ve seen so many very articulate comments by you that convince me you don’t have to resort to insults like this to make your point.

It’s my lived experience, and that for a lot of other women, that they are often talked over or talked down to by a lot of men. Which is what the term “man splain” covers.

The word “man splain” is merely descriptive of a behavior and is not an insult.
The word “man splain” is not an ad hominem. I find it funny that it’s usually men who object to that term who claim to find it insulting, when I hate being man-splained to, it’s very sexist and rude. I used to have a male co-worker who man-splained to me quite a bit (and he also did so to other female co-workers).

Being man-splained to due to your gender (being female), is a heck of a lot more insulting than a man seeing a woman saying in the comments,
“Hey, this is very much a real thing that happens to a lot of women, it’s sometimes called “man splaining.”

I gave a link to an article with studies that show man-splaining is indeed a very real phenomenon, to the point, it can interfere with women at their jobs. Women don’t get heard, or get credit for their ideas at their workplaces. It’s a form of sexism.

Serving Kids In Japan wrote:

Ken, mansplaining is very real. As a man myself, I’ve noticed men doing it. Rather than chiding Daisy for simply using the term, it might be better for me and you to take care not to engage in it.

Thank you, Serving.

When I first used that word in this thread, it was in a post to a person using a woman’s name (“Missy M”), here:
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2016/10/03/its-clergy-sex-abuse-not-an-affair/comment-page-1/#comment-286649

And it wasn’t even about men, but about her using a similar tactic, a “Not All Preachers” one, as I noted in that post.

Daisy wrote:

On another note, if a man does not want to be accused of man-splaining, then all he has to do is not participate in that behavior.

The problem is that there is no clear standard for it. So there is no clear demarcation between what is and what isn’t man-splaining. And both genders do it. I’ve been woman-splained way too often. I think dialogue is better when people refrain from such language.

Velour wrote:

(5) They murder. Kim almost killed herself over this and took an overdose. She ended up in the hospital, thank goodness.

These predators kill people, their marriages, their families, their friendships, their ties to God.

This is true. Every account I’ve read about this type of abuse, the victim has felt suicidal at some point.

brad/futuristguy wrote:

Looking at some of the article titles and excerpts that other TWW commenters have posted on this thread, it seems clear enough that this is a significant issue. Hope these resources are helpful in looking at the broader legal-ethical-professional perspective on what is more than a theological-ministerial issue.

It seems that way. I really appreciate you pulling all of this information together. Do you get the sense that these issues are in a transitional state?

So Ken was reading me your posts about “man-splaining”,and the thought that came to me is that maybe you might actually be minimizing a form of harassment that some male coworkers and/or bosses use. It sounds like what happened to you was actually way more demeaning than you initially acknowledge, but once you quote some details, it sounds serious enough that what most of us women do when we are being “man-splained” all of a sudden no longer seems a strong enough response. I don’t know about your professional and personal circles, but in my experience, if a man is “man-splaining”, all it takes to shut him up is usually a little snide or caustic remark, or if he is on a roll and we women don’t want to bother addressing him “having a moment” all we do is look at each other, roll our eyes and just let him talk until he runs out of steam. If he was man-splaining because he actually cared or was trying to “relate to women in a sensitive way” then we did no damage and did not unnecessarily scold him or humiliate him in public. If he was actually trying to be controlling and force us women to “do it his way” then that failed miserably also and he ended up looking like the fool he was acting like.

Now if a boss starts doing that and demands compliance “or else”, that right there would already cross the line and become harassment and you might actually have a case that is worth reporting to HR. Just wondering if what you have experienced might be the latter.

@ Daisy:
“other SITES” not “sides”

I’ve had it happen to me in my personal life, on jobs, on the internet, and it’s insulting to be man-splained to, Ken.

Daisy wrote:

Some women can be argumentative, rude, pushy, but it’s not the same thing.

Don’t forget catty, vindictive and unforgiving.*

*Sarcasm, sort of.

Daisy wrote:

I’ve had it happen to me in my personal life, on jobs, on the internet, and it’s insulting to be man-splained to, Ken.

Do you consider me to be one?

@ Daisy:
@ Daisy,
I think it’s sad that you were taught by your mother to endure true abuse silently. I was raised the same way in missionary circles. Once I went to work in “secular” circles, I tossed all those rules because my dad (although “man-splainer in chief” because he wants to help and fix things) basically told me that my only obligation was to do my job well. I wish that God would have given you somebody to encourage you the same way I was.

Oh, my! A Ken P. and a Ken F. Be careful.

Ken F’s wife wrote:

I wish that God would have given you somebody to encourage you the same way I was.

Thank you. You and me both.

My mother was very sweet but passive and raised me to be like that (she passed away a few years ago)

The rest of my family is very negative, critical, and my big sister is very verbally abusive (I’ve pretty much cut ties with her over the last two years).

My family is also very shaming – my father was shaming of us as kids, and my siblings (sister especially) picked up that tendency.

I was told growing up by my family (mostly my dad) what all was wrong with me, down to nit picky details. Goodness knows I didn’t get any encouragement from any of them.

@ Daisy,
So very sorry to hear all that… May the Lord help you heal up from all of that. The contempt of family members is one of the deepest pains I have ever felt…. it cuts like a knife and drains the marrow out of one’s bones. I am so very sorry that you had to endure all this….

Bridget wrote:

Oh, my! A Ken P. and a Ken F. Be careful.

For sure, this has been one of the most bizarre threads in a long time.

@ Ken F:

I just find it a handy word to use a situation I’ve been in at times. I don’t even recall using it at this blog before today or last night or whenever that post was made.

I think some differences between the sexes is due to socialization and culture, as opposed to all of them being in-born. Complementarians want to argue that all or most differenes are in-born and designed to be that way by God.

I don’t fit the complementarian ideal of (or caricature of) womanhood, and I see a lot of men online who say they don’t fit the complementarian ideal of manhood.

Part the first:

I notice some of you talking about the pastor as ‘spiritual advisor’ and various similar terms. I hear you saying stuff like even teaching is sort of like being a counselor and it may not be limited to the pastor, if I understand correctly. Believe me when I tell you that this idea is new to me and this is not how it used to be. I have tried to understand it, and I think it may be cultural also.

Let me say it this way. Time was when in baptist circles the pastor was seen as pastor/teacher-all one thing. There was a lot of teaching going on, but teaching was not advising and much less counseling. Just like a math teacher does not advise the student regarding the quadratic formula. The biology teacher does not look at the frog in the dissection tray and advise the student that something could be understood in many ways but the teacher is advising that that thing could be understood to be the frog’s heart and advise the student of the value of writing that down on the lab quiz. Similarly back in the day teaching in church was not seen as advice but rather as religious education. Neither did we have in the culture a sea of advisors. Now we have advisors who will advise on nutrition, exercise, what movies to see, child rearing, vacation planning, interior design etc etc etc and now even vocabulary. So I am wondering if the role of the pastor being seen as advisor may have bled over from the culture. Have we become a nation of people who need to be advised what sort of t p to purchase? I am beginning to think so.

okrapod wrote:

I hear you saying stuff like even teaching is sort of like being a counselor

I don’t see those as the same personally. I think what makes someone vulnerable in counseling is sharing intimate details of their lives with someone, it creates an artificial closeness? And those things can be manipulated and used against them.

refugee wrote:

Ed Chapman wrote:

refugee wrote:
Ed Chapman wrote:
It then reverts back to the Bible which states to not commit adultery.
So… I guess if neither the pastor nor the vulnerable woman he’s counseling are married, and he preys on her, and there’s no state statute that calls it abuse, then everything is hunky-dory, eh?
Ed, I’m afraid such literal-mindedness smacks of Phariseeism, at the very least.
Does the bible tell us to obey the magistrates or not? Does the bible not tell us to not commit fornication and adultery or not? Does the bible state that adulterers and fornicators do not inherit the kingdom of God or not?
And that is in the New Test! But, seems that people want to dismiss the bible and create their own ethics.
Ed

You appear to me to be talking out of both sides of your mouth. In one breath, you say “there’s no law against it” and so, therefore… it’s okay? (except not in the biblical sense) And people shouldn’t be calling for action, or changes in the law?

In another breath, you accuse people of dismissing the bible and not listening to the magistrates! But it seems to me that you don’t want to listen to the magistrates. Or you seem to see no point in working to pass new laws that will protect people in every state, not just the states that already have laws in place.

Ed, you compartmentalize so much that I have trouble with your arguments, as above. Earlier, it seemed that you were advocating that as long as adultery was involved, you didn’t consider it abuse but rather to be dealt with as the sin of adultery. Then, later, you said that if a pastor had his counseling hat on, it was another matter. At least, I think that’s what you said, though by “another matter” were you allowing that to be called abuse (because it’s illegal for a counselor to prey on counselees?) or, again, were you insisting that it could not be abuse because it ought to be dealt with as sin?

And when I challenged you about “only” adultery being the problem, because that’s what you seemed to be saying, you appeared to change the argument so you could bring fornication in.

In any event, we live in a secular society with secular laws. Some of those laws may be based on the bible. But many are not. We do not live in a theocracy. It appears to me that your arguments only would work in theory in a theocratic setting. They are frustrating because they dance around the problem with fancy footwork, without truly addressing it.

If I were to be uncharitable I would accuse you of thinking you were being cute. I will extend to you the benefit of the doubt and tell myself that you are sincere in your arguments. Bless your heart.

Fornication is no longer against the law in places. Does that mean that someone in a perceived higher-power position cannot be termed abusive just because there’s no law against it? That seems to be what you are saying.

And if there is no law against it, except for (perhaps) biblical law, and we do not live in a theocracy, then it seems as if you’re saying that it’s all hunky dory!

Except (as you state) it’s against the bible… so there! So what? I don’t understand your point. Lots of people in our society do not recognize the bible as having any kind of power over them. Your “solution” is no solution at all, in a practical sense.

Does the fact that God does not choose to act directly (sending lightning bolts down on fornicators) mean that no action should be taken, that we should just let abusers keep on abusing?

I see no argument on your part that, other than condemning certain actions according to biblical precepts, something is wrong and some kind of action should be taken.

(and I’m not talking about preaching to a predatory “pastor” about how what he’s doing is wrong. He already knows what the bible says about it, and still chooses to do it. He even probably preaches about it from the pulpit.)

Sorry for the long comment. I find Ed’s arguments nonsensical, circular, and confusing. Maybe it’s just me.

While it may appear that this is what I am doing, I am showing the comparison between God’s Laws, and when I say God’s Laws, I am stating the laws of Christ (Love God, Love People), and the laws of the land.

In the Bible, there is no special law set apart for pastors that are not already set up for everyone else. We all fall under the same laws of Christ. Status does not matter. God is not a respecter of persons.

So, what right do we have in adding laws to the laws of Christ? Are not his laws sufficient?

Here is a parody:

God, your laws are just not sufficient for us. We need additional laws in order to prevent people from disobeying your laws…so, we will invent a law that states if a pastor has sex with a congregant, we will call that sexual abuse. Your laws, God, does not protect anyone from abuse. We tried that love thing for a while, but it’s just not working.

But the problem with that is, it’s an invented law by the church, not God, and not the law of the land that we are also told to obey.

The law of the land does not consider clergy to be in a position of power, unless the counselor hat is on. I don’t care what Velour states in her interpretations. So, we cannot use that as a legal defense that a pastor has any power differential.

Rape, molestation is a crime for everyone, not just clergy. Rape, molestation, and adultery is a sin for every Christian, not just pastors.

No one has yet to convince me that in the case of TT that a victim even exists.

The Pastor had sex with congregants. So what? That does not declare that the women are victims of sexual abuse. All it shows is that a Pastor slept with congregants. And yes, in spite of what Velour and Daisy and others state that the law states, those women can indeed consent to sex, because that counselor hat is not on.

Bottom line, Pastors can have sex with congregants without it being sexual abuse.

BUT, pastors cannot have sex with someone other than their spouse in the church, for that is a sin. But it is also a sin for the women who consented to have sex with said pastor, because there is no evidence that it was rape or molestation. Just because a pastor has sex with a congregant, that is not proof that it is sexual abuse.

When it is stated that it is sex abuse when Clergy has sex with a congregant, no one can prove that from either a legal standpoint, or a biblical standpoint, therefore, there is no basis for that statement.

Oh, sure, Daisy and others will quote tons of psychologists, etc., but there is a false narrative going around that pastors, by default, have power over congregants. That false narrative is what is giving a false credence that pastors have a power differential, using legal terms equating this to a medical professional, a teacher, a psychologist, etc. It’s simply not true.

Respectfully,

Ed

PS. I hope this made sense, because people just don’t seem to get what I am saying, accusing me of victim blaming, but I am not victim blaming at all. Prove to me that there are victims, and I then will support the victims. Until then…

Velour wrote:

Ed,

Up the thread you blamed Kim for being sexually abused by her pastor and spiritually abused. You have said that she committed adultery.

You have done similar to the case of Lourdes.

Now Bridget apparently thinks Kim is to blame too?

You people have ‘lost it’!!!

The people that you are accusing are denying, showing that you are falsely accusing, proving that you are not credible in telling the truth.

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor!

Oh, I forgot…Old outdated Mosiac law!

Ed

Daisy wrote:

Ed Chapman wrote:

in the clergyman’s professional character as “spiritual adviser.
Clergy alone does not cut the mustard. Clergy must be in the professional character as a spiritual advisor. That’s a caveat.

A clergy person is a spiritual advisor. It’s who they are, what they do, and their role, and it’s how they are viewed by women in the pews.

See also this post:
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2016/10/03/its-clergy-sex-abuse-not-an-affair/comment-page-1/#comment-287139

Nope! I don’t care how it is viewed by women. It’s a false statement. The women need to be corrected in their understanding of it, because based on what Brad is posting, you also seem to dismiss the counselor hat in those as well, concluding that pastors are counselors by default.

I have an advantage at reading laws, because of my Navy experience. One reason that I have the guts to challenge Velour, a person that states that they are “In Law”, and brags about it, too. I’m not impressed with how she has interpreted any laws in this regard.

Ed

okrapod wrote:

Time was when in baptist circles the pastor was seen as pastor/teacher-all one thing. There was a lot of teaching going on, but teaching was not advising and much less counseling.

When the pastor is teaching, he/she is teaching on relationship with God, and this has a tendency for people to look to him/her as a guide or a shepherd in life issues and things relating to God. That is of a different character than teaching math or biology, I think.

I’m not as old as you, Okrapod, but I don’t remember a time when people didn’t tend to place the pastor in the role of a shepherd and someone they looked up to. Before things got so impersonal as they are today, it would be common to call the pastor when there was a crisis, for support and guidance.

I’d like to hear more of your perspective, how do you see the role of pastor? Have you always had the perspective you have now?

Ed Chapman wrote:

Nope! I don’t care how it is viewed by women. It’s a false statement.

Sigh… Ed, Ed, Ed…

siteseer wrote:

Ed Chapman wrote:

Then go to another church! Do not consider that as power that they really don’t have. Dust your feet and go a mile up the road to a different church. My goodness. Your allegiance is to God, not the pastor. Your conscience is with God, not the pastor. If my pastor kicked me out of the church like that, I would thank God that he got me out of there, considering it a blessing. Stop being the victim and be the victory!

Ed, these people are elderly. They’ve lost all of their friends. When they go about town, people turn their backs and shun them. Did you note that they’d gone to that church for many years and the pastors came in and did this to them within around 2 years, then left?

Have you ever been shunned? Believe me, it does not feel like any kind of blessing. It is so painful, it can have a profound affect on a person’s health.

You can’t just replace lifelong friends, it takes a long time to do that. For an elderly person who may not be as mobile or active as they once were, they may never be able to make the same kind of connections again. If family is shunning you, there is no way to replace family.

If your livelihood depended on people who are now shunning you, you can lose that, as well, as Shauna did and is still struggling to make ends meet and support herself and her son- http://thewartburgwatch.com/2016/02/26/john-macarthur-and-9-marks-supporter-ken-ramey-of-lakeside-bible-church-has-a-disturbing-response-to-a-young-teens-rape/

How do you define a victim? Does anyone fit your definition?

Julie Anne was treated in about the same manner. Therefore, she took to posting negative comments about her own church on, what was it, Google? She did not sit in pity. She had the guts to stand up to a Goliath who in turn sued her for 1/2 million dollars.

She is the victory!

Ed

Friend wrote:

Ed and Daisy, what I note in Ed’s description of these few military marriages with a big gap between the spouses’ ranks is a whole lot of useful, clarifying rules. And again, in my view, churches also benefit from having sensible rules.

The problem that I have with that is that church’s are not supposed to have a chain of command. The pastor is not the Commanding Officer, the Associate Pastor is not the Executive Officer, and the Elders are not the department heads, and we pew sitters are not the peon’s.

Ed

brad/futuristguy wrote:

And the movie *Spotlight* seems to have amplified the momentum to address systems that cover-up abuse.

Yes. ‘Spotlight’ is a powerful, moving film. I urge anyone who has not seen it to watch it (it’s on Netflix). It is not an ‘anti-Catholic’ film. It is an anti-abuse, anti-cover up, and anti mis-use of power film. And it’s lessons carry over to other denominations in what can happen when abusers are allowed to move to other areas of the Church where they continue their predatory ways.

It should be required watching for ALL clergy in all denominations where children are served and are in need of protection from abuse.

@ Velour:

I couldn’t find some notes I (thought I) had. The previous comment was the essence. Myers-Briggs Temperament Indicator helps us consider aspects of personality (E/I – extrovert; introvert), how we take and process information (S/N – concretely thru the senses; intuitively/abstractly by reading between the lines), whether we more thinky or feeling (T/F) in our internal processing, and decision making and whether we want quick closure (J – judge) or keep things open as long as possible (P – perceive).

The MMPI-2 — Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory — is used more for detecting tendencies toward significant character disorders and behavior problems.

In developing assessment tools, my guiding statement is, “The way we ask the question preconditions the answer.” The MBTI is geared to search for information on how someone processes life. The MMPI is geared to search for information that goes far deeper into potential psychopathology — how those ways of processing life and responding reflect severely damaged views that will typically lead to harming others.

Given that religion is consistently in the top 10 professions that those with narcissistic and sociopathic behaviors seek out, the MBTI won’t provide much help in identifying those who would misuse their ministry position to benefit themselves at the expense of others. [Narcissism and sociopathology are core to authoritarianism and spiritual abuse.]

Seminary, leadership and ministry training programs, church planter candidate assessments — these are gateway points where probable (or actual) malignant ministry workers can be identified and prevented from gaining access to positions where they’ll manipulate people and systems for their own gain. But, these are typically where there is an MBTI assessment instead of an MMPI-2 evaluation.

There is a potential team of people who’ve been connecting behind the scenes who are interested in completely revising the standard church planter candidate assessment process. If that works out, I suspect there will be some kind of rigorous assessment tool required, like MMPI-2 plus extended in-person interviews with someone certified to use it. This change could save the Church a huge amount of grief from personal damaged caused by spiritually abusive ministers, and prevent loss of resources and reputation for churches.

Ed Chapman wrote:

The problem that I have with that is that church’s are not supposed to have a chain of command. The pastor is not the Commanding Officer, the Associate Pastor is not the Executive Officer, and the Elders are not the department heads, and we pew sitters are not the peon’s.

Ed

I agree with you that the church should not have a command structure, while stipulating that unfortunately this isn’t the reality in many churches. In Ephesians 5 and 6 Paul acknowledges social strata as part of the places where Paul traveled, mentioning God’s impartiality as something that happens in the hereafter.

In most churches I’ve attended, there are decision makers, and if they disagree with me, I lose. The only exception is Friends meetings, which use consensus.

But here’s my problem with the whole question of whether clergy should be allowed to have romantic relationships that steer clear of adultery or fornication. You seem to think this might be permissible under some circumstances. I disagree, even though I’ve actually seen such a situation work out well. Why does there seem to be no neo-Cal or YRR training of clergymen in how they should conduct themselves with church members? Sure, we can say they ought to read their Bibles, but these guys are constantly going to conferences to get new-n-improved training about leadership and how to be a man. The Bible has lots of stories about men, and yet the manhood seminars proliferate. Leadership is extra-Biblical but somehow considered a good clergy training topic. Why isn’t there a seminar about keeping clergy hands off the women and children? Why isn’t there instruction on frugality, so the tithes and offerings go to the poor instead of clergy mansions? Why not an hour or two about sobriety? The conferences seem to be about what the “anointed” want, rather than about the problems they sometimes cause or face, or about the needs of the folks in the pews.

@ Kim rung:

Kim, there was a study (I believe it was limited to evangelical type churches, so not mainlines maybe) that said 30-40% were had one or more relationships like this with parishioners (I don’t think it was broken out by counseling/not though). Which I find alarming! How common is all of this?

Something is amiss.

Kim rung wrote:

My abuser now occupies the spot the prior pastor did for 5 years in the back row. I fear he is waiting his turn to get back into leadership. This is how bad things get when there are no laws. This how bad it gets when pastors can blame their bad abuses on their flock and convince the other sheep to join them in assigning responsibility to the damaged. It is safer outside of these crazy places. I will serve God the rest of my life outside of the church. It is safer and I will never be able to feel safe or trust again. No one needs to add something so potentially devastating to their lives. We need to seek safe and encouraging places to reach the prize we run for. I love God. That is all.

What a powerful witness. I appreciate your strength in sharing such a heartbreaking story. And you’re right: church is optional, no matter how many ways we are told otherwise. The more time I spend on TWW, the more I appreciate basic human decency–wherever it’s found–and the rule of law, which confers rights that Christians are sometimes urged to abandon.

@ okrapod:

You make a lotta good points, okrapod. I agree — what good is it to do this kind of in-depth assessment, if there aren’t systems in place with people who understand what it means and who can/will act on the information to protect people in the system?

I also see psychological assessments as a one tool as part of a broader set to use in gathering information, discerning, and deciding what to do. One reason we Christians need tools like this is that there is so little understanding about the dynamics of malignant leaders, the tactics they use in conditioning people to be stuck in systems that benefit the leaders, how the strategies and structures they put in place in organizations can outlast their tenure. Basically, if seminaries and training programs etc. already knew about “sociopathology,” we would not have survivor blogs because there would be systems in place to prevent such leaders from slipping into the system, and to intervene if they did and remove them.

brad/futuristguy wrote:

there is so little understanding about the dynamics of malignant leaders, the tactics they use

How right you are.

Daisy wrote:

Ed is a long time poster at Julie Anne’s SSB blog.

Ed is, in a word, a “pill”.

@ brad/futuristguy:

Oh my goodness. Yes, I see what you are saying. I do agree, now that I see what you are saying, that small group stuff and confess/tell all stuff are straight out of some would be counseling idea. So yes, I get it and thanks for explaining.

I have been thinking how on earth could somebody fall for this (since I have never seen it in action) and then you used the word ‘seeker’ so I am thinking oh dear goodness. That must be it. This is a heap worse in my opinion than the old fundamentalist approach of grab them by the shoulder, wrestle them to the ground all the while crying ‘die or fry’ and ‘turn or burn’. To insinuate oneself into the unguarded areas of somebody’s thoughts and then manipulate that position to their damage and perhaps destruction all the while calling it what–evangelization?-I think I might throw up or something.

Bless you for the work you are doing. You are doing a good thing.

brad/futuristguy wrote:

And haven’t some of the case studies in church discipline the past few years shown how much this is a set-up for deep damage?

I don’t know that I’ve really seen any specifics on small group issues and how they might contribute overall (besides things like youth pastors preying on girls in youth group).

Friend wrote:

You seem to think this might be permissible under some circumstances. I disagree

I never said that. In a church setting only, it is not allowed for anyone. What goes on in the secular world is not my concern here. In the secular world, it’s allowed. Not in the church. And that goes for anyone in the church, not just the pastor.

But, in those cases, refer to 1 Cor 7.

I’ve said it before, and I will say it again, I am not now, nor have I ever been a Calvinist, nor have I ever subscribed to any type of Calvinist doctrines or beliefs, let alone what is now known as NEOCal.

And once I saw the strange beliefs of Calvinists, without that NEO caveat, I saw immediate abuse in those doctrines, and that is why I am here on a few different Spiritual Abuse blogs.

In my very strong opinion, Calvinism is the cause of the abuse, therefore, I advise everyone to leave Calvinism. Only problem with that advice, not many are listening, thinking that there is still some sort of credence to their doctrines, but that they are just going about it the wrong way. My response to that: No, it’s the doctrines. All the NEO’s have done is to double down.

Ed

Ed

Friend wrote:

okrapod wrote:

This surely must have some survival value-like people are safer in a group than as an individual. But whatever, we do group together and strong people do rise to the top of the group.

That’s what I have always appreciated about the Religious Society of Friends. The simple consensus-based structure allows for every voice to speak, and in worship encourages people to hear in each voice the message of God. The lack of clergy in silent meetings has a wondrous leveling effect! I’m not an exemplary pacifist, though, so a Friends meeting would not be a good ethical choice for me to make as a home.

I like that!

brad/futuristguy wrote:

What some of these off-base church groups do is the equivalent of running a therapy group where people’s deep stuff is exposed – but they’re led by amateurs.

I know you’re discussing community groups and the potential for harm, especially when an authoritarian mindset is involved, with church discipline, but this made me think of Celebrate Recovery. From a friend’s description, it’s like “a therapy group where people’s deep stuff is exposed” — is it run by amateurs, as well, or are there professionals involved in CR? Can anyone speak to this?

siteseer wrote:

Ed, these people are elderly. They’ve lost all of their friends. When they go about town, people turn their backs and shun them. Did you note that they’d gone to that church for many years and the pastors came in and did this to them within around 2 years, then left?
Have you ever been shunned? Believe me, it does not feel like any kind of blessing. It is so painful, it can have a profound affect on a person’s health.
You can’t just replace lifelong friends, it takes a long time to do that. For an elderly person who may not be as mobile or active as they once were, they may never be able to make the same kind of connections again. If family is shunning you, there is no way to replace family.

Ed’s writing shows a lack of empathy. He reminds me a lot of someone I know well, who cannot understand another’s pain unless he has experienced that same pain himself. Even then, many times he does not ‘get it’ when other people express it. He gives them ‘useful’ (in his view) information, that if they only were to *try* (oh, how I hate the exhortation “just try harder!”) they would solve the problem.

Because of his inability to connect with their very real distress in any meaningful way, his ‘useful’ advice is actually useless, and even harmful (because it’s often received as a put-down — you think I’m so stupid? you think this is *easy*? ‘Easy’ for *you*, maybe… Easier said than done…)

I think, Ed, that’s why your arguments, though you may mean them to be helpful, I find to be no help at all, and even harmful to some people, especially those who are hurting and trying to put themselves back together. Sorry. You sound sincere.

@ refugee:

I don’t know but I do know that the “manhood” groups push the same thing. The men are really pressured to “be transparent” and to confess their worst failings to each other.

Lea wrote:

I don’t know that I’ve really seen any specifics on small group issues and how they might contribute overall (besides things like youth pastors preying on girls in youth group).

One case I was thinking about was from May 2015, involving The Village Church and Karen Hinkley, who got the marriage to her husband (Jordan Root) annulled when it turned he was dealing with pedophilia and had child pornography on his computer(s) while they were missionaries. The church membership covenant and the small groups played prominent roles of church discipline and social control throughout that. Did church leadership want her to reconcile with her ex-husband? Anyway, there were 11 posts about this case on The Wartburg Watch in May 2015 (starting on May 21) and about 5 follow-up posts in June with the denouement, analysis, and lessons for the larger Christian community.

This isn’t a clergy sexual misconduct case in the usual sense, but it demonstrates a range of similar dynamics: church membership covenants, hierarchical leadership structures, “repentance” of sexual sins, the paradox of leadership non-disclosure versus lack of confidentiality for members, etc.

(Some parallel issues show up in what is already public information about Tullian Tchividjian’s situation.)

Here’s the link to the May 2015 archives to get started, in case interested in going back through The Village Church situation.

http://thewartburgwatch.com/2015/05/

siteseer wrote:

Ed, these people are elderly. They’ve lost all of their friends. When they go about town, people turn their backs and shun them. Did you note that they’d gone to that church for many years and the pastors came in and did this to them within around 2 years, then left?

Siteseer, I forgot to address this quote. I don’t have time this morning to go back and follow this to its source, so I’m just going to ask: This is regarding the post about the elderly couple put out by their Lutheran church, right? I got the impression they were in a small Midwestern town. Being familiar with that kind of thing, if this was the case, that particular Lutheran church might well have been the only game in town.

I don’t know if Ed has ever lived in a small town. If he lives where there are lots of churches to choose from, he might not be able to imagine what it’s like.

Imagine living in a small town, where everyone knows everyone else. Everyone also knows *about* everyone else. (The gossip can be incredible.) The town is your social circle. Now, Ed, imagine your social circle turns its collective back on you. What are you supposed to do? Sell up the house you’ve lived in for fifty years, move to another community, and start over? Oh, add to that, imagine you’re in your seventies. Everything gets harder as you get older. You have less energy. You tire more easily. You’re likely to have health problems.

Or you could live in isolation for the rest of the years that are left to you. All this poor woman had was her husband, and then, if I’m remembering right, he died. What terrible crime did they commit, to receive a life sentence of solitary confinement in the prison that their community was transformed into?

In addition, controlling churches insinuate into their congregants’ thoughts that they really *are* the only game in town, the only ones preaching the “true” gospel, and all those other “churches” out there are apostate, and your soul will be in danger if you go to one of them.

So even if there were other churches in the community that they could “try” — they might have been afraid of losing their salvation, or their immortal soul, or however it might be put.

I live in an area where there are lots of churches to “try” — and even so, I find the idea of going to church deeply distressing these days. I actually have to fight down nausea. It is not a logical, rational response, but it’s there and I cannot simply make it stop by thinking it away or snapping my fingers.

Ed Chapman wrote:

Then help them in their grocery purchases, etc. by setting up a go fund me or something.

This is not going to stop people from turning their backs on the poor woman when she goes to the grocery store.

Ed Chapman wrote:

Nope! I don’t care how it is viewed by women. It’s a false statement. The women need to be corrected in their understanding of it, because based on what Brad is posting, you also seem to dismiss the counselor hat in those as well, concluding that pastors are counselors by default.

Ed, I actually started out saying a lot of male clergy on female abuse happens under the guise of male pastor as counselor.

But, it goes beyond a strict role of counselor. A woman can be preyed upon outside of an official counseling session in an office with a pastor, meeting with him to discuss her problems.

I already gave you an example from my own life of how a pastor at my local church could’ve exploited me in my time of vulnerability after my mother died, and I never did see that dude for counseling sessions.

He heard about my grief, and had he been a smarmy creep, he could’ve groomed me OUTSIDE OF counseling sessions to manipulate me into the sack.

Your comment here:

Nope! I don’t care how it is viewed by women.

Makes no sense, and shows a stunning lack of compassion for the women who are manipulated by clergy.

You should care how the women view it, because it is their perception of a clergy figure (plus any emotional struggles they may be having) which leaves them vulnerable to being manipulated into sexual relations with predatory clergy.

Ed Chapman wrote:

Julie Anne was treated in about the same manner. Therefore, she took to posting negative comments about her own church on, what was it, Google? She did not sit in pity. She had the guts to stand up to a Goliath who in turn sued her for 1/2 million dollars.

She is the victory!

Okay, so it seems you are defining whether a person has been victimized by the end result of how they handle it? Not by what happened to them?

We cannot speak with integrity that which we are not living. We don’t need more dazzling storytellers; We need more genuine storytellers.

Saw this quote. Where are the genuine men on the platform? They are becoming fewer and fewer just as the days become more evil. The bible describes this. I love the synopsis of the different types of churches in Revelations. God will be the final justice maker and keeper. I am thankful that isn’t my job. I just want to act as Jesus did when he loved, forgave and protected the unlovely in the religious world in his day. I want to warn and protect all from wolves. They do exist.

Ed Chapman wrote:

So, if you think I lack empathy, you are wrong.

Let me take a page out of your playbook and split some argumentative hairs. I did not say you lack empathy; you may be dripping with it, for all I know. I said that your writing lacks empathy.

@ Daisy:
Ed’s approach strikes me as the head-in-the-sand methodology. Or maybe Word-Faith. As in “Say it ain’t so, and *poof!* It won’t be so.”

His solution seems to be “Tell all those women to stop acting like victims, and then they won’t be victims, but instead they will become Victory!”

Which, when you look at it more closely, is definitely a form of victim-blaming.

But it’s all their fault, because if they didn’t think they were victims, if they didn’t act the way they do, they would not be victims.

Problem solved, all wrapped up and tied with a neat little bow.

That’s why I find this kind of discussion frustrating. Pie-in-the-sky thinking does not fit well into a discussion of real-world issues, and seeking real-world, workable solutions.

Pie-in-the-sky does no practical good, except maybe to make the pie-in-the-sky person feel articulate and intelligent. (Meanwhile, the pie-in-the-sky, abstract-concepts-with-no-real-applicability, expresses bewilderment at the “bad rap” that he himself is responsible for. Ed, a word of advice. Stop writing like a person without empathy, and then perhaps you won’t be perceived as lacking in human understanding.)

@ brad/futuristguy:

You’re right that Karen’s small group was mentioned, but I guess I was thinking about group activities, maybe specifically confessions, feeding into the larger issue? I don’t know that I’ve seen anything that specific. Karen’s group was given information about her but do not seem to have been in any way involved in the idiot elders attempt to discipline her.

@ Friend:
@ Daisy:
@ Lea:
Thanks. I’m afraid people who communicate in Ed’s style bring out the worst in me. It gets to the point where I can’t even discern a message amongst all the noise and static… in other words, their mouth may be moving, but I cannot connect with anything that might be emerging.

Which makes me sad, because I have this drive to understand, to make a connection. I appreciate a well-turned phrase in the middle of a thoughtfully constructed argument.

But the way some people write and express their thoughts, they might do better clanging a cymbal or hitting a resounding gong. At least I wouldn’t be so frustrated or have to expend energy trying to figure out just exactly how they think their ideas could have *practical* and *helpful* application.

(Yes, the world could be a wonderful place if everyone followed Jesus’ teachings. But they don’t. And they’re not going to. Really and truly. Not gonna happen. Even sincere christians are not going to get it “right” all the time, every minute of every day. So Ed’s point is what, exactly?)

Ed Chapman wrote:

Then go to another church! Do not consider that as power that they really don’t have. Dust your feet and go a mile up the road to a different church. My goodness. Your allegiance is to God, not the pastor.

I don’t think it’s so much a question of allegiance. A person leaving a church is leaving a lot more than a pastor. They are leaving all of the relationships they’ve been involved in, they are pulling their children out of all the relationships they’ve had. They are leaving any work they have been doing in the church- they may have spent a great deal of time and effort to build up a ministry and have to decide if it is the greater good to abandon it and the people who have become involved or to keep at it and hope the pastor problem gets solved.

And when they do leave, I am not sure if you are aware that they leave with emotional and spiritual damage. You don’t just walk away and all the pain and confusion disappears. Trust and hope do not instantly regenerate the minute you walk out that door.

And after the person does leave, do they try to do anything to prevent the next person from being hurt? Or do they just look out for Number One and let the next guy fend for himself?

When the church “a mile down the road” turns out to have the same dynamics and issues, and the church a mile down from that one does, too, then what? Do you try to speak out and make people aware? Or do you spend the rest of your life moving down the road a mile at a time?

@ refugee:
I meant to say, “push her under our care” portion of the program, that did not get any traction because she wisely cut it off.

refugee wrote:

but you *do* use any encounter to beat the drum of repentance and exhortation, to get that person to “return to the right way.”

Thinking a little further on this, the communication method seems to be talking *at* people rather than *with* them.

refugee wrote:

I think a part of shunning, as I have seen it practiced, has been that you don’t necessarily cut the person off completely, but you *do* use any encounter to beat the drum of repentance and exhortation, to get that person to “return to the right way.”

Another thought that occurred to me. Not only does the shunned person experience being talked *at* (which means they have no opportunity to express what God may be doing in their life, or the process they may be working through, or the very real hurt that may have wounded them — though people who are stuck on “wisdom and knowledge” and “ignore the heart” are likely to tell them to dismiss the hurt by strength of will alone).

But the way this situation is set up, the *only* way for them to return to the fold, to get the shunning lifted, to be welcomed back into their social circle, is to deny there was ever a problem in the first place, to deny that the issues that caused them to be put out of the church never happened, to assume all blame and all responsibility for putting things right. (And by right, it is meant, that they put themselves firmly under the pastor’s and elders’ authority once more — actually, even *more* firmly under that authority — which Ed so conveniently refuses to believe is a very real phenomenon.)

Isn’t that a form of gaslighting?

No matter what you call it, it’s horrible.

Though I was never shunned (maybe I’m being shunned now, don’t know, I avoid those people so perhaps I’m doing the shunning), I remember trying to fit in, stuffing down my feelings, trying to believe what the elders taught (it was right out of the bible, after all!), blaming myself for any failure or lack of belief.

And being indoctrinated in the belief that the world outside our church was a terrible, godless place just waiting to devour us — left us with no alternatives, no place to go. People like Ed might have told us that we *did* have alternatives, but we would not have believed him, so his words would have blown away on the wind, for all practical purposes.

Pharisees laying heavy burdens, indeed.