"Courage is fire, and bullying is smoke." Benjamin Disraeli link
Frank Turk gives up social media.
After years of being known for his controversial blogging, Frank Turk has decided to call it quits. He wrote his final post on Pyromaniacs, titling it The End. He claims to be giving up Twitter and is proceeding to unfriend everyone on Facebook. He says he will make *amends* only to those he sees every day.
I want you to forget me if that is possible, and if it is not, I ask that you forgive me and let me be at peace as I will seek to make amends by turning my back on any attention not related to people I see every day and places I go every day.
Turk appears to believes that he is personally responsible for lots of bad things on the internet.
Frank caused me to smile as he seems to proclaim that he is responsible, amongst other things, of causing others to blog in a negative fashion and that he feels he could do something about it but he won't. He even asserts that some people used his blog to avoid attending a local church. Huh?
Nevertheless, he doesn't feel like blogging many times each week to effect his solution. So he won't.
I look at many (most) of the people who were inspired by the work done by this blog and some of my other blogs, those people are terrible
…I repent of causing anyone who was otherwise a quiet and private person to get the attention of the internet lynch mob. I am sorry that I caused anyone to look for your name because you got 0.0001% famous by being associated with me (someone who is 0.001% famous) and because they looked for you, they made your life miserable.
…I repent of ever, at any time, causing anyone else to fall into that trap. If my example caused you to blog, you are doing it wrong. You are responsible for you, but I am responsible for doing something which caused you to do wrong.
…I apologize to everyone and anyone who ever used my blogging as a substitute for having a local church, and loving real people, and being under the authority of elders and men of good faith who are in it for your good and God's glory. I was wrong to put myself in that place, and I was wrong to let you think it was ever a good idea.
…I repent of exhibitionism. I repent of leading others to it. I repent of demonstrating the lack of accountability which exhibitionists acquire and which leads themselves and others astray. I repent of giving that example to other and that they followed it.
Now who are these people who have started blogging because they have been inspired by him but don't do it as well as him? Well, they are the slanderers and those who offer discernment.
That path would mean showing the problem and offering the solution (if there is one) to people who don't know the difference between discernment/apologetics and rumor-mongering/slander (the biblical category, not the legal charge).
Tom Chantry, Sovereign Grace Ministries and Turk's convenient biblical™definition of slander.
Turk recently accused me of slander as well as necrophilia. If I am one of those to whom he is referring, I want to resassure him that I did not start blogging due to his stellar example of discernment blogging. In fact, I didn't know who he was when I started blogging.
I disagree with him that there are two types of slander: one legal and one Biblical. I wrote a post in which I looked at how the Bible presents slander. It always involves a deliberate lie, just like the legal definition does. From Slander or an Inconvenient Truth?:
Unfortunately, this accusation of slander is used to squelch very serious concerns within the church. In fact I would contend that, in many situations in which a pastor cries "slander", he is really saying "I don't want to hear that. It means I have to deal with it and I don't want to. It will screw up all sorts of things."
The following is an example of something that I observed in a former church in which a person was thought to slander by reporting a sexually charged incident.
A teen boy reported a sexually charged incident at a church retreat. The church "investigated" it and pronounced the teen "nuts". The pedophile continued to have full access to a group of boys for another year and horribly abused them. He is serving 13 years in jail, thanks to the police who caught him. The Matthew 18 brigade at the church had an epic fail, and there were many who were hurt by their inability to make an adequate assessment.
Turk has his own definition of slander which is, of course, biblical. In a post in which he appears to support Sovereign Grace Ministries (I bet he screams slander at me on this one) he says:
I will delete any comments which are slanderous toward any people. "Slander" is defined by the dictionary as "a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report." I'm qualifying as "false" anything which is not supported by evidence, and I'm qualifying as "evidence" things done publicly or reported by an objective third party.
Turk appears quite upset over Tom Chantry's situation and accuses those of us who have discussed it as harming Chantry's family due to our *exhibitionist* hobby.
And yes: recent events in one of their lives is particularly on my mind in saying this. It is not because someone is guilty or innocent, but the exhibitionistic hobby of some is causing his family amplified pain and shame, and God will judge the ones doing it that for it.
Turk accused me of slander in regards to Tom Chantry. Even though I presented the evidence of the police report, the arrest, etc., it was not good enough. Turk gets to define what the objective 3rd party is. It was his definition of slander that may have allowed him to continue to support Sovereign Grace Ministries in spite of the overwhelming evidence presented by victims. He can now ignore any inconvenient evidence, etc. because it couldn't go to trial due to a statute of limitations.
But what about the victims?
Turk seems concerned about the pain of Tom Chantry's family while the pain of victims doesn't seem to be on his radar.
the exhibitionistic hobby of some is causing his family amplified pain and shame,
I want to make this as clear as possible. It is the actions of Tom Chantry, and Tom Chantry alone, that have led to the pain of his family. Secondly, it must have something to do with Turk's view of pain, but there is not one of us in victims' advocacy that would ever shame the family for Chantry's activities.
Frank Turk appears to ignore the possibility of victims who have suffered in silence for years.
It is also painfully obvious that Turk has no regard for the possibility of victims in his scenario. His advocacy has been for his friend. However, he could have thrown a bone in the direction of the victims. Due to his definition of slander, however, he doesn't have to be concerned because they do not exists until confirmed by a certified, objective third party. Apparently the testimony of the elders in Chantry's former church don't cut it in his convenient viewpoint.
Turk appears to have negative view about a number of bloggers and I bet I am in that crowd.
Here are his claims about bloggers in general.
- -blogs which never post anything but the internet equivalent of this
- -exhibitionist hobby
- -tracking how many people in Christian circles are getting famous from blogging rather than from having actual accomplishments or a decent faith and a world-tilting local church.
- -mostly-faceless, mostly-nameless shill for his own unregulated opinions
- -Way far north of 95% of Christian blogging is really just exhibitionism, either exposing one's own poor judgment and thinking or exposing others faults (usually both) for the sake of gaining attention for one's self.
- – you are kidding yourself about your level of influence. I would argue that you are actually reaching fewer people and ministering to fewer people by never actually being anywhere long enough to do something "like ministry" than you would be if you belonged to a local IBF church with 25 members who meet in a wooden shack with no modern amenities.
- -nobody is holding you accountable for your actions, and you are harming the spiritual well-being of those you are seeking to influence by proliferating a system in which there is no accountability. You are making the local church into nothing, and that should bother you
A true apology or a backhanded slap down?
I am going to be frank (pun intended.) I do not understand Turk's communication style. I am still recuperating from his necrophilia comments directed at Nate Sparks and me. Unlike his friend, Tom Chantry, neither of us has ever been arrested for accusations of necrophilia after a year long police investigation. At one point, I felt a bit afraid, wondering if Turk could be mentally unstable.
Turk does much general *apologizing* in the post but does not do so specifically. He also seems to imagine that he caused an internet lynch mob. Perhaps he has. If so, then his apology is necessary. I have a piece of advice. When apologizing, don't say the following. It seems to convey that maybe he isn't sure he did anything after all.
Thanks to Phil Johnson, who doesn't believe any of things I have written in this post,
Those who have been abused will help others, often by blogging.
I view people quite differently. I believe that most people are grownups and are capable of making their own decisions about whether to believe what I write or not.
I also have found that those who have been abused and are finally believed by others often begin to blog about abuse as well. This is cause for great celebration because those who have been hurt are the right ones to reach out to the church universal to teach them how to care for those who have been let down.
The evangelical church is beginning to realize how deeply entrenched child sex abuse, domestic violence and authoritarian abuse within the local churches are. The subject matter is enough to cause most church leaders to run screaming in the opposite direction.
TWW, along with a number of other blogs, exist to give people a place to go when their churches and church leaders and members screw up and kick them to the curb. I do not do this for the notoriety. I could live a nice life doing lots of nice things for the church and my community. In fact, I do. But God has also called me to do this.
Why we started this blog.
1. We started blogging because I became concerned about abuse in the church.
2. We were shocked by the cover up of child sex abuse in the evangelical church.
3. We were concerned that there was no place to go for those who had been hurt and want to tell their stories.
4. There were few churches who offered love and support to those who have been abused.
5. We wanted to expose the hidden underbelly of the church which protects molesters and abusers.
What we don't get out of blogging.
1. We lose money since we don't take ads or do Amazon kickbacks.
2. We don't write books or speak at conferences and have turned down lots of media interviews.
3. Free time.
4. Freedom from critics.
What We get out of blogging.
1. New friends, some of whom we have met. Others with whom we communicate daily
2. A prayer life filled with intercession for those in pain.
3. Joy when we see things change.
4. Love for those who are hurt and abused.
5. A solution for self absorption,
6. We are compelled to be other centered.
7. We are forced to think deeply about theology and doctrine.
8. We have learned how love can be abrogated by blind allegiance to tradition and secondary doctrine.
9. We find non-famous people far more fascinating than celebrity pastors and theologians.
10.We read thoughts and ideas from all side of the theological spectrum.
11. We keep up with current events.
What has not changed for me personally nor will it change.
We have always been involved in a local church as well as involved in local ministry. At the same time, I understand why so many have left the church and I am there to be a support to them.
Frank Turk, you never really knew us or our friends. You just think you did.
Turk leaves the Internet without understanding why some of us blog. He accuses us without understanding our motivations. In so doing, he appears to take on the role of the Holy Spirit who knows the hearts of men and women. Sadly, I don't think there will be many victims' advocates who miss him.
First!
Frank wrote: “A corollary to this apology and retraction is this: if you are using the internet to talk to people who do not know you and cannot know you, you are doing some of the things I did, and you probably do not understand the consequences. I didn’t.”
I’m interpreting this as an apology for his telling me to go to hell on xmas eve. I know this interpretation may be overly charitable, but that beats the alternative!
Second?
Frank Who?
Almost first.
Is Turk a Neo-Cal?
He’ll be back. Probably sooner than anyone will guess. Next week?
Frank Turks comments are strange..
Exhibitionism? Is that not what he was with his “inflammatory” blog?
A majority of the post on WW do not use their real name, so how is most of WW Exhibitionism? I for one, use my name, so that I would not be accused of “hiding behind” an alias. Also, I figure using my name will help to keep me from saying something I will regret later…
I completely agree with WW focus on the victims, which IT DOES. There is WAY to much covering up/protecting the perps, at the expense of the victims. If the Church functioned correctly, and really cared about the victims, WW would not exist..
Now, as I realize that I was personally getting groomed by a perp when I was in 7th grade by a “Christian” school teacher that was convicted of TWO felonies involving under 14 year olds, 25 years AFTER he was fired for “undisclosed reasons” at my school, I am even more convinced of the importance of WW. I have also learned that he taught at ANOTHER christian school AFTER being fired from mine.
If it takes “exhibitionist” blogs, as Frank Turk claims, to prevent little boys and girls from being molested by perps that are protected by the church, count me in!! I am mad as hell about what happened at my school, and later, and will not be “silent”
(I will provide court documents to prove my situation, so I am not gossiping!! )
Turk & co often went after my late friend, Michael Spencer, the original Internet Monk. He was one of their regular targets.
I wrote a post about scorn based on their actions (and some of my own) called Scornucopia. Turk appears in the comments. Almost ten years later, all that has changed is Turk purportedly leaving the internet.
My post is here: http://kinnon.tv/2007/09/scornucopia.html
Jeffrey J . Chalmers wrote:
Yes, this is the primary reason The Wartburg Watch exists.
@ Mark Hollingsworth:
Bill Kinnon wrote:
He won’t be able to stay away. He’ll be back soon, perhaps in a different format.
Ken F wrote:
Sorry, only meant to reply to Bill.
@ Bill Kinnon:
I wonder if something happened to cause this radical pulling out of all social media? Of course it could be a ploy but I wonder.Its odd that it happened around the Tom Chantry situation as well.
dee wrote:
I think Ken F. is right when he says, “He won’t be able to stay away. He’ll be back soon, perhaps in a different format.”
Turk is every bit the “Captain Drama” he onced accused Michael Spencer of being. I doubt anything other than a diminished fan base and actual embarrassment has caused Turk’s withdrawal (as temporarily as it will perhaps be).
turk struck me as being shallow and a bit immature, like a middle-schooler trying to bully people
he was so obviously attempting to manipulate …. no wit at all
dee wrote:
Frank Turk still has posts here:
http://centuri0n.blogspot.com/p/its-not-years-its-mileage.html
Maybe, not so “radical”.
“TWW, along with a number of other blogs, exist to give people a place to go when their churches and church leaders and members screw up and kick them to the curb.”
Blogging allows those gifted as teachers and those who are discerning to exercise their gift to the church. The current one-pastor model leaves little room within the four walls to exercise these gifts.
“I have been accused of a lot of things. Most of the time, it has been by people who did not read what I wrote.”
I’ll admit I didn’t have the stomach to read pyro more that a few times so most of his quotes came from others. Reviewing his “last” post I noted the words “I repent” but did not sense contrition so I assume he has a different meaning for repent. It appears he is leaving on the same nasty note that he sang all these years.
There is a lot of projection in Frank Turk’s post.
That perverse definition of “well-known” in itself proves you-plural who are doing this are ineffable idiots, but saying more than that will not cure you-plural of it.
That quote alone is enough to prove it.
this just sounds like a drama queen move.
at the risk of self-quotation …
http://wenatcheethehatchet.blogspot.com/2017/01/frank-turk-at-pyromaniacs-on-calling-it.html
Perhaps we could put this another way, perhaps more in keeping with the tenor of Team Pyro contributors, does Frank Turk’s guilty conscience about his own self-perceived ethical failures as a blogger entitle him to presume other bloggers have shared in his character flaws? Couldn’t that be construed as emblematic of the collective character flaws of a Team Pyro blog altogether or perhaps the commentary brigades of some watchdog blogs the Pyro guys might not feel like naming?
I don’t understand this kind of apology. It appears to be passive/aggressive. As some of you know, I am an Orthodox Christian. In my church, we are taught that confession and repentance of sins is a process in which we evaluate ourselves – our own sinful actions/behaviors. It is a a time when we assess ourselves and the things we have done or failed to do. What we are advised not to do in this grave responsibility of repentance is to point the finger at others, to criticize others and what we perceive they have done wrong and how they have sinned. In this final blog entry of Mr. Turk’s, it seems as if he gives with one hand (repents of wrong doing), and takes it back with the other (finds fault with others by pointing to their sinful actions/behaviors. I do not recognize this as genuine repentance. It reminds me of a child, who when faced with how they mistreated one of their siblings, retorts: “Yeah, I know I hurt my sister, but she made me do it!”
Bill Kinnon wrote:
Oh my, I remember how cruelly Michael Spencer (God rest his soul) was treated by Phil Johnson and the Pyro boys. What a blessing Michael Spencer was to me and no doubt, to many Christians. Mr. Turk, you are wrong in stating that bloggers are “kidding yourself about your level of influence.” There are some bloggers who have made a constructive impact upon the lives of others. The Internet Monk is one of them.
dee wrote:
The man is obviously fried. You could sense it in his writing of late. He needs a break to rest and reflect.
There’s something more going on with him.
@ siteseer:
*JMHO
Max wrote:
He needs to see a physician to give him a referral. He should be under much greater medical care, and perhaps medication.
It’s funny, when I read posts here, I hear them in reasonable voices. I read people brainstorming to solve problems and seeking to understand things. I read people sharing their own experiences so that others may benefit and learn from them.
I’m always kind of amazed when someone reads fury or pernicious glee (2 accusations that come up from time to time) in the posts or comments. I just don’t sense that at all.
I’ve known people who will never speak the truth unless they get so backed into a corner and infuriated that they finally melt down and lose control. I wonder if this sort of person thinks that anyone who speaks truth, no matter how calmly, must have reached that point?
Bill Kinnon wrote:
I remember that. I read IM back then.
Turk was online in the early days of blogging. I ran across him a lot and had one bizarre email exchange concerning my then blog that led me to believe he was seeking to be a sort of christian blogging celebrity. I found him a bit scary back then. i think he thought being added to pyro was his big break. He heavily promoted it.
I think he will be back.
dee wrote:
Or something he’s expecting to happen.
@ Darlene:
I think Turk is over estimating his influence.
@ mot:
He seems to be from the McArthur wing of Calvinism. Phil Johnson, who started Pyro, works for McArthur.
Lea wrote:
Exactly! Reading the excerpts just made me want to laugh.
Don’t know him. Never heard of him before the Chantry arrest. Won’t miss him. Probably won’t notice his return.
Lea wrote:
Is he going to pout while his countless adoring fans cry and beg him to come back?
Bill Kinnon wrote:
I am a fan of Michael’s writings. He is much missed at Imonk, where Chaplain Mike keeps the blog going to honor Michael’s memory.
The idea that those silly Pyros could ‘insult’ someone of the quality of Michael Spencer amazes me. It’s like those Ethiopian boat men attacking a US warship …. little men, little people, small minds using ‘scorn’ against one of the most insightful writers that we in Western Christianity have produced in the United States in recent decades. That the Pyros worshiped at MacArthur’s feet reveals much. Silly boyz.
Lea wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRhovNlNck4
Nancy2 wrote:
I bet he made up phony names and posted comments from these make-believe ‘adoring fans’ to shore up his nonsense. You see a lot of that on blogs these days.
I know a blogging website that’s making the local church into nothing, it’s called The Gospel Coalition. Actually the rest of the list is almost accurate criticisms of them, too. Is that who he’s talking about?
Unless y’all minions of Stan are doxxing people and attacking their employers, the idea that when a person who chose to publish on the internet receives criticism within those channels it should be a call to arms for good people to defend him is absurd. And we’re talking about child sex abuse victims here, and that’s who we’re going to help! Todd Pruitt did the same thing when he posted here. Russell Moore: this is why the church has no moral credibility, not Donald Trump.
@ mot:
@ Lydia:
Turk is a teacher at The Bible Church of Little Rock:
http://www.bclr.org/sermons/?preacher=107
The Bible Church of Little Rock is a Member of the Fellowship of Independent Reformed Evangelicals aka “FIRE”, as is TeamPyro blogmaster/John MacArthur underling Phil Johnson.
Frank Turk was ‘editor in chief’ of The Calvinist Gadfly blog featuring Tom Chantry:
http://new-calvinist-gadfly.blogspot.com/p/about.html
This is kind of weird but whenever I see or hear the word “scorn”, I always think of burnt popcorn for some reason. (Probably because it sounds like “scorch” + “corn”). Don’t put the popcorn in the microwave for too long or it’ll scorn.
Jerome wrote:
Looks like last post was 2012.
It sounds to me like Frank got in trouble.
My friends in geekland call a dramatic exit like this “flouncing”. People never seem to stay gone long after flouncing, though.
Bill M wrote:
What he wrote on pyro isn’t all that he wrote. He went around on everyone else’s blogs and on Twitter and had to say a lot more things. Did he just totally misrepresent himself everywhere else? I don’t think so.
This afternoon my quiet, introspective, peaceable, mature daughter came into the living room and asked that I announce myself if I open her bedroom door in the middle of the night. She began shaking and crying. I was horrified. You see, three years ago ahe was molested by the adult son of close family friends while we were staying at their house. When I opened her door very quietly at 1AM to check that her light was off, it jolted her right back to the nights this trusted young man I’d known since he was born – this homeschooled, church volunteer – snuck in to where she was sleeping and molested her.
I was horrified today as such an innocent act on my part caused the pain and fear to take over. All the anger I have felt to this man, who lied and manipulated, to his parents who minimized and rejected, to the silent church members who “didn’t want to take sides, or worse, the ones who did and pressured us not to report, all of that flooded over me again today.
My daughter’s experience was mild in comparison to some of the horror stories I’ve hears and read, but this is the reality three years later for a survivor of child sexual abuse. With the exception of a few friends, we were ignored and further traumatized by our church because his parents are very popular leaders and lay pastors.
Today I wished we’d pushed for him to receive jail time. Why? Because we are three years out and my girl is still crying and shaking when someone innocently opens her bedroom door in the middle of the night.
So, here’s what I have to say to Frank Turk and the other voices of “reason and respectability in the church”, shut up!! You are in no way representative of Christ. You are Pharisees who not only watch as abusers cause little ones to stumble, but you stick your feet out to trip them further. I am disgusted with a of you who dare to stand up for an abuser and protect him. You have no idea what it’s like for survivors and their families. We do not wear a mantle of victimhood; however, something was destroyed in our family the nights that “godly” young man dragged my girl into his filth. Frank Turk, I dare you to look me in the eye or the parent of any survivor of child sexual abuse, how about the parents of the children hurt by Chantry, look us in the eye and try spouting your garbage. Tom Chantry deserves everything he gets for touching one child one time. Those children did nothing to deserve what they are now carrying. Their families did nothing to deserve this. You are disgusting. And if you’re reading this and want to talk to me, Dee has my permission to give you my name and email. I do not believe you will give up your ability to speak to an audience. You’re too full of yourself.
And one last comment: if the church was doing it’s job and standing up for victims, supporting and caring for them, instead of hiding the truth and further abusing them, these blogs would be unnecessary.
@ one of the little people:
Not little to God. May He heal and restore your family. Our prayers are with you. God bless and comfort you.
And, “…leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.'” Rom. 12:18-20, Deut. 32:35.
Chantry was correct:
“Editor’s note: today, after many threats of violence and exposure to grief, beloved internet troublemaker Tom Chantry joins the rolls of Gadfly contributors. His wife and I are proud of him; he, on the other hand, is certain nothing good will come of it.”
-Comment by Frank Turk on his blog “The Calvinist Gadfly.”
http://new-calvinist-gadfly.blogspot.ae/2011/09/is-this-even-possible.html
@ one of the little people:
This has me heartbroken. I know the two people who assaulted me have left me with nightmares and a fear of being alone outside. I was an adult, they were not people I trusted, and I went after them afterward. To be a child and be in a position of helplessness when you are molested by someone you thought you trusted…
It just make me so angry. I will be praying for your daughter.
WenatcheeTheHatchet wrote:
This is par for the course Calvinista theology at work. These pastors figure since they do horrible things, that the peons must be 1000000x worse. And it’s clear Turk ascribes his own motives to everyone else.
What I find interesting is that Turk seems to believe everybody blogging about Chantry is his fault. Even though it was in the news, first, and Turk only got into the middle of this to defend Chantry from people talking about it, after it was in the news.
ishy wrote:
Thank you Ishy. I’m so sorry that happened to you.
one of the little people wrote:
I don’t think it was his first ‘rodeo’ and it won’t be his last ‘rodeo’. That’s why prison would have been important. To punish him, for him to be required to be registered as a sex offender, and to protect other people from him.
About nightmares, they are not as common as they use to be, in fact, they are seldom. What I got from the few times I had seen a psychologist he was amazed I was not suffering any real mental health issues. My nightmares stemmed from a fire I was in as a kid and the being in the hospital for so long. I told this story before so I won’t really go into it but one does not get over some things. Now in the faith, it was expected that one will get over it before one even goes through it, whatever it is. If one does not get over it one is a coward, liar, manipulator, hates God and so on. That is why I came to these blogs because it was clear the church did not want to hear it, I mean you should have it all nailed down in the backyard, get over it, move on, go in for the big win etc. That was a constant theme, except the many of the folks that peddled this stuff to me never got over anything. They would remember a small slight for years, literally loathed others in the same faith community because they disagreed over some trifle of doctrine, polity, ecclesiology etc. I mean families would leave, break up, not talk to each other etc. I know my earthly family went through some horrid things but never did we cast each other out, ever. I lived up to that one aspect for over 30 years and I paid a big price for it, not for the helping but in faith communities. That is another post.
One of the blogs I went to for some answers was pyro and well it was not helpful. Mr. Turk is wrong how these blogs do not help. They help real people with real issues try to find real solutions. I mean I am going back to a real world faith community and anyone who knows me from what I post here knows that is a big move for me.
Velour wrote:
We did require that he register as a sex abuser as the other punishments were a slap on the wrist and the reasons were two: to do all we could to protect anyone in the future he might target and to send a message to my daughter that she is that important; however, we never pushed for jail time. I regret that now. I regret not pushing the church to put boundaries on him. I regret not making more noise before I left our church. I learned a lot though and when his brother was accused a year later of molesting a five year old in the children’s church where he was working alone, I was able to give the mother of the little girl some advice and encouragement through a third party. The first thing I told her was not to go to the church, but to head right for the police department.
@ one of the little people:
I am so very sorry. Guys like Turk don’t want to know what it is like for victims/survivors. They have as much opportunity to reach out to them as any of us. They simply don’t want to understand. You can tell by the inane things they say to try and shut down any discussion and use shame and censoring tactics by misapplying scripture. They don’t even understand the process. And they think they are legal experts. Victims can have character witnesses, too.
And there are people like that in church leadership all over the place. Church can make people cruel because they are so quick to defend it.
@ one of the little people:
Amen!
Darlene wrote:
Yeah, I was there on the front lines as that hot mess was going down. Turk & Co.’s shameless attacks on IMonk played no small role in my stepping away from the Reformed scene for good. Perhaps that ought to be one of the “negative consequences” Turk thinks he should repent of? 😉
@ one of the little people:
To me, this is the core issue… These pedos are clearly repeat offenders, and the first time one hears about a pedo, we need to expose it for the sake of the future victims, if nothing else!
Now that i have first hand experince, and have proof of a pedo getting convicted 20 + years after being fired as a techer in my class at a christain school for “improper” behavior, we ALL have an obligation to protect future victims of these pedos….
Anger is a drug and angry self-righteous guys like Turk, JD Hall, Phil Johnson, and others, can’t go without their drug. I predict a 2017 come-back.
I believe Frank Turk has skillfully and in typical religious pride mode, overemphasized his influence within the church. I have never heard of him nor has he influenced my faith in Jesus Christ in any way, shape or form. I did read his departing article, a first for his blog, and found it to be deeply disturbing.
I personally do not regard Phil Johnson as a truly Christ-like humble man. I used to be a faithful follower of John MacArthur and cannot stomach the pride of him or his underling preachers for their ‘celebrity status’ troubles me greatly. Celebrity preacher men and women usually guard the sins of those they favor, all the while exposing the sins of those with whom they hate, even within their own churches. They are indeed, human after all.
Thankfully, Frank Turk hasn’t influenced many a born again Christian, and to his credit, my prayer is that he will read, study, and meditate upon the Word of God, and follow Jesus, the One True Shepherd, instead of man.
Necrophilia. Seriously? Necrophilia. You and Nate Sparks. Wow. Just wow.
I’ll be the first to admit, I don’t know what to make of Frank Turk. In one instance, it sounds as if he’s been shamed by his own church group into being a more submissive drone. In the next, it sounds like he’s pulling another “holier than thou other bloggers stance” (with a dose of false humility). His way of attacking people and bloggers (while bashing people with authority) reminds me of Matthew J. Slick of CARM.
Jeffrey J . Chalmers wrote:
This.
His definition of exhibitionism is as dumb as his definition of slander and evidence. Apparently if you weren’t raped on the front lawn in front of a dozen witnesses, it didn’t happen.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Ha! That’s a great clip.
Nancy2 wrote:
I have seen similar Facebook type posts that are obviously some combination of sorry not sorry and just fishing for everyone to tell them how wonderful they are.
ishy wrote:
Said the same guy who actively took a post down by Chantry so people couldn’t read what he wrote!
Don’t Turk’s necrophilia comments fall squarely under *his* definition of slander, much less the legal ones?
But I’m sure it only counts if other people are “slandering”.
I hope he stays gone.
Lea wrote:
Yes, very true.
He deleted some of his own worst comments on Twitter, too. I think Nate Sparks still has screenshots of them. Nothing is ever really gone on the internet.
@ ishy:
That is what i thought… Very weird..
I predicted a couple days ago that he would retire his blog. Astrology had nothing to do with my prediction. My exact words: “Get to it fast because once he realizes that he is condemning himself, Turk will not apologize. He will take it down.”
http://jeriwho.net/lillypad2/?p=17675
Karen wrote:
There’s a bad outbreak of that in New Calvinist ranks. It gets worse when you stick a microphone or keyboard in front of them.
Ken F wrote:
Going offline cuts him off from his Narcissistic Supply.
How long until he’s back depends on how soon the withdrawals kick in and how severe they get.
Max wrote:
Whatever would God to without Pastor/Elder/Theologian Grima Wormtongue to whisper in His ear and tell Him what to do?
GSD wrote:
Nowhere near first *, but I agree with you, GSD. There are an infinite number of people in the blogsphere, and it’s no concern of mine whether Mr Turk wants, or doesn’t want, be one of them.
TBH, I’m not entirely sure why we’re even having this discussion.
I don’t mean that to come across as dismissively as it does. I’m only distantly aware of the pyro team and would never have heard of Mr Turk had he not been mentioned here. I don’t know whether they’re considered a significant voice in online christian circles, nor whether they have a strongly-embedded tendency to support and enable directly abusive behaviour.
One of the unique things about TWW is its prime directive focused on people, not ideology or doctrine. There are many, many blogs set up to “oppose false teaching” or “protect the gospel” or “uphold the truth of God’s word” or “expose deception in the church”. They’re opinion blogs, IOW, and I literally couldn’t care less about any of them. I don’t read them, and I know better than to use them as a source of useful information; in the words of Wolfgang Pauli, they’re “not even wrong”.
TWW is different. It addresses behaviour, and – here’s the thing – it actually defends people who don’t have a network of well-connected buddies to defend them. No wonder people don’t like it.
* Sometimes being on UTC gives you a headstart at the Wartburg Olympics, and sometimes it doesn’t!
@ Sam:
He might have been advised to distance himself. The bodies are piling up in that movement. But I have another take.
First, I don’t think he can stay away. He might reinvent his online presence. Who knows? He’s a guy who needs a platform.
Secondly, I visited pyro for the first time in many years to read his stream of consciousness post that was all over the place. I think the blog was dead anyway.
I noticed that posts have dropped about 3/4 from its hey day. And most are Spurgeon posts. Could be Phil Johnson is leaving. But these were grown men past middle age playing biblical super heros complete with snappy graphics, dress up and a zapping mentality toward anyone who disagreed. Their commenting rules were ridiculous. It was most likely a place for adoring fans commenters on the non Spurgeon posts. They worship Spurgeon. So the fan base was most likely gone.
Other than Pyro, I am not familiar with Turks other blogs or Facebook. He was always trolling for followers in the early days. He has always tried to drum up a big internet presence since the day he started online. I speculate it did not work out for him and he is furious so he plays the martyr.
Thirdly, it is a waste of time to get sucked into his drama. (Pyro loved to talk about the blog divas –those monstrous regiment of women, years ago. I found it amusing that grown men playing super heros blogged about discernment divas)
Frank does us all a favor. He is obvious. His verbal abuse lets us all know up front who he is and it does not include reason. He is not slick and deceptive like a Matt Chandler who knows how to brain game while being the benevolent overlord of an Acts 29/9 Marx church. Chandler has minion elders to carry out the “caring” they insist is their covenant. He is not flowery verbosity like Piper.
His shtick just never took beyond a small following.
“Proper” theology does not cover despicable behavior of pedos and abusers. If it takes being called names to expose these cover-ups. Bring it on! Kids are wroth more than the “abuse” from people like the pyro boys!
Janey wrote:
Yep, these guys are addicted to cussing out others in Jesus’ name … which, last time I looked, is not a fruit of the Spirit. I guess “Be ye angry but sin not” is not in their version of the Bible. There is a vast difference in a fleshly anger of ego defending religious territory vs. a righteous anger expressing concern for the well-being of others. TWW and other watchblogs would fall in the latter category. It’s no surprise that religious arrogance in the pulpit eventually clashes with a humble pew, whether it’s in church or the blogosphere.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Most of the big Calvinistas believe they are a huge influence on the world, but really the Calvinistas just follow other Calvinistas. They are quite the insular group.
Then, you look at the community here on TWW, and we range from Baptist (or former Baptists like me) to Methodists to nondenoms to Anglican to even Catholic and Orthodox.
Church abuse and abuse by people claiming to be Christians crosses church divides. We talk a lot about the Calvinistas on here because they’ve actually built male entitlement into their theology, and so it seems to happen at a higher rate in their churches, but the Deebs have touched on pretty much everybody else, too.
Max wrote:
These guys do more to turn people off to God. They are very poor representatives of Jesus IMO.
Jeri Massi wrote:
Really good post, Jeri!
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Yes! That is what I like about this blog as well.
I think it’s more than a focus on people, it’s a focus on actions (which affect people) and how systems are used to support bad actions and enable them, which hurts people in the process. That’s what I love about this. Contrary to what some people seem to think, it’s not because we love ‘gossip’ that we watch when scandal after scandal happens. For me, I watch with dismay and opening eyes to things that have probably been there all along that are getting rooted out and exposed.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
I’ll also note that there’s probably 3 to 4 times the people reading here that actually post. I have three or four friends that read and talk to me about TWW who don’t post, or who only post once in awhile.
I’m sure that happens with pyro, but I’d wager a lot of the people who don’t comment on their blogs are not fans.
ishy wrote:
I wonder how many comments they delete at pyro?
Nancy2 wrote:
Yeah, good point!
Jeri Massi wrote:
Jeri!!! Great to see you back. Thanks for your latest posts.
Everyone else: Jeri’s book Schizophrenic Christianity should be on your reading list for the new year. She has written others too, but that’s a start.
ishy wrote:
Just a thought (a wicked thought) ……. Turk has spoken of his concern that poor, persecuted Tom Chantry will not be employable after the abuse accusations. I assume that since Turk is going dark, he will have a lot of time on his hands. So, if Chantry is not convicted, perhaps he and Turk of them could open a funeral parlor together.
Dale wrote:
Good point.
R2 wrote:
If called that by Turk, it is a compliment.
WenatcheeTheHatchet wrote:
Great insight
Darlene wrote:
LOLOLOL.
Darlene wrote:
I, too, was a Michael Spencer fan. Turk is no where near his level of insight. Turk appears to be an angry man.
mot wrote:
Jesus?! Jesus doesn’t hang out with the guys. Heck, they hardly bring up His name!
Which brings me to a major concern I have as we enter the new year. What happened to Jesus?! We seem to have gotten over Him in the organized church, not only in New Calvinist ranks.
siteseer wrote:
I think so as well. It is curious that this happened at the same time as his meltdown with Nate and me and the Tom Chantry situation.
Lydia wrote:
Ya think?
@ Jack:
Snd you life is more peaceful for it.
Jerome wrote:
I did not realize this. Thank you.
I’ve been sitting here trying to figure out who Turk reminds me of. It just now hit me … Chris Matthews, MSNBC commentator. On his “Hardball” show, Matthews is always angry about something or somebody. Displays of anger have been his ticket to fame – same with Turk. Without it, neither would have much of a platform.
Jerome wrote:
Thank you for this information. I have been reading over at the church’s website and I can see what I was up against.
MidwesternEasterner wrote:
I actually like me popcorn a bit on the *scorned* side!
ishy wrote:
Flouncing Frank! If has a ring.
one of the little people wrote:
I almost started crying reading your comment. I stopped and prayed for your daughter and the peace that passes all understanding.
Your comment should be read by anybody who blows off child sex abuse.
ishy wrote:
I’m glad I wasn’t sipping my coffee when I read this. That’s a perfect description of this particular kind of Internet action!
one of the little people wrote:
You are right.
@ Todd Wilhelm:
Frank really had thing for Chantry, didn’t he?
Sam wrote:
He tried to make a point that Chantry was being unjustly accused with no proof. So he thought he was being funny with his example. But, instead of making it once, he kept it up, warning Nate to say away from dead bodies, etc. Nate reported him to Twitter to no avail. I started getting worried thathe wouldn’t let it go. I wondered if he was becoming a bit unhinged. I still wonder that.
ishy wrote:
Agreed. I also hope he gets help. Things got really bad out there.
@ Jeri Massi:
I wonder if he knows that his BFF Chantry is in a lot of trouble and he has staked his ground next to his jail cell.
Eeyore wrote:
Or, maybe that is one of the things meant for evil that God used for your good? 😉
Lydia wrote:
He needs the following verse on his refrigerator as he turns over a new leaf this year: “Don’t cherish exaggerated ideas of yourself or your importance, but try to have a sane estimate of your capabilities” (Romans 12:3 Phillips).
Just a thought (a wicked thought) ……. Turk has spoken of his concern that poor, persecuted Tom Chantry will not be employable after the abuse accusations.
Of course, this is a big deal in church circles where wives are never to work outside the home, especially those who are also mothers.
dee wrote:
Yeah, I’d never heard of this bunch before, either. I may have to look them up. Sounds like a bunch of Calvinists who don’t want to be Presbyterians or too connected to other churches.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Well, it’s as close as I’ve ever gotten to commenting first on TWW. Next time I won’t stop to read the article first. Lesson learned ;^)
It’s hard to comment first on this blog. Which makes a point. It’s widely read, and the comment section is super-active. And that might make Turk jealous. I’m not sure what his other blogs are, and I would imagine that the heavily moderate the comments, but I doubt he has ever gotten over 1000 comments on a post.
Turk may just be jealous that after all of his hard work and brilliance and witty banter, a couple of… women… get far more attention and accolades than he and his buddies do. So he’s going to repent of trying so hard to get attention in the blogosphere — because it isn’t working.
Jerome wrote:
Wait, that guy lives in little Rock?
@ Lea:
He’s not listed under ‘leadership’ so I don’t know what his function is at the church, but he’s taught 27 sermons apparently.
Lea wrote:
“Minister Without Portfolio”?
(Which in Euro-political-speak usually means some sort of spook.)
Max wrote:
But that’s not from Calvin’s Institutes!
NJ wrote:
Another Pastor’s Pet Pedo situation?
“All these pervs said one to another:
‘Perv unto perv o’er the world is Brother!'”
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
That’s a new one to me! I like it.
I’m sort of down the rabbit hole looking at this church now. I’m reading the confidentiality clause on biblical counseling (which is terrible, imo) and the form amusingly asks you to tell them how much coffee you drink? What?
@ Lea:
The form also asks if you cry during your menstrual cycle!
I am very familiar with the Bible Church of Little Rock of old. My in-laws attended in the early years when Bud Hart was pastor. It was a DTS oriented mainstream evangelical. Bud was replaced by Steve Lawson who took it into a McArthur/Reformed bent. After that I lost touch but I am not surprised by their bent today.
Never heard of him. I have seen older, better blogs out there – even though they get less attention. That’s part of their charm. Anyone can be drawn like a moth to a flame to a sensationalist cult of personality – but to take the less beaten path to various sources of wisdom is the better route to true perspective.
Sounds like a mea culpa to his (Turk’s) mea culpa.
Lea wrote:
Same here! Reading here on TWW has been such an education for me, if nothing else teaching me not to idolize anyone and to watch for signs of that in myself. Of course, “if nothing else” isn’t the case at all, needless to say.
ishy wrote:
Mere speculation by me, but I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that the multiple is quite a bit higher. God bless TWW. ❤️
Reading above, both the OP and as well as quick skim of the comments, I am reminded of how much Turk and his blogging compatriots (comrades?) like to drop names across the internets…names that everyone inside and outside-looking-in will recognize as leaders of the Neo Cal/YRR movement.
In turn, this thought led to me remembering, and they verifying through a Google search, the song “Your Mind is on Vacation” by Mose Allison, and sung by Elvis Costello:
Burwell wrote:
The poor guy has himself twisted into a knot. First he painted himself into a corner, then he sawed off the branch he was sitting on. To mix metaphors. But what’s a meta for, anyway?
ishy wrote:
I have not heard ‘flouncing’ for ages but people used to say that a lot. It is so descriptive. I am putting that into my A list vocabulary. Thanks for mentioning it.
roebuck wrote:
He thinks he’s being clever. He’s not.
NJ wrote:
Evidently they got into the church network game. Of course the acronym is FIRE. Remember the Strange Fire conferences? The McArthur clan are big cessationists.
NJ wrote:
Evidently they got into the church network game. Of course the acronym is FIRE. Remember the Strange Fire conferences? The McArthur clan are big cessationists. Lea wrote:
Seriously?!! People actually fill this stuff out?
drstevej wrote:
Lawson-I have heard of. Oh my. Serious Calvinist.
GSD wrote:
Sorry, GSD – I didn’t express myself well there! I meant that I was nowhere near first.
ION: Climbing
Lesley and I are just back from our first session of the new year; and it went rather well. I sent the pink 6c on route 13 with something to spare (6c is rather generous, I think, but it’s not trivial) and Lesley has now done very nearly all the moves on the green 6b+ slab problem.
IHTIH
@ ishy:
Thank you, Ishy!
Lydia wrote:
You may be right that they don’t want to hear from victims/survivors, which is why it’s crucial for the families to speak up and not be silenced through the spiritual baseball bats of shame, misuse of the word of God, politeness, the Law, fear, friendship, or respect. In tge Catholic Church it took many voices speaking out until they could no longer be ignored. Samara Levy, a wonderful British woman who works with Iraqi and Syrian refugees speaks to the enormity of the challenge of providing help to so many people when she says, “One lorry may be a drop in the ocean, but I believe the ocean is made up of many drops.” One blog post, one comment, one meeting, one conversation may be a drop in the ocean, but together we can have an impact.
dee wrote:
I’m not sure he could even comprehend the reality of the situation. These guys view everything through neo-calvinist tinted glasses.
In a post titled “Frank Haz a Sad,” he laments his blog may have substituted for the caring control of church elder overlords.
Ted wrote:
Thank you so much Ted. As my health permits I’m more active. This situation is very sad. I used to think it was only the fundies. Not true, sadly.
Lydia wrote:
I guess so? They aren’t doctors so I don’t know why they would need information on this!
http://www.bclr.org/wp-content/uploads/Counseling-Forms-Combined.pdf
NJ wrote:
Of course he’s employable, but that’s not really what Turk means. It means he’s much less likely to be employable in a cushy ministry job.
I think most of these guys would benefit from working a year in menial labor.
GSD wrote:
I think you’re on to something here. It’s not just jealousy though. God forbid a woman, let alone two of them, would have anything to offer the church (church being the fellas). Dee & Deb, couldn’t you two just write a nice children’s Sunday school curriculum or a women’s bible study?
@ Lea:
There was a lot of crazy stuff in there. The ‘confidentiality’ agreement (which is not very), the ‘list your sins’ section, etc..
Lea wrote:
Because clearly an imbalance of hormones is a sin issue.
While an imbalance in a male personality is the recipe for a successful ministry.
@ ishy:
Clearly.
One of the things that invalidates confidentiality is “when a person persistently refuses to renounce a particular sin and it becomes necessary to seek the assistance of others in the church to encourage repentance and reconciliation”.
No room for error or interpretation here!
Nancy2 wrote:
Wow. As sex crimes attorney/author/children’s advocate Andrew Vachss would say of enablers like Turk, “[He] isn’t just sick, but sickening.”
NeoCalvinism suffers from a lack of ‘real’ men. Cowards one and all.
ishy wrote:
I’m imagining how these sessions go:
Counselor: “Well, Mrs. Smith, (because there’s no single women in the church) please explain why your husband thinks you are not being submissive enough once a month?”
Mrs. Smith: “I’m just on my cycle.”
Counselor: “Clearly, this is a sin issue for which you need to repent.”
Mrs. Smith: “What about seeing my doctor?”
Counselor: “No, your living in sin. Repent.”
Then on the flip side….
Mr. Smith: “I’m an elder, and my wife, family, and the members of the church constantly disobey me.”
Counselor: “This is troubling indeed. They must be living in sin.”
Mr. Smith: “Everyone is only out to get me. They make my life so hard.”
Counselor: “Sounds to me like you are called to be a pastor! You should go to Southern and get an MDiv!”
one of the little people wrote:
What a terrible journey you’ve all had. I’m sorry. I am glad that you were able to share important information with a mother of another child abuse victim and point her in the right direction.
Lea wrote:
Indeed. And I wonder what the balance of male to female churchwide discipline is.
I bet it’s not even close to 50/50.
Interestingly enough, I found Pyromaniacs…well, boring tedious and a bit irrelevant. So long Frank, I hope you find better ways to spend your time!
Guys like Turk are much too arrogant to just up and leave like this. It makes me wonder what may be revealed in the future that he doesn’t want to be publicly around for when another shoe drops.
ishy wrote:
I keep really, really wanting to see stats on this! With detail, reason for ‘discipline’, outcome, etc…broken down by age, sex, etc.
ishy wrote:
Hysteria and emotionalism. Inherited sins from Eve. It’s why women are perpetually deceived. It’s a female besetting sin that not even the cross itself can overcome. It might even be the unforgivable sin for women only. The only hope for women is the procurement of a male “head”. No Jael’s allowed.
Lea wrote:
Resolution of Conflicts
—
On rare occasions a conflict may develop between a counselor and a counselee. In order to make sure that any such conflicts will be resolved in a biblically faithful manner, we require all of our counselees to agree that any dispute that arises with a counselor or with this church as a result of counseling will be settled by mediation and, if necessary, legally binding arbitration in accordance with the Rules of Procedure of the Institute for Christian Conciliation; judgment upon an arbitration award may be entered in any court having jurisdiction. (We will be happy to provide you with booklets that explain the Christian conciliation process and describe its benefits and procedures.)
dee wrote:
From some of his articles I’ve read, I think he’s always been a bit unhinged ………. like an old barn door in an F-5 tornado.
Lea wrote:
Irish coffee?
Lea wrote:
For some people, that would depend on how much Irish is in the coffee.
Nancy2 wrote:
HA! Alcohol is a different question.
I was off work the last week and had several coffee + hot cocoa + baileys mornings. So good.
okrapod wrote:
I have heard “flouncing” used in reference to certain types of women/girls. How funny that the term was used in reference to Turk!
Nancy2 wrote:
It’s actually in the urban dictionary as a term for people who get mad and claim they are making an exit from the internet after a big tantrum. Not that I recommend the urban dictionary most days.
In my 20 years on the internet, I’ve seen some very dramatic flouncing, but Turk’s is up there. And the people that flounce an exit are always the ones that you want to stay gone, but they show up a week later pretending like nothing happened and acting the same way they always did.
Lea wrote:
I don’t always have a drink, but when I do, it’s after dinner. Except for one time: VBS at my church last year was a hectic week, along with a full work schedule during the day, and a turdnado of crap going on in the background on top of all that, so when I woke up after sleeping in on Saturday morning, I totally went half and half (milk and Bailey’s) in my latte, and it was The. Best. Evar. 😛
Jerome wrote:
Brings a whole new meaning to the phrase “Strange FIRE”.
(Sorry, I don’t even remember anything about the original “Strange Fire” except somebody handed out books in the church or parking lot and was asked to leave?)
@ one of the little people:
one of the little people: I am in tears, reading this. Prayers for you and your daughter.
dee wrote:
Thank you Dee.
refugee wrote:
Thank you.
Todd Wilhelm wrote:
I am troubled by the combination of “gadfly”, “internet troublemaker”, and the gospel, which is supposed to mean “good news”.
Chantry, Turk, Johnson, and their ilk remind me of those we are called by the bible to avoid, who stir up dissentions.
From http://biblehub.com/titus/3-9.htm:
Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, arguments, and quarrels about the Law, because these things are pointless and worthless.
And cross-references:
1 Timothy 1:4
or devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculation rather than the stewardship of God’s work, which is by faith.
2 Timothy 2:14
Remind the believers of these things, charging them before God to avoid quarreling over words; this is in no way profitable, and leads its listeners to ruin.
2 Timothy 2:16
But avoid irreverent and empty chatter, which will only lead to more ungodliness,
2 Timothy 2:23
But reject foolish and ignorant speculation, for you know that it breeds quarreling.
James 4:1
What causes conflicts and quarrels among you? Don’t they come from the passions at war within you?
Lea wrote:
Actually, blogs like Team Pyro (and Doug Wilson’s one-man show) strike me as the most egregious examples of exhibitionism I’ve seen on the web.
@ Max:
I LOVE Chris Matthew: he doesn’t let the smarmy cover-up artists off the hook, does he? Chris is a good Catholic boy! I can see from how he confronts the squirming guilty low-lifes that he learned the how-to from watching the nuns at school.
@ Lydia:
Good points. Thanks for the info.
Lydia wrote:
I have two links for you. Link 1.
The Buried Story of Male Hysteria
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/12/testicular-hysteria/511793/?utm_source=atltw
“When men actually began to be diagnosed as “hysterics,” doctors searched for a cause. They found a chemical that may be on the rise again today.”
I’ll see if I can find link 2.
@ dee:
I’m sorry you two had to put up with that. Honestly, when I hear people acting that way I wonder how on earth they can call themselves “Christian”. Jesus would never have talked that way to anybody. Also, isn’t accusing somebody without proof “slander”. In that case, he’s just as guilty as the bloggers he accuses…
Lydia wrote:
‘Women are just better at this stuff’: is emotional labor feminism’s next frontier?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/08/women-gender-roles-sexism-emotional-labor-feminism
American society and Christianity socializes girls and women to be emotional, then penalizes them and scoffs at them, for ‘being more emotional than men.’
American men are, by and large, socialized to repress their emotions (except for anger).
It annoys me when a group teaches someone ‘X,’ then when someone follows ‘X,’ mocks them or limits them for doing ‘X.’ It’s very hypocritical.
So, you have a church and culture that tells girls it’s perfectly fine for them to weep or act moody in public, but when they do so as women, then say,
“See, females are not as logical as men. Women are too emotional! Therefore, women should not serve in leadership capacities.”
Well, geniuses, who adhere to that belief, you are part and parcel of setting up the very conditions for which you later disqualify women.
Nancy2 wrote:
That flouncing terminology was very popular at a political blog I used to visit years and years ago.
Any time any member left that political blog in a huff, whether male or female, they were said by the blog owner or other members to “be flouncing.”
Or “they flounced.” (Any variation of “flounce” was used.)
Daisy wrote:
I wanted to add a P.S. to that.
The Bible records several instances of Jesus Christ showing emotion. He wept, he felt compassion and pity for hurting people, etc.
Why do some Christians (who are sexist / complementarian) begrudge those very same traits when WOMEN show them? It’s a double standard.
Daisy wrote:
A lot of that is cultural. In some other cultures, men show a lot more emotion in certain situations, such as for a death. In Western culture, men are not supposed to, or they are not “tough” enough.
A lot of complementarian values come from Western culture, and not the Bible. The whole “man working with wife at home with the kids” is not biblical; it’s from the idealization of 50’s culture. Agrarian societies generally have both parents at home on the farm, or the whole family working in the family trade. Both parents would be dealing with the children and caring for the household.
I think it is wise for Turk to give up blogging–his lack of grace and generosity demonstrated in the attitude of superiority and passive-aggressive shots at others loudly proclaims that it is time for him to withdraw and re-evaluate.
Years from now, he may look back on his exit as the right decision, his manner of exit with regret.
Sam wrote:
I always learn something from these encounters. At first, I was a bit afraid. But then I started thinking long and hard as to why someone would become so unhinged over this situation.
I am sad that Frank has left various forms of social media. This indicates that he hasn’t learned the important lesson of how to interact with people in a cordial manner, even during a disagreement–particularly online. Leaving is far easier, but I don’t think Turk can escape the fact that the Internet is the future. Using social media effectively is a professional skill–it’s usage should result in psychiatric meltdowns.
Moreover, for many individuals, the Internet provides a wide-based Christian dialogue than one cannot receive in the church. It shouldn’t REPLACE the church, no. But it is an invaluable tool when it comes to analyzing all aspects of Christian life. Many Christians simply go to church, sit through a 1.5 hour sermon. Chat briefly with friends about their earthly struggles and maybe–just MAYBE–if they have a theological question, they can take it to a single pastor and get one man’s perspective on the issue. Makes for a stable congregation, but also a stale one that doesn’t encourage reform when it is duly needed.
I would like to see Turk do better for his life than simply torching his Internet presence.
Nancy2 wrote:
His response to the Tom Chantry situation was beyond anything I have ever read. I believe there is much more to this situation and I bet we eventually find out.
Amy Smith wrote:
Now this is something that I can agree with. I bet you are correct!
SureWhyNot? wrote:
I think something more is going on here. This whole uproar started with the Tom Chantry thing. Stay tuned. I am sure there will be more as to why.
drstevej wrote:
Thank you for confirming that. I thought it had a different background when I had last heard of it.
SureWhyNot? wrote:
Not many churches have hour and a half sermons. In the South, if they went past noon, there’d be a revolt of epic proportions. In Baptist churches, which generally have the longer sermons, they tend to be 30-35 minutes at most, so you can get out and have fried chicken by 12:30.
Turk will be back. Flouncers always are. But I doubt he will be much changed.
dee wrote:
I thought it was strange that you got so much pushback for reporting public information like an arrest record. This was not an anonymous source or gossip! It was already public.
And they flipped out.
ishy wrote:
Well, to be fair, the first half hour is the praise, worship, and announcements. But then the sermon always goes overtime because these Neo-Calvinists can’t condense three verses of Exodus into a mere hour. Nooooo. I have seriously read Game of Thrones on my Kindle and I’ll be done with the whole series before our pastor gets to Leviticus.
dee wrote:
I used to laugh at religious hijinks in the vein of “Team Pyro”. I always thought guys like this were a bunch of clowns…but I don’t find it so funny anymore after reading the comments in this post.
I mean, they are clowns, just not of the “ha ha” variety.
SureWhyNot? wrote:
Hahaha! Well, just so long as it’s not Harry Potter.
Lea wrote:
ALWAYS a red light when people ‘protest too much’ when they are seemingly ‘detached’ directly from an issue…. ah the wisdom of Shakespeare is still useful
@ one of the little people:
I wouldn’t wish what you and your daughter have been through on anyone. I’m so sorry your lives have been affected in this way. You write with the power and conviction of a fire breathing dragon. May you never be silenced again.
BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
Thank you. You made me laugh at the dragon part. It has definitely been a journey from knowing nothing about child sex abuse in the church to turning both myself and my girl into advocates. I will not back down when this evil is happening in our churches and Christian organizations. My passion ultimately was born from what happened, but also because I have a deep love for the Church and believe we must do better. I believe there are many on here and on the other blogs I frequent, who have that same love for the Church and desire to see it do better. I think that’s what critics of so called “watchblogs” completely miss and if they will not listen to those inside the Church calling for repentance, then I pray God will quickly use those outside just as he has done with the Catholics.
Amy Smith wrote:
My thoughts exactly.
Unless he’s just throwing a tantrum for effect.
Well, this dustbin of complainers and gossips has done it again. Personally I’m saddened to say that my superior doctrine, erudition and love for theTrueGospel has evidently led some of you to cause me to behave in a way that might appear bombastic to all the idiots out there.
I repent of this and hereby declare that I am retiring from being famous with immediate effect until further notice. If by chance this great act should help some of you to stop being so rubbish, it will be a great act.
Roger Bombast
Right, that’s long enough. I’m back, and you should be grateful.
You’re all rubbish.
Up Yours,
Roger Bombast
@ Roger Bombast:
gosh, your picture looks just like ….
nooooooo 🙂
LOL, Nick, no offense, but you are more believable as ‘God’
Roger Bombast wrote:
I think I shall call you Roger Bampot .
Max wrote:
Could it be that he didn’t seem to be accomplishing what the people wanted to see happen? I’m just wondering because there seems to be such a focus nowadays on stuff like changing the culture, rather than just learning to follow the still small voice.
@ Roger Bombast:
😀
Max wrote:
Who?
Ken F wrote:
Too many Neo-Cals following the Apostle Paul IMO instead of Jesus.
What a disgusting non-apology from the boy-man. One word: unregenerate.
ishy wrote:
Did anyone storify that exchange?
siteseer wrote:
Nate did some, and there are screenshots. The necrophilia comment is on there. https://natesparks130.com/2016/12/10/rhetorical-questions-frank-turk/
A friend and I went back to look later, and it looked like most of Turk’s comments for that whole day are just gone. Unfortunately, Twitter does hours past instead of date/time, so was hard to tell exactly when it happened.
Lea wrote:
Turk’s big argument was that no one has a right to speak of victims since Chantry hasn’t been convicted in a court of law. He said “if there is a victim, there is a criminal.”
I’m thinking the converse of this reveals something: as long as there is no victim (as long as victims remain unknown and inaccessible), there is no criminal.
dee wrote:
Heh, maybe he is under church discipline and a was required to take it down.
siteseer wrote:
It’s been my experience in the church, as long as there are tears (the abuser’s), there is no criminal. “He said he was sorry and it won’t happen again.”
Roger Bombast wrote:
ROFL. This is pretty much Turk in a paragraph.
@ Lea:
“The form also asks if you cry during your menstrual cycle!”
+++++++++++++
good grief. did they ask if you see ghosts when on your period? hear voices?
Roger Bombast wrote:
I needed a good laugh today.
SureWhyNot? wrote:
ROFL!
@ Janey:
“I predict a 2017 come-back.”
+++++++++++
a heroic return, come to save the day? sporting a cape, boots, & speedo with contrasting tights underneath?
Lea wrote:
and
elastigirl wrote:
These guys really are stuck in the medieval centuries. Calvin’s not their only homeboy I would wager, Aquinas probably makes them oooh and ahhhh too.
Lydia wrote:
I wouldn’t dare commit to this kind of counseling. I read the applicant form and it screamed: RED FLAGS! If anyone has the inclination, I’m posting a link. Especially from the point of WOMEN ONLY and below that, and the section on CONFIDENTIALITY at the top of the page.
http://www.bclr.org/wp-content/uploads/Counseling-Forms-Combined.pdf
Nancy2 wrote:
I had several deleted by Dan Philips because I dared post excerpts of from”The Incarnation of the Word” by St. Athanasius.
one of the little people wrote:
One of the little people: I’m sorry for the horrific ordeal you had to endure and then the callous response of so many in your church. I think you know this but it bears repeating. The way the church members treated your family is in no way reflective of Jesus Christ. They are more akin to the priest and Levite in the parable of The Good Samaritan.
Darlene wrote:
Why you rebel, Darlene.
Lea wrote:
What??
I’m sad and more than a little disheartened that the motivation for and the purpose of this blog has been so badly misrepresented by Mr Turk. I agree with Dee that Mr Turk simply must not have spent much, if any, time reading the posts or the heart-breaking comments such as the one today from “one of the little people”. I wish he had taken the time.
It’s not enough that Mr Turk is willfully misunderstanding the highly valid purpose of this forum, he also claims those overseeing it will face harsh judgment from the Lord. Even on his way out, Mr Turk is still trying to guilt, shame and silence more victims (the subtext being if the Deebs who print the stories face harsh judgment, how much worse will it be for those telling their stories in the first place?). This breaks my heart. I have to wonder if he has never known an abuse victim?
I am so sorry Deb and Dee, that you are being attacked this way.
one ae the wee folk wrote (in response to Roger Bombast):
You know, that works really well for the likes of Bombast… though it might confuse folk south and/or west of The Border!
Apologies for missing your first comment – it’s so tragic to see that some people learned nothing from the Jimmy Savile scandal. I wish you had never needed to fight the battle you’re in; but thankyou for fighting it.
Lea wrote:
So basically there is no confidentiality in this kind of “biblical” counseling. Because “particular sin” can be whatever the counselor deems it to be to justify telling the elders/leaders/pastors. “Particular sin”, as we have seen with many churches that employ the Membership Covenant/Contract, can be something as simple as disagreeing with the pastor.
Christiane wrote:
It’s true that, like me, Mr Bombast and God both have great hair. Beyond that, I couldn’t possibly comment…
NJ wrote:
The rules favor the “Biblical” Counselor/church/elders/pastors and work against the protection and right to privacy of the the counselee. The scales are unbalanced from the start and are a potential breeding ground for spiritual abuse toward the counselee. Anyone reading the comments here at this blog and considering “Biblical” counseling: i.e. – Nouthetic Counseling – flee for your life.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Yes, the Scots tongue befuddles all other English speakers. That name will just be between us then.
Unfortunately, Jimmy Saville and the whole mess going on regarding historic child sex abuse in Britain doesn’t get any play over here. I remember Jimmy Saville from when I was young. Gary Glitter too (yuck!). Who we should have learned from was the Catholics. There has been plenty of coverage of that whole sorry mess. But, I please Evangelical/Protestant arrogance towards and suspicion of the Catholic Church has caused many here to completely miss that the exact same problem is hiding in the bosom of our Protestant churches too.
I appreciate your kind words (and your more satirical ones too).
The short of the whole matter is that churches are harboring criminals, and the hyper-Calvinists seem to be harboring a lot of criminals and very mentally unstable people. They are not equipped to “deal” with them. I don’t believe any church is exempt from abuse, but I think some perpetuate it. Turk is one of the people who perpetuates this system, and the internet, and churches, are better off without him.
The fact that many of these elders and pastors are not only hiding criminals and not reporting criminal activity to the police, but putting these people back into places where they can abuse people, means that their whole system of elder/pastor “control” is a sham. They have little biblical foundation to control churches they way they do, and do so ignoring large swaths of the New Testament, but they are also inept at managing their own system. If that system was really of God, it would work better. It’s a system devised by selfish, greedy men, with the purpose of self-glorification, power-mongering, and greed. The only purpose nouthetic counseling serves is to reinforce this abusive system.
elastigirl wrote:
“What does THAT have to do with it?”
“Back off, man. I’m a theologian.”
😉
one of the little people wrote:
I heard about it, but I didn’t know who Jimmy Saville was, so the impact was probably not what it would have been for a Brit.
I am not sure what exact word to use in response to the accusation of “necrophilia.”
A better word that he could have used would have been “schadenfreude” though I also wouldn’t agree with that word usage but at least it would have been more appropriate, i.e. maybe some bloggers enjoy the fall of others vs. being obsessed with dead bodies or death. From what I have seen with this blog and similar blogs isn’t the blogger getting enjoyment of the leader or group falling but concern with how these questionable leaders’ actions have affected others.
Most of the people and groups that Dee blogs about aren’t dead but alive but abusing people or doing questionable practices. If anything by exposing these at best questionable practices etc. TWW and other blogs are exposing these practices and thus helping to aid in change. Even that change requires leaders stepping down either for a period of time or permanently that is many times required.
If the leaders don’t step down when they should then the exposure many times results in a decreased following and less income for these questionable leaders which may be the only way they will be stopped.
Again using the word “necrophilia” is way out of line here.
siteseer wrote:
“It all depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.”
Steve240 wrote:
Not to defend Turk (90% of what he wrote was out of line IMO), but I think the accusation of ‘necrophilia’ was his colorful way of pointing out that he saw the accusations against his boy Chantry as unfounded-accusations-without-evidence.
In other words, I really don’t think he was accusing anyone of ‘necrophilia’, as such – he was just getting back by exaggeration – making the necrophilia charge, unfounded and without evidence, as if it somehow nullified the charges against Chantry. Very immature and absurd, but SOP with certain types of ideologue.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Actually, it’s not as black and white as that.
It all depends on the meaning of “it all depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is” is.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Actually, it’s not even as black and white as that.
You see, it really depends on… oh, never mind…
roebuck wrote:
But he claimed that nobody should ever make accusations about people without a conviction, then he did it.
And, in Calvinista world, you’re not supposed to go to the authorities at all, and let the church handle it.
It’s all contradictory.
@ elastigirl:
Oh no! I can’t un-see that.
ishy wrote:
Again, I think that was his point, to show by exaggeration how wrong it is to make ‘unfounded’ charges. As if there was any analogy at all to the legitimate charges against Chantry. Like I said, rather immature, but these people seem to be stuck in Jr. High School debate mode.
Frank Turk quote from OP: “you are kidding yourself about your level of influence.”
Wow. Really?
He is inside my head discerning what I think about my own influence?
Yes, I’m a blogger. Or I have been. Kind of on hold right now due to life.
No, I never thought I had a very large circle of influence.
I only had faith that a few people might need to look at things differently. A few individuals might sit with me for a spell as we hashed out a some glaring inconsistencies among certain out-of-control, diarrhea-of-the-mouth, celebrity ‘leaders’ rolling buses over people willy-nilly.
It didn’t take much ‘discernment’ to see how skewed things had become.
And it didn’t take much time for people to trickle through my tiny corner of the internet to sit a bit, get a drink of simple, cool water, and detox a after swimming around in the acid bath of their famous megachurch. I helped a tiny few find their feet and sent them on their way refreshed.
I have no inflated view of my blogging influence.
I tried reading Turk’s Pyromaniacs blog years ago, but it was too incendiary for me.
@ SureWhyNot?:
I have to tell you that I laughed myself to sleep last night thinking about your comment.
Tim wrote:
You mean it didn’t “light your fire?”
LT wrote:
Don’t feel bad. It teaches all of us about the hearts of some of those who disagree with us. Can you imagine attending his church?
roebuck wrote:
I think that was his intent, but it is stupid and illogical because we weren’t talking about unfounded accusations from one loon on the internet, we were talking about multiple indictments and jail time. Apples and oranges.
ishy wrote:
Their logic is poor. Always.
@ ishy:
Once again, I was so glad I wasn’t sipping coffee at the moment I read this.
@ Roger Bombast:
AGAIN so glad I wasn’t sipping coffee at the moment I read Mr. Bombast’s too-important-to-be-missed comments.
@ dee:
🙂
ishy wrote:
Mrs. Smith: “I’m not repenting of biology”
Counselor: Well, I will take it to the church then!
@ Mara:
“you are kidding yourself about your level of influence.”–Frank Turk
“I have no inflated view of my blogging influence.”–Mara
+++++++++++
considering how something positive & good, let alone healing and freeing, can have generational impact (from one person to the next to the next to the next in real time), your influence is greater than you’d ever dream.
i think Frank Turk is stuck on a junior high hamster wheel: “well, if i can’t be big man on campus then…then….you smell!”
Mara wrote:
Thinking on this further.
Perhaps the reason I brought all this up is because I see TWW as starting off this way.
The Deebs saw the issues and the carnage these issues produced and wanted to address them. They didn’t know who was going to even pay attention.
Conviction prevented them from keeping silent even though they had no idea what kind of influence they would have.
Now we all see (except for Turk who doesn’t know us very well) how important it is for people to talk about these things that have happened to them, have victimized them.
Whatever influence this and other blogs have, he really has no place to say:
“you are kidding yourself about your level of influence.”
No. He doesn’t know any of us at all. We are not motivated by what motivates his friends. His friends are all about their influence and how important they are. His friends are all about building their kingdoms and towers up high for all to see. His friends are all about, “Look at ME!”
What he says points to the fact that he is projecting the motives of his friends, and perhaps himself, upon us.
All we wanted was for his friends to stop abusing the innocent in the name of the ‘Gospel’, the ‘biblical’, and turning the masses away from the saving grace of Jesus.
Sure, we’d like to have some influence in this endeavor. But not for the reasons he has projected upon us.
And not having massive amounts of influence is not a good enough reason to shut up.
@ Tim:
For some reason, the title of the blog has always made me think of elementary school aged boys playing with matches without their parents’ knowledge or supervision.
roebuck wrote:
We’re off to learn the meaning, the meaningful meaning of ‘is’!
elastigirl wrote:
Exactly. He thinks he’s being Joe Cool when really he’s throwing a toddler tantrum.
Burwell wrote:
I may have mentioned this before, but I once (accidentally) set fire to a sink in the Lensfield Road chemistry labs in Cambridge. And we’re talking 3-4 foot high flames here.
On paper it should be embarrassing, but actually I was quite chuffed. A trained monkey could set fire to a sink deliberately – it takes a rare talent to do it by accident.
(No injury or damage resulted.)
Thus spake Frank Turk (quoted in the OP):
This seems to be a covert-agressive jab at TWW (and any other blogs) that have something like E-Church. Perhaps he’s oh-so-humbly taking responsibility for tempting Dee and Deb to host an online sermon, instead urging believers to attend a brick+mortar building with real people and (most importantly) real elders who can push us under their authority (lovingly, of course).
If so, he’s assuming that (a) the people who comment and worship here aren’t real people, and don’t genuinely love and care for each other; and (b) intelligent adults need the authority of professional Christians; and (c) all such clergy are always “in it for your good and God’s glory”. Anything outside those assumptions just won’t fit his narrative, it seems.
Oh, and if he is holding himself responsible for the rebellious sin of TWW’s E-church, he’s also assuming that (d) he has that kind of influence over the Deebs. And as many here have pointed out already, that’s a stretch, to say the least.
A legend in his own mind…
Serving Kids In Japan wrote:
Probably.
Although, referring to the original quote, who on earth would read HIS blog and consider it a substitute for “loving real people”?
And of course, nothing Dee/Deb have done prevents anyone from attending a local church, as many on this blog already do.
one of the little people wrote:
I don’t think ‘bumping’ is a standard and encouraged practice. Nor is it something I engage in most of the time.
But sometimes I think it is acceptable. Especially if one is afraid that an important message might be missed by later readers.
So I’m ‘bumping’ this quote from one-of-the-little-people because I do not want it lost. It needs to be heard. Again and again.
This is the reason for blogs like TWW.
The reason for Turk’s blog is to protect his religious buddies.
Whether he means to or not, he is helping his religious buddies to stick their feet out to trip the little ones.
They have no fear of the millstone and the deep blue sea nor of the God who says such things would be better for them than falling into His hands.
One-of-the-little-ones, you already know. You and your daughter are honored and protected here. Your voices are respected and not marginalized.
Peace be on your household. A peace that transcends the evil done to you.
Tim wrote:
Yours sums up my experience. Disagreement sparks my interest, monotone agreement is leaden, but when someone voices their disagreement in an uncaring inflammatory manner it is not just ineffective but counter-productive. While Turk may have stiffened some within his own ranks with an aura of superiority, I think he largely created a bunch of implacable foes.
Mara wrote:
Fools.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
And perhaps that is the problem with Mr. Turk – on paper he should be quite embarrassed, but instead is quite chuffed. That is what arrogance breeds, an inflated sense of one’s accomplishments and a complete disregard for the impact of one’s actions.
Serving Kids In Japan wrote:
Well… they do exist, but… good luck with that.
Now, if only Doug Wilson would follow Mr. Turk’s lead, 2017 would be a stellar year for Christian blogging.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
I have distinct memories of playing with a neighborhood friend, or possibly two, behind his house. His parents were smokers – mine were not – and we had gotten hold of one of the lighters lying around his house and went into his backyard. In autumn, pine straw was never hard to find in Raleigh, so we made a “big” pile, in retrospect probably only an inch or two, and lit it. I remember being a frightened at how fast it burned. Fortunately, the flames burned out before the fire could reach the other pine straw lying around. (This was before you moved next door, @GBTC)
Darlene wrote:
One of the reasons given that they will disregard your privacy:
“Encourage repentance and reconciliation” = force you to comply.
Frankly, I think these people are worse than the early Freudians when it comes to reading their own meaning into what someone is dealing with, arbitrarily assigning on an “underlying cause” to their issues. But this is very threatening! If you don’t agree that some “sin” that the “counselor” seizes upon as the reason for your issues, and you don’t stop doing whatever it is they think you should, they have the power to reveal your private business to the public and use shunning and church discipline to force you to comply. The “sin” may be something like refusing to submit yourself to an abuser or being unable to just “forgive” someone who has caused or is causing you trauma, or not having enough “faith”.
So the counselee has to agree to give up their right to legal redress if this untrained “counselor” should make a mess out of their psyche and/or life?
The person seeking counseling is giving up their right to privacy, agreeing to abide by the arbitrary ideas of the counselor, giving up their right to redress if harm is done, and they are baring their innermost soul, to a “counselor” who has not earned a degree from an accredited institution and has no legal oversight above them. And this person is putting himself in this dangerous situation right at the time they are vulnerable and in need of support! This is not a good idea!!
Here is a good article explaining all of the types of counseling degrees and the training required to get them http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marjorie-hansen-shaevitz/post_9154_b_6865002.html
A person seeking counseling should know what training their counselor has had, what their philosophy is, and what kind of track record they have.
Lea wrote:
Hilariously perfect!
Lea wrote:
Yes, or in other cases, already were not doing, due to things that have happened to them in those brick and mortar places. This blog has brought me a step closer, rather than farther.
siteseer wrote:
That’s a good point. By pointing out what to watch out for, they may make it easier for people to have the confidence to go back to church.
one of the little people wrote:
I’m so glad that the two of you have the courage to use what you have learned your horrible experience to speak out and support and help others! May you, and your daughter especially, gain strength and peace through helping others.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
I never set fire to anything but I did really goof up one time. I put a piece of modified wire mesh on a beaker stand in oder to diffuse a gentle heat to a beaker of stuff, slid the bunsen burner under it, and we had to evacuate the lab. The mesh had some powdered sulfur on it and like a doofus I had not checked for contaminants. Hideous and highly irritating smoke came pouring out and I got a lung full. They had to air out the place. I coughed for weeks, literally.
So, pray tell, how did you set fire to a sink? I love these kinds of stories.
@ okrapod:
in order to
Lea wrote:
After Nick mentioned Jimmy Saville, I did a search. Wow! Just Wow!! I read several articles on the guy – a very public figure who was honored by the British people because he gave lots of money to charitable causes. And all those who reported their abuse were ignored. I’d never heard of the guy. If you’re interested read about it. It’s shocking that this guy was in the limelight for decades and was able to get away with his lewd, criminal acts.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/06/27/how-bbc-star-jimmy-savile-got-away-with-allegedely-abusing-500-children-and-sex-with-dead-bodies/?utm_term=.60abdb6ebd83#comments
Look at Michael Jaskson!!
Darlene wrote:
Clay Crouch wrote:
I completely agree.
Nancy2 wrote:
Thank you Nancy2.
Darlene wrote:
And guess where he found many of his victims? Through the charities he was supporting.
Documentary-maker Louis Theroux made a film with Savile. The truth never came out while Savile was alive and therefore does not figure at all in Theroux’s documentary. More recently, he made a second documentary in which he spoke to many of Savile’s victims (as well as others who knew him); the aim of this second film was to try to explain how he himself had been completely taken in by Savile. The very fact that he raised so much for charity was one form of leverage applied to his victims: if you say anything, all the charities will suffer.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
That’s awful. I hadn’t heard that part (I did hear about the documentary/second documentary though, which I think is a good angle for learning).
I think the Pennstate(ish) guy used a charity to find victims as well.
siteseer wrote:
Yes!
After the fact at my former church Grace Bible Fellowship of Silicon Valley, I learned that my senior pastor’s “advanced degrees” a “Ph.D.” and another “advanced degrees” were actually fakes that he purchased from a diploma mill for $299.
On top of having no bona fide training from an accredited university, he also had no ethics and no morals and lied to our faces, demanding to be shown “respect” and “titles” for something he’d never earned.
Clay Crouch wrote:
LOL
one of the little people wrote:
“Ya gantin dobber! Ya cannae ha two pints and yer all blootered! Ya kin string dead braw words, but nobody knows hoot ya talkin aboot!” (from my currently dormant blog novel)
ishy wrote:
One of the most insightful comments I’ve read in some time.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
I was heating up a vat of packed lard for cooking French fries one Sunday and I ignited the lard. Hoo boy. You should have seen me shoving more lard on top of the flames to smother it out as I turned down the element. I was all of 17 and they were letting me set up the fryers. No damage or injury, just scared for a minute or two.
Is Tullian making a comeback by hosting a reality/spirituality show: Celebrity Repentance?
dee wrote:
dee wrote:
dee wrote:
Thank you, thank you. I’ll be here all week…in the pews.
I’m one of those who reads everything here (including the majority of comments), but only rarely comments. But after reading “Pyromaniacs” so many times, I suddenly was reminded of the Animaniacs. But they were funny.
OT, this grandiose non-apology sounds exactly like th e letters my abusive ex-husband regularly sends our kids. And the way he used to sorry-not sorry me all the time.
@ Roger Bombast:
I thought that was either the Duke or the Dauphin (Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn)
Tim wrote:
Same here. The things posted there by Christian leaders fell far short of the charge to “Let your speech at all times be gracious and pleasant, seasoned with salt” (Col 4:6).
mot wrote:
Exactly. They talk more about Paul than they do Christ. It’s as if their Bibles only included the Pauline epistles and they read Paul wrong in many cases! When I get into this discussion with New Calvinists in my area, I advise them that if they read Paul first they might read Jesus wrong … but if they read Jesus first (the Gospels), the writings of Paul come into proper perspective.
Muff Potter wrote:
I wouldn’t try to approach St. Thomas on predestination although I know the Catholic Church rejects Calvinism but I do know that he doesn’t hold to total depravity. Grace builds on and corrects nature it does not destroy or replace it. On the other hand Thomas does hold a very denigrating to women view of biology derived fro Aristotle. If these guys love Aquinas it would have to be highly selective and ignoring the key parts. Rejection of total depravity leads to a wholly different notion of human’s role in salvation, namely cooperation with grace, which led to Protestants saying Catholics believe in “works rightousness.” The parts of Thomas I like are the parts opposed to Calvinism.
Tim wrote:
I think that was the Pyromaniacs intentions. One of the common statements made about Frank Turk was: “Frank Turk is a menace.” And it was stated with a sense of glee. The Pyro boys were like the WWE wrestlers of Evangelicalism. They were shock jocks and seemed to take delight in offending and ridiculing others. If they had compassion and kindness, I didn’t see it.
Lea wrote:
Counselor: So, what did you learn from pastor’s sermon this past Sunday?
Client: Well, actually there were a few things that troubled me.
Counselor: Such as what?
Client: Well, pastor said that a wife should be quiet and submissive even when she knows that her husband is making serious mistakes that will jeopardize the family.
Counselor: I think this is a serious issue that needs to be taken up with the pastor and elders.
Client: I just disagree with pastor on this issue. If I hadn’t spoken up and talked to my husband about his money squandering, we would have gone into debt and lost our home.
Counselor: Are you aware of what Scripture says about wives submitting to their husbands as the church submits to Christ?
Client: Yes, but….
Counselor: No buts. You need to be obedient to Scripture.
Yada, Yada, Yada, Yada….
Persephone wrote:
We are the Pyromaniacs
And we’re brainy to the max
Quoting Romans, Jude, and Acts
We write books in stacks and stacks
We’re the Pyromaniacs
Phil Johnson and Dan Phillips
And Tom Chantry and his boys
We make up snappy comebacks ’cause the Internet’s our toy
Some people call us mean
But that just gives us joy
And any Muff who gives us guff
Must be in Stan’s employ
We’re the Pyromaniacs
We’re all pals of Johnny Mac’s
Calvins underneath our slacks
A good pastor yaks and yaks
We’re the pyromaniacs
Pelagian Arminian Armenians are cursed
Emergent papist lib-e-ral progressives are the worst
Seeker-friendly Coptic Eastern Orthodox: disperse!
The ‘costalists and Methodists are nothing but perverse
We’re the Pyromaniacs
Sign our legal church contracts
We will sue you in your tracks
If on us you turn your backs
We’re pyromany
Hardline like Khomeini
Or C. J. Mahaney
The py…ro…ma…ni…aaaaacs!
@ Tim:
Yup, he’s a hot mess.
@ MidwesternEasterner:
Awesome!
MidwesternEasterner wrote:
As if the competition for first place in the comments isn’t stressful enough…you have thrown down a gauntlet. Well done!
@ MidwesternEasterner:
This is epically clever in the best possible way. Well played!
Max wrote:
I think they know they can not try to model the life of Jesus and Paul is the one they are more comfortable trying to model.
mot wrote:
I don’t think they want to model after Jesus. It would mean the disintegration of their entire system which puts them at the cushy top and everyone serving them and buying their stuff.
Their practical application of the ESS theology is that they are in God the Father’s position, essentially “driving” things on earth. They see Jesus as serving the Father, and that’s not good enough for them.
ishy wrote:
Their theology is driven by wanting to be boss. The only way they will put themselves in Jesus place is if it makes them boss (chris is the head of the church, etc), but they don’t actually want to be like them, then it’s all father/patriarchy. It’s a mess.
mot wrote:
Scripture does not exhort believers to Paul-likeness, but Christ-likeness. Elevating Paul and diminishing Jesus in New Calvinism does not change this truth.
Max wrote:
They certainly wish to use selected verses of Paul to subjugate women-that is make them 2nd class citizens.
ishy wrote:
How about modeling Baal, Caesar Proclaimed a God, selected Borgia Popes, and Caliph of ISIS?
@ MidwesternEasterner:
I’VE BEEN WAITING FOR SOMEONE TO FILK “ANIMANIACS”!
IT’S SUCH AN OBVIOUS FILK!
@ MidwesternEasterner:
DEB! DEE! USE THOSE LYRICS AS A HEADER FOR ANY POST ABOUT THE PYROMAINIACS!
OR BETTER YET, FIND SOMEONE WHO CAN RECORD IT IN THE PROPER VOICES AND USE THE AUDIO/VIDEO!
Muslin, fka Dee Holmes & mirele wrote:
This is commonly called “FOOM!”
Lea wrote:
Let me take a hypothetical excerpt from the church counseling handbook:
A woman who cries during her menstrual cycle is clearly ruled by her emotions and therefore must be taken less seriously by the counselor.
If she appears fragile, attempt to calm her with platitudes like the verse about God collecting our tears in a bottle, or Revelation’s promise that he will wipe every tear away.
If she persists, assume a more stern aspect and remind her of the gospel admonitions to take every thought captive, and to be anxious for nothing, and to rejoice regardless of circumstances. (would have said “scriptural” but “gospel” seems to be more and more the word du jour)
Dew wrote:
Which is what I had in mind with my snarky quip on Aquinas. And it’s not just Neo-Cals who hold a denigrating view of women, the Arminian sects of Protestantism do too, it’s just couched in subtlety when they prattle on about “equal in worth” but not equal in role, based solely on plumbing received at birth.
ishy wrote:
The New Reformers see the sermon as the high point of worship. In our former church, I heard about the Puritans and their all-day church services (and the punishers who stood in the back ready to deal with any nodding heads). We had a long service in the morning and another teaching (not worship) in the evening. Sometimes there would be a shared meal in between the two, rather than going home to let the little ones nap and then have to drive to church again, sometimes a fair drive because part of the “ideal” life was to live on an acreage.
It was not outright stated but pretty well understood that missing the afternoon/evening session was not meeting the mark (As in sin = not meeting the mark) though they were reserved enough not to outright say the word “sin” in that regard.
Sunday was supposed to be a day of rest, but as a mother of young children, I found it more exhausting than a weekday. I suppose those sermonifying men might have found it restful somehow.
Part of that church culture (it was a member of Scott Brown’s NCFIC) was to teach little ones to sit through church.
In the wannabe YRR church some of my family attends now, I have noticed that church is getting out later and later, and the sermons seem to be going longer.
If “proclaiming the Word” (not *just* reading the scriptures but sermonizing about them) is the high point and most sacred part of worship, then of course sermons are going to get longer.
one of the little people wrote:
:false bright tone: And if there is no criminal, then there are no victims! Voila! Q.E.D.
LT wrote:
If he had taken the time… would he have enough capacity for empathy to understand and resonate with what he was reading? Or would he be disgusted by the people’s hardnecked insistence on hanging on to their bitterness instead of being properly forgiven as they are commanded to do?
I have little faith in his capacity for kindness and tenderhearted understanding.
@ refugee:
I meant, “being properly forgiving” above.
ishy wrote:
Baptists in the Former Confederate States seem to have their priorities in order.
Even with the Massachusetts Puritans, after church let out after a three-hour sermon the minister would often accompany the other men to the tavern for a few beers.
Cousin of Eutychus wrote:
“Attitude of superiority and passive-aggressive shots at others” is also characteristic of an abuser. An abuser who sneaks around to attack you from behind instead of to your face.
Daisy wrote:
Because to them those traits are FOR MEN ONLY?
Daisy wrote:
Feature, not Bug.
Lydia wrote:
And in Victorian times, the go-to cure for “Hysteria” was the Hysterectomy.
(Just as the go-to cure for “Neuralgia” was regular injections of Morphine.)
Nancy2 wrote:
“DUDE! YOU! HAVE! SEX! WITH! CHILDREN!”
— South Park; Stan’s repeated comeback line at the end of the episode “Cartman Joins NAMBLA”
Lea wrote:
Depends, I suppose, on what one’s definition of “love” is.
(and now I have the refrain of an old rock song clanging in the back of my head. “Hurts so good…”)
Muslin, fka Dee Holmes & mirele wrote:
Would that really work, or was that a panic move?
@ Darlene:
The sad thing is, yes, I (and other women in our old church) sat under this kind of teaching. “Follow your husband’s lead, no matter what,” it went. God would bless your family through your faith. And if your husband was a doofus, whether merely bad with money or worse (gambling or substance abuse, perhaps), and you lost your house, it would all be fine because God never lets his little ones go hungry (really?) and it would all be to his glory.
I remember being in a panic one time, because of a decision on the part of my husband, and flinging the story of Achan in his face. Achan, who with all of his little ones was swallowed up by the earth because of something he alone did.
My husband seemed stunned. I’m not sure if it was because I wasn’t quietly and cheerfully going along with what he’d done, and not reproaching him but trusting in God to turn everything “for good” or if he was stunned by the thought of a man’s whole family going down the drain (condemned to death) because of the man’s decision.
Lea wrote:
Bah. Who needs “real” people.
You’re all rubbish.
Up yours,
Roger Bombast
refugee wrote:
A lid would have been better, but it was not the worst thing she could have done because it did put out the fire. The worst thing one can do with a deep fat fryer fire is to pour water on it. The water sinks to the bottom and flashes to steam. When that happens the entire contents are forcibly ejected from the fryer and ignited, spreading everywhere into an explosive fireball. VERY dangerous.
Mara, I appreciate your blog and it has refreshed me!
refugee wrote:
Refugee, Out of curiosity, I meandered over to your former church’s website. Now…now…how could there be any marriage problems with all those bible studies on marriage and family accompanied by smiling faces on husbands and wives. 😉
https://ncfic.org/
“Now who are these people who have started blogging because they have been inspired by him but don’t do it as well as him?”
Dee, I’m serious when I say this, but until I read this from you, I interpreted Turk’s comments about those he influenced as being directed at his/Pyro’s own groupies and followers. It fits the pattern that I have experienced in the blogging world.
…and that he recognized it, lamented it, and repented of it and was rebuking his groupies.
Good riddance to…
May all the Neo-Cal (and related) sites disappear, yes, even today.
This is such good news!!
Pingback: Linkathon! | PhoenixPreacher
Pingback: A Slight Detour… – veritas praebita. (or, My Christian Education)